Hello, Zenomonoz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " HiSmile".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Beast and Five Thirty Eight are not appropriate sources for an article on moral panic: as I noted on the talk page, we have generally required scholarly sources that can draw from Stanley Cohen's work, not just mass-media articles that use the phrase "moral panic". This is because the article is on a scholarly topic in sociology. Similarly, the pedophilia section is WP:SYNTH, and again has insufficient sourcing with no reference to the sociological concept of moral panic. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 15:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Will you please strike the "personal motive"
aspersion that you made in
this comment? That is completely uncalled for on an article talk page. I would also request that you amend they don't want anything linking to Bailey because of a 'Streisand effect'
to better reflect what I actually said in
that comment, where I actually expressed caution over not wanting to fulfil Bailey's Twitter expressed desire to "Streisand this thing". Thanks.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 01:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for giving the page some attention, really appreciate it. Please don't take my revert as criticism of or opposition to the clean up you're doing overall. lizthegrey ( talk) 00:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed your tactful responses to new editors at Talk:Andrew D. Huberman. I would like to invite you to have a look at what's going on at Talk:Lex Fridman where there has been similarly significant influx of inexperience, POV pushing editors. AncientWalrus ( talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Just for the record, I just wanted to make clear that being that he happens to be a centre-right voice from the United Kingdom (England, to be more precise), I felt as though my revisions to that end were justified. Sorry for the circular reasoning there. Do you understand now? Thank you. NavyBlueSunglasses ( talk) 05:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
You reverted edits and reorganized the remaining information of what I added to the Lex Fridman Podcast section of Fridman's wiki page.
Why?
You didn't discuss your reasoning in the talk page (a talk page was already created for that specific edit). That information I added was all sourced to reliable sources. There was no original research. There was no editorializing. I added relevant and notable information about Fridman's podcast. Uhhhum ( talk) 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
“with an emphasis on empathy and compassion for whomever he interviews”comes across too MOS:FLOWERY and promotional for encyclopaedia. You have also attributed things to the people who said them now, which is better. Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at John Money. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Des Vallee ( talk) 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
"Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack", so I'd ask you to read what I wrote carefully and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. It's starting to look like tendentious editing (misrepresenting sources, restoring disputed content, ignoring guidelines and then accusing me of attacking you) and I'd rather resolve things nicely. Zenomonoz ( talk) 22:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Zenomonoz, I was about to notify you, but you're already aware – all right ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm new to editing in Wikipedia and would like to discuss with you why you reverted my edit on the Alex Epstein page. Why do you prefer the sentence as is, compared to my revision? And when you stated that it would be your second and last attempt to revert me, was that a threat, or did you just mean that you do not care so much?
Thanks, B Brendanc12 ( talk) 05:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
It is evident from Epstein's own writings that he does not reject that climate change is progressing and human causedfrom your edit summary, I think WP:MANDY applies. This is also discussed over on the fringe theories noticeboard under the Alex Epstein topic, linked on your own talk page. Zenomonoz ( talk) 05:22, 27 November 2023 (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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, Zenomonoz, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see that after quite a long break you have once again become an active editor and that you now intend to devote more of your editing time to writing about women scientists. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our Primer. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Saw your post at ANI. Thanks for standing up against the worst kind of disruption. Know that it's appreciated. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hi, this [2] edit is in violation of WP:BLPREMOVE and if you do not restore it and discuss, I will put it to WP:ANI. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thank you for the constructive dialog about how to edit Heiner Rindermann. You may be interested to know that he has made controversial statements about immigrants to Germany. These statements could be construed as racist, and were repudiated by some of his colleagues. [3] (All this, and more, is discussed in the German language wikipedia page: I read it using computer translation.) In my view, these statements, and his reaction to the criticism, are far more revealing than the fact that he once published in some anthropology journal which used to put out racist trash in the Jim Crow era (and might still put out racist trash, I've no idea). Nangaf ( talk) 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I edited John Money's wikipedia article to reflect his Ethnic background accurately, and sourced an Obituary written for his own Family by a professional writer in 2006. When he died. Why did you remove this?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-006-9132-5 50.115.92.236 ( talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ Zenomonoz. Your recent edits suggest you may be involved in a WP:COI and partaking in WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTADVERT. Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV and does not permit whitewashing. We report everything there is to report on a person. Trying to obfuscate this process will result in an opened case at the Administrators' Noticeboard for you. FeldmarschallGneisenau ( talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. The specific paragraph in that document making reference to a birth name was written by the individual who opened the DNI case... the journalist Julia Black. That is not acceptable at all for confirming or proving his birth name. It isn't the same as the government confirming his birth name. If this alleged birth name was mentioned in a reliable independent secondary source, then the name can be used. Julia Black did not include it in her eventual Insider piece, and I cannot find any that do. Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hello, Zenomonoz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " HiSmile".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Beast and Five Thirty Eight are not appropriate sources for an article on moral panic: as I noted on the talk page, we have generally required scholarly sources that can draw from Stanley Cohen's work, not just mass-media articles that use the phrase "moral panic". This is because the article is on a scholarly topic in sociology. Similarly, the pedophilia section is WP:SYNTH, and again has insufficient sourcing with no reference to the sociological concept of moral panic. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 15:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Will you please strike the "personal motive"
