Formerly posted from IP 73.xxx, address now defunct.
Have edited on and off, with several long interruptions, since 2005.
Speed of replies to comments and pings and cannot be predicted.
|
Hi Sesquivalent! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 10 June 2020 (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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.
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.
Doug Weller talk 09:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
May I ask who you're calling a "notorious anti-Trump editor" here? Please recollect that Wikipedia is not a battleground. The words "(R-Arizona)" were first added in June 2019 by Parkwells. Is that who you're referring to? Bishonen | tålk 19:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC).
- Sure. WikiBlame attributed it to (name deleted, see next comment) who added the whole Trump section. He is one of the handful of most active anti-Trumpists on the site
Sesquivalent (
talk) 19:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Correction. Trump's comments were in the first week of October 2016 and a POV section about them including the opinion of "Republican Senator John McCain" was originally added 10 Oct 2016 by another user who is also very active in anti-Trump and pro-leftism editing, but not the one I had mentioned. Then another likeminded user made it more POV, calling the section "False Accusations by Donald Trump" and amplifying the language. Much later, the user I had in mind was part of an edit battle over this section, which I think is what showed up in Wikiblame. It should not surprise anyone that are multiple anti-Trumpers patrolling these pages (as opposed to editors who happen to dislike Trump but are not specifically monitoring or seeking to influence pages on American politics). Sesquivalent ( talk) 08:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. WikiBlame attributed it to (name deleted, see next comment) who added the whole Trump section. He is one of the handful of most active anti-Trumpists on the site
Sesquivalent (
talk) 19:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
In regards to this, please don't edit war. If you are reverted, you are expected to start a discussion on the talk page. Your link in the edit sum goes nowhere and with your response above, this is a POV laden edit that shouldn't stand. Valeince ( talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- One reversion is not an edit war. The link works; it goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=%22senator+john+mccain%22&advancedSearch-current={} , which is a search for "Senator John McCain" showing how few of those have actually listed him as R-AZ outside of legislation and elections. @ Valeince: Sesquivalent ( talk) 20:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- As to "POV laden edit", the whole section is somewhat POV, and my edit either rolls that back very slightly toward neutrality (but not reaching it yet), or, according to your view that the removed R-AZ is perfunctory POV-free information, is irrelevant to any POV matters one way or the other.
Sesquivalent (
talk) 20:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not going to argue with you what an edit war is or what is considered POV editing. But you cannot make edits based on reasoning like you gave above or say.. defend new users that are making pro white supremacy edits from being blocked, less you want to be prevented from editing the AP area. I'm not going to revert on the page again but you really need to rethink your approach here.
Valeince (
talk) 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Good luck convincing the topic banners that the current discussion at another user's Talk page can be honestly summarized as "defending... pro white supremacy". Whether instant unilateral blocks of new users with one (immediately reverted) edit are proper is a distinct issue from the content of the edits.
- Do you have any disagreement with the conclusion from the McCain search link, that it's not routine to include the information? Sesquivalent ( talk) 20:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not going to argue with you what an edit war is or what is considered POV editing. But you cannot make edits based on reasoning like you gave above or say.. defend new users that are making pro white supremacy edits from being blocked, less you want to be prevented from editing the AP area. I'm not going to revert on the page again but you really need to rethink your approach here.
Valeince (
talk) 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I frankly don't understand why either of you think the presence/absence of "(R-Arizona)" is so important. But then I'm not American; does it have some sort of subtle anti-Trump subtext that I'm missing? Whether or not, Sesquivalent, the reason I posted here at all is your extremely aggressive edit summary, "remove petty politicking by notorious anti-Trump editor". I'd like to see you justify such behavior. I remind you again that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC).
- That it's unimportant is why it was removed. "Petty politicking", as stated in the edit summary.
- The American subtext of adding the "Republican" or "R-AZ" is that the repudiation of Trump's comments is even stronger because it is done by a Republican, a member of Trump's own party. There are multiple reasons why that idea is false in the case of McCain and his dis-endorsement that week in 2016. In general, the whole Trump section of the article has fluctuated between different degrees of anti-Trump POV from its beginning, so this is a tiny step toward neutrality.
- The edit summary cannot be changed, so I do not understand the insistence on debating it. There were several very noticeably anti-Trump editors involved with this section, and since one would have to do some work to identify who it was, and I did not name names, I take the summary to be a reminder to editors about the persistent bias in editing of that section (as in all things Trump on Wikipedia). Sesquivalent ( talk) 11:21, 25 July 2020 (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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.
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.
— Paleo Neonate – 22:10, 29 September 2021 (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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.
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.
nableezy - 17:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to make sure you're aware of the arbitration request here: [1] All the other major participants to these recent disputes seem to be aware of this discussion, but nobody had notified you yet. Gardenofaleph ( talk) 18:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. The request was withdrawn before I could post.
Sesquivalent (
talk) 13:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- The initial request got withdrawn, but it looks like ArbCom might still do something about the problem of sources being misrepresented. The current discussion there is about misrepresented sources in the article itself, but you raised a similar issue about the FAQ: [2] It might be useful if you could give ArbCom a summary of how the FAQ misrepresents its sources also, and how you were brushed off when you raised concerns about that. Gardenofaleph ( talk) 16:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
I think what you proposed here is a good idea, and DGG apparently thinks so as well. I would be glad to help you create a list of sources like you've proposed there, but this probably is not something I could do by myself, and there also are some details that need to be worked out before creating the list. Could you please offer your feedback in that discussion, so we can decide on a location for the list, and also discuss more specific criteria for what sources to include? - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk)
- I'm a bit pressed for time but will try to post there soon. I don't think where to do it matters so much, but there should be clarity on what constitutes a consensus creating (or revealing) source for the topic at issue. Sesquivalent ( talk) 09:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- I answered. How do you want to proceed? The warpath has started to try and ban anyone interested in fixing this Wikipedia/academia discrepancy before things get out of hand, and you are atop the target list especially if you move forward in other ways. Since you might be the last expert standing, and I am likely to be busy with other things for a long time, I'd suggest getting at least a minimal list started somewhere. It can always be copied to a more official place later, and in the meantime other people might contribute (in either direction, which is cool).
Sesquivalent (
talk) 22:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I haven't forgotten about this idea, and I'll let you know when I'm ready to work on it with you. (Btw, I left a
comment on the Fringe noticeboard discussion you might find useful). -
Ferahgo the Assassin (
talk) 00:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will try to reply sooner rather than later, but for now just acknowledging the message. Sesquivalent ( talk) 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I haven't forgotten about this idea, and I'll let you know when I'm ready to work on it with you. (Btw, I left a
comment on the Fringe noticeboard discussion you might find useful). -
Ferahgo the Assassin (
talk) 00:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sesquivalent, it appears that Generalrelative uses they/them pronouns. See their user page. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers 16:35, 4 December 2021 (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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 13:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Here on Wikipedia, editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors
assume good faith while interacting with others, which you did not appear to do at
Talk:Sex differences in medicine. It seems you did not AGF in this edit in particular:
[3]. Please refrain from assuming mal-intentions moving forward. Thank you. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 14:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Is there an explanation of your question "why did it change?" as anything but a thinly veiled comment on the target of the current AE process?
Sesquivalent (
talk) 14:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, just added one. On any rename proposal with a long-standing name, my rule-of-thumb is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I am simply asking the question, is it broke? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- But, as an aside, in the future, you should not require a reason to explain away your suspicions of bad intentions. That is the very core of "Assume" good faith. Assume it. If there is a possibly good reason behind an action, you should assume that instead of the bad reasons you have in your head that pop up first. That's what the policy means.—
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 14:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- You explained your interest in "what changed" (which was not at issue), but did not answer my question about your query "why did it change?" that, together with the word "recently", and the bold and italics attracting attention to all this, all seemed rather targeted and personal. If you have an explanation unrelated to the AE I'd be happy to hear it and strike any part of my comment invalidated by it as a failure of AGF on my part.
Sesquivalent (
talk) 14:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's the "Is it broke?" part. Implied questions: "Did it break recently?" "Has the scope changed, or was it always like this?" "Why was this the preferred name for so long?" "Was it just a default?" etc etc. Seriously, nothing nefarious intended. I'm honestly not even sure what nefarious insinuation I would have been making. A conspiracy to....change the article? To what end? How would that serve the dastardly purposes or mal-intentions of any of the involved editors? Seems like an awful lot of work for very little reward in my opinion. Much more likely that, as you say, Maneesh stumbled upon the fact that "disease", in his opinion, characterizes all the entries here. I would disagree, but I think it's a belief he has in good faith.I bold and italicize everything, all the time. I once got called into my PhD supervisor's office in grad school, whereupon he demanded, exasperated, "why are you always so angry in your emails?" Turns out in Austria, where he's from, bolding typically means yelling in emails. I just use it for emphasis. I also talk with my hands. I literally bold and underline in almost every comment, you can check out my contributions history and see for yourself. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- You explained your interest in "what changed" (which was not at issue), but did not answer my question about your query "why did it change?" that, together with the word "recently", and the bold and italics attracting attention to all this, all seemed rather targeted and personal. If you have an explanation unrelated to the AE I'd be happy to hear it and strike any part of my comment invalidated by it as a failure of AGF on my part.
Sesquivalent (
talk) 14:58, 27 December 2021 (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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 16:29, 13 January 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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.
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.
Generalrelative ( talk) 16:19, 9 February 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Formerly posted from IP 73.xxx, address now defunct.
Have edited on and off, with several long interruptions, since 2005.
Speed of replies to comments and pings and cannot be predicted.
|
|
Hi Sesquivalent! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 10 June 2020 (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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.
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.
Doug Weller talk 09:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
May I ask who you're calling a "notorious anti-Trump editor" here? Please recollect that Wikipedia is not a battleground. The words "(R-Arizona)" were first added in June 2019 by Parkwells. Is that who you're referring to? Bishonen | tålk 19:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC).
- Sure. WikiBlame attributed it to (name deleted, see next comment) who added the whole Trump section. He is one of the handful of most active anti-Trumpists on the site
Sesquivalent (
talk) 19:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Correction. Trump's comments were in the first week of October 2016 and a POV section about them including the opinion of "Republican Senator John McCain" was originally added 10 Oct 2016 by another user who is also very active in anti-Trump and pro-leftism editing, but not the one I had mentioned. Then another likeminded user made it more POV, calling the section "False Accusations by Donald Trump" and amplifying the language. Much later, the user I had in mind was part of an edit battle over this section, which I think is what showed up in Wikiblame. It should not surprise anyone that are multiple anti-Trumpers patrolling these pages (as opposed to editors who happen to dislike Trump but are not specifically monitoring or seeking to influence pages on American politics). Sesquivalent ( talk) 08:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. WikiBlame attributed it to (name deleted, see next comment) who added the whole Trump section. He is one of the handful of most active anti-Trumpists on the site
Sesquivalent (
talk) 19:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
In regards to this, please don't edit war. If you are reverted, you are expected to start a discussion on the talk page. Your link in the edit sum goes nowhere and with your response above, this is a POV laden edit that shouldn't stand. Valeince ( talk) 19:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- One reversion is not an edit war. The link works; it goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=%22senator+john+mccain%22&advancedSearch-current={} , which is a search for "Senator John McCain" showing how few of those have actually listed him as R-AZ outside of legislation and elections. @ Valeince: Sesquivalent ( talk) 20:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- As to "POV laden edit", the whole section is somewhat POV, and my edit either rolls that back very slightly toward neutrality (but not reaching it yet), or, according to your view that the removed R-AZ is perfunctory POV-free information, is irrelevant to any POV matters one way or the other.
Sesquivalent (
talk) 20:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not going to argue with you what an edit war is or what is considered POV editing. But you cannot make edits based on reasoning like you gave above or say.. defend new users that are making pro white supremacy edits from being blocked, less you want to be prevented from editing the AP area. I'm not going to revert on the page again but you really need to rethink your approach here.
Valeince (
talk) 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Good luck convincing the topic banners that the current discussion at another user's Talk page can be honestly summarized as "defending... pro white supremacy". Whether instant unilateral blocks of new users with one (immediately reverted) edit are proper is a distinct issue from the content of the edits.
- Do you have any disagreement with the conclusion from the McCain search link, that it's not routine to include the information? Sesquivalent ( talk) 20:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not going to argue with you what an edit war is or what is considered POV editing. But you cannot make edits based on reasoning like you gave above or say.. defend new users that are making pro white supremacy edits from being blocked, less you want to be prevented from editing the AP area. I'm not going to revert on the page again but you really need to rethink your approach here.
Valeince (
talk) 20:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I frankly don't understand why either of you think the presence/absence of "(R-Arizona)" is so important. But then I'm not American; does it have some sort of subtle anti-Trump subtext that I'm missing? Whether or not, Sesquivalent, the reason I posted here at all is your extremely aggressive edit summary, "remove petty politicking by notorious anti-Trump editor". I'd like to see you justify such behavior. I remind you again that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC).
- That it's unimportant is why it was removed. "Petty politicking", as stated in the edit summary.
- The American subtext of adding the "Republican" or "R-AZ" is that the repudiation of Trump's comments is even stronger because it is done by a Republican, a member of Trump's own party. There are multiple reasons why that idea is false in the case of McCain and his dis-endorsement that week in 2016. In general, the whole Trump section of the article has fluctuated between different degrees of anti-Trump POV from its beginning, so this is a tiny step toward neutrality.
- The edit summary cannot be changed, so I do not understand the insistence on debating it. There were several very noticeably anti-Trump editors involved with this section, and since one would have to do some work to identify who it was, and I did not name names, I take the summary to be a reminder to editors about the persistent bias in editing of that section (as in all things Trump on Wikipedia). Sesquivalent ( talk) 11:21, 25 July 2020 (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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.
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.
— Paleo Neonate – 22:10, 29 September 2021 (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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.
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.
nableezy - 17:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to make sure you're aware of the arbitration request here: [1] All the other major participants to these recent disputes seem to be aware of this discussion, but nobody had notified you yet. Gardenofaleph ( talk) 18:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. The request was withdrawn before I could post.
Sesquivalent (
talk) 13:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- The initial request got withdrawn, but it looks like ArbCom might still do something about the problem of sources being misrepresented. The current discussion there is about misrepresented sources in the article itself, but you raised a similar issue about the FAQ: [2] It might be useful if you could give ArbCom a summary of how the FAQ misrepresents its sources also, and how you were brushed off when you raised concerns about that. Gardenofaleph ( talk) 16:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
I think what you proposed here is a good idea, and DGG apparently thinks so as well. I would be glad to help you create a list of sources like you've proposed there, but this probably is not something I could do by myself, and there also are some details that need to be worked out before creating the list. Could you please offer your feedback in that discussion, so we can decide on a location for the list, and also discuss more specific criteria for what sources to include? - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk)
- I'm a bit pressed for time but will try to post there soon. I don't think where to do it matters so much, but there should be clarity on what constitutes a consensus creating (or revealing) source for the topic at issue. Sesquivalent ( talk) 09:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- I answered. How do you want to proceed? The warpath has started to try and ban anyone interested in fixing this Wikipedia/academia discrepancy before things get out of hand, and you are atop the target list especially if you move forward in other ways. Since you might be the last expert standing, and I am likely to be busy with other things for a long time, I'd suggest getting at least a minimal list started somewhere. It can always be copied to a more official place later, and in the meantime other people might contribute (in either direction, which is cool).
Sesquivalent (
talk) 22:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I haven't forgotten about this idea, and I'll let you know when I'm ready to work on it with you. (Btw, I left a
comment on the Fringe noticeboard discussion you might find useful). -
Ferahgo the Assassin (
talk) 00:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will try to reply sooner rather than later, but for now just acknowledging the message. Sesquivalent ( talk) 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I haven't forgotten about this idea, and I'll let you know when I'm ready to work on it with you. (Btw, I left a
comment on the Fringe noticeboard discussion you might find useful). -
Ferahgo the Assassin (
talk) 00:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Sesquivalent, it appears that Generalrelative uses they/them pronouns. See their user page. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers 16:35, 4 December 2021 (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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 13:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Here on Wikipedia, editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors
assume good faith while interacting with others, which you did not appear to do at
Talk:Sex differences in medicine. It seems you did not AGF in this edit in particular:
[3]. Please refrain from assuming mal-intentions moving forward. Thank you. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 14:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Is there an explanation of your question "why did it change?" as anything but a thinly veiled comment on the target of the current AE process?
Sesquivalent (
talk) 14:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, just added one. On any rename proposal with a long-standing name, my rule-of-thumb is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I am simply asking the question, is it broke? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 14:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- But, as an aside, in the future, you should not require a reason to explain away your suspicions of bad intentions. That is the very core of "Assume" good faith. Assume it. If there is a possibly good reason behind an action, you should assume that instead of the bad reasons you have in your head that pop up first. That's what the policy means.—
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕) 14:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- You explained your interest in "what changed" (which was not at issue), but did not answer my question about your query "why did it change?" that, together with the word "recently", and the bold and italics attracting attention to all this, all seemed rather targeted and personal. If you have an explanation unrelated to the AE I'd be happy to hear it and strike any part of my comment invalidated by it as a failure of AGF on my part.
Sesquivalent (
talk) 14:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's the "Is it broke?" part. Implied questions: "Did it break recently?" "Has the scope changed, or was it always like this?" "Why was this the preferred name for so long?" "Was it just a default?" etc etc. Seriously, nothing nefarious intended. I'm honestly not even sure what nefarious insinuation I would have been making. A conspiracy to....change the article? To what end? How would that serve the dastardly purposes or mal-intentions of any of the involved editors? Seems like an awful lot of work for very little reward in my opinion. Much more likely that, as you say, Maneesh stumbled upon the fact that "disease", in his opinion, characterizes all the entries here. I would disagree, but I think it's a belief he has in good faith.I bold and italicize everything, all the time. I once got called into my PhD supervisor's office in grad school, whereupon he demanded, exasperated, "why are you always so angry in your emails?" Turns out in Austria, where he's from, bolding typically means yelling in emails. I just use it for emphasis. I also talk with my hands. I literally bold and underline in almost every comment, you can check out my contributions history and see for yourself. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- You explained your interest in "what changed" (which was not at issue), but did not answer my question about your query "why did it change?" that, together with the word "recently", and the bold and italics attracting attention to all this, all seemed rather targeted and personal. If you have an explanation unrelated to the AE I'd be happy to hear it and strike any part of my comment invalidated by it as a failure of AGF on my part.
Sesquivalent (
talk) 14:58, 27 December 2021 (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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
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.
Newimpartial ( talk) 16:29, 13 January 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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.
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.
Generalrelative ( talk) 16:19, 9 February 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)