Hey mate, I see you undid my edit because it didn't read as encyclopedic, which I agree with. As I mentioned on the talk page, I'm struggling with the wording. Is there any way you could help me out with this one to make it sound better? And to address WP:SYN, the paragraph is entirely cited by the first reference, so it was not synthesis on my part. The other three references were simply to provide additional verification. Thank you in advance for your help. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been busy this last week, so I didn't have time to dedicate to this. At the moment, I've removed it from the article again, and will bring it up on the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite13:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I never claimed the rules agree with me, this whole time I have asked others to point out a specific rule I may have overlooked or not known about. You entered into the talk page discussion later, misinterpreted my intentions multiple times (I wanted to describe antifa as “left to far left” not just as “far left”) have not given me a valid reason beyond your own personal opinion as to why all my sources aren’t allowed, then you quoted the consensus at me and when I pointed out that consensus is not simply a popular vote, you accused me of wikilawyering. You also mentioned multiple times that you have been an editor here longer to me in what I now assume to be some sort of way to intimidate a newer/less experienced editor. Good faith is indeed running out and I will seek arbitration if you continue to treat me like this. Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
If by "arbitration" you mean WP:ARBCOM, you're barking up the wrong tree. They won't touch a simple dispute like this. And if you drag this over to WP:ANI, I expect you'll be excoriated. This isn't going to go the way you want. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite18:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I have attempted to engage with you in a civil manner and in good faith, I’ve asked to to stop treating me this way, and now I will request assistance in dealing with your behavior towards me. Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing all the side effects I add
It's pointless it's literally confirmed side effects why do I need the source? It's already listed to cause delirium and hallucinations on the page, and muscle spasms are a most definite effect and isn't surprising either given it affects the muscles and can cause rhambodylosis, same with the 'electric muscle shocks'. I feel like your removing whatever I add just to fuck with me ngl.
Almost any 1st generation antihistamine will do this (hallucinations, muscle spasms, etc) Doxylamine (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Second, it's a bit weird that you picked that particular medicine to name yourself after & go editing the page.
Finally, yes, you do need reliable sources to add things like that. I did miss the cite for delirium on the page, my mistake. But muscle spasms definitely need a cite before addition. Medical topics are especially strict on this, see WP:MEDRS. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I actually support the deletion that you reverted on March 14th. Opinion articles from Daily Beast and Vox are not enough to support the idea that QAnon is a "Satanic panic", and the Guardian article really only suggests that QAnon "borrows" from the Satanic panic. There are significant enough differences between the two topics that I think the connection should simply be treated with a "See also" link. (Satanic panic was an explicitly religious "spiritual warfare" movement, for example.) I could maybe tolerate keeping this tiny paragraph as is, if it had authoritative scholarly cites, because I can see the argument for drawing a connection; but then again, having the paragraph remain suggests that ANY movement that borrows from the US Satanic panic should get its own paragraph - and then the article can blow up with tangentials. I think the deleter was right to do a trim. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I’m sorry I don’t understand how you can deal with me like this when the comment was referring to people as loonies, amongst other unsubstantiated derogatory expressions. Can I ask how old you are? I’m 45. My comment was a mature adult responding to the nature of the inappropriate and unhelpful comment above. There is a whole contingent out there dropping these bullying tropes disrespecting others. Your response doesn’t seem to make any sense nor does it seem professional. What difference does it make when that comment was left. It’s still there. It’s still horribly rude and bullying based on total ignorance. There was no speculation on other editors state of mind. There was a statement about what certain behaviours are linked to. I’m completely shocked at your picking on my comment and leaving the one above. I don’t see what value you think you’re bringing here. You’re just trying to silence people and support bullies. It’s wrong. Mcnaugha (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) On Wikipedia, it's OK to criticize sources as part of a discussion about how best to improve the article or which potential sources qualify as reliable or unreliable based on our policies. This is especially important in the case of articles about WP:FRINGE subjects where evaluating the mainstream position vs the fringe position requires a fair amount of input from experienced editors. So criticizing sources, e.g. www.thunderbolts.info, Worlds In Collision, Chariots Of The Gods, etc., as part of a discussion is OK. But it's not OK to criticize the personality of other editors, e.g. calling them a bully who suffers from insecurity and phobia. That is a personal attack. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Wholly disagree. It is not ok to call people loonies or make those other derogatory comments. That isn't criticism. It's a personal attack. To say otherwise is to have a biased and unscientific agenda. In developed countries, we recognise this as suppression of free speech and we know where it leads us.