aspersion that you made in
this comment? That is completely uncalled for on an article talk page. I would also request that you amend they don't want anything linking to Bailey because of a 'Streisand effect'
to better reflect what I actually said in
that comment, where I actually expressed caution over not wanting to fulfil Bailey's Twitter expressed desire to "Streisand this thing". Thanks.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 01:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for giving the page some attention, really appreciate it. Please don't take my revert as criticism of or opposition to the clean up you're doing overall. lizthegrey ( talk) 00:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed your tactful responses to new editors at Talk:Andrew D. Huberman. I would like to invite you to have a look at what's going on at Talk:Lex Fridman where there has been similarly significant influx of inexperience, POV pushing editors. AncientWalrus ( talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Just for the record, I just wanted to make clear that being that he happens to be a centre-right voice from the United Kingdom (England, to be more precise), I felt as though my revisions to that end were justified. Sorry for the circular reasoning there. Do you understand now? Thank you. NavyBlueSunglasses ( talk) 05:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
You reverted edits and reorganized the remaining information of what I added to the Lex Fridman Podcast section of Fridman's wiki page.
Why?
You didn't discuss your reasoning in the talk page (a talk page was already created for that specific edit). That information I added was all sourced to reliable sources. There was no original research. There was no editorializing. I added relevant and notable information about Fridman's podcast. Uhhhum ( talk) 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
“with an emphasis on empathy and compassion for whomever he interviews”comes across too MOS:FLOWERY and promotional for encyclopaedia. You have also attributed things to the people who said them now, which is better. Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at John Money. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Des Vallee ( talk) 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
"Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack", so I'd ask you to read what I wrote carefully and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. It's starting to look like tendentious editing (misrepresenting sources, restoring disputed content, ignoring guidelines and then accusing me of attacking you) and I'd rather resolve things nicely. Zenomonoz ( talk) 22:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Zenomonoz, I was about to notify you, but you're already aware – all right ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm new to editing in Wikipedia and would like to discuss with you why you reverted my edit on the Alex Epstein page. Why do you prefer the sentence as is, compared to my revision? And when you stated that it would be your second and last attempt to revert me, was that a threat, or did you just mean that you do not care so much?
Thanks, B Brendanc12 ( talk) 05:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
It is evident from Epstein's own writings that he does not reject that climate change is progressing and human causedfrom your edit summary, I think WP:MANDY applies. This is also discussed over on the fringe theories noticeboard under the Alex Epstein topic, linked on your own talk page. Zenomonoz ( talk) 05:22, 27 November 2023 (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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, Zenomonoz, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see that after quite a long break you have once again become an active editor and that you now intend to devote more of your editing time to writing about women scientists. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our Primer. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Saw your post at ANI. Thanks for standing up against the worst kind of disruption. Know that it's appreciated. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
Hi, this [2] edit is in violation of WP:BLPREMOVE and if you do not restore it and discuss, I will put it to WP:ANI. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thank you for the constructive dialog about how to edit Heiner Rindermann. You may be interested to know that he has made controversial statements about immigrants to Germany. These statements could be construed as racist, and were repudiated by some of his colleagues. [3] (All this, and more, is discussed in the German language wikipedia page: I read it using computer translation.) In my view, these statements, and his reaction to the criticism, are far more revealing than the fact that he once published in some anthropology journal which used to put out racist trash in the Jim Crow era (and might still put out racist trash, I've no idea). Nangaf ( talk) 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I edited John Money's wikipedia article to reflect his Ethnic background accurately, and sourced an Obituary written for his own Family by a professional writer in 2006. When he died. Why did you remove this?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-006-9132-5 50.115.92.236 ( talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello @ Zenomonoz. Your recent edits suggest you may be involved in a WP:COI and partaking in WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTADVERT. Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV and does not permit whitewashing. We report everything there is to report on a person. Trying to obfuscate this process will result in an opened case at the Administrators' Noticeboard for you. FeldmarschallGneisenau ( talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. The specific paragraph in that document making reference to a birth name was written by the individual who opened the DNI case... the journalist Julia Black. That is not acceptable at all for confirming or proving his birth name. It isn't the same as the government confirming his birth name. If this alleged birth name was mentioned in a reliable independent secondary source, then the name can be used. Julia Black did not include it in her eventual Insider piece, and I cannot find any that do. Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Zenomonoz ( talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging