This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
My bad on the prior … I see now that your 'Confirmed cases' aligns with WHO's UO7.1 confirmed by laboratory testing irrespective of severity of clinical signs or symptoms
and your 'Suspected cases' aligns with that plus WHO's UO7.2 diagnosed clinically or epidemiologically but laboratory testing is inconclusive or not available.
Apologies for the confusion.
Humanengr (
talk) 06:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Bakkster_Man!
My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.
I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.
Thanks so much! -- Dalorleon ( talk) 16:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
February 6th, 11am-1pm E.S.T: Coronavirus in New York City: Translate-A-Thon - ONLINE | |
---|---|
Hello Bakkster Man! You are invited to join the Brooklyn based Sure We Can community for our 3rd NYC COVID-19 themed Wikipedia Edit-a-thon / translate-a-thon - ONLINE - Saturday, Feb 6th, 2021 11am - 1pm. The edit-a-thon is part of Sure We Can's work with NYC Health + Hospitals to stop the spread of Covid-19. We plan to continue to work on translating the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into the many languages spoken in New York City; as well as, work on other ideas about how information on wikipedia could slow the spread of Covid-19. We'd love to hear if you have any ideas. If you can not attend, please feel free to comment on my talk page.
|
-- Wil540 art ( talk) 21:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I see your point w/ the revert, thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Twassman | Talk | Contribs 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
you said "Actually yes, the WHO report explicitly says that the deliberate bioengineering theory was ruled out, and thus needn't be investigated."
and you quoted "We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release"
that statement does NOT rule out deliberate bioengineering; it rules out "for release", i.e. it carefully does not rule out lab-leak. please go back and correct your statement 74.62.185.8 ( talk) 02:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Bakkster Man, just wanted to stop by to say hello. I'm happy we're in alignment on the SARS-CoV-2 issue; given your greater experience round these parts, I'll defer to your suggestions and will try to contribute as I can to improve the page.
In unrelated news, I see we have a few not-quite-similarities. My mom's from Michigan, I currently live in Germany but struggle with the language (did the horribly inefficient information encoding in the declensions not drive you up the wall?), and I recently built a fuzzbox distort-o-matic. Unfortunately, I was trying to create a crystal-clear preamp for listening. Basically this in reverse, a biologist learning that electrical engineering ain't trivial. Whoda thunk? SSSheridan ( talk) 17:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for being a voice of reason throughout all of this. I think the heated back and forth that is currently going on about the issue is tiresome, and has been for some time, given that there is a total lack of evidence either way, leading to endless and pointless arguing. I think the recent stories in Wired and Nature have the best take on the current controversy. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
re. this - try User:RandomCanadian/The origins of COVID-19: literature review. Of course, still a work in progress in it's early stages. Feel free to help - while most of the papers listed will likely have to be read, one basic step that doesn't require reading them is verifying if the paper was cited by others as well as the credentials of the authors. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I just published a personal recount of Wikipedia's coverage of lab leak in my blog, please read and share. Forich ( talk) 16:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
See here... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Disagreeing with a line of reasoning is not bad faith. Cancel Culture has no place on Wikipedia. Tuntable ( talk) 03:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bakkster Man, please can you clarify this comment you made in an ANI about me [1]. Was this comment directed at me? Since we have disagreed in the past, do you perhaps think I am a "bad actor" for wanting to include alternative POVs on COVID-19 origins? Why do you think it is counterproductive to apply accurately with bad actors? Good night. CutePeach ( talk) 14:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, a few SPAs quoted and took out of context some of WAID's earlier comments to try argue their content into articles. Since (unfortunately) Wikipedia's processes often favour hardline positions and argumentation via strict textual analysis of policy, it seems more understandable why some might not wish to give any way to (mostly) SPAs with possibly questionable intentions (given their offwiki commentary).I think everyone needs to settle down a bit and have a bias towards consensus rather than their own POV, but this is the baggage we're all dealing with that gets in the way.
I didn't mean to bite you. I am just really shocked that a discussion could be conducted for over a week without bringing in the well-intentioned editors who would likely be interested. —valereee ( talk) 22:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Bakkster Man, I thought you might want to listen to this/see it [2], it's an episode of the podcast This Week in Virology, which is being debated as a reliable source for attributed quotes at RS/N. I think what the experts Kristian Andersen, Robert Garry, Kathy Spindler, etc discuss about the preprint is very relevant and if the preprint stays in that article, their expert opinions about it probably are also relevant. I'd put this in that talk page section myself, but I really don't have the time anymore to engage with that discussion, and it would DEFINITELY get in the way of my (so far successful) wikibreak. So I figured you may be interested. Anyway feel free to use or not! And good luck, keep up the excellently NPOV and level-headed way you've been dealing with these very contentious and fast-moving articles.
