|
User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 12
RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begunFollowing a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal. There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks, and a real-life connection!First, thanks for closing my requested move at Talk:Dan Cronin! Second, I took a look at your user page and noticed that you're from UChicago. I studied at the College in 2010–2013, so we might have crossed paths. Pleasure to meet you on-wiki! Edge3 (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC) ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Heed the 3 revert rule or risk getting barred Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BrandonTRA (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for commentYour feedback is requested at Talk:Vlach language in Serbia on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Refactored discussion of what is appropriate on article talk(refactored from Talk:Sex differences in medicine)
The Signpost: 29 November 2021
AfDs etc.I noticed it looks like you have some familiarity with LondonIP in other DS topics, and I haven't really run into them before. Do you have a quick summary of what's been going on with them? I mostly hang around fringe and agricultural subjects nowadays, but after some conversation on their talk page, they're definitely setting off some red flags in terms of tone/behavior, especially the whole don't threaten me projecting comments. Definitely getting a chip on their shoulder vibe at least, so just curious how widespread this has been. KoA (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for commentYour feedback is requested at Talk:Abraham on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC) VIIT"Agree VIIT is the more common term and the one used among experts." I think you mean "VITT". :) — Omegatron (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Using SPS on BLPs is very limitedI was going through the archives to confirm a memory of something and came across this Talk:Pierre Kory/Archive 1#Source for consideration where it sounds like you misunderstood my IMO important point. First for clarification, I was aware that the author was Michael Capuzzo and not Kory. My point was that per WP:BLPSPS we cannot used self published sources to make claims about living persons unless WP:ABOUTSELF applies which means among other things it cannot involve claims about third parties. I tried to explain this clearly applies in the case of Capuzzo since whoever he is, I'm confident he is not Kory nor his parents so ABOUTSELF doesn't come in to it and if his article was self published which it looked to be, it's excluded completely. I think less people get confused about this although I was concerned from that thread not everyone understood even this point. However as an additional followup to emphasise the point and try and reduce future confusion I tried to explain it would apply even if it was Kory himself publishing such details (say on a personal website or blog). My explanation was apparently without success in your case and I didn't notice your followup. This is something that confuses more people since they incorrectly think since if it's Kory publishing something about himself it might be okay which is true but they forget it cannot be okay if he's publishing something about family members who might still be living. As a regular at BLPN, I consider it important editors understand our usage of self published sources for information about living persons is intentionally very limited so feel it important to followup in case you're still confused about our strong limitations on the usage of self published sources hope you don't mind. Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Maneesh
The Signpost: 28 December 2021
RFA 2021 CompletedThe 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes. The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump. A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months. This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned. 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on WikipediaDear fellow editor, I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project. All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics. Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party. I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function). The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE. Piotr Konieczny The mess with the cover-up article.First of all, not trying to be a prick here. Really. I came because you do appear to have the ability to look at things from the other guy's point-of-view. Feel free to tell me to get lost. Just to put the shoe on the other foot, suppose that there were a close move discussion on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. The discussion was close, and someone came along and moved it to Alleged investigations into the origin of COVID-19 on the grounds that the WHO investigation was not really an investigation, because the investigators were denied access to raw data and the head said the conclusion was reached under Chinese pressure. Then the closer immediately AfD'd it, calling the article an embarrassment for the above reasons, regardless of how much sourcing treated the WHO study as an investigation. Suppose further that the community agreed that the latter title was not a reasonable title for a Wikipedia article. What, in your opinion, be a reasonable remedy? Adoring nanny (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
NeutralitySaw on your infobox you're a Futurama fan, and this quote seemed relevant :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
|
