This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 22 |
Hello. There is a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that you may care to join. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing,
As I pointed out in → this last intervention as well as in my TP, I’ve given up on continuing the debate. The main reason for it is that I felt as if I were preaching in the desert. This is a world premiere, since I have been collaborating on the various WP related sites for almost 10 years without having ever faced this sort of interactive impasse.
On the other hand, culturally and sociologically speaking, I almost found flattering to be unexpectedly suspected of COI (?), TE (?) and other unaccustomed onomatopoeias. Truly, I would almost be inclined to regard such allegations as indirect compliments in the sense that their content would then almost tend to prove that I had studied the subject thoroughly enough to give that kind of fictitious impression. In fact, before writing an article or even participating in it, I first of all thoroughly study the subject and, above all, I read a major part of everything that, from near or far, is related to it. This philosophical choice, hopefully, allows me to obtain a somewhat objective as well as contradictory vision in order to try to subscribe as best as possible to the regulatory concept called → WP:V.
This is how, for example, I proceeded for → this article in French which, in 2017, has been labelled as a “ good article”. Moreover, you can see that, in this other writing, the subject was definitely not related to the medical field. Actually, I’m a bit of a jack-of-all-trades and my interests are as multiple as they are varied.
That being said, I thank you so much for your particularly eloquent speeches, which seemed to me to be of a quality as exemplary as marked by a commendable concern for objectivity that I share as much as you do. I would like you to know that I particularly appreciated the subtlety of your arguments which, as you will have no doubt understood, I fully endorse.
Just in case, you may be interested in reading the report of this experience expressing my general feelings that I have tried to share via → the following page in order to discuss those past moments more fully in detail with the French-speaking community.
Wishing you all the very best and thanking you for your diligent contributions.
Warmest regards,
Sincerely,
—
euphonie
breviary
10:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there. Based on your contributions to the Nationality article, I thought I would invite your feedback on a property proposal for nationality as a cultural identity over on Wikidata. The proposed property is meant to offer an alternative to "ethnic group" and to nationality as defined by citizenship. Your comments are welcome and needed. Thank you. Qono ( talk) 05:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Santa Claus#RfC about the wording lead section of the article. Félix An ( talk) 03:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing,
Thank you for your kind message in the relevant section.
Indeed, you have perfectly captured the nature of my principled prudence, my scruples and my concern for exhaustive verifiability before injecting any information of a sensitive nature that could engage my legal responsibility in the event of any imprecision, inaccuracy or fragmented confusion.
I therefore continue to pursue my targeted research in order to try to detect other possible occurrences as richly documented as the one recently proposed (by the way, do you also possess, like your colleague, some sort of magic key allowing you to spontaneously access the complete content of an online scientific publication beyond the mere short summary?). For the moment, I have found only one irrefutable and a priori unassailable documentation by virtue of which, in all good conscience, I thus feel completely ready to add the summary at the core of the French-language article we are currently talking about.
You know how much your opinion means to me and how much I value it. That is why I have read your note with all the more recognition and gratitude.
Bless you.
Yours sincerely,
—
euphonie
breviary
09:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Famous web search engine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 25#Famous web search engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 02:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing. Thanks for your comments at Talk:Winona Ryder#RfC on ex-boyfriends in infobox. Do you happen to have any basis other than your own opinion that the neutrality issue is "minor" or only "alleged"? Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 23:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not trying to correct anyone or create any hierachy. I'm simply saying that what you (or I) "might personally prefer" is our opinions. Ok, then all of her boyfriends are partners according to the "dictionary definition", and that includes Damon and Pirner. We can't have it both ways and say that Damon and Pirner are just boyfriends but they are not partners. My opinion is that using the term boyfriend in the RfC opening suggests that they are not partners when, according to your "dictionary definition" all of them (Damon, Pirner, Depp, and Hahn) are both boyfriends and partners, then that also would bias the RfC. To avoid the bias, the RfC question should be "Should David Pirner and Matt Damon be included in the infobox as partners?" But that's not how it was worded. In my opinion based on the dictionary definition that introduces bias. I assume in your opinion any bias would be "minor" and only "alleged". Either way, it's an opinion based on the dictionary definition. So, it your opinion that the dictionary definition should be used, and thus the question should simply be "are they partners", not "they are boyfriends".
By the way, not all dictionaries use the term "partner": [1], [2]. So once again we using our opinion to decide which dictionary definition to use. I hope you understand, I'm not accusing you of anything. It's not a crime or violation of wiki policy to have an opinion, nor to express that opinion in an RfC. That's what I did, and it's what you did. Sundayclose ( talk) 19:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
|spouse=
parameter would be not too far from the truth except in a legal sense, especially gay people who were legally unable to marry. There's a comment in a long discussion that says "long-term" should be considered in the context of sociocultural expectations, specifically naming the film industry as an example of people whose "long-term" relationships might be shorter than average. It appears that the editors responding to that RFC didn't think that these relationships were appropriate for that parameter.|partner=
infobox field.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Re the Harris TP, I was surprised to see your post. All in all, such awful things are going on right now in the US that I have totally lost interest in that. If I remember correctly, the posts from others that disagreed with me seemed to be very reasonable. Either way, it's no big deal. Right now I'm trying to put something together about the Trump administration's influence on the US CDC and FDA re their recent announcements about how the US should be responding to the pandemic. So many awful things have been going on in the US that that, along with Trump's egregious lies and policies have come to seem just normal, just everyday, just trivia.
As I sit here and type about this and that we are watching the US drift into absolute dictatorship. I am the principal editor of the Trump environmental article. If you want to read a real horror story do read it. Now it needs new information added about Trump's latest efforts to see to it that even if he is not reelected it will be harder to revert the harm he has done. And if he is once again elected we will most surely pass beyond the point of no return on global warming.
Waid, sorry to go on and on. I am of an age where I have needed to stay isolated and I have become somewhat starving for contact. But I am grateful for my WP outlet that lets me feel that I am contributing something to society. And I have come to see the people I know here, some for as long as almost 15 years!, as my extended family and friends. Like you. Gandydancer ( talk) 01:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You took the time and efffort to go to my User page and tell me my edit of the page for heart failure inspired you to create a page on decompensatio cordis. I really appreciated that! Thank you! Korporaal1 ( talk) 18:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Bubbles in regards to your question. What I'm wondering though is whether you can fill out a digital form (in NZ, ...) in which you write down those contacts (they tend to be quite limited, ie 5 or 10 persons max), for verification purposes ? User:Genetics4good
~~~~
, so that the software will add the proper links and time.Genetics4good ( talk) 16:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
...no idea if PMID 32983255 is any use to you, but just rapidly posting on the off chance. Cheers, 86.161.190.118 ( talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyi, re myocarditis (in adults and children): PMID 33306666 (unfortunately not open access). Cheers, 86.186.168.219 ( talk) 15:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey there! I've gotten involved in a discussion at Talk:Pappu#Mentioning Rahul Gandhi and I've run up against what I think are some very wrong interpretations of policy. Perhaps you could lend some of your expertise and inexhaustible typing energy? :)— Neil Shah-Quinn ( talk) 06:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your input on the matter of occupational health psychology being related to health psychology. Iss246 ( talk) 21:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't want to sidetrack the discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability, so came here to say I thought your summary of the issue was brilliant. I especially appreciated your description of the differing perspectives of groups of editors. Usually, when someone uses that approach, you can clearly see which side the writer favors, but you used a framing that acknowledged the good-faith and concern for the encyclopedia on both sides. Well done! Schazjmd (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
those are some good ideas that you provided, re WP:HIST!! you seem to have a wealth of experience and expertise that is a bit more than my own. let's keep this exchange going, if you wish. any ideas you may have are most welcome. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 15:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thank you -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I was reading through WT:Consensus/Archive 12#Start of "rough consensus" section as a result of reviewing WT:TFD#Rough Consensus (because I am a good Wikimedian who searches first and then asks why the concept isn't on the main page if he doesn't find anything ;). What do you think about bringing that up again at WT:CON? -- Izno ( talk) 17:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
all available choices involve some type of actionI'm not sure what that means. I don't associate a keep with a lot of action. No consensus is the actual do nothing option at XFD and most-usually results in keep as well (exceptionally FFD for non-free files). Rough consensus on the other hand is, "enough people agreed that there is a decision here [as you framed it earlier] that this step for the article is the best one, but there were enough other people who said otherwise that it should not be treated as precedent for much at all". So I suppose in that context it's a synonym for weak consensus and could be treated as such at WP:Consensus?... Maybe the rough also indicates not just the weakness of the decision but also the difficulty in decision-making that it can be there given the emotion involved at XFD? Sorry you're the rubber duck today. :^) -- Izno ( talk) 02:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
(Continued from WAID's 21:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC) comment in #"Rough consensus")
If you're referring to me, that is not an accurate representation of what I'm arguing at all. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, there is a conversation going on over at Talk:Instacart about a recent Undisclosed paid tag. The article is in need of review by an uninvolved editor to decide if the article has been sufficiently "cleaned up" for the template to be removed. I’m reaching out to you based on your recent involvement in the discussion at Template Talk:Undisclosed paid. Thank you! 76.90.102.132 ( talk) 23:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this AfD following on from the RfC you commented on. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, You have been helpful in the past. I write to ask you for help regarding a redirect.
The background is this. Two or three years ago, I started a WP article about a new journal, Occupational Health Science. Because the journal was new when I created the entry, it was not sufficiently notable to qualify as an encyclopedia entry. Other editors insisted on it being taken down. I no longer remember if one of those editors or if I created a redirect from the entry to the sponsoring organization. The redirect is in effect today.
