dont remember how I got here but I'm looking for someone to compare morgellons information with. I feel like I'm going crazy sometimes other times I feel like I perfor.ed health miracles by taking sulfur as a supplement. I feel gross I know I'm contagious and I know all of this is very wrong. I fear of my future when thought on topics of disease progression with something that behaves the way that this stuff does. It's aggressive and predatory. it spreads throughout my entire body causing numbness in my toes and breathing problems when exerting myself. I really need someone who knows what I'm talking about without thinking I'm experiencing a mental collapse. I fear my governments involvement here for my own reasons as I think everyone familiar with this pain does. If u have any knowledge I could gain from I could really use an experienced opinion or comparable symptoms etc.
Ps. Trent reznor is god..
Generation X rules nothing more nothing less..
Sincerely,
Kymberly Kyms2evil4u (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
In case when a TBANned user believes that the reason given for their TBAN is incorrect or not applicable to their conduct, would you expect their appeal to look any different from "I did everything right" detailing the specific circumstances? In particular, would you expect such an appeal to include "an explanation that they understand what they did wrong" even though they believe that they didn't? Crash48 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I think my last edit may have accidentally eaten your comment at WP:ANI somehow. It won't let me revert it there, so I apologize but it may need to be re-added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Must've been an edit conflict & you hit the button to overwrite my version with yours. It happens, now you know what it does! Next time, better to copy your comment to Notepad or something, go back and refresh the page, then add your comment to the discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite19:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Accusing people of wanting "a pound of flesh" or desiring to hit someone with a "rolled up newspaper" are personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I think that's inarguable. These aren't rhetorical flourishes; they have meaning.
The space between voluntarily doing something and someone filing a complaint are important to maintaining a collegial environment. I don't want to file a complaint. That's escalation and it shouldn't be necessary. I'm asking you to consider striking your comments because they went too far and characterized the motives of other users. Thank you for your consideration, Mackensen(talk)20:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that they are personal attacks. Again, file a complaint if you feel that strongly. I am done with the matter and do not appreciate you continuing after I had already disengaged. The fact you felt it necessary to come here and chastise me after I said I was disingaging only cements my view that the motivations for admonishment at ANI were unnecessary and vindictive. Please do not continue this pointless debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Note in that case, the people labelled were extremely notable, and the details of what they did which lead some people to label them that way, very well known with a reasonable amount of it undisputed even at that time.
In this case, we're referring to 3 minors effectively being called murderers in a case where we still don't even know what caused the death. (And as horrible as the actual crimes a sexual predator might be guilty of like rape, sexual assault and harassment are, as reflected in various things like the sentences, for good reason murder is treated as a far more serious crime than any of those things in most jurisdictions.) In other words, IMO anyway, what was done here is far more serious a violation than there. The only saving grace is the editor seems to have partly acknowledged they need to cut it out, unlike there where the editor seem to take a long time to understand that.
Also in case you're not aware, we've had a lot of discussions about this before and there's a clear consensus that it's silly to suggest calling something a murder when the people who's actions lead to the death are undisputed is somehow different from directly labeling said people as murderers. (It's more complicated when it could arguably be a case of mistaken identity.)
It's the same thing, and indeed saying either of those people in the aforementioned incident raped, sexually assaulted or harassed whoever would clearly have been no more acceptable then. (Although for one of them the situation is a lot more complicated now.....)
Perhaps more importantly, it's difficult to read the editor's comments and their followups as anything but a clear accusation that those 3 minor are murderers.
P.S. I'd also acknowledge in the earlier case I mentioned AFAIR, the editor mostly just repeatedly saying that to make a point, unlike here where it was on the relevant talk page and in relation to an issue being discussed which also makes that case worse. However, this is only of limited excuse since as I already pointed out there there was actually still no reason to make the statement, and instead it confused the point the editor was trying to make, plus lead to that unnecessary digression. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I had already accepted your argument on the Talk page. I don't think the situations are quite the same, but I see your point, and agree we need to stay away from calling them murderers unless convicted of such a crime. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite14:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Gamergate 2
I noticed this on the gamergate talk page, but I cannot comment there, so I figured I should warn you here. There definitely is an ongoing harassment campaign that has been widely described as "Gamergate 2", is being headed by many of the people who were involved in the original, targeting employees of the consultancy firm Sweet Baby Inc, including Felix Kramer, an associate of Zoe Quinn, who was among the targets of the original harassment campaign 10 years ago. That nonsense post that you responded to and correctly dismissed, is actually the narrative they're using to justify their behavior. Victims of the harassment have indeed privated their social media accounts.
They have compiled lists of games that Sweet Baby was involved in, and are going after other firms as well. Mark Kern is one of the public figures encouraging this entire operation. Brianna Wu has also done a complete 180 and is now openly associating with the Gamergate crowd. I expect multiple reliable sources to report on the issue, as journalists are already discussing the event on social media. 46.97.170.155 (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
You seem to be on a push to include Wikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism into a large swath of articles. McClain's only source of vegetarianism is a trivial mention in a single cite, it is not central to the article in question. I can't see how the article about his death is relevant to the Wikiproject, or why it should be added to the Talk page. My phrasing was unclear, and I apologize for that, but I don't see how this is relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite15:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Evil
HandThatFeeds,
Any tips on navigating a topic? Specifically "Evil". Why is C.S Lewis even cited in the article about Evil? Lewis is sometimes referred to as B.S. Lewis. Including him in the article, and the Abolition of Man, implies he has significant insights about the topic. He is neither a philosopher or a theologian. Rather, Lewis was a teacher of literature, and a writer of Christian fantasy.
You wrote: "Maintain" just means "to express an opinion, judgment, or position."
Ah, but maintenance, maintain means and connotes taking care of that which has been built, established. Why not use the word "assert", as in Lewis asserts? I'm OK with Lewis making an assertion. Still though, and again, why even include what Lewis, the author of the fantasy Chronicles of Narnia series, and a Christian sci-fi trilogy, thinks about evil?
I have made a dozen or so edits in Wikipedia. Mostly filling in some facts here and there. My attempts to emend the page on Evil have been undone by you.
If you have an issue with the edits on Evil, please bring them up on Talk:Evil. I'm not going to debate article content here.
I explained the use of "maintain," as it was a valid use of the word. I do not see a reason to change it just because you prefer a different word. Again, this is a debate for Talk:Evil.
I have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia and spent nearly two decades learning the ins & outs of our rules and practices. Since we're apparently comparing numbers for some reason. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite00:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Made me smile
Just wanted to say I came across your signature randomly and it brought a smile to my face. The comic sans definitely helped. + Bonus points for the NIN reference.
Anyway, have a nice day! ~ ¿VØ!D?☄22:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@VastV0idInSpace0: Glad it worked for you! That's the reason I went with this, it's a bit of a cheeky play on words & a reference to one of my favorite bands. Not everyone gets it, I've had a few angry responses. But I'm always happy when I can make someone smile. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite11:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
be silent and stop telling others not to call others schizo
About the Yasuke talk page. For someone who has that name, and asks people to not take it seriously, you should learn to not take this seriously either. Disclaimer, I'm not related to anyone on that page, I just have a hatred for wikipedia that never stops asking you for money but just changes the countries it does, when they earn 240million a year from statistics, and majority have been in favor of ads. That's not your fault, but your support is given in dedication. The mere fact that if you make too many edits, or give too many free images for articles, that you'll be accused of boosting your account then banned is ridiculous. Those edits then reverted to leave a page in a worser state. Who could ever dedicate themselves to supporting this horrible site. I say the mods power tripping is like the reap of wikipedia herself.
that aside, you can probably safely delete this without responding as I don't have the interest to bother, aside from revenge-trashing some articles to give you all more work in revenge for supportin wikipedia's horrible actions. Yes, turns out there are consequences for being rude to users. 2A02:AA1:104F:658F:C154:A429:8E11:E294 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, turns out there are consequences for being rude to users.
Note btw.: passive aggressive remarks in incomplete and arguably inconsiderate edit summaries - considering that I was trying to fix the concerns you brought up the very same minute you reverted once more - may directly lead to dispute resolution in future instances. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the edit you reverted about EFF supporting those harassed by Appin.
You requested secondary sources regarding my edit about the EFF supporting those harassed by Appin. I found them, listed below. If these are okay, let me know, and I'll update the edit, or you can do it yourself.
