Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 29 October 2018

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Petra Kvitova article review

Kvitova's article is ready for review Silaslej (talk)

Climate change

Thanks for your comments at AE. One thing caught my eye that I wanted to clear up though. You mentioned some of the climate change stuff I discussed way back. That was never about editors, but about the real-world sourced content issue of anti-GMO activism using similar science denialism tactics to climate change denial and other similar groups. The two get studied in primary literature sometimes too. Essentially, I was saying at one point be wary of typical pitfalls of pseudoscience when dealing with content in the topic and used climate change as an example of things people might be more familiar with for some parallels.

That obviously is a thorny issue to make sure it's not being conflated towards editors themselves on talk pages (though an odd case when dealing with legitimate WP:ADVOCACY behavior issues at admin boards), but when I was discussing the content portion, other editors chose to cause drama making it seem like I was calling them or groups of editors in general climate change deniers despite me repeatedly clarifying. Nowadays I can't remember how much I've had to ignore when people make spurious accusations like at the recent AE case because I'll usually make a single clarification post and try to ignore periphery stuff to focus on the case at hand (or deal with word limits). I'm guessing that might have been what happened from what you remember, so I just want to check in on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't often comment at those venues so it was mildly interesting to see how it went down. The close was a bit disappointing, not so much for the result as this happens, but because of the statement that they didn't read it. I have been editing these articles on and off for years and maybe have become a bit immune to the insinuations. I usually find it a little ironic as I am actually not a big fan of Monsanto (mainly due to IP concerns). I also went in expecting it to be quite heated and it really wasn't (not in the early years anyway). So, while I understand why editors get upset by the shill gambit, it never really bothered me that much.

As for comparisons with climate change I understand the parallels. There is an interesting discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies/Archive 1#Split where it is brought up and discussed by some old hands. Those were good days; we actually got stuff done and most of the comments were related to improving the articles.

I don't really feel like scouring through diffs to showcase occasions you used it, so I hope you don't mind if I use my imperfect memories. A lot of stuff was happening at a lot of venues much of it nasty. As such seemingly mild comments can be taken badly and things escalate quickly. Most, if not all, of the opponents to GM were also strong advocates of climate change. While your first few instances might have been innocent enough, you must have realised that it upset them. It came across a bit too on the nose, even for me who generally supported your positions. Since we are making comparisons there is little difference saying "these edits are what I would expect a paid Monsanto employee to make" and "these edits are what I would expect a climate change denier to make". Okay there are quite a few differences, but I guess my point is that they just served to inflame the situations and fill countless talk pages with back and forth that serves no purpose content wise. Again imperfect memory so I am not saying you used those exact wording, it is merely an example of how it can be perceived.

I will offer similar advice I gave to another editor many years ago. Sometimes the best approach is to ignore someone if the relationship between yourself and that editor has reached unmanageable levels. At least keep the responses to a minimum and focus solely on the content. I often delete quite a bit before I hit publish if I think it will not help the situation. I have also learnt to trust wikipedia to eventually get the content right and as long as you are on the right side of the science consensus will follow. If anything the AE case has shown that any disruption needs to be quite overt, so reacting to anything else will not have any effect beyond wasting a lot of time. Unfortunately the editor I gave the advice to is now topic banned from GMO articles, so you might want to take it with a grain of salt. Anyway I hope you don't take this the wrong way, my main aim here has always been to create good articles and we need editors in the GMO topic area willing to work on these articles as they are still quite a mess. AIRcorn (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: ] ] ] ] Continuing: ]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Get ready for November with Women in Red!

		Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives New: ] ] ] Continuing: ]
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): WikiProject AfroCine launches (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Alert

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 recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 Misplaced Pages's policies, or any 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.

Template:Z33 “WarKosign” 16:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Your revert at Holy Land

Hi, Did you notice that the references I added actually cover all the quotes ? The first reference actually covers most of the section, so I added it at the end. “WarKosign” 16:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)