Now that the journal has published four volumes and is indexed in Medline, I would like to replace the redirect with a new article about the journal. I don't know how to do that. I wondered if you could give me some guidance on how to replace the redirect and start an article about the journal. Thank you. Iss246 ( talk) 18:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thanks for taking the time to offer a thoughtful reply to my question. To be honest, I'm still not 100% on needing to be MEDRS but I'm tired of the accusations of bad faith regarding content I never added in the first place. That is why I really appreciated your reply. It didn't assume any motives and explained the concerns with the study. I think the gap in my view is only that when the virus may have come to the US can either be seen as simply a historical question or can be seen in context of the epidemiology of the disease. Perhaps if this question was being raised 10 years from now (assuming no new information and assuming the pandemic was clearly in the rear view mirror) it would be easier to see this as only a question of history and not MEDRS. I'm not sure how we would decide when that MEDRS vs historical question transmission occurs. It appears my view that it has already occurred was not shared :D. Regardless, I appreciate that you didn't offer a dismissive answer, rather a considered answer. Springee ( talk) 19:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
:-D
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)You insisted that an unpublished article should be used as a reliable source and given very significant weight in the occupational burnout article. However other independent editors are saying your source that you and your friend (who has been repeatedly blocked for edit warring Iss246) desperately want in the article for some unknown reason, just does not meet Wikipedia criteria and should be removed from the article. You slipped away from the civil conversation at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard without responding. Can you please explain why you stated it "was published" when it definitely is not. And it cannot be accessed by the public. So it should be removed from our occupational burnout article. No? Coastalalerts ( talk) 01:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays | ||
Dear WAID, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy".
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Because you recognize the vital importance of recognition and affirmation. Many people like to think they're tough and independent if they eschew expressions of kindness, although they secretly crave it for themselves. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC) |
It's that article I cited on the WP:MED talk page. I'm also asking Talpedia. The pieces in the Wikimedia Research Newsletter are supposed to be "a couple of paragraphs" although they often seem to be longer. Usually one of the articles is featured in the Signpost. I started a sandbox page to write a draft: User:Markworthen/sandbox/Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 22:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing -- Unfortunately my e-mail access is currently on my deceased laptop -- I assume that you were just offering sympathy rather than eliciting any particular response? Cheers, Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm guessing you're someone who can point me in the right direction for this question. I've collected data about FAC reviews, nominators, and reviewers from September 2006 to today, and I'd like to be able to put up a tool page where users can put in their name and get information -- how many reviews have they done, how often they supported or opposed, what articles they reviewed, and so on. The data is in SQL at the moment, on a system I have access to. I gather from looking at various pages that editors can get access to the toolserver and create databases and software there. Is there some kind of "getting started" page for doing that? I suspect I'll have to learn whatever infrastructure/language is required; I know SQL very well but haven't learned a new language since Python so I'm probably out of date. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear WhatamIdoing I really thank you for the suggestion and will surely try to follow. Gardenkur ( talk) 06:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance work there, your experience in this area shows and your advice helpful, — Paleo Neonate – 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! First thank you for your amazing work!
Zblace ( talk) 09:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there Waid, I hope all is well with you. How are you doing in these difficult times? Anyway, I just ran across some work done by a student; the best work I've ever seen. The article is HIV and pregnancy. I went through it and made a few small ce edits and added some suggestions on the tp but I'm sure that you could find other suggestions that are beyond my expertise. This editor would be a great addition to our "staff" and it would be good to let him/her know how collaboration works to make quality articles. Best, Gandy Gandydancer ( talk) 18:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I need advise. Would this study published in Nature be ok to use at the Infant formula article? It is here: [8] For a quick read of the study you may wish to read this Guardian article: [9]. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC) '
"...take a peaceful approach..." (How Wikipedia Works)
Thank you. Tortillovsky ( talk) 18:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I was once a longtime editor and since retired. During that time I authored and personally added this movie [ [10]], but would now like to delete that movie. Is this something you can help me with as I'm not familiar with the process to do so. You were quite helpful in the past which is why I'm reaching out to you specifically. Thanks in advance for any help! BeneathElmTree ( talk) 19:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there WhatamIdoing, I'm having a technical issue that I hope you can quickly solve. For these WP:MED backlog lists I'm generating with the newsletter, I'd like to keep using the format of a bulleted list of wikilinks. For the first list, I could swear that PetScan somehow generated that list properly formatted for me. But since then, I can't seem to figure out how. I can paste wikitables from category worklist bot's readouts or from PetScan's output but folks seemed to prefer the list of wiklinks. So my question: am I crazy? Or is there an easy way to generate a bulleted list of wikilinks from PetScan or some other search. Thanks in advance for your time! I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino ( talk) 19:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
|-
) into list markup. The VisualEditor makes it easy to delete columns.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
21:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Hello, I've been reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the related discussion that led to the passage about trade publications being added to the guidelines. I see that you've commented about that passage in the RFC, but it didn't really get a full discussion. As someone who works with film articles a lot, a few major reliable sources we use are Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and ScreenDaily. These sources, especially the first two, have a mix of coverage. They write about films' productions, they review films, they cover how critics and audiences react, they cover controversies, and pertinent to this matter, they cover what film-related organizations are doing. From what I can tell, film-related organizations get the most coverage in these particular publications. Wikipedia is supposed to be a mix of general and specialized encyclopedias, and it seems like trade-focused publications would provide the brunt of specialized content. I'm not sure if it's fair to presume against use of these reliable sources just because they focus on a specific subject matter. However, I am not as familiar with what trade publications in other industries may look like. What do you think? Is this passage worth reassessing? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that substantial ce WAID. Any further improvements really welcome! Best, 86.186.155.212 ( talk) 19:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your thanks. My edit was only to assess pages with WikiProject COVID-19 assessment links, so you really didn't have to thank me, but thank you anyway. Prairie Astronomer Talk 23:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
|importance=low|society=yes
. I was glad to see that someone else was doing it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
01:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
|society=yes
parameter, but most of the time, you just want quality and importance/priority anyway (and some, such as WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Military history, only do the quality ratings.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
02:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Chocolate thanks | |
Thanks for your introduction to Zythème. Glafoululle des Alpes ( talk) 21:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC) |
What is the best way to get a close on the med lead rfc? Do we (you :) post to WP:AN for a neutral closer, or is there another way? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
You are the only one I could think of off the top of my head so sorry, but see [12], it looks like a new user and I am not familiar with the latest WMF op, but perhaps you want to guide them, it seemed a bit odd to me to see WMF tag edit. Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template.
Before:
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's
terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's
content policies. |
After:
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's
terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's
content policies. The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article. |
The idea came about from the sockpuppet investigation discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive in which over 87 articles got the undisclosed paid editing template, and I'm writing to you because you participated in discussion of the removal of that template from the article on Instacart at Talk:Instacart#Undisclosed_payments and so would have some familiarity with the general situation.
My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations).
CUPIDICAE💕 has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that.
As of this writing nobody else has responded.
Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC.
Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page.
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 20:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ WhatamIdoing:,
My team( meta:Global Open Initiative) and I are planning to run a contest which will begin on April 1. The target Wiki for this contest is Twi Wikipedia. Currently we have a challenge adding references to articles in Twi Wikipedia. And the challenge is that the reference tool allows us to only add a reference link, so we are unable to cite books. Amire80 asked me to contact you. He said you might be able to help us fix the reference feature. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Best, Celestinesucess ( talk) 11:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this in preparation for a particular article that has had problems of WP:COI or are you preparing for a particular article. It is not 100% clear to me. Thanks in advance sir, and thanks for your hard work! Infinitepeace ( talk) 13:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar is awarded to
User:WhatamIdoing
. The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar may be awarded to those who have prevented Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Thank you for working so tirelessly on Conflict of interests. Infinitepeace ( talk) 13:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hi there Waid, I am involved with an article that is using YouTube as a source. I have looked and looked for the WP position on YouTube but have been unable to find anything. It has been my understanding that we should try to avoid it. Could you direct me to something? Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I quickly ran into a problem when I tried to use YouTube as a source. Please see here: [13] where I used the PBS video. I learned of this video on their PBS News Hour evening news and it was mentioned at their website. I added it here [14] and Wukai removed it. Wukai is the best of the best copy editor and I'm always so grateful that we tend to work on the same articles and he improves my writing all the time. So, did I misunderstand your advise or not? Gandydancer ( talk) 09:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC) PS~Reading my edit right now I think that you two might cringe at it and think it does not sound very encyclopedic. I did that on purpose--I wanted to introduce a humanness and emotional wording to it because I feel that AOC is that sort of a congresswoman and it it the reason that she became so wildly popular as compared to a bunch of old white men. Plus, I thought that Wukai would come along and make my writing sound more professional--as he always does. Gandydancer ( talk) 09:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
hi. thanks for all of your helpful messages lately. and thanks for your input. would you like to help me to coordinate WP:HIST? Also, would you like to combine efforts on anything? there are numerous threads on telegram, etc, providing various proposals on wikipedia. please feel free to be in touch any time. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 15:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is the message that I privately sent to you in the past and which you acknowledged.
I perceive you as stalking me and I would like to request that you avoid engaging in places where I am. I am not disturbed by your behavior, but I recognize your behavior as disturbing.
I will not discuss this with you, but I wanted to privately request this of you, in case there is a misunderstanding. Can you please leave me alone?
You contacted me yesterday. I would like to file an Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Interaction_ban to prevent your contact in the future, and I would like for you to agree to it without further discussion. Would you agree to that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing! If you have time, please see: User talk:Markworthen/sandbox/Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology/2nd draft. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 22 |
Hello. There is a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that you may care to join. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing,
As I pointed out in → this last intervention as well as in my TP, I’ve given up on continuing the debate. The main reason for it is that I felt as if I were preaching in the desert. This is a world premiere, since I have been collaborating on the various WP related sites for almost 10 years without having ever faced this sort of interactive impasse.