If that guy was an experienced editor, his comment does nothing to qualify him. That behaviour totally lacks credibility. If that's all someone has to say then they shouldn't say it at all and it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.
Again, at no point did I call anyone anything. I stated behaviour patterns and their likely cause. A grown-up would have seen that. I can only assume you guys are just kids on a power trip. Seen it all before. You eventually get banned by actual Wikipedia staff. Mcnaugha (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I'm 47. And I'm going to be blunt: You responded to a year old post in order to attack the other person's mental state. There is nothing about that which is "mature," and frankly you need to step back and reconsider what you're fighting over.
I stated behaviour patterns and their likely cause.
Don't. You don't get to speculate on other people's mental health. Full stop.
The only one likely to get banned here is you. Stop speculating on other editor's motives and pay attention to the post dates so you don't dredge up old issues. Just because you took offense, it does not give you carte blanche to be insulting right back. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I will say for the final time, I did not speculate on other people’s mental health and you saying that I am is slander.
You’ve just admitted that the original comment was offensive and yet you’re doing nothing about it. I could respect you if you were dealing with it but clearly you support that kind of behaviour which invalidates everything else you say. You’re just attacking me. You are behaving like another bully. A self-righteous, fascist bully. Mcnaugha (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
And just for the record: your comment It’s bullying, which in turn is a sign of insecurity and phobia is absolutely speculating on someone's mental health. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know I appreciated the message you left on my talk page. You seem to be coming at it from a sense of impartiality, which I appreciate. I totally understand why most administrators are sick and tired of music genre arguments, especially something seemingly so trivial as whether this or that is a genre or subgenre of this or that genre or subgenre. And I think your suggestion of taking a short break is wise. But I would contend that however tired and uninterested administrators have grown of such arguments, Wikipedia's commitment to a neutral point of view requires administrators to actually consider the strength of the opposing arguments rather than automatically coming down on the side of the defender of the status quo.
In my initial talk page post, it is true, I did not specifically refer to any sources, but rather the larger body of source material on synth-pop as a whole. I have, in fact, read a great deal about the genre, including passages from the sources cited on Wikipedia, and later on in the talk page discussion you will see that I cite some of these as well as other references. While the sources don't repeat word for word the phrase "synth-pop is a genre/subgenre of pop/popular music", that's because they're more interested in an actual discussion of the music and its history than offering simple definitions. If they are read with any context at all, or a basic understanding of what popular/pop music is, it is utterly obvious that the authors consider synth-pop as belonging to the pop category. All that UserFlash reveals by denying these sources is that he has not actually read or understood them himself. One of the sources, though, does in fact have as a "working definition" of synth-pop "popular songs with prominent synthesizer instrumentation", so even by his own standards UserFlash's position is senseless. His insistence on reverting anything that might contradict his beloved AllMusic source is asinine and, along with his refusal to respond on the talk page without continuing to parrot this one source, are the actual cause of the edit war. And, of course, there is his refusal to even consider compromise or allow past any sources besides AllMusic; if you look at the edit history of the page, you'll see that I made a number of edits attempting, in one way or another, to complicate the simple "subgenre of new wave" claim via compromise, such as describing it as a "subgenre of new wave music or genre of electronic dance music/pop music/popular music". But nothing would do besides his own way.
And the reason, finally, why any of this matters is that only relying on the AllMusic source for the claim that "synth-pop is a subgenre of new wave music" is misleading, ahistorical, and slanted. Wikipedia should not be pushing a certain version of contested history, when a great number of sources on synth-pop make no reference of new wave music whatsoever; none of the sources, however, would disagree on synth-pop's status (like that of all rock and pop genres) as a form of popular music. Currently, the English page discounts all other perspectives besides a certain American one, and erases the actual history behind the genre in favor of a disputed narrative. Considering Wikipedia's popularity and mass usage around the world, this matters as a point of the historical record. As I already noted on the talk page, the French and German pages make no such claim about synth-pop's relation to new wave, and in England itself (where most synth-pop was produced), as past talk page discussions reveal, the genre was considered quite separate from the New Wave. Thus, I think it's crucial that an administrator step in and do the right thing, however loath one may be to involve oneself in genre wars, for the sake of Wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedia and the preservation of the historical record.
@Janglyguitars: So, I'm going to make a couple points from what you said, and explain why they fall afoul of Wikipedia policy & norms.
neutral point of view requires administrators to actually consider the strength of the opposing arguments
No, NPOV is meant for weighing the sources to present the most accurate summary of what those sources say.
I have, in fact, read a great deal about the genre
This is precisely why we don't take such arguments into account. It's an argument from authority, or in Wikipedia terms, original research. We can't just take an editor's word for something, we need cites to consider the argument valid.
All that UserFlash reveals by denying these sources is that he has not actually read or understood them himself.
And that's a valid debate on the talk page, but be careful it doesn't devolve into personal attacks, or you'll wind back up in the same situation you were just in.
the French and German pages make no such claim about synth-pop's relation to new wave
We do not consider what other language Wikis do, because they have different rules than the English wiki. Some of them are more strict on sourcing, some are very lax. We just do our own thing.
I think it's crucial that an administrator step in and do the right thing
Admins do not use their tools to settle a content dispute. You'll have to provide sourcing and convince people to make the changes. If you find the debate is at a stalemate, there are dispute resolution systems such as third opinion requests or submitting a request for comment.
I get that you're convinced you're right. But you're going to have to accept you can't just force your changes into an article. You're going to need to provide sourcing & a convincing argument that changes the consensus around the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite14:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Notice
Hello Handthatfeeds,
Thank you for processing this case. I just wanted to bring up that I never accused the user of a nationalistic POV in this case, I've shown that he often reverts edits without discussing and even provided evidence. I, of course, respect your decision. Thank you AlexBachmann (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I had taken the page off my Watchlist, as I'm tired of arguing with people pushing their POV. My contribution to the RfC will likely be my last post there for quite a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite09:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Inline-Zitat bezüglich Einzel-Nachweis vom 2023-07-17
Es ist einer der relevantesten [Forschungs]Schwerpunkte der Zukunft im Interesse jedes einzelnen heutiger & künftiger Generationen, insbesondere im Interesse von Teenagern & ihren Angehörigen:
Bitte für obengenannten Einzelnachweis "Trans ist Trend: ..." NIUS / Youtube entsprechendes Inline-Zitat setzen im Text-Teil 'Weitere Forschung' ('Further research') hinter " ... demographic cohort." [53] & am Ende hinter " inconsistent with the social contagion hypothesis " [54] .
Ergänzend sei angemerkt, daß der englische Text am Ende des Intro's abgeändert werden sollte: zumindest in deutscher Sprache ist die Translation hier nicht richtig mit ' likelihood & Infinitiv-to-Verb ( - > ... and ... by ... )' : " ... and likelihood to cause harm by ... care [2] [3] [4] [5] " DANKE
@Uazt: This is the English Wikipedia. You are expected to be capable of using English when contributing here. If you cannot, please stick to German Wikipedia.
Dies ist die englische Wikipedia. Es wird erwartet, dass Sie in der Lage sind, Englisch zu sprechen, wenn Sie hier Beiträge leisten. Wenn das nicht möglich ist, bleiben Sie bitte bei der deutschen Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite09:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi The Hand That Feeds You, I hope this message finds you well. I have a question regarding a controversial topic, although you mentioned that view of a community is irrelevant, which is understandable. But there are various reliable sources that present a different picture of a certain individual (Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale). Coming back to my original question, how does Wikipedia select one source and discards the other. I added the word community for a reason, the certain individual as mentioned before was a Sikh and is held in high regards by all Sikh people, searching him on the internet and finding the first link stating him as a 'militant' is just hurtful, using the word militant (Not True!) is more of a stereotype than a fact. Procrastinater (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
It's a community decision, based on discussion of how reliable sources are within their topic coverage. You can see how some sources are rejected (partly or entirely) by the broader Wikipedia community based on their reliability here: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources.
Things not in that list are usually smaller publications and discussed on the Talk page of the relevant article. But generally, niche publications or those related to specific groups are discarded as unreliable, because of their inherent bias towards subjects on that topic. If you believe a source is reliable, but others disagree, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a place to get a broader consensus.
I'm afraid whether a designation is "hurtful" to you is not relevant. You would need to provide enough reliable sources to show that the "militant" designation is not the most common view among independent, reliable sources. And that's a discussion for the article's Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
It is not fair at all, I am confused here as to what I have done wrong. Why am I being judged on the basis of someones behaviour? Am I meant to give up editing on East African issues? The resources this individual gave was absolutely shocking e.g. classroom handouts, is the board saying all my citations were the same as his so far? I asked you Bites to tell me where you thought the citations I provided on the discussion were all unreliable after my explanations, I did not get any response from anyone todate. Except that one editor confirmed that primary source can acctually be used in some situations, the comments are still there so what wrong have I done with my citations?
Do you know how many facts I brought in wikipedia which caused editors to start new wikipedia pages? Some of them have been grateful for the information I provided even though I was learning how to write on wikipedia. I do not see any justice in this second sanction, even the first one I was told to respond and when I obayed, I got sanctioned for doing so - where is the justice in this? The individual never went through my talk page, abused me, was agressive towards me, personally attacked me is now being judged same with me as if whatever they did, I also did the same things. I do not see any justification at all. I am actually very hurt.Ngunalik (talk)
The wikipeda ban allows me to make enquiry for CLARIFICATION about the ban itself we have both done it to get clarification, it allows me to ask for clarification about the scope of the ban. Besides, there is an ongoing proposal of a topic ban which unless you are saying I am not allowed to ask the forum to get any clarification about the scope of this second proposal too. If that is the case then let me know. Also @ARoseWolf my above comment was not for you, it was in relation to Bites statement, so I do not know why you are responding to it and not Bites Ngunalik (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Anyone is allowed to respond here, and ARoseWolf was being helpful. You were not asking about the scope of the interaction ban here, you were asking why you were being punished and invoked "the individual" and what he did. That's a violation of your topic ban, period. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
When have they sent us a note that I have already been banned in realtion to the topic ban? I am enquiring about it because I am awere that the proposal is still ongoing. So are you saying I am not allowed to enquire? In your comment Bites you made it look like we both behaved in the same way that is why the topic ban is for both. That is why I raised a question in C.Fred's talk. All three of you are giving me mixed messages. Are you saying because I posted evidence about onging research which is why I should be banned? I gave you the reasons in my response and said I have never cited a primary research. So from the remaining two references are you saying they are both unreliable? Ngunalik (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
There are two issues here:
1. There has already been a interaction ban place between you and Cookiemonster1618. That means you cannot either directly interact with them on articles or talk pages, or talk about them on other pages. Which is what you've been doing here and on C.Fred's page. You were not asking about the scope of the iban, you were explicitly claiming that you were being blamed for Cookiemonster's actions, which is not correct, and you are not supposed to discuss him anymore.
2. The topic ban discussion is still ongoing, and a different issue.
I believe you do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough to continue editing articles about Africa. The topic ban is to encourage you to find other areas of interest for now, and learn our policies so that we're not stuck in this situation explaining WP:RS to you over and over again. If you are topic banned, you can appeal it in 6 months after demonstrating your improvement in other areas of Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds wikipedia exceptions allows me to deal with this board when it comes to asking for ban clarifications, this is not a violation of the ban, I am literally confused due to the ongoing proposal. If you check what C.Fred gave me as a reason and what your analysis is saying, then these are two different things. I have a page I started in wikipedia called StGiNU. It has been there for years -lots of people have cited it due to the resources in there. I asked C.Fred would it apply to this, he said yes, I said is the board saying the sourcing there are all unreliable also? He said he has not checked it. So how do you want me to feel if you have also not checked my work on that page and have concluded that I do not know Afircan topics well enough?Ngunalik (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
They probably should have been told enough a lot sooner by someone but our better nature gets in our way all the time. I guess I shouldn't have hoped they would listen. I'm sorry if my comment further aggravated the situation here but thank you for recognizing it for what it was, a desire to help keep them from getting blocked. Cheers! --ARoseWolf16:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, your heart was in the right place. This was just someone unwilling to listen, someone so convinced they were right that they were just going to keep plowing forward regardless. It never hurts to try and educate, but as the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite22:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Just a thought
Consider whether this may be precisely the intended outcome of the bludgeoning. I would recommend simply scaling back your engagement, keeping an eye out for disruptive edits and avoiding responding to provocations, instead of taking the article off your watchlist. When engagement on the talkpage is necessary, it's often the case that one substantive response per discussion thread is enough to answer all legitimate concerns. Those three users have been opposed by many on pretty much everything they're trying to do, so there is really no danger of them pushing fringe views into article space –– unless they succeed in driving experienced editors away in frustration. Just my 2¢ anyway. Generalrelative (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I know that was the intent, but for my own stress levels, I'm out. Sennalen is the epitome of polite POV-pushing, but there's not enough evidence to take it to ANI, and I just need to step away for my own mental health. There's no reasoning with him her, he's she's been doing this shit for years, and it's going to keep happening, so I'm moving on to other topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of ongoing conversation is to identify the crux of disagreement so that a path to compromise can be found. When people are not direct and forthright in stating their objections, it takes much longer to identify that path. Sennalen (talk) 21:41, 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.
You indicate that I removed it without explaining why - then mentioned a reasoning that you disagreed with. So obviously there is some conflict in observation. Sure I could've made a talk page about it. However I was using the guidelines provided above. Particularly due to irrelevance, information that could've been substituted to another article, and dubious information and sourcing that was niche. There was no mistake in removal. I do not see any flaws with the edit summary provided as were provided within the content of the character allocation I was given. As it covers on the pointers, and anything it lacked, could've been easily inferred by its wording.
Furthermore by allowing tangential subjects as its own headers (in this case Gamergate), it would open the unnecessary need to bring about sub-sectioning for it in every facet of social commentary in a way that would be absurdist, and deriving of the page's history and intent, if you've looked at how drastically (and frivolously) the page has changed in the past 6 years. As the sources are indeed very loose, and only mention it as tiny footnotes in a much broader conspiracy of its own subset, one that frankly doesn't have much ado about anything in its outline. It would appear to me a lot of it was quite cherry-picked, tangential, and even in its own terms, quite very conflationary. Borifjiufchu (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
That was a template message. There is no conflict in observation, it was an attempt to be polite. You were removing text to right great wrongs rather than to comply with Wikipedia's rules. That's not going to fly.
There was no attempt to "right great wrongs" or professed subjective behavior that you are implying. So there is merely a failure in interpretation. There was no attempt to circumvent the rules, as the summary for the reasoning was valid, and so far there has been no discussion on said reasons for why you do not believe that it does not 'fly'. Borifjiufchu (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The idea that lines have to be drawn somewhere shows that you're editing based on personal beliefs, rather than facts. That's RGW and your reasoning was not valid. But again, take it to the Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite12:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a part of an edit summary, not a rendition implemented in the article. In that case any metaphor or flowery language might also be construed as non-negotiable, and would mean a total failure in human communication in the extremes you view it. But no it is not personal beliefs, and you hyperfocus on that one point beyond all others despite my repeated explanations and roundabout preceding that. Borifjiufchu (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, would you please giving me some detail about "kept forcing the content into the article against consensus"? As you can see from the edit history, Sol505000 has never raised any question about the denti-alveolar/alveolar difference until the day he did his last revert. How could it be "against consensus" when an objection has never been raised? Or what do you or Fences and windows (talk·contribs) believed that I did wrong? I cannot change my way of editing unless you explicitly tell me what part of my way of edit is inappropriate. Since my IP is unstable you may just reply here. Thank you and sorry for taking your time. 146.96.24.211 (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
It's against consensus when you keep repeatedly trying to force it into the article without reliable sources. You don't have to wait on other people to start the discussion, start it yourself on the article's Talk page. But you must bring in sources to support the change you want to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite12:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Quite. 146.96.24.211, stop these endless debates because they are original research. The analysis made by any Wikipedia editor, including me and you, on any subject is worthless for improving the encyclopedia. Go find sources that explicitly discuss the issue and then debate what they say. Fences&Windows19:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. But I had stopped active pushing the separation of the two sounds since November 8 because I didn't want to define the scope of rhotic and non-rhotic variants (which I knew is OR), but continued to mention the issue in the talk page because this article has some fundamental problem. My comments after Nov 8 are remotely related to the separation but more to some serious issues of the article which I'd mention later in WP:LING (I knew that doesn't help for characterizing rhotic sound but helps for closely-related problems).
But my question was bout the edit of the article not the talk page. This edit, except for the denti-alveolar issue that Sol5050000 never mentioned before (thus not avoidable), fully complied with WP:RS and WP:USEPRIMARY, and used <!-- --> for inline reference only due to technical issue. Nardog didn't have any problem with the addition if inline reference were given and Sol5050000 didn't even express any concern with the addition of Chinese - so how could my addition be "forcing the content into the article against consensus"? @JalenFolf: even claimed Rv more IP vandalism when reverting a possible vandalism, passively indicating that my edits were vandalism, but how could that be vandalism per Wikipedia policy? 146.96.28.10 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I believe you might have been confused on what I was asking. I wasn't talking about the content. I was talking about the procedure: I could only be "forcing the content into the article against consensus" if there was some sort of consensus on the talk page that I should not adding the Chinese examples based on the citation BLCU Centre for the Protection of Language Resources of China (2020), "Chinese Language Resources Protection Project Collection and Display Platform", National Language Affairs Committee {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) or if there was some consensus on the talk page about "dentialveolar approximant". However as you could see Nardog's concern with inline citation was solved on which Sol505000 didn't even have an opinion, that is, there was no acitve disagreement on the addition of those examples in the talk page, and neither Nardog nor Sol505000 had expressed any opinion on "dentialveolar approximant" by the time I did that edit. The entire discussion page was concerning the split of "rhotic" and "plain" variant which I didn't at all change in that edit. I am not asking for your opinion on the content of the article, or on whether that edit done by me should stay in the article or not. I am asking your opinion on why you believed that my edit was "forcing the content into the article against consensus", i.e. where was the consensus you were talking about. 146.96.29.146 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I thought I made it clear, I do not care to continue this conversation. Take your issues with the content to the article talk page. You're saying it's not about content, then go on a paragraph about the content in question. Do not post to my talk page again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite02:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds:: Hi there and merry Christmas! I'm just messaging as, quite a while ago now, you were party to the discussion about the COI editor Richard D. Gill who was reported on ANI for advocacy in trying to portray Lucy Letby as wrongfully convicted: [2]. As you absolutely correctly said at the time: Lucy Letby is convicted, therefore until such a conviction is overturned she is considered guilty by every reasonable standard. Reliable sources will refer to her as guilty per that conviction. The neutral thing in this case is to refer to her as guilty, as that is how the facts stand. Saying she might be innocent is speculative and goes against Wikipedia's standards and processes, see WP:CRYSTAL. By your reasoning, we could never call someone guilty because they "may" be innocent. I'm afraid that's just not going to fly, and you're going to have to accept that.
But now some editors want to replace the first line that says "British serial killer and former neonatal nurse" to "is a British former neonatal nurse, convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others". So basically, they want to get rid of her being called a serial killer, on various grounds including "I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer". But surely, the place we decide where someone is guilty of a crime is in court, and having been convicted it is perfectly reasonable to describe her as a murderer in Wikivoice? I might understand it more if there were massive and consistent doubts about her conviction, but there isn't any any such wider doubts.
What I also think is quite improper is that the whole debate was started when the already-blocked Richard Gill apparently appeared again(!) to evade his block and suggest the whole intro be changed to claim she is just an "alleged" killer: [3] - EXACTLY the same wording he'd suspiciously been asking for on his own Twitter account!: [4]. So basically a blocked advocacy editor has got some people persuaded that we shouldn't call her a killer. It really just smacks of pro-Letby editorialising to me to not allow her to be referred to as a killer, surely that is the norm on Wikipedia, to refer to serial killers like Fred West, Steve Wright, Peter Sutcliffe and John Duffy and David Mulcahy as serial killers? 213.31.104.198 (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The IP editor here is banned sockpuppet User:MeltingDistrict. I was expecting them at this RfC but I see they have become more underhand and rather than socking at the RfC this time, they are canvassing instead. I am sure you responded entirely in good faith and per your convictions, and thank you for your contribution to the RfC, but I shall now be raising this at ANI. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
That's valid. I hadn't bee following the page because I thought the issue was resolved, so i appreciated the note, but socking around a block is absolutely bad behavior. Taking them to ANI sounds appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite14:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
