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)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
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.
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.
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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.
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)[reply]
Sorry, but I had to post here, that talk page is locked, dude, WP:activists did that better to control the party line about the pandemic. wikipedia has a lot of egg on its face for the politics it has played the last few years. cheers 2603:8001:9500:9E98:6903:3D2E:DA7B:305A (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Great start, I'll try and contribute as I am available. Might be a longer term effort that needs extra help (many hands, light work), but certainly helpful. Will probably want to include non-MEDLINE at some point, with the recognition that they're not as reliable as MEDLINE. Both because they may be useful sources of information (even if we need to cross-check them with others), but also because if nearly all info on a particular hypothesis ends up in these journals that's a pretty strong signal of being WP:FRINGE/ALT. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@CutePeach: I do not think you're a bad actor. I think your heart is in the right place, but you're still a little new on Wiki which can lead to reverts and disagreements on a contentious issue like this. Definitely not the kind of 'bad actor' I'm referring to. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm saying you (and other editors like you) end up having to deal with the blowback from other editors that share your viewpoint, but behave inappropriately (accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being CCP agents, off-wiki harassment, absolute refusal to build consensus, sock-puppeting, etc). Those truly problematic editors cause significantly less trust for other WP:SPAs, which was the issue I was replying to so I could express my agreement with. 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 will admit to being a bit confused why you came to this presumption now, nearly two months after that original discussion. Particularly since if you look above in the ANI, I was explicitly in support of including the WP:FRINGE/ALT POV in the proper context. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply sir. The reason I requested this clarification is because we discussed a few edit proposals which you didn’t respond to, so I assumed you thought I was one of those bad actors. Let me respond to your other comments later. CutePeach (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Valereee: No worries, I get it. Personally, I'm more concerned with the tone used in comments directed towards you, than the lack of notification (to the best of my knowledge, noticeboard notification isn't required). I was under the impression I had satisfied his concerns about the article (IMO, very minor), which is what I see the noticeboard as being for. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I came to the board was someone came into the article and removed three paragraphs. When I questioned it, they mentioned the discussion, and when I got there I was like, wut? This has been going on for over a week?! :D I'm thinking maybe FTN should recommend notifying unless there's a good reason (like expected canvassing) not to? —valereee (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I would expect a link to the noticeboard to be unnecessary in most instances. If editors are engaging in discussion and consensus building when necessary, then there shouldn't be brigading concerns. But this is also a relatively atypical case in that usually articles are ones with high degrees of disruptive or problematic editing, rather than well intentioned editing. The proposer only made one talk page comment, and nothing on the article itself, making it extra strange. Long story short, in general I don't think talk page notification for the FTN would be a good mandate, but in a case like this of mere conceptual content disagreements rather than serious policy issues, it should happen. I'll keep an eye out for this kind of thing in the future if articles seem less like a magnet for POV-pushers and more like an article that needs to help. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Useful info about Bloom preprint from TWIV episode 774
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)
C) some paraphrasing I did off-hand while listening:
1. It isn’t really that unusual to delete things from this database. The authors of the original study are correct that it’s redundant and unwieldy and unnecessary to keep sequences on the SRA. Most groups don’t post on the SRA at all.
2. Because it’s nanopore it’s not ideal for phylogenetic analysis but it doesn’t preclude the utility of it. What phylogenetics tells us is in Point 6. But as to whether this preprint is a bombshell about the early outbreak, it really is not.
3. The table 1 of the final paper from this group contains everything you need to reconstruct the sequences. So Bloom really isn't finding much of anything here.
4. The journal they published in is an appropriate journal for this, it has an impact factor larger than the top 3 virology journals combined. It’s a specialized diagnostics journal which is exactly the venue for this type of research. It is not "hidden" by any means.
5. The data as it stands is very suggestive that MULTIPLE wet markets appear to be the introduction point into Wuhan, consistent with the "circulation not point event" hypothesis.
6. There very likely were multiple abortive (not successful) introductions of the virus into humans from animals, and then one or several appear to have been successful, starting the overall outbreak. But focusing on one single "patient zero" is not justifiable at this point.
Anyway, hope this is helpful! Keep up the good wiki-ing.
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)[reply]
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.
I prefer to keep this case going, as I think it's a pretty cut and dried issue of ONUS and BRD. I wouldn't be opposed of you thought tenditious editing was worth bringing up. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
RE: Query about RSN CENT on COVID sourcing
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_C13:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Thank you, and no worries. I was expecting it would probably be best to postpone filing, although I would intend to workshop such a proposal around before filing to attempt to get more valuable input from such a question. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: This was the impression of Colin as well, and I don't disagree. If I submit such a request, (and I'm not certain I will, especially if there's not an appetite for it) I'd be seeking buy-in from multiple parties to refine the request, and attempt to make a generic request rather than one solely focused on COVID. Maybe it's not practical to expect, but I'm willing to give it a try in the hopes one large argument discussion helps us avoid repeating it ad infinitum. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please please please do not make generic source guideline clarification RFCs, especially when we all know you and everyone likely to respond is fully focused on how that affects Wikipedia's reporting of covid controversies. We need another large argument like we need a hole in our heads. These RFCs not not just ineffective, but actually harming the project. We are still dealing with misinformation about the last time, with editors claiming "MEDRS does not apply". By doing this you are kinda feeding the troll. We really do have enough guidelines and policy already to answer any question you might have. In 20 years, these GAP pages have not suddenly become murky and vague. It isn't like you are having a similar problem on lung cancer or weight loss, etc: I can see your contribs!
There is a specific behavioural problem wrt covid articles and it is not solved by bigger and bigger content/sourcing RFCs any more than the little old lady solved her problems by swallowing a horse. As I've noted before, there are thousands of covid related pages on Wikipedia. There are not thousands of pages about strokes, but they kill many many more people each year. It is a peculiar topic.
If you have questions or cannot resolve a dispute, come to WT:MED with a clear proposal of what you (or someone else) wants to write, where they want to write it, and what source(s) they want to use. Without all those, the answer is very much likely to be "Well, it depends..." and that isn't the sort of answer an RFC gives you. -- Colin°Talk15:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Miscapitalization of SARS‑CoV‑2
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)[reply]
Yes, Bakkster Man, his capitalization change is definitely the right call science-wise. I would also say it qualifies as "minor." FYI, Wbm1058: from WP:INVOLVED: (emphasis mine)
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.
To clarify, my concern was not with the copy-edit in isolation. It was the combination of raising the concern over another admin's minor edit being involved, and having made a similarly minor edit themselves. It raised an eyebrow for me because I'm struggling to come up with a good-faith explanation for the behavior: if wbm1058 knows it's minor then they raised an unreasonable (and biased) concern, if they didn't know then they should have disclosed upon other admins being made aware. I'm hoping there's a reasonable explanation and I'm just on overly-high alert, I just need help to understand it. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: Per comment at AR/E, this did not resolve my concern. We can discuss here to keep word count down. Also, let me know if you would like me to trim my AR/E comments to remain under 500-word limit, if trimming (or moving to the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" section) the GS/ArbCom quotes is sufficient, and if I would need to use strikethrough for any edits. Thanks. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WHO Report
Better placed on article talk
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)[reply]
@LondonIP: Honestly, without another major development, I doubt an RfC is going to change anything. If you think there has been a major shift, feel free to submit one, but I don't have high hopes. In my view unless/until the WHO retracts the first report or publishes the follow-up through SAGO, it remains their official position; and the content discussion should be about how we cover notable dissention rather than whether the report is still official. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the WHO should retract the report to avoid this uncertainty, but that's not up to us encyclopedians to decide. We must acknowledge uncertainty when and where it exists, as it does with this report and has done from the time it was first published. Sources report the WHO DG faulted the report as soon as it came out, disbanded the team that produced it, and is in the process of forming a new team, which will reportedly investigate the lab leak as possibility. Sources also report the mission chief saying they were pressured to drop the lab leak theory from their report. All of this makes it very hard for our readers to believe the report remains the WHO's current position, but we should leave it to them to decide. I suggest we work on updating the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 with SacrificialPawn’s sources. LondonIP (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LondonIP: I do not agree that the WHO should retract the report. I do agree that its not up to us encyclopedians to decide if 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),,[reply]
I have a POV that the WHO should retract its report, and you have a POV that they needn't do so, but we must agree on a NPOV. Given the statements we have from the WHO DG, WHO mission chief and other WHO member states about the report, I have NPOV concerns about the way we describe it. I would propose that we conduct a media analysis, gathering all RS covering the WHO report, in order to determine how best to describe it. We could do this on the Investigations page, or create a new page on the report itself, as there is so much to cover, separate of SAGO and the lab leak theory. LondonIP (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LondonIP: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.
Like I said, I'm in favor of presenting notable critiques of the WHO report. On the Investigations article we already provide most of them. Don't let me stop you from finding more, but I think it's a problem if you start reading too much into them. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have expressed a POV that the WHO-convened report remains the WHO's official position [5][6][7][8], despite the WHO DG and mission chief noting significant problems with it, and disbanding the team. I will prepare a full list of sources on the WHO report here, and I will propose that we go with what the bulk of sources say, for an accurate summary in the lead of the Joint WHO-China Study article and WHO section of the Investigations article. We should also create an article on the WHO Constitution, as it will be a factor in deciding how to weigh the WHO DG's comments. LondonIP (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LondonIP: The DG accepted the report, and hasn't yet rescinded it. It's official until he decides otherwise. If you want to push your POV, good luck making your case, but I think we're done here. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
actually we have had several RfCs and broader discussions about how to describe it, refer to it, etc. See the consensus template and the extensive talk archives of the "investigations" wiki page, where we have talked about it quite a lot, and consensus emerged on several fronts. We have a pretty rough consensus that it is the standing way to understand the WHO's position, and that it should be referred to as the "WHO report." I really have no idea what you're talking about re: China and the CCP, and any vague aspersions about "CCP involvement" have no place here. Either back up accusations/suspicions, or strike those comments. Thanks. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)04:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of how we refer to it by name is a really trivial point, which is why I didn’t include that RFC n my links above. Gimiv (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many discussions about how to handle it. Can we please have this discussion somewhere other than my Talk page, please? If LondonIP wants to submit an RfC, he should do that. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did not mean to imply the editors I had mentioned were giving support to the PRC. I was commenting on the irony that they had adopted a position on the origin of Covid very similar to the current line being taken by the PRC. It shows the peculiar positions people sometimes get into when they form a view at the beginning of a complicated event and do not change it as the sources change. As for wording, WP editors tend to have fixed ideas about very small variations in this sort of question, and I have seen altogether too many editors get into trouble insisting on a preferred form or a preferred article title or descriptive phrase.
Getting such questiions confused with the very serious real issue of apparent CCP influence on the Chinese WP is ridiculous. I do not use the term lightly, but ascribing our coverage of this to the CCP influence is practically a conspiracy theory. At some point in the future I may discuss apparent motivations somewhere, in an impersonal way. This will not be among the possibilities. -- DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would take issue with the idea that editors opinions/views have not changed as the sources have changed. Such users' views have changed in my estimation, in concert with the academic sources, which is to say, not a huge shift. And not as much as the popular press. But this is indeed what I would want for Wikipedia. The project is a slow enterprise, not meant to switch back and forth with the more quickly changing winds of the news media. That's why the entire project prefers academic sources to news ones. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)19:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Started RSN on Skeptical Inquirer and other CFI Sources
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 quiteaggressive towards me so I'll let a braver editor do that. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk20:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
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.
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.
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)[reply]
I see this subject never got addressed by the usual prolific editors in the area, even when pinged... I was expecting objections around DUEness but that never happened and you supported the DUEness---maybe you could humor me, what do you find about the Iceland herd immunity decision that's notable in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic article? I'm still learning and trying to understand how best to edit. Any insight into why other editors would choose not to engage? The silence is somewhat deafening. SmolBrane (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just burnout. The topic area has been incredibly heated for a very long time, and a look at the DS enforcement log shows it. And this topic is close enough to the most contentious bit (outside of the lab leak scenarios) that people are probably wary that it'll reignite those arguments. It's part of why I haven't put the time into looking through your draft; I don't want to gloss over anything lest it provoke another argument, but I'm too tired to give it the attention it deserves. Hopefully I'll feel up to it after Easter. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. I haven't allocated much time to editing myself so I can hardly fault others for the same! I suspect forthcoming commentary from Iceland and their relative successes or failures will help the matter. SmolBrane (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why sources only come out at AfD
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)[reply]
@Asilvering: I appreciate the context around the cleanup backlog, and feel it's a reasonable explanation. In the case of The Cosmic Serpent (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence in Nature) my concern is not merely that the sources weren't identified and added prior to AfD, it's that the people identifying these sources for the AfD discussion hadn't used them to improve the article. That work does appear to be underway, now.
Beyond that, the WP:FRINGE concerns (the subtext of my original concern, and under active discussion since I last visited the AfD) are really where I feel that an uncritical stub article on a fringe topic is unsuitable to remain an article. The smaller and more niche the article, the more susceptible the article to WP:NPOV-violating edits (because only a dozen editors ever see it). You seem to be arguing solely that the books are notable using typical criteria, while I agree with ජපස that WP:NFRINGE places a higher threshold for fringe topics (as 'ayahuasca hallucinations can advance scientific understanding' clearly is) receiving their own article.
To tie this all back together, my interpretation of the above is it's not truly generally notable if it has only received credulous coverage. That would be fringe notability, not general, and fringe notability is by definition not WP:NPOV. Hope that helps explain my view. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No point in using them to improve the article if it might be deleted anyway! Though I share your irritation at the idea of people bringing up sources at AfD and never adding them to the article at any point. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SCPdude629: No source to my knowledge, which is why I reverted your edit instead of adding a source. The WHO would be the most likely authority we would follow, and they do not appear to have determined an end, even though in most of the world it is less of a crisis than before. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SCPdude629: My advice would be to not edit COVID-19 articles, or other topics under discretionary sanctions, until you gain some more experience in less contentious areas. If you don't know how to evaluate sources for reliability, and add your personal opinion before validating with sources, you're probably only going to get yourself in trouble in areas with sanction that are less forgiving of problematic edits. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
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.
@Shibbolethink: I'll try and dig in this weekend. I don't think there's need for a major rush, and I definitely want to dig into the COMPAS one, as that's more in my area of expertise and I'm not getting red flags from the initial description. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think actually I agree with the fundamental reporting in that situation, but I also recognize their response was probably inadequate there, too. They failed to respond effectively to the statistical arguments and the ones made by the WaPo folks. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed they took what seemed to be good fundamental factfinding, and used "plausible" but non-concrete translations to reach what came across as a firm conclusion rather than merely raising it as similarly "plausible". That said, maybe I'm coloring my perception on the credulous reader reaction more than the original article, so I'll go back and reread. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, i think you’re right that if this keeps happening, it’ll be unavoidable to show how they keep getting the science wrong. I’d hoped it was a fluke — Shibbolethink(♔♕)18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership of articles
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)[reply]
Freoh, I'd rather you WP:DONTTEMPLATE, and we just continue our talk page discussion. I suspect that will have a better chance at being productive than a vague reference to WP:OWN.
I would have preferred . . . that you came back to the Talk page prior to simply re-adding it
As per WP:BRD, 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)[reply]
@Freoh: I'm surprised you believe this rises to the level of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. If it helps to clarify, this is just my friendly recommendation as a veteran editor, rather than any kind of ultimatum. Nor was it my intent to disrupt the (optional) BRD cycle by recommending spending additional effort on discussion.
I think we're mostly agreed on the content concerns for the article, and I think with time we'll be able to improve it. I'm worried you might be getting interpreted as more forceful or aggressive in your comments and edits than you intend to. Text-only formats are especially hard to interpret tone, which may be contributing here. Again, just an impression from a veteran editor who has had to work hard to make sure how I write does not get interpreted with too aggressive of a tone, and looking at the warnings on your talk page I worry you might end up with a formal complaint and sanction in the future. Only you know your intentions and are able to do the self-reflection to know if my impression is right or not, but I'm hoping for many years of collaborative editing in the future. Feel free to reach out in the future if you need anything. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I know I'm very direct, and I guess directness combined with passion can come across as aggression over text. Your comments have helped me to better understand where you're coming from, even if I do disagree on the minor points. Freoh (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Freoh: Exactly, I've found it helps to try to attempt to be as conciliatory as possible, even (especially!) when I think the other party doesn't deserve it. Wikipedia is all about consensus and working together, and trying to force the 'right' thing tends to backfire. And I've lost count of how many times I've managed to improve an article when evaluating even bad suggestions, which is a good motivator for me to keep up the collaborative attitude (especially since the policies and guidelines tend to support that, unlike other regions of the internet). And yeah, keeping in mind that we're disagreeing on fine points, rather than the overarching idea, makes it even easier to work together and come up with the best solution for the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
