User talk:Pernimius

November 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Shroud of Turin. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McSly (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Bias must be pointed out. Incorrect or misleading or radically incomplete research must be made known. If this is interpreted incorrectly as not assuming good faith, I regret the misinterpretation. Pernimius (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I wonder what the offending words were...Could you enlighten me? The other fellow on the site talks disparagingly about "shroudies" and is very scornful of religious officials...as if he's never read "Fides et Ratio" and thinks that religious people (and those running Catholic faith websites) can't be just as scientific or rational or objective as a secularist. (And believe me there can be fundamentalist zealot secularists too.) That seems quite prejudicial in a radically unacceptable way. Pernimius (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed Shroud of Turin topic ban for Pernimius". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this is just a note to let you know that there are special rules on Wikipedia surrounding fringe sciences and pseudosciences, and that individual administrators may act on their own to impose sanctions if they feel it necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. All it does is let you know that this is an administrative situation, nothing more. I would, however, encourage you to take on board the advice/criticism you have been given at WP:AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I understand that fringe science is not acceptable but I think that reputable scientists have been found (published) on both sides. And meanwhile a very "mainstream" scientist (McCrone) has been found proposing a very fringe (unbelievable) theory that the Shroud image is a painting. The problem as I see it is if you get three or so people to claim "fringe" you have an unfair advantage in the process. Granted it is complicated when some fringe people are in fact holding your own position...but that doesn't mean they should sink even the non-fringers on your side. I appreciate your understanding. My real suspicion is that a certain resentful person decided to work punishment on someone who proposed some good counter-arguments to his own position and he is the one who should be censured. But it is okay. I can live with the decision. Peace. Pernimius (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Do not deceive yourself into thinking that our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy doesn't apply to you just because you use a euphemism such as "a certain resentful person". You are not allowed to post personal attacks on Wikipedia, thinly-veiled or otherwise. Please pay special attention to Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Why personal attacks are harmful. Your comments have been getting more and more personal:[1][2][3] Please stop this behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that you resent what I have said, Guy Macon? Pernimius (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My internal mental state regarding your behavior would best be described as "detached bemusement". I have been editing Wikipedia for 12 years and have made 40,000 edits, and have seen users like you attempting to insert pretty much every kind of fringe pseudoscience into Wikipedia articles. You aren't the first to try to get your way by being unpleasant and engaging in personal attacks, and you won't be the last. At this point these sort of antics pretty much bore me, so I just fill out the forms to get the disruptive editor topic banned or blocked and move on to things that really matter. Sorry if you were hoping to annoy me, but your attempt was really quite pitiful. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong, Guy Macon. You are the one pushing a fringe idea with the painting proposition. You are the one claiming that you are being attacked because I said you were not reliable...right after you called Barrie Schwortz unreliable (more directly his website, but it is closely tied to his person). So you feel it is okay for you to trash years of a person's life and good-faith work, one who knows much, much more than you do about the Shroud, but you cannot bear the same epithet being applied more appropriately to you and your own discredited position? You have a POV and by your lights everything else is "Fringe." Sorry...there are too many reputable scientists and reasonable people on the other side. You may win this battle, but you have only ended up wasting a lot of people's time with a frivolous and undeserved charge. Hypersensitivity doesn't begin to cover it. Pernimius (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Calling a source reliable or unreliable is normal Wikipedia editing. See WP:RS. Calling a fellow editor names (not just "unreliable" but also "zealotry", "gratuitous denial", "devious tactics", "dyspepsia", etc.) is a violation of WP:NPA. If I am ever cited as a source in a Wikipedia article, feel free to discuss whether I am a reliable source. I strongly advise you to stop talking about other editors and instead talk about whether your sources meet the requirements of WP:RS.

Guy Macon, the phrase you wrote here "users like you attempting to insert pretty much every kind of fringe pseudoscience into Wikipedia articles" sounds pretty much like name-calling to me. Please stop this rude and prejudicial behavior. Pernimius (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per this discussion, you are banned from the topic of the shroud of Turin, broadly construed, for one year. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, Guy. Is there any higher court of appeal at Wikipedia? I believe that a serious and fair review would not reasonably come to such a conclusion but would rather cite Guy Macon for DISPROPORTIONATE OUTRAGE and FRIVOLOUS CHALLENGES.

