User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 27
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Shibbolethink. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Trump edit-warring
Very disappointing to see a somewhat experienced editor such as yourself edit-warring multiple bits of content at Donald Trump. Especially with @Space4Time3Continuum2x: locked out by 3RR. My edit summary for the age thing said "trivial" in addition to unsourced. Adding sources does not cure "trivial" and your reinsertion ignored both that edit summary and talk page comment. Please self-revert, as you should also have done with the molestation content. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree that it is trivial, and it is also following BRD to rv your removal of it, especially since I did not add the content in the first place. Will happily respond at the talk page. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's clear you disagree. That does not justify an edit war. You do not appear to know what WP:BRD says. It is not 24-BRD we're talking about. And you should also carefully read WP:EW -- thinking you're right and others are wrong does not justify edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please refrain from telling me what I do and do not know. I never claimed that I knew what was right or wrong. I also never edit warred. I'll tell you one thing for sure: edit warring is more than one reversion, and I have only done one. Note:
An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions
If you repeatedly accuse me of misconduct like this without evidence, then that would likely constitute WP:ASPERSIONS. Please refrain from doing so. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)- You are misusing the WP:ASPERSIONS terminology. I have specified exactly what behavior of yours is at issue. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause
from Arbcom in 2009 and reaffirmed several times since. If you disagree that you would be doing so if you repeatedly accuse me of edit warring after one reversion, then that is certainly your opinion, though it is certainly also relevant that this is not the first time you've been warned about crying "edit war" at every revert. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are misusing the WP:ASPERSIONS terminology. I have specified exactly what behavior of yours is at issue. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please refrain from telling me what I do and do not know. I never claimed that I knew what was right or wrong. I also never edit warred. I'll tell you one thing for sure: edit warring is more than one reversion, and I have only done one. Note:
- It's clear you disagree. That does not justify an edit war. You do not appear to know what WP:BRD says. It is not 24-BRD we're talking about. And you should also carefully read WP:EW -- thinking you're right and others are wrong does not justify edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Trump
Hello! I just wanted to give you a heads up that I reverted you on Donald Trump. I agree with your addition! But an editor on that talk page has said (without much explanation) that it would be a BLP issue if the article mentions the jury finding as to the rape claim. Conversely, other editors have said it's a BLP issue if the jury findings are reported without the rape claim. The issue is currently being discussed on the talk page.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I saw that after I made the edit. I think such disagreements usually peter off over time, it's extremely obvious we should report what most reliable sources say, and most sources report all those findings. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to chime in on the talk page, I'd personally appreciate it! But I also understand if you want to avoid that mess.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Responded. I probably won't go fifty rounds on this one, but glad to have provided my 2 cents. That talk page is usually a cess pool.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Responded. I probably won't go fifty rounds on this one, but glad to have provided my 2 cents. That talk page is usually a cess pool.
- If you want to chime in on the talk page, I'd personally appreciate it! But I also understand if you want to avoid that mess.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate the example
Hello! I just wanted to say I appreciate your levelheadedness on the Donald Trump page. I let my frustration get the best of me on a few occasions. There were a few things that got to me. Most recently, even after very explicitly extending an olive branch on one user's talk page (an olive branch that was met with, paraphrasing, "you don't understand policy and shouldn't edit the page"), it's been a little frustrating to have some of my edits be reverted on "not better" grounds and then have no follow up discussion. (Not to suggest at all that all or even any of my edits are improvements, but I don't think they're so bad as to warrant no follow up discussion?).
Regardless of the causes of my frustration though, it's certainly my fault for letting them affect me (and my responsibility for ensuring that they don't). I certainly should've done a better job of letting smaller issues roll off. But you've been a great example of how to be actively engaged while keeping a level head; I appreciate it and will do better to emulate it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think what happens in these articles is, longterm editors who have carefully painstakingly massaged things to how they want get upset when even minor changes are made. They effectively adopt a stance of "I don't like this, so it should not happen." I think we all can easily drift into that mindset, I'm sure I've probably done it at some point or another as well. The important thing, as the outsider coming into an article, is to recognize this, and not let it get in the way of improving the article. And then, when resistance is met, to calmly describe it on the talk page, and solicit input, just like you've done! It's frustrating, I completely hear you on that. I should also tell you that if it happens long enough and consistently without cause, their continued minor reversions could be seen as tendentious editing or "filtering" of others contributions, and brought to a place like WP:AE with great effect. I think if that specific behavior continues then a page block would be what I would request at AE, but again it would need to be a pattern of behavior, not some one-offs. And hopefully they see that others disagree with their reversions, and become more permissive. That's the real goal, preventing any need for admin intervention at all. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words
I appreciate the kind words at ANI. I hope you're not feeling like I'm leaving you out to dry, I almost typed up a very long response to one of the posts, but I honestly figure, particularly as the OP, but also as an admittedly verbose editor (who is trying to do better at avoiding posts like "here are the 72 things you said that I disagree with for the following, in sum, 135 reasons
") my participation there wouldn't be especially helpful. Regardless of the outcome, you've been particularly kind, and I wanted to acknowledge that.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I would tell you that your comments on that thread are appreciated, but that certainly others may not view them with as much faith or trust given that you were the OP and did get a temporary block for violating BRD/the consensus restriction. I'm not saying what you've said there hasn't been valuable, but that I think you are right to be more hands off now that the thread is going on and on. We will have to see if a consensus of other editors (especially those uninvolved on that talk page) agree that this user's conduct was objectionable. If they don't, it also doesn't mean anyone should walk away from Talk:Donald Trump. It instead makes it all the more important to solicit outside uninvolved (more objective, arguably) feedback from other areas like noticeboards and wikiprojects. Given that other users (could be anyone on that page, or no one) may seek to retaliate or otherwise discourage or downplay your contributions (or mine) based on that filing. Doesn't mean it's ever okay to break TPG or be rude or w/e. In fact in situations like this, it is doubly important to maintain that civility, even in the face of other editors who may seem interested in discouraging participation. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2023
- News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns
- In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia
- Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman
- Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a desysopping
- Special report: Signpost statistics between years 2005 and 2022
- News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation
- Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again
- From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two
- Humour: The law of hats
- Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme
Infobox Policy Ideas at Village Pump
Some editors are kicking around some ideas for drafting a policy proposal on infoboxes for biographies. If you have any feedback I'd love to hear it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Infobox Policy Ideas at Village Pump
Some editors are kicking around some ideas for drafting a policy proposal on infoboxes for biographies. If you have any feedback I'd love to hear it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Endemic COVID-19 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 May 2023
- News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU
- In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics
- Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions
- Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!
- Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion
- News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation
Confused about EMDR article reversions
Hey, hope you're doing well!
I saw that in your reversion to my reversion of another editor's reversion of my edit on EMDR (yeah, I know), you said "Clearly explained in multiple talk page sections". I was hoping you'd be willing to elaborate on this comment, since I'm not sure what exactly you're claiming has been "clearly explained" (at any rate it isn't clear to me, though that may very well be due to my own shortcomings).
As far as I can tell, I'm the first person on the talk page to bring up the specific issue I had with the wording that I altered (though others have and are discussing a separate question about it in the context of WP:NPOV), namely that the statement "Unusually for a pseudoscience, EMDR has been subject to a number of randomized controlled trials" is untrue, even if we assume that EMDR is in fact a pseudoscience (see my comment on the talk page for details). Are you saying that my argument has already been rebutted in previous talk page discussions, or that there's something else which I'm missing? Yitz (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Med Newsletter - Issue 21
- Issue 21—June 2023
- WikiProject Medicine Newsletter
Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter; pardon the six-month gap. I was inspired to collect this after seeing how much activity there is in the GA space on the medicine front. Please review a GAN if you have time, and help to welcome more medicine editors into the fold:
|
|
|
|
WP:MED News
- Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is back in business, with a new process and new coordinators. If you see medicine-related GAs that may no longer meet the GA criteria, feel free to nominate them for attention/reassessment (please, not too many at once, lest we get overwhelmed). I'll incorporate them into the listings above.
- Major depressive disorder, Schizophrenia, and Dengue fever are featured articles that need updating. Feel free to chime in at the talk pages or WT:MED if you have the time/bandwidth to help update. They'll likely go to featured article review for more feedback in the near(ish) future (probably in the order listed).
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
The Signpost: 22 May 2023
- In the media: History, propaganda and censorship
- Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"
- Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles
- Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs
NIAID
Are you a recipient of NAID funding? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Shibbolethink
Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The Signpost: 5 June 2023
- News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea
- Featured content: Poetry under pressure
- Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye