User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 15

Section sizes in User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 15 Section size for User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 15 (23 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 55 55 Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted 1,108 1,108 The Signpost: 27 February 2022 952 952 Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment 829 829 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed 2,041 2,041 Tubular carcinoma 816 816 Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment 909 909 On AE 3,452 3,452 Do you have an opinion? 751 751 COI? 1,024 1,024 Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism 2,621 2,621 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Störm 696 696 Barnstar 1,036 1,036 March 2022 - Moved from Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19 691 691 The Signpost: 27 March 2022 946 946 The Exorcist 3,230 3,230 A barnstar for you! 1,417 1,417 Revert at Azov RfC 2,276 2,276 New message from Vladimir.copic 207 207 Conditional headings 3,605 3,605 Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment 850 850 The Signpost: 24 April 2022 946 946 Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment 826 826 Total 31,284 31,284

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely
  living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism
  , broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• talk · contribs
  ) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that
  aware
  of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Thanks for your edits at Tubular carcinoma. I was a bit nervous about creating my first MEDRS article, so it's good to have you (and Sandy, and anyone else) looking it over and improving it. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course I'm very happy to help :) And glad you created it! It's something I've unfortunately had to discuss with patients before, so I'm glad they have a well-sourced wiki article to read. Thanks for thinking of me, and I'll help however I can! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

Yes I think you got a lot of heat from that Skepticism case, unfairly so. I would tell you that there is definitely a gradation of escalation, and some is permissible as a first pass. I would tell you the first best thing is to just take it to an admin's talk page and say "hey is this a PA in your eyes?" and see what they say. ArbE is probably closer to throwing a smoke bomb in a shop window and then opening the door and walking in, face first :)

I'm sorry you're having some real life crises too, that can always, without fail, make us act rashly here as well :( Has happened to me for sure. I don't think your proposal is bad enough or untoward enough for any action to be taken against you, if it's any consolation. I think it will likely just be closed as unactionable, as you say. Maybe an informal warning for HG (or for you, keep in mind) is the most that will happen. Just a guess, though.

haha yeah, I had to push my one licensing exam back a few months because of a "permit" expiring but I did get a good bit of studying in and those things are such beasts it probably will help even 6 months out. I did just take an OBGYN exam, though, and it went just well enough for me to pass, lol! Literally I needed a 60 and I got a 62. I'm okay with that! Because hand to god I have no interest in becoming an OBGYN (even if I did briefly consider it). The miracle of birth is cool, it's an underappreciated/understudied/underfunded area of medicine, yadda yadda there's lots of cool things. But I think if I were a woman, I would not in my life want a male OBGYN, and so I think it's probably inadvisable to become one myself! And I think every time I go on a first or second date, if I had to say "I'm am OBGYN", each date would be thinking "this man looks at other people's lady parts all day." And that is hard to escape.

I hope your IRL crisis abates and that you get all the quality mental health time you need! Sometimes this site gets under our skin and it only makes such things worse, when we are hoping they are made better by distraction or by catharsis. I think at such times it is always better to go to some obscure article about mushrooms or turtles or whatever, and enjoy the act of wiki-ing there, and let that be an act of justice, of not letting any bastards get you down. Always a pleasure to you too :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Zero_COVID.Moxy- 01:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, yes thank you. I think this is a classic example of why escalating to noticeboards is often shooting oneself in the foot. Providing non-neutral wordings only makes everyone see how biased one's view of the dispute is, as OP will likely soon discover. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I don't agree with your edits on Lancet letter (COVID-19). I noticed you are a coauthor with one of the signatories of the letter. Do you have an undeclared COI on the subject? ScrumptiousFood (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

are you suggesting that ever having been a co-author, no matter how many years prior, no matter the level of contact, no matter what I do now is a COI? I do not believe it qualifies personally. It's so scant that I have to go look and see who it is, because I don't recall being one. Oh, I see who you mean. Yeah, if that counted, then basically the entire field of Virology would have a COI here. That's how prolific, renowned, and well-known that professor is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [1] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, regarding Special:Diff/1078309460, I appreciate your assistance in keeping this SPI formatted corectly, but it's really best if you could let the clerks handle this kind of cleanup. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, will do. Just absent mindedly fixing things, but I understand your hesitance... My apologies for the intrusion — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For doing all the hard work of cleaning up after the much-needed The Exorcist move. — Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Daniel Case!! I appreciate the barnstar, and am glad you found the close effective/thorough. As Hannibal would say if he were a wikiholic, I love it when a good close comes together. :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

moved from the talk page as

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 21:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

When you remove DUE content sourced to RS, and then give your personal opinion based on non-RS, NOTFORUM and TALKNO apply. I did not criticize your personal character, but I do question your conduct. Pious Brother (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, 24 pings... Anyway.

• @
  Styyx

• Re: BRD. Yep, that's why I retracted it. My apologies for the pings!! Was just editing the original comment, That's my misunderstanding of how talk page pings work, I thought it only did on the initial edit, didn't mean to flood you.
• But your implementation of the technical move request did need some work, as it didn't complete the circle of fixing the templates, the WLs, etc. hence my frustration having done it so meticulously. Didn't mean to take it out on you, of course.
• Merges must not always be done by discussion, btw (uncontroversial merges can just be done BOLDly). It's only necessary because Netoholic requested the revert. I think Netoholic may have been confused about the way I merged them, not actually disputing the merge. But we will see in the ensuing merge discussion (which I already started and pinged you into, but you can contribute over here if you want).
• The method you have described for finding the templates doesn't work in this case, since none of those templates will properly link to this article, and that's the problem I was asking you to fix. They don't currently link there, but should per the after-move procedures. The templates I was referring to were actually neither of those, but rather these: [2] [3] [4] [5]
• At this point, you don't have to do anything because I'll just do it after the merge discussion resolves (if necessary).

— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your brilliant work on sources at the very messy Azov talk page BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you :) I'm glad you found it helpful!

I would love if we could come to an agreement with the other RFC folks on how best to incorporate that Source review, because right now the answer is "not at all" lol. I think we are rapidly approaching a situation where no one wants to accept the RFC results, and we need to basically do an RFC drafting phase on a whole new one to get everyone to agree on what it will look like! But of course some participants (on any side) will want to dispute the RFC formulation in a way which weakens their opponent's arguments, instead of strengthening their own. It's human nature! And very frustrating — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I just reverted your recent reformatting sources list at the RfC and wanted to offer a friendly explanation. I think we are over complicating the RfC (which is already a mess) and making it so so hard to understand for outside editors. I have no problem moving the lists as they are further up the RfC but I didn't think the reformatting was right (and made it harder for new sources to be added). Basically we need to encourage participation in an RfC and I think this did the opposite. I don't want to trash your work (which looked great BTW) but I think it worked against the purpose of an RfC. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vladimir.copic: You need to be more careful with your "bold reverts", you also reverted his survey response adjustment: [6].--Staberinde (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted change Vladimir did to Shibbolethink survey response here: [7].--Staberinde (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vladimir.copic I think my change does quite the opposite! How would you suggest we provide this source review to RFC participants best? I have a hard time believing all these haphazard source lists which are cherry picked and all over the place, are better than one centralized clearinghouse — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for being clumsy with my revert - I assure you it was not intentional to delete your comment (I was just following your suggestion). Thanks for your work and happy editing! Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shibbolethink. You have new messages at Vladimir.copic's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not quite sure how much applicability this will have, but I've created

So, I think we have that, now. If you could take a look at how it's used at Azov, and then try to update the /doc page as you see fit to make it clearer, that would be great. I tried to get a minimum description out there, but I know it is probably still somewhat unclear. One interesting application might be in article-level transclusion of table templates that are stored separately. I haven't created a sandbox or testcases yet, and it's possible that there are bugs in the current version, although I did do a bunch of testing in Special:ExpandTemplates, and I haven't spotted any problems so far. If you spot any, please add them to the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot will do, happily! Yes it's a bit of a weird scenario. I will take a look at the doc, add anything and massage any wording I see, and will think of any other scenarios that are applicable that you may not have tried. It's a pretty useful template, for the right editor, thanks for putting the time in to make this happen! Have you put it on all the applicable Help, WP, and MOS pages? I could think of a few that would benefit... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to advertise it widely, yet. For one thing, I'm considering making breaking changes to the param set: notably, I think param2 should be the "other page", not the base page. As it is currently, anything that is *not* the basepage, gets the alternate level, no matter what page it is. So currently, if |otherlevel=3, then *every* transcluding page gets an H3 level heading. If we flipped it around, so that arg2 is "other page", then we could stack several {{

chead}} templates on the subpage, with each one having its own "other page", and "otherlevel", so it could be H3 wen transcluded on Page One, and H4 when transcluded on Page Two, which I think would be more flexible and powerful. (You wouldn't get double headers on the basepage, because all invocations except one of them would have |baselevel=0.) I think that would be an improvement, but I'm not sure if there's a need for it. Otoh, if we don't do it now, and the template starts getting used in earnest, it will be too late to change it later; hence, my hesitancy to advertise it just yet. Otoh, we could list the applicable Help and other pages on the TP for future consideration. I'm a bit unsure how to proceed; what do you think? (One other thing: Gonnym pointed out that it doesn't generate the [edit] and [subscribe] links, so I'll have to figure out how to generate those. Mathglot (talk

) 22:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Your feedback is requested at