This is not about my paragraph, but I accidentally clicked on a link on the Appin page, and it looks like someone has deliberately messed up the paragraphs and links.
hello - you closed my talk page discussion as malformed RFC - Its not a RFC just a talk page discussion Gsgdd (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
You formed it as an RfC, without following the proper format or process. Therefore I closed it so you can start over. I see you've reverted me. Well, if you're determined to dig a hole, I'm going to offer you an extra shovel. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite00:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
there is lot of discussion already. An id is not generated - i removed rfc tag well before that. so its not a problem Gsgdd (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
on deleting my reply in "Myth of the clean Wehrmacht
Hello there. It seems you deleted my reply in the talk page suggesting alternatives titles for the lead. I disagree with the deletion as it is on topic with The Hand That Feeds You asking for others to reply with alternative titles. I won't unrevert your reversion or just send the same reply again without your response tho. Thanks for your time 92.236.211.53 (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. The topic was not the title, the topic of that section was the WP:LEDE, aka the introduction section. Also, that section was over a year old, it's generally bad form to reply to such old discussions.
Hi, I don't use ANI much, and I was confused by your response to my complaint about EEng, specifically: "this example doesn't even rise to being in the ballpark of WP:NPA". I didn't say that this latest comment was a personal attack. In terms of WP:UNCIVIL, I would classify it under disrespectful and rude, especially since WP:BURDEN to provide sources was on EEng. The text was:
I've often thought that someone should invent some kind of worldwide information search and retrieval system -- maybe one involving computers linked by communication lines -- by which queries could be entered on a keyboard or something, and answers viewed on a display screen. Because if there was such a thing, you could answer that question yourself instead of demanding that other editors do it for you (which is also not a good look).
It's sarcastic, sharp, and mildly impugns the other editor's motives, intelligence, work ethic, and reputation. Was there some special significance you put on WP:NPA specifically within WP:CIVIL in the context of disciplinary decisions, was this just a momentary confusion because EEng has been blocked for personal attacks upteen times, or is there something I'm missing? -- Beland (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
As you now well know [3] (but haven't had the integrity to acknowledge), I have not been blocked for personal attacks umteen times; I've been blocked umteen times by admins who are, to use your phrase (below), out of sync with the community.
And to put to rest one more of your misrepresentations, what you refer to as a BURDEN situation was nothing of the kind. Reliable sources directly supporting the material at issue had long been in the article; but one editor was arbitrarily demanding that the sources be post 1950 [4]. That's his burden, not mine. EEng00:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I stand by my remarks, though for better or worse it seems AN/I is uninterested in sifting through the block history and exploring which were justified and unjustified. The number of actual personal attacks and uncivil remarks is much larger than the number of blocks. I'm happy to discuss some if you would like to use that as an opportunity for introspection and identify better ways the disputes in question could have been handled.
The specific thread you linked to already provides more than enough material for an overly-long analysis; what I brought to AN/I turns out to have been only the tip of an incivility iceberg.
Looking at the comments made in 2018:
CFCF was in favor of "described as imposing", because "imposing" in Wikipedia voice is not neutral.
EEng was in favor of "imposing" in Wikipedia voice
Seasider53 considers the word "imposing" as WP:PEACOCK and suggested an RFC.
Mandruss was in favor of no adjective
Hertz1888 did not consider it puffery, but seemed to be OK with "imposing" in quote marks to indicate it is a quotation (as it apparently previously was)
If I'm summarizing everyone's position correctly, it looks like more editors are in favor of not using "imposing" in Wikipedia's voice, but it seems y'all never agreed on a specific solution.
CFCF brought this up again in 2024, because they felt the NPOV problem they previously identified still hasn't been fixed. EEng responded with:
"Every few years you show up to complain about it, but you have been signally unable to convince other editors of the validity of your position. Why you're obsessed with this particular point, I have no idea, but slow-motion editwarring is still editwarring. Get consensus or leave it alone."
"Obsessed" seems like a personal attack, implying the editors' diligence here in wanting to see NPOV applied is mentally unhealthy. Though it does seem like CFCF could have taken this dispute to the talk page earlier, that's also true of EEng. Wikipedia:Edit warring says to avoid telling opponents in an edit war that they are edit-warring, because it comes across as aggressive, and that's why it was a bad idea to use that term in this thread. It's better (in terms of quicker and more successful and less stressful conflict resolution) to address a content dispute on its merits than address editor behavior, even when it's mildly problematic.
The rest of this message is sort of mocking CFCF for weakness in persuasiveness, and impossible-to-satisfy demands: that CFCF both stop discussing this issue and that they convince other editors of their position. Given that opposition to the current text already had a supermajority, both the mocking and the demanding seem off-base.
Jjazz76 jumped in with "Also worth pointing out the three cites are from before 1900. Maybe it was imposing then, but there's no evidence it is currently imposing, 130 years+ later."
EEng's response was unhelpful: "You got a cite for that?" No citation is necessary to document the assertion that all the sources supporting this adjective were very old. A productive response would have been to either dig up some new sources or alter the text to indicate when this description was applied. Jjazz76 even suggested doing that after they got this unhelpful reply.
On the technical policy point: The claim being documented is that Memorial Hall is considered imposing, not that it was considered imposing a long time ago. The WP:BURDEN is to cite a source documenting the exact claim being made, not a slightly different claim which might have a different truth value. I will admit to having had the very same frustration of "why are you making me Google this when you could have Googled it yourself!" I just try not to take out my frustration on the other editor, who is also a volunteer and has no particular obligation to do work. Even though I'm annoyed while doing the cursory research, usually their obstructiveness does result in a better-sourced or better-phrased article, and that's why it's actually not unhealthy behavior.
EEng argues that "an imposing building can no more cease being imposing than a heroic statue can cease being heroic". Arguably, a building can become less imposing if other equally large buildings are constructed around it, which could easily have happened over the 100+ year gap in this case. Arguably, a statue can be perceived as less heroic if the visual conventions for denoting heroic poses change in the surrounding culture, or the prevailing opinion about the subject character changes e.g. from being considered a hero to being a demagogue or dictator. I say "arguably" because I'm not taking any particular position; I leave that to the art and architecture critics. And it's fine to have strong opinions about these things, but it seems like other editors' differing opinions on a subjective question are being reacted to and mocked as if they had stated something objectively false. Part of working in a collaborative environment, especially on NPOV issues, is appreciating differences of opinion among editors, and using them in a productive fashion rather than trying to bully them away or shout them down.
Unfortunately, this highly contentious revived thread has still failed to reach agreement on how solve the NPOV problem perceived by the majority, so either another editor or perhaps the same editor will likely bring it up again in the future.
A more productive response back in 2018, which will still work in 2024, would have been to either compromise on a phrasing that keeps the adjective but takes it out of Wikipedia's voice (putting the quote marks back in seems like it would call the least attention to the distinction), or if that feels unacceptable, to hold an RFC. Given how small and low-stakes this disagreement is and how many editors have already contributed their thoughts, it is surprising that this could not be solved through compromise and would need to be taken through a more time-consuming formal process. Sometimes editors just fail to circle back to reach and implement a compromise, but in this case I would put some of the blame on the incivility and hostility in this thread for driving it off the rails.
After needing several minutes to recover from my genuinely stunned condition:
it seems AN/I is uninterested in sifting through the block history and exploring which were justified and unjustified – Yes but you see, "AN/I" wasn't making a fool of themselves by showing they don't know how to read a block log, so "they" don't need to read it. Only you do, so that you'll understand the world of hurt you'll be in if you lie about my block history again.
EEng argues that "an imposing building can no more cease being imposing than a heroic statue can cease being heroic" – For Christ's sake, here's what I said [5]:
Now, if the statement had been that Memorial Hall "imposes on its neighbors", THAT would need reasonably recent sourcing, and when you can show me that you understand the difference between those two situations (and please, look up heroic unless you're certain you know what it means in the context of statuary) then I'll start crediting your ideas about sourcing.
You obviously didn't take the advice to look up heroic, for otherwise you would know that a heroic statue is one larger than life (usually at least 1/3 to 1/2 larger), but not colossal (which denotes a work at least twice life size); your blather about "visual conventions for denoting heroic poses" has nothing to do with it. Imposing is, similarly, a term of art. So once again you have written a gigantic wall of text premised on your confusion about basic stuff like what words mean.
Now you go back to fixing typos, and I'll go back to developing meaningful content using words according to their actual meaning. I'm sure HTF doesn't want any more nonsense like this on their talk page. EEng06:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
It's sarcastic and deprecating, but it does not rise to the level of a personal attack. It's just a more loquacious way of saying "You could've just Googled the answer." If the latter does not violate NPA, then EEng's version does not violate NPA. It's annoying, but not a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite12:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
If this comment had been directed at me, I would certainly have felt that my personality was being attacked, suggesting that I'm overly "demanding" and that I have a "bad look". It has a lot more going on than simply saying "you could have Googled the answer". (And to correct my previous statement, I did use the word "attack"; perhaps that's what you were responding to.) In any case, even if we were to agree this is not an "attack", WP:CIVIL prohibits "merely" rude and disrespectful comments as well. It also says: "While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable." Which is why "it's not a personal attack" doesn't seem like a good reason for dismissing the complaint. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Being condescending to someone does not constitute an WP:NPA violation. It's rude, yes, but it's not a personal attack. If you want to push for that broad WP:CIVIL interpretation, I expect you'd have a long fight on your hands. Regardless, I'm not the person you need to convince. The rest of the community is unwilling to accept such a broad interpretation, given the number of times I've seen it come up at WP:VPP. But you're welcome to try again.
The fact is that if you want to ban "merely" rude and disrespectful comments, you're basically going to cut out anyone who gets a little snarky at civil POV pushers, trolls, or stubborn sealions. So people are not going to go along with that interpretation.
I personally suggest letting it drop until you have a concrete example of EEng violating WP:NPA, because that's what it's going to take to get him sanctioned. It was hard enough the first time, he had to very blatantly cross a line for that to happen. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite20:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, that's good to know. Sounds like people's threshold for problematic misbehavior is just a lot higher than mine. -- Beland (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I would take a dozen of EEng's sarcastic (or whatever) posts over a single one of your "Here's a 10 year old list of blockings, let's see what else we, The Cabal, can get this outsider for next." (yet perfectly WP:CIVIL) ANI filings. That attitude is the most toxic behavioural pattern on WP these days. Andy Dingley (talk)
Heh, I find that a pretty weird accusation, given that I hardly ever participate in AN/I or use admin blocking tools or have anything to do with disciplinary procedures. Which should be pretty obvious from how out of sync I seem to be with the community there. If you don't find EEng's behavior toxic, that's fine; we can agree to disagree. -- Beland (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Really and truly
I have no idea what you're talking about here [6]. If you're referring to this [7], that was an absolutely straight post (including sincere thanks to Giant Snowman for acknowledging that he had misstated the facts). What did you interpret as snark? Is there some misunderstanding here? EEng01:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah. I can see that as a possible interpretation, but in context I think it was appropriate to suggest that those who keep harping on my block log take time to look into the facts.Since it's on my mind, I'm going to draw your attention to something that may have (perhaps to your relief) escaped your attention, and that's this post over at Wikipediocracy [8]. The response "Exactly" is from someone who lectures on-Wiki about respect and so on [9]. Is it any wonder I've got no patience for pearl-clutching civility hypocrites? EEng16:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I will never understand the desire of some people here to waste other people's time over the most petty disputes possible. Nazism and white supremacy are not the same, so do not pipe link them. I will repeat it again: do not pipe link two different topics. Yes we get it, by saying two bad ideologies are the same you are giving a big middle finger to their followers. Nobody cares. Was it so difficult to do something like this [10]? I'll say it a third time: do not pipe link two different topics, and do not waste people's time stupidly. Thanks, SuperΨDro17:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Would it be permissible for me to post on my user page part of what you posted on ANI?[11]
Specifically, this part;" The insistence on politeness over everything else just encourages sealioning and punishes good editors who are understandably upset at being targeted repeatedly by ethno-nationalist POV-pushers." --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi I posted the following in the talk space under the article on "fourth wave feminism", and you removed it. I am a busy academic. I am not a wikipedia person. I do not know how your admin structures work, and I do not remotely have time to get involved. However, the points I am making here are quite strong. Looking into it for a few minutes, it seems like this article on feminism is exclusively edited by an explicitly feminist academic at George Washington University and her undergraduate students. I'm not following how that is remotely ethical or congruent with the aims of wikipedia as a project; please enlighten me, and also enlighten me as to why you removed that comment.
FWIW I'm broadly sympathetic to most feminist ideas as a person. However, if the aim of wikipedia is to avoid bias then this situation is egregious. I'm curious to learn how you will justify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.62 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Low quality
"Societal pressure and the ideals of toxic masculinity can make it difficult for men to support feminism.[116] In many societies, to be considered 'masculine', men must be "strong, active, aggressive, tough, daring, heterosexual, emotionally inexpressive and dominant."
I really don't think that's true at all, I think that very large numbers of men explicitly "support feminism", particularly in universities. In fact, the opposite is true: Taking a view that is critical of feminist values is often very difficult. I'm not sure it's appropriate for a term like "toxic masculinity" to be used as though its meaning is clear, or its cultural influence uncontroversial. I'm not sure a single article by a sociologist in "the conversation" is sufficient to back these claims.
This text reads very much like an undergraduate essay, but it is not an undergraduate essay its a wikipedia article that will be read and taken as accurate by thousands of people. The standard isn't high enough.
Right, but my subjective opinion there (on a talk page) is intended to be illustrative of the fact that the author of the article is presenting an equally subjective opinion, with essentially no evidence to support it, and given who they are it's clear they are a very biased source of information. I believe you have rules against that.
If wikipedia works differently to academia, why is a specific academic in charge of this article? That's an absurd double standard.
The cite for the claim in the article is an another academic's subjective opinion in "the conversation" which has poor editorial standards. Citing chains of subjective opinion doesn't somehow create truth.
I'm 48 years old. Although I have not edited for many years, I wrote my first wikipedia article (on non-linear dynamics) in around 2005 or 2006. When I dip in, wikipedia now often feels to me like a mechanism at odds with both with evidence and reason. It's seems like how *an editor feels*, and *how much power they have* that determines what happens.
Like I say the standards are poor. Wikipedia is *not* intended to work differently to academia, it's intended to present a true picture of the world using the techniques developed in academia over the past few centuries. But it's not working. I think that I do not want to contribute here, thanks. It would be more interesting to analyse what's wrong with it, and publish that somewhere sensible. Lots of people are starting to do that. I think I'll stick with doing actual science.
If wikipedia works differently to academia, why is a specific academic in charge of this article?
This is a false premise. There is no single person "in charge" of any article.
The cite for the claim in the article is an another academic's subjective opinion
That argument undermines every academic work in history. You can claim anything is an academic's "subjective opinion" to dismiss the work.
I'm 48 years old. Although I have not edited for many years, I wrote my first wikipedia article (on non-linear dynamics) in around 2005 or 2006.
I'm 49 and started around the same time. Those "cowboy" days are long past, and what was allowed at that time is no longer acceptable behavior.
Wikipedia is *not* intended to work differently to academia
This is patently false. Academia is a place where you publish your papers to make an argument and defend your thesis against challenge. Wikipedia has always been one where reliable sources are used and original research is forbidden. You can't just make your own original argument and publish it here like academic papers do.
It would be more interesting to analyse what's wrong with it, and publish that somewhere sensible. Lots of people are starting to do that.
People have been making this same tired statement for decades. Yet, Wikipedia is still here and operating just as it has. Another hit piece won't change anything, but if it makes you feel better, feel free. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, your intransigence and your certainty just sounds like a weird belief system. 1) there is no such thing as a reliable source. I understand you have a list of such sources, that someone has made, and that you believe in. 2) all text is original research, strictly speaking.
In objective terms, the text of the article I tried to open a discussion about is low quality, meaning it does not cite credible evidence for the claim I mentioned. It is part of a wikipedia project in which specific academics, in this case a named academic at George Washington university in DC, allocate articles to their students. You are going to find that this means that academic has power over what is said in the article. If you doubt that, you're a bit naive. Here it is:
The reason why that article said what it said is because of who wrote it and why, not because it cited credible evidence.
No one is doubting wikipedia is still here. What people are starting to doubt is whether it's reliable as a reflection of reality, which it isn't. It's fine on uncontroversial topics, of which there are many. Not so much on topics where people disagree and on which subjective judgement forms their substance. The list of "reliable sources" is one key source of problems. In this case, a guy's opinion that he wrote in "the conversation". The world sadly does not divide between reliable and unreliable sources in a straightforward way. 129.67.117.116 (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Re this diff: While the discussion certainly got very stupid, I object to you hatting it as calling it "off-topic." Your edit summary was closer to being accurate, that it "veered off-topic", but you've marked the whole discussion as off-topic. But that's not true, even if for the sake of argument I'm "wrong". Seefooddiet is demanding sanctions against a user, and I was opposing sanctions on the ground offered. That is very clearly the topic (even if the argument later veered into Seefoodiet accusing me personally of being a big idiot about Korea).
I would request that if you still think hatting is the best option, that you only hat the later sections (and not my initial comment), or at least rephrase your summary of the hatted section. SnowFire (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. The original comments and reply, at least, seem exactly on point, ie., "We do not sanction or topic ban users for being 'wrong'." They also partially inform my later comment there, which are better read in context of the whole previous discussion. I've reverted the hatting. Station1 (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I did not feel the original comment was primarily about the actual issue, but more meta. That said, I have no objection to altering the hatting, while I disagree with unhatting the section entirely. The discussion did veer off topic into a personal dispute pretty quickly.
I will not revert as I do not wish to edit war. As long as that particular discussion remains quiet, I don't see any reason to re-hat. But if people try to pick up the argument again, I will re-hat while leaving SnowFire's original comment un-hatted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite15:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Oliver James (psychologist)
Many thanks for this. It's the fuller explanation I might have provided if I hadn't been on a beach with only patchy signal, and if I had had more good faith in the editor's ability to take the advice on board. He's well on the way to a topic ban at AN/I for good reason. But that was nice of you. John (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hello, I was wondering whether you could please help me to further understand the WP:CIR statement that you left in responding at the closure of my Topic ban request. I've gathered, that in the future, I am going to need to try to condense and perfect my request for a topic removal before resubmitting. I am not purposely being dense or rude, I have a bit of disability so I am trying to gauge whether you were being very serious or somewhat ironic (or even very ironic) and whether I should take some offense for pouring salt or ask you for some guidance.
Was WP:TLDR the specific competence issue concern to which you were referring or was it the state of the TBAN request itself, someone's opinion of my page editing, the NOTTHEM that others cited or something else specific that should be obvious to me yet I am still missing completely?
Are you aware that I had raised very specific competence complaints to the involved admin about the other involved admin and the ongoing blatant WP:TE-like behavior across numerous pages (all of which are supported with links) such as here? These were not mere mistakes. Are you aware that those same two admins' so-called "concern" was in fact, the exact complaint I had made about them? My frankness in pointing that behavior out was the specific cited reason that my block was requested. In that block request, I was vindicated by another editor's very basic observation that should have negated the request entirely, but somehow didn't. Because it's outside of understanding and administering the TBAN-lift request I can't speak to correcting untrue statements from years ago the keep coming up in these discussion. I believe lifting the Tban has to come before anything else can be done or even discussing the reason for it. This is why it is difficult to avoid TLDR and NOTTHEM in my requests.
I welcome any advice on how to submit this succinctly, correctly, and without further offense or wasting the time of anyone else where it can be avoided. I'd like to clear my name and there are links and diffs that would make it possible--If I were allowed to discuss the topic at all.
WP:BANX (unless there is somewhere else I should raise this question and then and ping you).
This? This is why I say WP:CIR is the problem. Even now, you are incapable of asking a simple question. You have to make it a multi-paragraph rambling statement.
I did not disagree with you and I did not not come to argue anything. If you were offended (and it looks like you were), Please accept my apology. My question was:
Did you comprehend this?
I asked for your clarification and whether you were aware when you left your comment of the fact that "the ability to read sources and assess their reliability" (which is directly from (WP:CIR) was the specific concern that I raised here.
My concern (that the disruption was caused by more than administrator failing to read and verify) was validated right here. It verified that the concerns of the involved administrators that led to my block were bogus.
You don't have to respond at all but I don't believe you should avoid a valid question that would help me tremendously because of an unwillingness or inability to comprehend it or because of how it was raised. I think the two links above should have been self-exploratory to anyone without an input from me at all. My query to you was made along the lines of, Perhaps you've also missed that; Many have.
Again, please do not post on my Talk page. I have no advice to offer you except what you've already received multiple times, and apparently do not (or cannot) abide by. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite14:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research
Hello,
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Nothing against Springee, but this is another simple benign improvement seemingly going off the rails. This type of issue is a constant on all articles such as this. It's tiresome and that seems to be the entire point. Wear out the opponent with rhetoric by either repeatedly trying to change the subject or by simply misinterpreting the response, and simply repeat over and over and over without acknowledging the actual counter argument until the other side gives up and moves on... DN (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