A) link to the episode [3] (The good stuff starts around 18 minutes in)
B) a link to a transcript [4]
C) some paraphrasing I did off-hand while listening:
Anyway, hope this is helpful! Keep up the good wiki-ing.
Best, Shibb
-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
For your tireless high-quality contributions to the large body of articles related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, I award you with this barnstar: Forich ( talk) 19:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
message Forich ( talk) 19:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
Respectfully, I think it might be better to withdraw this case and wait for this editor to submit their own, likely very weak ArbE, and then fire back as a boomerang.
As an aside, I’ve been collecting diffs for some time and I think the case for tendentious editing on their part is getting pretty strong.
So if they don’t submit pretty soon, I’d be happy to.
Of course it is 100% your call, just my recommendation.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I think since RandomCanadian is buying in as well, I’ll just go ahead and shoot my shot, and put my diffs in that ArbE. So go ahead and disregard the above :). — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey. I was hoping at this point to have caught up with that AE case so as to be able to respond your query, but it's just so long, it's pretty daunting. So, I'm not really able to advise on that at this time. While intuitively, it feels like the AE case should come to resolution first, again, that's just a feel which I may be way off on. Regards, El_C 13:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm responding to your edit here so as not to further clutter up the Arbitration Enforcement page. If you disagree that SARS-COV-2 is an incorrect capitalization of that term, feel free to revert my edits on User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK and change the tag on the SARS-COV-2 page from {{ R from miscapitalisation}} to {{ R from other capitalisation}}. You might first check with Shibbolethink though, as they thanked me for those edits on my talk. If I've adequately answered your concerns, you might remove that edit so as to stay closer to the spirit of the 500-word limit, and not waste others' time by leaving it there for them to read. Thanks, wbm1058 ( talk) 23:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since we are in disagreement on the WHO-convened report, and since this has been discussed in previous discussions, I would suggest we post an RfC on the question of its reliability. I am not concerned so much as to whether the report remains the official position of the WHO, as sources don't describe it as such in one way or another, but we do know that it was commissioned by the WHO DG in accords with the authority vested in him to convene such studies, by the WHO Constitution, so we can deduce and verify that quite easily ourselves. Since wbm1058 looks like an experienced admin, I would appreciate his/her input on this too. LondonIP ( talk) 23:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
not up to us encyclopedians to decideif it's retracted or not, and can only report as such what the WHO has published. I'm very much in favor of including notable critiques, as the article does (the Daszak COI, the Tedros Adhanom comments when presented neutrally, etc), but am concerned by suggestions that we should be pushing a certain POV (for instance, your portrayal of Tedros Adhanom's comments above doesn't appear to be neutral). Regarding adding SAGO to this article, if there's reliably sourced info that makes it applicable to the lab leak specifically rather than the origin investigations in general, then I'm in favor. The context you're providing surrounding it concerns me, however. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC),,
you have a POV that they needn't do so. Not my view at all. I don't care if they 'should' or 'shouldn't', only that they haven't and that's what matters for how we write about the topic.
Bakkster Man, LondonIP and Shibbolethink, there have been so many discussions about the WHO report, yet no consensus on how we should describe it, or even reference it [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Taking DGG's latest statement to ARBCOM about the possibility of editors lending support to the PRC, together with recent comments from MER-C, Ymblanter and RoySmith about the recent office actions in the Chinese Wikipedia, there is a heightened awareness of possible CCP agenda pushing on the English Wikipedia. I'm not saying any of you are involved, but I do think this WHO-convened study article will serve as a good observation point to see if these suspicions are justified. Gimiv ( talk) 04:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
On a recent VP thread you mentioned that bringing more source discussions about fringe/non-fringe topics to RSN would be a better way to handle issues in relevant pages. I recently started a thread here on using sources closely related to a major pro-skeptic organization in BLPs of those closely affiliated with the organization. While not necessarily a discussion on fringe articles, I thought I should let you know seeing how it's somewhat related to the discussion. Not going to lie, I'm somewhat afraid of starting any big discussions on fringe topics as editors that have a particular interest in them have previously been quite aggressive towards me so I'll let a braver editor do that. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon (January 29, 2022) | |
---|---|
Hello Bakkster Man! I'd like to invite you to a Covid-19 focused Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon, open to the public, via Zoom on Saturday - January 29th, 2022, 1pm-3pm E.S.T. We will be focusing our edits on the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Click the event page to read more. This event is hosted by Sure We Can, a recycling and community center in Brooklyn. This is the 4th Covid-focused Edit-a-thon that Sure We Can has hosted. Click here to see the last three COVID-19 focused edit-a-thons: Sept 6th, 2020 & Nov 21, 2020 & Feb 6th, 2021. In past events, we translated the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into Spanish, Yoruba, Malagasy, Hebrew, Swahili, Tagalog, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Haitian Creole, and wrote the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. We would love for you to join us. All experience levels welcome.
COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon
Saturday January 29, 1PM - 3PM E.S.T (18:00 - 20:00 UTC) |
-- Wil540 art ( talk) 17:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
For your reasonableness over at the COVID-19 pandemic talk page. I haven't had the time to address the RfC(bit off more than I can chew) or really any other editing right now but I appreciate your collaborative responses nonetheless. SmolBrane ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
It occurred to me that your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cosmic Serpent could be contextualized with a look at the cleanup list for WP:BOOKS. (Here: [21]) Right now there are over 8k tagged articles, with nearly 500 tagged for notability concerns. For comparison, there are 14 WP:BOOKS articles up for AfD right now. People have to find sources to save those within a week, so they're the priority. (For the record, I'm responsible for putting three of those up.)
It looks like you have some interest in video games articles, so maybe you would be interested in that backlog. (Here: [22]) Presently 37% of that wikiproject's articles are tagged, 904 with notability concerns. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I have lodged a dispute about this article. StN ( talk) 03:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there any accurate source that tells that it's officially over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in . Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Bakkster Man, the above article was recently reviewed (I asked for a 7 day hold but I haven't gotten one... it was failed), I'm going to add the suggestions the reviewer suggested plus a few more (which I would have done during a hold) would you review it after Im done, (it doesn't have to be in a week , maybe in a few weeks) I'm asking you because I noticed you contributed to the article and talk page..., thank you Ozzie-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
See User:Shibbolethink/Sandbox. I think my personal position is "generally reliable except science/data reporting".— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Freoh ( talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I would have preferred . . . that you came back to the Talk page prior to simply re-adding it
when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. I understand that you have made significant contributions to this article, but that does not entitle you to disrupt the BRD cycle. Freoh ( talk) 19:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
InfiniteNexus (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Merry Christmas, Bakkster Man! Have a prosperous new year! InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello Bakkster Man, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
My bad on the prior … I see now that your 'Confirmed cases' aligns with WHO's UO7.1 confirmed by laboratory testing irrespective of severity of clinical signs or symptoms
and your 'Suspected cases' aligns with that plus WHO's UO7.2 diagnosed clinically or epidemiologically but laboratory testing is inconclusive or not available.
Apologies for the confusion.
Humanengr (
talk) 06:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Bakkster_Man!
My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.
I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.
Thanks so much! -- Dalorleon ( talk) 16:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
February 6th, 11am-1pm E.S.T: Coronavirus in New York City: Translate-A-Thon - ONLINE | |
---|---|
Hello Bakkster Man! You are invited to join the Brooklyn based Sure We Can community for our 3rd NYC COVID-19 themed Wikipedia Edit-a-thon / translate-a-thon - ONLINE - Saturday, Feb 6th, 2021 11am - 1pm. The edit-a-thon is part of Sure We Can's work with NYC Health + Hospitals to stop the spread of Covid-19. We plan to continue to work on translating the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into the many languages spoken in New York City; as well as, work on other ideas about how information on wikipedia could slow the spread of Covid-19. We'd love to hear if you have any ideas. If you can not attend, please feel free to comment on my talk page.
|
-- Wil540 art ( talk) 21:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I see your point w/ the revert, thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Twassman | Talk | Contribs 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
you said "Actually yes, the WHO report explicitly says that the deliberate bioengineering theory was ruled out, and thus needn't be investigated."
and you quoted "We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release"
that statement does NOT rule out deliberate bioengineering; it rules out "for release", i.e. it carefully does not rule out lab-leak. please go back and correct your statement 74.62.185.8 ( talk) 02:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey Bakkster Man, just wanted to stop by to say hello. I'm happy we're in alignment on the SARS-CoV-2 issue; given your greater experience round these parts, I'll defer to your suggestions and will try to contribute as I can to improve the page.
In unrelated news, I see we have a few not-quite-similarities. My mom's from Michigan, I currently live in Germany but struggle with the language (did the horribly inefficient information encoding in the declensions not drive you up the wall?), and I recently built a fuzzbox distort-o-matic. Unfortunately, I was trying to create a crystal-clear preamp for listening. Basically this in reverse, a biologist learning that electrical engineering ain't trivial. Whoda thunk? SSSheridan ( talk) 17:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for being a voice of reason throughout all of this. I think the heated back and forth that is currently going on about the issue is tiresome, and has been for some time, given that there is a total lack of evidence either way, leading to endless and pointless arguing. I think the recent stories in Wired and Nature have the best take on the current controversy. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
re. this - try User:RandomCanadian/The origins of COVID-19: literature review. Of course, still a work in progress in it's early stages. Feel free to help - while most of the papers listed will likely have to be read, one basic step that doesn't require reading them is verifying if the paper was cited by others as well as the credentials of the authors. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I just published a personal recount of Wikipedia's coverage of lab leak in my blog, please read and share. Forich ( talk) 16:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
See here... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Disagreeing with a line of reasoning is not bad faith. Cancel Culture has no place on Wikipedia. Tuntable ( talk) 03:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Bakkster Man, please can you clarify this comment you made in an ANI about me [1]. Was this comment directed at me? Since we have disagreed in the past, do you perhaps think I am a "bad actor" for wanting to include alternative POVs on COVID-19 origins? Why do you think it is counterproductive to apply accurately with bad actors? Good night. CutePeach ( talk) 14:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, a few SPAs quoted and took out of context some of WAID's earlier comments to try argue their content into articles. Since (unfortunately) Wikipedia's processes often favour hardline positions and argumentation via strict textual analysis of policy, it seems more understandable why some might not wish to give any way to (mostly) SPAs with possibly questionable intentions (given their offwiki commentary).I think everyone needs to settle down a bit and have a bias towards consensus rather than their own POV, but this is the baggage we're all dealing with that gets in the way.
I didn't mean to bite you. I am just really shocked that a discussion could be conducted for over a week without bringing in the well-intentioned editors who would likely be interested. —valereee ( talk) 22:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Bakkster Man, I thought you might want to listen to this/see it [2], it's an episode of the podcast This Week in Virology, which is being debated as a reliable source for attributed quotes at RS/N. I think what the experts Kristian Andersen, Robert Garry, Kathy Spindler, etc discuss about the preprint is very relevant and if the preprint stays in that article, their expert opinions about it probably are also relevant. I'd put this in that talk page section myself, but I really don't have the time anymore to engage with that discussion, and it would DEFINITELY get in the way of my (so far successful) wikibreak. So I figured you may be interested. Anyway feel free to use or not! And good luck, keep up the excellently NPOV and level-headed way you've been dealing with these very contentious and fast-moving articles.
A) link to the episode [3] (The good stuff starts around 18 minutes in)
B) a link to a transcript [4]
C) some paraphrasing I did off-hand while listening:
Anyway, hope this is helpful! Keep up the good wiki-ing.
Best, Shibb
-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
For your tireless high-quality contributions to the large body of articles related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, I award you with this barnstar: Forich ( talk) 19:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
message Forich ( talk) 19:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
Respectfully, I think it might be better to withdraw this case and wait for this editor to submit their own, likely very weak ArbE, and then fire back as a boomerang.
As an aside, I’ve been collecting diffs for some time and I think the case for tendentious editing on their part is getting pretty strong.
So if they don’t submit pretty soon, I’d be happy to.
Of course it is 100% your call, just my recommendation.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I think since RandomCanadian is buying in as well, I’ll just go ahead and shoot my shot, and put my diffs in that ArbE. So go ahead and disregard the above :). — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey. I was hoping at this point to have caught up with that AE case so as to be able to respond your query, but it's just so long, it's pretty daunting. So, I'm not really able to advise on that at this time. While intuitively, it feels like the AE case should come to resolution first, again, that's just a feel which I may be way off on. Regards, El_C 13:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'm responding to your edit here so as not to further clutter up the Arbitration Enforcement page. If you disagree that SARS-COV-2 is an incorrect capitalization of that term, feel free to revert my edits on User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK and change the tag on the SARS-COV-2 page from {{ R from miscapitalisation}} to {{ R from other capitalisation}}. You might first check with Shibbolethink though, as they thanked me for those edits on my talk. If I've adequately answered your concerns, you might remove that edit so as to stay closer to the spirit of the 500-word limit, and not waste others' time by leaving it there for them to read. Thanks, wbm1058 ( talk) 23:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since we are in disagreement on the WHO-convened report, and since this has been discussed in previous discussions, I would suggest we post an RfC on the question of its reliability. I am not concerned so much as to whether the report remains the official position of the WHO, as sources don't describe it as such in one way or another, but we do know that it was commissioned by the WHO DG in accords with the authority vested in him to convene such studies, by the WHO Constitution, so we can deduce and verify that quite easily ourselves. Since wbm1058 looks like an experienced admin, I would appreciate his/her input on this too. LondonIP ( talk) 23:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
not up to us encyclopedians to decideif it's retracted or not, and can only report as such what the WHO has published. I'm very much in favor of including notable critiques, as the article does (the Daszak COI, the Tedros Adhanom comments when presented neutrally, etc), but am concerned by suggestions that we should be pushing a certain POV (for instance, your portrayal of Tedros Adhanom's comments above doesn't appear to be neutral). Regarding adding SAGO to this article, if there's reliably sourced info that makes it applicable to the lab leak specifically rather than the origin investigations in general, then I'm in favor. The context you're providing surrounding it concerns me, however. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC),,
you have a POV that they needn't do so. Not my view at all. I don't care if they 'should' or 'shouldn't', only that they haven't and that's what matters for how we write about the topic.
Bakkster Man, LondonIP and Shibbolethink, there have been so many discussions about the WHO report, yet no consensus on how we should describe it, or even reference it [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Taking DGG's latest statement to ARBCOM about the possibility of editors lending support to the PRC, together with recent comments from MER-C, Ymblanter and RoySmith about the recent office actions in the Chinese Wikipedia, there is a heightened awareness of possible CCP agenda pushing on the English Wikipedia. I'm not saying any of you are involved, but I do think this WHO-convened study article will serve as a good observation point to see if these suspicions are justified. Gimiv ( talk) 04:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
On a recent VP thread you mentioned that bringing more source discussions about fringe/non-fringe topics to RSN would be a better way to handle issues in relevant pages. I recently started a thread here on using sources closely related to a major pro-skeptic organization in BLPs of those closely affiliated with the organization. While not necessarily a discussion on fringe articles, I thought I should let you know seeing how it's somewhat related to the discussion. Not going to lie, I'm somewhat afraid of starting any big discussions on fringe topics as editors that have a particular interest in them have previously been quite aggressive towards me so I'll let a braver editor do that. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon (January 29, 2022) | |
---|---|
Hello Bakkster Man! I'd like to invite you to a Covid-19 focused Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon, open to the public, via Zoom on Saturday - January 29th, 2022, 1pm-3pm E.S.T. We will be focusing our edits on the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic. Click the event page to read more. This event is hosted by Sure We Can, a recycling and community center in Brooklyn. This is the 4th Covid-focused Edit-a-thon that Sure We Can has hosted. Click here to see the last three COVID-19 focused edit-a-thons: Sept 6th, 2020 & Nov 21, 2020 & Feb 6th, 2021. In past events, we translated the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into Spanish, Yoruba, Malagasy, Hebrew, Swahili, Tagalog, Korean, Russian, Japanese, Portuguese, Polish, Greek, Haitian Creole, and wrote the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United States article. We would love for you to join us. All experience levels welcome.
COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon
Saturday January 29, 1PM - 3PM E.S.T (18:00 - 20:00 UTC) |
-- Wil540 art ( talk) 17:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
For your reasonableness over at the COVID-19 pandemic talk page. I haven't had the time to address the RfC(bit off more than I can chew) or really any other editing right now but I appreciate your collaborative responses nonetheless. SmolBrane ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
It occurred to me that your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cosmic Serpent could be contextualized with a look at the cleanup list for WP:BOOKS. (Here: [21]) Right now there are over 8k tagged articles, with nearly 500 tagged for notability concerns. For comparison, there are 14 WP:BOOKS articles up for AfD right now. People have to find sources to save those within a week, so they're the priority. (For the record, I'm responsible for putting three of those up.)
It looks like you have some interest in video games articles, so maybe you would be interested in that backlog. (Here: [22]) Presently 37% of that wikiproject's articles are tagged, 904 with notability concerns. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I have lodged a dispute about this article. StN ( talk) 03:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there any accurate source that tells that it's officially over? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in . Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Bakkster Man, the above article was recently reviewed (I asked for a 7 day hold but I haven't gotten one... it was failed), I'm going to add the suggestions the reviewer suggested plus a few more (which I would have done during a hold) would you review it after Im done, (it doesn't have to be in a week , maybe in a few weeks) I'm asking you because I noticed you contributed to the article and talk page..., thank you Ozzie-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
See User:Shibbolethink/Sandbox. I think my personal position is "generally reliable except science/data reporting".— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Freoh ( talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I would have preferred . . . that you came back to the Talk page prior to simply re-adding it
when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. I understand that you have made significant contributions to this article, but that does not entitle you to disrupt the BRD cycle. Freoh ( talk) 19:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
InfiniteNexus (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Merry Christmas, Bakkster Man! Have a prosperous new year! InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello Bakkster Man, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)