ColumbiaXY

ColumbiaXY, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ColumbiaXY! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

On "voting"

Hi ColumbiaXY, welcome to Wikipedia! After seeing you comment on several recent requests for comment (RfCs), I clicked your user page and noticed the following text: Behavioral studies show discussions are typically wastes of time. That applies to wikipedia too! Voting is what matters. Be concise but don't waste too much time debating and vote! It will make wikipedia better.

Since you are a new editor, I wanted to point out that this is actually the opposite of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Decisions on Wikipedia content are based on discussion and consensus, not on raw votes. Here is a relevant quotation from WP:NOTVOTE (a subsection of WP:VOTE): While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are. I recommend that you have a look at WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:VOTE for more information. Hope this helps, and all the best, — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

So, whats up with all the political stuff on your page?

You get that Wikipedia isn't about politics, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

What stuff? The only political "stuff" on my page is directed at Maduro? How come criticizing a brutal dictator bothers you so much? --ColumbiaXY (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, put down the stick, bub; I actually share some of your beliefs. I am saying that Wikipedia isn't a social media site; the best advice you could be given is to try and leave your bias at the door. For example, would you trust anyone who notes on his page about how Obama ruined America to edit an article on the man or subjects related to the man. His stated predisposition makes it harder for his edits to be taken at face value, even if they are legitimate edits. By bringing bias in here, you are adding rocks to your backpack that you don't need to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Arguments are not sticks, bub! :)

I also agree with some of the things you say -but I don't buy the Obama analogy: there's not much proof behind claims he ruined America! The exact opposite is true about Maduro who did play an enormous role in ruining Venezuela. So let's not pretend he's in anyway analogous to Obama. Last but not least, edits should be taken at face value -or not- depending on the evidence provided in their support -not on what motto or badge an editor uses on his page, blog or whatever. Cheers! --ColumbiaXY (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean WP:POLEMIC exists for a reason, and you sustained attack on social sciences for not being STEM enough is, you know, a polemic. I'd suggest you should remove it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 quoting established experts (like Nobel prize winners in Physics, or Nate Silver) on "Social Sciences" (an academic discipline producing studies with extremely low replication rates) is no polemic. I suggest you review WP:POLEMIC. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I actually read it before posting here. And only because your misconceptions on the social sciences have simmered over into actual mainspace edits - otherwise I'd probably have just scrolled on. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Specifically your page fails, on multiple fronts, to avoid statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that your misconceptions are simmering into actual mainspace edits. You also fail to understand what "to vilify" means. Quoting the criticism of Nate Silver, Richard Feynam or other Scientists on the failures of social sciences is no such thing. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Selectively quoting others, including the often laughably wrong Nate Silver, in order to present your worldview that Social Sciences aren't of value because they cover topics that you can't easily count is WP:POLEMIC. It's just one wearing a particularly ancient rhetorical lampshade. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please educate yourself about Nate Silver as well. Here is something to get you started "Silver was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People by Time in 2009 after an election forecasting system he developed successfully predicted the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. In the 2012 United States presidential election, the forecasting system correctly predicted the winner of all 50 states and the District of Columbia" and so on. Is true he's not always right, but ignoring his stellar track record and smearing him as "often laughably wrong" shows either ignorance or dishonesty and bad faith. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

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.

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

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.

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

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.

Doug Weller talk 07:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

July 2019

You started editing in July 2019, and most of your first edits were in the form of participation in various RfCs (on pages that you yourself had never edited), which seems strange. Do you have any Wikipedia accounts? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans (talk) - I've been making wikipedia edits, as an IP user (and with the same IP), for 18 months before creating the account. Is creating an account a problem to you? --ColumbiaXY (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:White privilege. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 06:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)