In response, with the freedom allowed to me on my Talk page, I will say this:

I believe that Guy Macon's charge was utterly frivolous. I believe he finessed the rules of Wikipedia (which he cited oh so well at the very slenderest of opportunities) to make me seem guilty for doing what was not at all out of the ordinary. Science needs challenging by other science. Otherwise goodbye Copernicus and Galileo. It is very convenient of course to say MY science is real, yours fringe. Accepting C14 tests is okay,I would say; but there are mounds of other considerations. So Wikipedia is saying not just "accept the C14 results" but "necessarily apply the conclusion of that test to the WHOLE shroud" and "suppress other counter-indicating markers and questions about the original science." That is not at all fair. Wikipedia policy is in serious error there.

I asked for specific examples or instances of bad behavior. It was said espousing authenticity was bad behavior. How many times did I assert this or "push" this? I may have stated this once or twice. I never asked for the article to declare for this point of view. Indeed I wanted an NPOV that was not stuck in a conclusion based on a tiny fringe piece of cloth and then unscientifically extrapolated to the rest of it. I had a right to express my opinion of evidence I adduced and that was supported by real scientists and Shroud experts. Adequate details of my "misbehavior" were not given me, in my estimation.

The Fringe moniker has to be called into question, as some of the editors in fact did, when it comes to ALL the science regarding the Shroud of Turin. I believe the Fringe designation can be used wickedly to suppress contrary fact-based opinions and not out of a sincere desire for a reasonable discussion in search of the truth. Many reasonable people have problems with the supposed proof of medieval origins of the Shroud. Guy Macon himself pushed a very fringe notion of the painting hypothesis. Furthermore when I said his "gratuitous assertion" failed, he adduced that as an attack on himself, but his assertion was indeed gratuitous. He simply asserted "there are no pointers to authenticity." FALSE and gratuitously asserted (insofar as he gave no evidence that there were no pointers to authenticity--the ones I had just listed). So "gratuitous assertion" is not a personal attack on Guy Macon but clearly a declaration of the obvious insufficiency of his denial. Shame on Guy Macon for distorting the facts this way. He is too smart not to know what he is doing.

Guy Macon tipped his hand when he said on this talk page "users like you attempting to insert pretty much every kind of fringe pseudoscience into Wikipedia articles" -- thus prejudicially and rudely lumping me into the same category as Ouija board or ancient alien believers. What pseudo-science do I believe, I wonder?

So what dogmatic authority at Wikipedia decided that belief in the authenticity of the Shroud is "Fringe"? Were they truly fair? Was it made by people unduly influenced by a select minority? Where is the record of this determination? Does it perhaps only refer to the validity of the C14 tests and not the fuller, fairer evaluation of the totality of the data? Pernimius (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The pseudoscience that you believe is the rejection of the mainstream scientific view that the Shroud of Turin was created during the middle ages. This has been explained to you before. As to who decided that belief in the authenticity of the shroud is a fringe view, that was determined by citations to reliable sources. This also has been explained to you before. And yes, you are a person who has attempted to insert fringe pseudoscience into a Wikipedia article. That's an accurate description of your behavior.

There is indeed a higher higher court of appeal at Wikipedia, but be advised that you must first present a valid reason for lifting the topic ban here on your talk page. Free clue: the above "but I am right!" argument is not a valid reason for lifting the topic ban. Those who supported the ban had ample opportunity to evaluate that argument and found it to be without merit. Failure to present a valid reason for lifting the topic ban invariably results in the appeal being rejected out of hand.

To make a successful appeal of your topic ban you typically have to show evidence that you understand why you were topic banned and make a commitment to not repeat the behavior that got you topic banned. At that point you will typically be asked to edit productively in other areas for at least six months before your appeal will be considered.

I also strongly advise you to stop blaming me for your topic ban. I am (by choice) not an administrator, and I have no control over what the administrators decide. Many of the proposals I make at WP:AN are rejected, and in most cases I end up agreeing with that decision.

Newly topic-banned users are usually allowed to vent of their own talk page for a few days, but if you are still mentioning me by name a week from now you are likely to either collect a two-way interaction ban that prevents you from doing that or simple be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I do not want to interact with you anymore. I find your behavior harassing and unwelcome and unpleasant. Please do not write on my page. You have zero credibility with me. I believe your behavior shows me that you twist things self-righteously and in an exaggerated way to support your ego and your POV. I do not want to hear from you ever again. Pernimius (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

PS Guy Macon, anything you leave at this page will be deleted UNREAD. You've manipulated enough of my time away. Pernimius (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Pernimius, I hope you don't mind a word from me here - I happen to have just read the topic ban discussion (and some related discussions elsewhere). I'm offering no opinions on the Shroud itself or on any related controversies, just on the ban discussion itself. I think the discussion was closed accurately and that there was a valid community consensus for your ban - I'm not saying I think the ban is right, or that I think it is wrong, I'm just opining that there is a consensus for it. If you wish to appeal your ban, directions can be found at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, very much, Boing! said Zebedee. (Most creative name I've seen on Wikipedia.) I appreciate the directions to the appeals section and the word that the process was carried out legitimately. I will consider an appeal. There are some larger issues than my small ego at stake, and it might be worth fighting for them. On the other hand, I've said what I have to say about the topic itself and I don't think I can add any more. Those who cannot hear will not hear, and vice versa. Best wishes. Pernimius (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that a topic ban has to do with editing and not with participating in the discussion on the talk page. I wish I had known this earlier. Pernimius (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Warning: Beware of Wikilawyering

I join the policy pages in warning my fellow Wikipedians to beware of individuals who are Wikilawyering (WP:WL). These people inhibit the free flow of robust discussion necessary for certain controversial topics. They incessantly invoke Wikipedia policies pages to threaten others with banning and to control the discussion and its outcome. They may be disguising a POV or even bigotry (WP:BIGOT) as a legitimate concern for following Wikipedia policy. Please use the Wikilawyering policy to counter such disturbances of Wikipedia's mission and functioning. Pernimius (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is threatening anything. Independent, uninvolved Wikipedia administrators have decided to ban you, specifically, from any edits related to or discussing the Turin shroud. I will further caution you that if you start calling people bigots, you will be banned from Wikipedia entirely. See WP:RGW. Guy (Help!) 07:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Warning against bigotry is entirely in line with the policy pages of Wikipedia. And I don't think you can support your assertion that "Nobody is threatening anything." In fact you have a threatening tone in your own message. Pernimius (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI

The Discotute is dishonest, this much I think you know, but it's worth pointing out that the first item on their list of supposedly peer-reviewed scientific papers proving ID is the only one that actually seeks to advance ID as a concept - rather than simply challenging the idea that evolution can increase complexity - and it has been retracted. They cite it even knowing that it has been withdrawn form the literature because it bypassed peer review. In the context of an apologia for peer-reviewed creationism, that is a pretty damning fail. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning... out of much static, sometimes a message is heard... I only look for fairness and honesty all around. Admittedly we bring our own templates to discussions... Pernimius (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If by "honesty" you mean WP:GEVAL, no, we don't do that. This is not Debatepedia. If you have a problem with that, take it to your own blog or Conservapedia, since Wikipedia is not an outlet for ventilating your own opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah you think I am only interested in putting forth my opinions rather that what is good and helpful and true for the article. You would be wrong if that is the case. Pernimius (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

We seek to render WP:RS/AC to the best of our abilities. We do not seek WP:THETRUTH, since we are not a research institute. We do not seek to educate you, since we are not an university.

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary.

For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected.

You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola.

In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them.

In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages.

Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted from User talk:Morgan Leigh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and these references. They may help me toward the distinctions you want me to make (which I am not even sure I am violating). I am sure that you are trying to being true, honest, fair, accurate, etc. as you write your thoughts. And those are values we should always keep in mind on the TALK page. Accuracy and Encyclopedia-competent articles should be what we seek on the ARTICLE pages. If something is misleadingly labelled, there is a reason to question it. I will think of what you are saying, but if you do not think there is a Tendenz in some articles, you are mistaken. These need balance and correction to the extent possible. Pernimius (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:ABIAS: Wikipedia is biased for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. If you dislike that, then Wikipedia is not meant for you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream science is in flux all the time. See this. When there is contention, there should be fair consideration of new ideas. An encyclopedia should objectively report on the status of those ideas. Therefore, instead of saying "This is pseudo-science," WP could more objectively say "Many or even most scientists treat this idea as pseudo-science, but the scientific reasoning that gives it currency are the following ideas....and we must remember that it is not unlike Darwinism, which itself cannot adequately explain all the data. What in the WORLD is so hard about THAT??? What is ADVOCACY there? How is it *NOT* advocacy to side with the putative majority by using pejorative labels that could equally be applied elsewhere but are not?? Pernimius (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Evolution is both fact and theory. That ain't going to change.

Quoted from User talk:Morgan Leigh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is my ideal. Why can't WP learn from the professionals?? Pernimius (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

We don't imitate Britannica. In fact we are pretty much lording over Britannica. In order to know what Britannica wrote about ID you have to look somewhere else. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh FFS, the old argumentum ad Kuhnium fallacy. Yes, science doesn't know everything. To quote Dara Ó Briain, science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop, but just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you get to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

Heliocentrism replaced geocentrism before the scientific method was established, but it's still a great example of how science - then known as natural philosophy - gets it right and authority-based philosophy gets it wrong. Geocentrists were forced to multiply hypotheses to maintain their belief system in the face of ever more accurate measurements, whereas heliocentrists did not have any preconceptions about the nature of the solar system, they just tried to fit to the observations. In the same way, modern evolutionary biology is an inescapable conclusion from observed fact. There is a consilience from multiple independent lines of scientific inquiry: comparative anatomy, genetics, anthropology, the fossil record, laboratory experiments and more. Evolution makes sense, creation does not. Evolution can be observed in the lab and over thousands or millions of years int he fossil record, but not one single scientific observation has ever validated the idea of divine intervention. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for that at all, only authority-based philosophical arguments that ultimately come down to what humans wrote down at some point. And humans are not just fallible, we are pretty much evolved to be so. There is an evolutionary benefit to piecing together incomplete information and acting on a hunch even when it's wrong - running away form a hundred patterns of shade that look like a tiger is better than being eaten by one tiger.

Creationists try to fit the facts to their worldview, scientists adapt their worldview to the facts. And yes, that worldview can change, but you're ignoring the fact that the current worldview exists because it already did change, creationism was found to be objectively wrong, so is no longer accepted as fact by scientists.

There is an immense literature on the human propensity to fill gaps in knowledge with often quite absurd fancies. There is an equal body of scholarship on the refusal of humans to let go of cherished beliefs - and indeed to redouble their beliefs - when faced with disconfirming evidence. People like the Discotute see this as a great existential battle between science and faith, but science sees it as an exercise in understanding the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be. Religion cares about science because religion depends on acceptance of authorities, so it has to immunise itself against refutation - if you depend in part for your faith on accepting the word of X, and science shows X to be wrong, then you have a pressing need to make that inconvenient fact go away. Science, by contrast, cares about religion only in as much as religious fundamentalists interfere with the work of understanding the universe. Scientists, in general, don't give a flying fuck what creationists believe as long as the creationists don't try to pretend it's science.

And a lot of the problem here is the fallacious belief in agency. Humans are stunningly arrogant about that. There must be a purpose, otherwise how could I be here? No purpose is necessary, it's just a human conceit that we want it to be so.

Using past errors in science, or, more often, in natural philosophy, to argue for views like creationism that have been refuted, is precisely analogous to arguing for the return of phlogiston theory. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, "No one has witnessed the birth of an entirely new species" and "observation of the rise of really new species (as opposed to splits in species) has not been done" looks somewhere between Claim CB901: No case of macroevolution has ever been documented, and Claim CB904: No entirely new features or biological functions have evolved.
  As An IDiot's Guide might put it;
  • Evolution science: species share common descent in which populations evolve to become distinct species in a process of speciation.
  • Creationist claim – that's disproved because no-one's seen a completely new species with no antecedents!
    • Spot the disconnection. . . . dave souza, talk 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, for your attempts. I am afraid we are talking past one another. If Darwin had the intention of undermining belief in God, this would not make his ideas any less interesting and fruitful scientifically. Just so, if some ID theorists have the intention of supporting a creationist vision of the universe, this does not make their scientific thinking any less interesting and fruitful either. And the intention does not well provide a definition of the theory.

Compare Britannica's opening with WP:

Britannica: Intelligent design (ID), argument intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present forms by an "intelligent designer."

[Just for the record: I am not sure this is entirely adequate either, i.e., excluding any kind of developmental, "natural" process: I would like to have a direct quote about ID from the most credible or articulate of ID thinkers: that would be a very fair approach. I think of ID as the argument that living forms show design-in-operation.]

Wikipedia: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".

WP is HEAVY on the POV, don't you think? And it is wrong insofar as one scientist might honestly say: these features suggest the possibility of an intelligent source of design apart (--and what that is I am not going to talk about). That is, a scientist could say this is just fairness to the argument, leaving in suspension all theological conclusions and having no desire to argue for God's existence.

I am withdrawing from this discussion. I think WP lowers its quality and objectivity level unnecessarily by not presenting what is interesting, compelling, and scientific about ID (—I know you'd say that that is nothing, but not every open-minded, informed person would). That is why I suggested a truly neutral source for review of the article. If I am wrong...well, excuse me... Pernimius (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Can evolution be observed in real time?

Hi Pernimius—you say here "Similar things can be said of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, however: the appearance of an entirely new species cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory or even observed in nature." But I'm not sure this is true. I am willing to stand corrected if I am wrong. I have no expertise in this field. But see articles such as this. Or this. Or this. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Bus Stop. I appreciate your suggestions and your tone. I have to give this topic a rest for the moment, but sometime soon I will look at each of your suggestions and respond if I have anything to say. I too am willing to be corrected. Pernimius (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I just had a chance to look at these articles. You get the gist of my critique here:

1. "“We find they are getting less fit in the ancestral niche over time,” Lenski said. “I would argue that citrate users are — or are becoming — a new species.” Still a type of bacteria rather than a different kind of life-form?

2. "Over the long term, killifish evolved to be smaller and less abundant. Laboratory experiments confirmed that changes were hard-wired and heritable." Seems like they are still killifish.

3. "Perhaps some will adapt to a lifestyle entirely different from their sister species - the orcas, for example, may diverge dramatically as small changes allow them to be better suited to their unique prey types." Seems like they would still be orcas.

Perhaps there is a basic linguistic problem here: Darwin seems to be saying a new genus can arise from incremental changes to species. ID theory would say, no, fundamental internal DNA design has to alter to provide for new functions if you are going to have a new genus. There is a different base-configuration beyond particular traits. So not "speciation" but "genus-generation" is the real issue. I can easily accept new species being naturally generated.

But also Darwin proposed RANDOM mutation and then the survival of those random traits...how randomness is observed, predicted, proven I do not know. Maybe some scientist explains this somewhere in a way that is convincing.

The Wikipedians on the Intelligent Design page went absolutely bananas about creationism, but Stephen C. Meyer says Intelligent Design is not Creationism. The anti-ID people seem to be attributing to him some theological intention. True or not, I don't think such an intention would be a valid basis for defining ID. You might glean some information from any substantial reviews, pro or con here.

As I said above, I am signing out of the argument. I am not planning on returning to the ID page or its discussion. Let them believe what they want. Thank you for your attention. Pernimius (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)