On the other hand, culturally and sociologically speaking, I almost found flattering to be unexpectedly suspected of COI (?), TE (?) and other unaccustomed onomatopoeias. Truly, I would almost be inclined to regard such allegations as indirect compliments in the sense that their content would then almost tend to prove that I had studied the subject thoroughly enough to give that kind of fictitious impression. In fact, before writing an article or even participating in it, I first of all thoroughly study the subject and, above all, I read a major part of everything that, from near or far, is related to it. This philosophical choice, hopefully, allows me to obtain a somewhat objective as well as contradictory vision in order to try to subscribe as best as possible to the regulatory concept called → WP:V.
This is how, for example, I proceeded for → this article in French which, in 2017, has been labelled as a “ good article”. Moreover, you can see that, in this other writing, the subject was definitely not related to the medical field. Actually, I’m a bit of a jack-of-all-trades and my interests are as multiple as they are varied.
That being said, I thank you so much for your particularly eloquent speeches, which seemed to me to be of a quality as exemplary as marked by a commendable concern for objectivity that I share as much as you do. I would like you to know that I particularly appreciated the subtlety of your arguments which, as you will have no doubt understood, I fully endorse.
Just in case, you may be interested in reading the report of this experience expressing my general feelings that I have tried to share via → the following page in order to discuss those past moments more fully in detail with the French-speaking community.
Wishing you all the very best and thanking you for your diligent contributions.
Warmest regards,
Sincerely,
—
euphonie
breviary
10:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there. Based on your contributions to the Nationality article, I thought I would invite your feedback on a property proposal for nationality as a cultural identity over on Wikidata. The proposed property is meant to offer an alternative to "ethnic group" and to nationality as defined by citizenship. Your comments are welcome and needed. Thank you. Qono ( talk) 05:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:Santa Claus#RfC about the wording lead section of the article. Félix An ( talk) 03:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing,
Thank you for your kind message in the relevant section.
Indeed, you have perfectly captured the nature of my principled prudence, my scruples and my concern for exhaustive verifiability before injecting any information of a sensitive nature that could engage my legal responsibility in the event of any imprecision, inaccuracy or fragmented confusion.
I therefore continue to pursue my targeted research in order to try to detect other possible occurrences as richly documented as the one recently proposed (by the way, do you also possess, like your colleague, some sort of magic key allowing you to spontaneously access the complete content of an online scientific publication beyond the mere short summary?). For the moment, I have found only one irrefutable and a priori unassailable documentation by virtue of which, in all good conscience, I thus feel completely ready to add the summary at the core of the French-language article we are currently talking about.
You know how much your opinion means to me and how much I value it. That is why I have read your note with all the more recognition and gratitude.
Bless you.
Yours sincerely,
—
euphonie
breviary
09:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Famous web search engine. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 25#Famous web search engine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 02:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing. Thanks for your comments at Talk:Winona Ryder#RfC on ex-boyfriends in infobox. Do you happen to have any basis other than your own opinion that the neutrality issue is "minor" or only "alleged"? Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 23:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not trying to correct anyone or create any hierachy. I'm simply saying that what you (or I) "might personally prefer" is our opinions. Ok, then all of her boyfriends are partners according to the "dictionary definition", and that includes Damon and Pirner. We can't have it both ways and say that Damon and Pirner are just boyfriends but they are not partners. My opinion is that using the term boyfriend in the RfC opening suggests that they are not partners when, according to your "dictionary definition" all of them (Damon, Pirner, Depp, and Hahn) are both boyfriends and partners, then that also would bias the RfC. To avoid the bias, the RfC question should be "Should David Pirner and Matt Damon be included in the infobox as partners?" But that's not how it was worded. In my opinion based on the dictionary definition that introduces bias. I assume in your opinion any bias would be "minor" and only "alleged". Either way, it's an opinion based on the dictionary definition. So, it your opinion that the dictionary definition should be used, and thus the question should simply be "are they partners", not "they are boyfriends".
By the way, not all dictionaries use the term "partner": [1], [2]. So once again we using our opinion to decide which dictionary definition to use. I hope you understand, I'm not accusing you of anything. It's not a crime or violation of wiki policy to have an opinion, nor to express that opinion in an RfC. That's what I did, and it's what you did. Sundayclose ( talk) 19:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
|spouse=
parameter would be not too far from the truth except in a legal sense, especially gay people who were legally unable to marry. There's a comment in a long discussion that says "long-term" should be considered in the context of sociocultural expectations, specifically naming the film industry as an example of people whose "long-term" relationships might be shorter than average. It appears that the editors responding to that RFC didn't think that these relationships were appropriate for that parameter.|partner=
infobox field.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Re the Harris TP, I was surprised to see your post. All in all, such awful things are going on right now in the US that I have totally lost interest in that. If I remember correctly, the posts from others that disagreed with me seemed to be very reasonable. Either way, it's no big deal. Right now I'm trying to put something together about the Trump administration's influence on the US CDC and FDA re their recent announcements about how the US should be responding to the pandemic. So many awful things have been going on in the US that that, along with Trump's egregious lies and policies have come to seem just normal, just everyday, just trivia.
As I sit here and type about this and that we are watching the US drift into absolute dictatorship. I am the principal editor of the Trump environmental article. If you want to read a real horror story do read it. Now it needs new information added about Trump's latest efforts to see to it that even if he is not reelected it will be harder to revert the harm he has done. And if he is once again elected we will most surely pass beyond the point of no return on global warming.
Waid, sorry to go on and on. I am of an age where I have needed to stay isolated and I have become somewhat starving for contact. But I am grateful for my WP outlet that lets me feel that I am contributing something to society. And I have come to see the people I know here, some for as long as almost 15 years!, as my extended family and friends. Like you. Gandydancer ( talk) 01:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You took the time and efffort to go to my User page and tell me my edit of the page for heart failure inspired you to create a page on decompensatio cordis. I really appreciated that! Thank you! Korporaal1 ( talk) 18:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#Bubbles in regards to your question. What I'm wondering though is whether you can fill out a digital form (in NZ, ...) in which you write down those contacts (they tend to be quite limited, ie 5 or 10 persons max), for verification purposes ? User:Genetics4good
~~~~
, so that the software will add the proper links and time.Genetics4good ( talk) 16:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
...no idea if PMID 32983255 is any use to you, but just rapidly posting on the off chance. Cheers, 86.161.190.118 ( talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyi, re myocarditis (in adults and children): PMID 33306666 (unfortunately not open access). Cheers, 86.186.168.219 ( talk) 15:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey there! I've gotten involved in a discussion at Talk:Pappu#Mentioning Rahul Gandhi and I've run up against what I think are some very wrong interpretations of policy. Perhaps you could lend some of your expertise and inexhaustible typing energy? :)— Neil Shah-Quinn ( talk) 06:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your input on the matter of occupational health psychology being related to health psychology. Iss246 ( talk) 21:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't want to sidetrack the discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability, so came here to say I thought your summary of the issue was brilliant. I especially appreciated your description of the differing perspectives of groups of editors. Usually, when someone uses that approach, you can clearly see which side the writer favors, but you used a framing that acknowledged the good-faith and concern for the encyclopedia on both sides. Well done! Schazjmd (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
those are some good ideas that you provided, re WP:HIST!! you seem to have a wealth of experience and expertise that is a bit more than my own. let's keep this exchange going, if you wish. any ideas you may have are most welcome. thanks!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 15:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thank you -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I was reading through WT:Consensus/Archive 12#Start of "rough consensus" section as a result of reviewing WT:TFD#Rough Consensus (because I am a good Wikimedian who searches first and then asks why the concept isn't on the main page if he doesn't find anything ;). What do you think about bringing that up again at WT:CON? -- Izno ( talk) 17:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
all available choices involve some type of actionI'm not sure what that means. I don't associate a keep with a lot of action. No consensus is the actual do nothing option at XFD and most-usually results in keep as well (exceptionally FFD for non-free files). Rough consensus on the other hand is, "enough people agreed that there is a decision here [as you framed it earlier] that this step for the article is the best one, but there were enough other people who said otherwise that it should not be treated as precedent for much at all". So I suppose in that context it's a synonym for weak consensus and could be treated as such at WP:Consensus?... Maybe the rough also indicates not just the weakness of the decision but also the difficulty in decision-making that it can be there given the emotion involved at XFD? Sorry you're the rubber duck today. :^) -- Izno ( talk) 02:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
(Continued from WAID's 21:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC) comment in #"Rough consensus")
If you're referring to me, that is not an accurate representation of what I'm arguing at all. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, there is a conversation going on over at Talk:Instacart about a recent Undisclosed paid tag. The article is in need of review by an uninvolved editor to decide if the article has been sufficiently "cleaned up" for the template to be removed. I’m reaching out to you based on your recent involvement in the discussion at Template Talk:Undisclosed paid. Thank you! 76.90.102.132 ( talk) 23:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this AfD following on from the RfC you commented on. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, You have been helpful in the past. I write to ask you for help regarding a redirect.
The background is this. Two or three years ago, I started a WP article about a new journal, Occupational Health Science. Because the journal was new when I created the entry, it was not sufficiently notable to qualify as an encyclopedia entry. Other editors insisted on it being taken down. I no longer remember if one of those editors or if I created a redirect from the entry to the sponsoring organization. The redirect is in effect today.
Now that the journal has published four volumes and is indexed in Medline, I would like to replace the redirect with a new article about the journal. I don't know how to do that. I wondered if you could give me some guidance on how to replace the redirect and start an article about the journal. Thank you. Iss246 ( talk) 18:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for commenting at the recent AfD for the above list. There is now an ongoing discussion around the best way to split the list, if any, if you wish to comment further. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thanks for taking the time to offer a thoughtful reply to my question. To be honest, I'm still not 100% on needing to be MEDRS but I'm tired of the accusations of bad faith regarding content I never added in the first place. That is why I really appreciated your reply. It didn't assume any motives and explained the concerns with the study. I think the gap in my view is only that when the virus may have come to the US can either be seen as simply a historical question or can be seen in context of the epidemiology of the disease. Perhaps if this question was being raised 10 years from now (assuming no new information and assuming the pandemic was clearly in the rear view mirror) it would be easier to see this as only a question of history and not MEDRS. I'm not sure how we would decide when that MEDRS vs historical question transmission occurs. It appears my view that it has already occurred was not shared :D. Regardless, I appreciate that you didn't offer a dismissive answer, rather a considered answer. Springee ( talk) 19:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
:-D
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
22:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)You insisted that an unpublished article should be used as a reliable source and given very significant weight in the occupational burnout article. However other independent editors are saying your source that you and your friend (who has been repeatedly blocked for edit warring Iss246) desperately want in the article for some unknown reason, just does not meet Wikipedia criteria and should be removed from the article. You slipped away from the civil conversation at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard without responding. Can you please explain why you stated it "was published" when it definitely is not. And it cannot be accessed by the public. So it should be removed from our occupational burnout article. No? Coastalalerts ( talk) 01:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays | ||
Dear WAID, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy".
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Because you recognize the vital importance of recognition and affirmation. Many people like to think they're tough and independent if they eschew expressions of kindness, although they secretly crave it for themselves. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC) |
It's that article I cited on the WP:MED talk page. I'm also asking Talpedia. The pieces in the Wikimedia Research Newsletter are supposed to be "a couple of paragraphs" although they often seem to be longer. Usually one of the articles is featured in the Signpost. I started a sandbox page to write a draft: User:Markworthen/sandbox/Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 22:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing -- Unfortunately my e-mail access is currently on my deceased laptop -- I assume that you were just offering sympathy rather than eliciting any particular response? Cheers, Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm guessing you're someone who can point me in the right direction for this question. I've collected data about FAC reviews, nominators, and reviewers from September 2006 to today, and I'd like to be able to put up a tool page where users can put in their name and get information -- how many reviews have they done, how often they supported or opposed, what articles they reviewed, and so on. The data is in SQL at the moment, on a system I have access to. I gather from looking at various pages that editors can get access to the toolserver and create databases and software there. Is there some kind of "getting started" page for doing that? I suspect I'll have to learn whatever infrastructure/language is required; I know SQL very well but haven't learned a new language since Python so I'm probably out of date. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear WhatamIdoing I really thank you for the suggestion and will surely try to follow. Gardenkur ( talk) 06:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance work there, your experience in this area shows and your advice helpful, — Paleo Neonate – 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! First thank you for your amazing work!
Zblace ( talk) 09:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there Waid, I hope all is well with you. How are you doing in these difficult times? Anyway, I just ran across some work done by a student; the best work I've ever seen. The article is HIV and pregnancy. I went through it and made a few small ce edits and added some suggestions on the tp but I'm sure that you could find other suggestions that are beyond my expertise. This editor would be a great addition to our "staff" and it would be good to let him/her know how collaboration works to make quality articles. Best, Gandy Gandydancer ( talk) 18:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I need advise. Would this study published in Nature be ok to use at the Infant formula article? It is here: [8] For a quick read of the study you may wish to read this Guardian article: [9]. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC) '
"...take a peaceful approach..." (How Wikipedia Works)
Thank you. Tortillovsky ( talk) 18:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I was once a longtime editor and since retired. During that time I authored and personally added this movie [ [10]], but would now like to delete that movie. Is this something you can help me with as I'm not familiar with the process to do so. You were quite helpful in the past which is why I'm reaching out to you specifically. Thanks in advance for any help! BeneathElmTree ( talk) 19:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi there WhatamIdoing, I'm having a technical issue that I hope you can quickly solve. For these WP:MED backlog lists I'm generating with the newsletter, I'd like to keep using the format of a bulleted list of wikilinks. For the first list, I could swear that PetScan somehow generated that list properly formatted for me. But since then, I can't seem to figure out how. I can paste wikitables from category worklist bot's readouts or from PetScan's output but folks seemed to prefer the list of wiklinks. So my question: am I crazy? Or is there an easy way to generate a bulleted list of wikilinks from PetScan or some other search. Thanks in advance for your time! I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino ( talk) 19:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
|-
) into list markup. The VisualEditor makes it easy to delete columns.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
21:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Hello, I've been reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the related discussion that led to the passage about trade publications being added to the guidelines. I see that you've commented about that passage in the RFC, but it didn't really get a full discussion. As someone who works with film articles a lot, a few major reliable sources we use are Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and ScreenDaily. These sources, especially the first two, have a mix of coverage. They write about films' productions, they review films, they cover how critics and audiences react, they cover controversies, and pertinent to this matter, they cover what film-related organizations are doing. From what I can tell, film-related organizations get the most coverage in these particular publications. Wikipedia is supposed to be a mix of general and specialized encyclopedias, and it seems like trade-focused publications would provide the brunt of specialized content. I'm not sure if it's fair to presume against use of these reliable sources just because they focus on a specific subject matter. However, I am not as familiar with what trade publications in other industries may look like. What do you think? Is this passage worth reassessing? Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that substantial ce WAID. Any further improvements really welcome! Best, 86.186.155.212 ( talk) 19:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your thanks. My edit was only to assess pages with WikiProject COVID-19 assessment links, so you really didn't have to thank me, but thank you anyway. Prairie Astronomer Talk 23:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
|importance=low|society=yes
. I was glad to see that someone else was doing it.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
01:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
|society=yes
parameter, but most of the time, you just want quality and importance/priority anyway (and some, such as WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Military history, only do the quality ratings.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
02:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Chocolate thanks | |
Thanks for your introduction to Zythème. Glafoululle des Alpes ( talk) 21:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC) |
What is the best way to get a close on the med lead rfc? Do we (you :) post to WP:AN for a neutral closer, or is there another way? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
You are the only one I could think of off the top of my head so sorry, but see [12], it looks like a new user and I am not familiar with the latest WMF op, but perhaps you want to guide them, it seemed a bit odd to me to see WMF tag edit. Thanks. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template.
Before:
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's
terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's
content policies. |
After:
This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's
terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's
content policies. The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article. |
The idea came about from the sockpuppet investigation discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive in which over 87 articles got the undisclosed paid editing template, and I'm writing to you because you participated in discussion of the removal of that template from the article on Instacart at Talk:Instacart#Undisclosed_payments and so would have some familiarity with the general situation.
My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations).
CUPIDICAE💕 has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that.
As of this writing nobody else has responded.
Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC.
Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page.
Jjjjjjjjjj ( talk) 20:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ WhatamIdoing:,
My team( meta:Global Open Initiative) and I are planning to run a contest which will begin on April 1. The target Wiki for this contest is Twi Wikipedia. Currently we have a challenge adding references to articles in Twi Wikipedia. And the challenge is that the reference tool allows us to only add a reference link, so we are unable to cite books. Amire80 asked me to contact you. He said you might be able to help us fix the reference feature. I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Best, Celestinesucess ( talk) 11:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Is this in preparation for a particular article that has had problems of WP:COI or are you preparing for a particular article. It is not 100% clear to me. Thanks in advance sir, and thanks for your hard work! Infinitepeace ( talk) 13:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar is awarded to
User:WhatamIdoing
. The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar may be awarded to those who have prevented Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Thank you for working so tirelessly on Conflict of interests. Infinitepeace ( talk) 13:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hi there Waid, I am involved with an article that is using YouTube as a source. I have looked and looked for the WP position on YouTube but have been unable to find anything. It has been my understanding that we should try to avoid it. Could you direct me to something? Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I quickly ran into a problem when I tried to use YouTube as a source. Please see here: [13] where I used the PBS video. I learned of this video on their PBS News Hour evening news and it was mentioned at their website. I added it here [14] and Wukai removed it. Wukai is the best of the best copy editor and I'm always so grateful that we tend to work on the same articles and he improves my writing all the time. So, did I misunderstand your advise or not? Gandydancer ( talk) 09:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC) PS~Reading my edit right now I think that you two might cringe at it and think it does not sound very encyclopedic. I did that on purpose--I wanted to introduce a humanness and emotional wording to it because I feel that AOC is that sort of a congresswoman and it it the reason that she became so wildly popular as compared to a bunch of old white men. Plus, I thought that Wukai would come along and make my writing sound more professional--as he always does. Gandydancer ( talk) 09:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
hi. thanks for all of your helpful messages lately. and thanks for your input. would you like to help me to coordinate WP:HIST? Also, would you like to combine efforts on anything? there are numerous threads on telegram, etc, providing various proposals on wikipedia. please feel free to be in touch any time. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 15:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is the message that I privately sent to you in the past and which you acknowledged.
I perceive you as stalking me and I would like to request that you avoid engaging in places where I am. I am not disturbed by your behavior, but I recognize your behavior as disturbing.
I will not discuss this with you, but I wanted to privately request this of you, in case there is a misunderstanding. Can you please leave me alone?
You contacted me yesterday. I would like to file an Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Interaction_ban to prevent your contact in the future, and I would like for you to agree to it without further discussion. Would you agree to that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing! If you have time, please see: User talk:Markworthen/sandbox/Feminist critique of Wikipedia's epistemology/2nd draft. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)