Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

User talk:Generalrelative: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reverted
Tag: Reverted
Line 775: Line 775:
== Comment about the racial achievement gap in the U.S. ==
== Comment about the racial achievement gap in the U.S. ==


This is not about race, this is 70-80% inherited genes + 20-30% environmental factors for it the Sub-Saharan peoples did not conquer never Europe.[[User:YMVD|YMVD]] ([[User talk:YMVD|talk]]) 05:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
This is not about race, this is 70-80% inherited genes + 20-30% environmental factors that is why neither the sub-Saharan peoples nor the Indian peoples of America ever conquered Europe.[[User:YMVD|YMVD]] ([[User talk:YMVD|talk]]) 05:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:08, 24 November 2023

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Pinned comment

George Floyd and Dostoevsky

Just an afterthought: I can't help asking myself, why do people hate George Floyd so much that they get themselves blocked in order to besmirch his reputation ? Maybe the answer has been given by Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov, when he has the old Karamazov say: "I played such a foul trick on a certain man that I started to hate him." If the roots of old racism were economic interests, maybe today's racism is rooted in bad conscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus vs. Truth

Honest question for you - what is to be done on a Wikipedia article when there exists evidence of verifiable truth that is relevant to the context of an article, but a majority of users partaking in discussion on said article are for whatever reason opposed to its inclusion? In a case like this, it seems that a majority of users with a vested interest in concealing some truth could band together to reach "consensus" on an article to keep the truth off of it; thereby allowing the article to tread the line of "lying by omission", and stray farther from WP:NPOV.

In my opinion, truth (when it is relevant to the article it could be added to) should be prioritized over "achieving consensus," because of cases like this. Is this not how Wikipedia works? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it, this may seem like a fundamental challenge for a project like Wikipedia, which is indeed based on consensus. And of course most people believe –– often strongly –– that the things they believe are true. But the more time you spend here the more you will see that the person yelling "truth!" will very rarely have the stronger argument. This is especially evident when there is a large community of editors involved in a given discussion (or watching and only intervening if things seem to be getting out of hand). As it happens, the page you're currently worried about, Anti-fascism, currently has 292 watchers. A verifiable and neutral telling of the truth will out in the end. If you haven't yet, I'd suggest reading the essay WP:TRUTH. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in September 2022

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks, but the editor is not stopping. See Anton Drexler as well as the economy article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that editor's history makes it pretty clear what they're after. On their talk page just now I've recommended they read WP:NOTDUMB, mostly just to see if we can save ourselves the trouble of writing up a 3RR complaint. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand... indefinitely blocked. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2022

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Richard Lynn

Hi, the point is not whether there is a consensus that Richard Lynn is controversial. His controversiality is amply shown throughout the article, including the lede. Compare the article Donald Trump, where it doesn't say "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a controversial American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." It's not encyclopaedic practice to flag someone's controversiality in the first line, which simply ought to state what they do/did for a living or for notoriety. 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Ni'jluuseger (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is consensus language. See the article's talk page archive. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Richard_Lynn/Archive_5#Use_of_"controversial"_for_description_in_lead is undecided, not a community consensus in favour of your position. I know I won't change your mind, but I'd be interested to know whether you think encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia and Britannica *should* open their article on Donald Trump by writing "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a controversial American politician". Ni'jluuseger (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested in debating this with you. The existing wording has a clear consensus behind it, whether you agree or not. WP:OTHERSTUFF is entirely beside the point. Generalrelative (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Burt

Hello, a question, if you don't mind. Surely keeping such a reference is because this is another facet of Burt's life?. Therefor its existance (and in this this case who created it as well), is a story that needs to be told. And no I do not have an answer! Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 11:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)(→‎Fraud accusations: Unclear that a primary source by Gavan Tredoux, who is not an academic, is DUE for inclusion here, especially given that his finding purports to contradict academic consensus.)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't understand the question. Would you mind rephrasing? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, badly put. My point was that as an article in a enclyopedia this link alongside the dubiousness of said link needs to stay to be part of the picture of Burt for any researcher. I appriciate some of the inherent difficulties in this and do not have an answer for them, but all the same I think the link should stay. Thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for clarifying. My response is pretty simple though: Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts but rather a curated tertiary source which presents verifiable information (usually based on secondary sources) according to its due weight. That particular primary source was, in my view, undue for inclusion for the reasons given in my edit summary. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did not realise it was a primary source for some reason (my bad)! Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 10:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2022

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Republican Party

Gene, just wanted to thank you for hearing out my RFC recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And I adore that you thought to call me Gene. I hadn't even realized my user name could be read like that. Have a spooky Halloween (if that's your thing). Generalrelative (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave the Abrams discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. American Politics can be a food fight. Hope you're having a good day. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the topic that I'm finding frustrating. But anyways, all is well. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abrams

Hi. You can copy your comments to a valid thread. That RfC is zombie disruption, with bad choices that don't reflect prior discussion. please self-revert. we can't be tied up in the banned user's parting shot for the next month. Thanks for your good work. SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Between you & me, I think it would be best to 'ping' the editors who've already participated in the RFC. They may want to know, whether or not their input has been disregarded. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my latest comment on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The reason I archived it is that GoodDay's note in the hat bar is equivocal, as if there were not consensus to end the RfC and as if anyone could come along and restart it. I don't think anyone has said there would be a problem starting a valid RfC when and as it seems fruitful. I'm just concerned that each time it's reopened, additional editors take the time to comment and are surprised to see their comments hatted. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear that. Looks like GoodDay has resolved the issue. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gene, I've reworded the closing note. Clarifying a 'new' RFC can be opened, rather then a reopening of the closed one. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. That sounds like a good solution to me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in December 2022

WiR Women who died in 2022
WiR Women who died in 2022
Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name,
    like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Male expendability

You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2023

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Peer reviewed papers

At RSN. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. Wishing you a happy and healthy new year. Generalrelative (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Lie edits

In regards to your reversion here, could you point to where the removed claim is mentioned in any of the seven sources? The claim is one made by the Wikipedian who originally wrote it, not by any of the actual sources it cites. Horizons 1 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled by your question. The claim seems to feature quite prominently across a range of sources. Here, e.g., is The Guardian: The disclosure that extremist Republicans dedicated to election subversion have formed a network was first revealed by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist in the White House who is spearheading a “precinct-by-precinct” movement to inject far-right activists into local elected office. Marchant disclosed the alliance on Bannon’s War Room podcast. The revelation can only heighten jitters about the fragile state of American democracy. An NPR analysis of 2022 secretary of state races across the country found that at least 15 candidates have adopted Trump’s big lie. [1]. Feel free to open a discussion thread on the article talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Generalrelative (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh

This was delightful. I got to "Do you have what it takes to wade into this exciting talk page thread??" and couldn't stop laughing. Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:P Generalrelative (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in February 2023

Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259


Online events:

Tip of the month:

  • Explore Wikipedia for all variations of the woman's name (birth name,
    married name, re-married name, pen name, nickname)

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Wikipedia is a mess

Both NKM And KU Are same height 5 ft 10 to 5 ft 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.59.141 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E. O. Wilson

As I'm sure you've also noticed, there have been about 100 edits to E. O. Wilson by the same good-faith editor in less than a week. I have some concerns. The lead now has a lot of promotional language in wikivoice that it didn't have before (pioneering, trailblazer). I've been thinking of removing that, and also maybe adding to the lead something about support for Rushton, which is an important part of the body of the article. But I'm waiting for this editor to finish their series of rapid-fire edits. I also don't want to over-react. After all, many BLP leads, in order to establish notability, use somewhat promotional language. Your thoughts? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NightHeron, I haven't had a chance to look deeply. I considered reverting one or two of these edits but wasn't sure. Honestly I'm slammed right now IRL, so probably will limit myself to chiming in to support conclusions others may reach or offering my 2¢ in a limited capacity. In general, though, I do think some modest mention of the controversies Wilson provoked belongs in the lead of his bio. Generalrelative (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I just noticed that a few hours ago Grayfell initiated what seems to be a productive discussion with that editor on the talk page. When the dust settles, I'll add a sentence or two about the Rushton business to the lead.NightHeron (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like a productive discussion, and that the recently prolific editor is amenable to feedback. Nice to see. Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jensenism pops up at FTN and RSN

Greetings! As you might have already noticed, there are two newly-registered users (see [2] and [3]) suddenly arguing at FTN and (in one case RSN) for positive treatment of Jensenist sources. It's pretty clear that both are not really newbies, and this looks suspicious. You've had experience identifying socks. What do you think? NightHeron (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NightHeron, hope you've been keeping well. Yup, there's definitely some sort of puppetry afoot surrounding the Eyferth study article, given the amount of attention it's received all at once from a number of IPs and new accounts. Unfortunately, I don't have much time in the next few days to devote to WP, but I see that at least one of the accounts has already been blocked as an LTA [4]. Generalrelative (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issue One request

Hi @Generalrelative, I noticed that you recently made edits to the Protect Democracy page, and I was wondering if you could take a look at some recent edit requests I made on the Issue One Talk page, which is a similar organization. I have a COI as I work for Issue One, so I'm hoping an uninvolved editor like yourself could take a look at what I've put together. Thank you! AR at Issue One (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AR at Issue One, I'll take a look at this when I have time. Thanks for doing the right thing and declaring your COI. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalrelative Wonderful, thank you so much! I've suggested edits for the History and Organization sections, and appreciate you taking a look at whatever you have time for. AR at Issue One (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, AR at Issue One. I took a look and honestly this looks like a more substantial job than I can take on at the moment. Consider posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics? Generalrelative (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, @Generalrelative, thank you for the suggestion! I just made a post. If you happen to have some time, do you mind taking a look at just the request to edit the History section? It's just a request to rename the section to "Formation", and simplifying some of the details about predecessor organizations. Any change at all would be helpful, no matter how small. Thank you! AR at Issue One (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red March 2023

Women in Red Mar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Mobile phone readers may only see the article "lead" – take some time to make it shine!
    Include something to keep people reading.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Describing Yockey as being attracted to Marxism previously is not a controversial claim

and the fact the page previously said "Left-Wing" (with a citation need) even less reasonable edit. You can doubt Autonomedia, all you want but if this is a controversial claim, you may as well delete the statement that he had previously been attracted by Left-Wing movements altogether because the person who wrote that probably based that claim on the same book considering that it is the most detailed on the subject of his life from sources which are not of the far-right. StrongALPHA (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StrongALPHA: With apologies for the delay in responding to you, I would be happy to discuss on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response

hello you have removed the pages that I have created then please can you explain to me why didn't you removed section like holocaust denial which itself is a pseudohistory Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppppphgtygd: Short answer: because I didn't have time to do a big overhaul. I see that this and similar discussions have been ongoing on the article talk page and would encourage you to post there to see if we can come to a lasting consensus on what belongs in this article. Wrt Holocaust denial, it appears from this discussion that there is consensus it should not be described as pseudoscience but rather pseudohistory, though pseudoscience has certainly played a role in some of the arguments marshaled by Holocaust deniers. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
deal i will put it in the talk page Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To-do philosophy

I was surprised by your comment at Talk:Steven Pinker opposing my addition of the {{to do}} list because it gives off the impression of *claiming authority* over and above the normal consensus-building process. Reading the WP:TODO guidelines, I got a very different impression. A to-do list is a list of improvements suggested for the article and a tentative consensus. The page recommends that we feel free to discuss to-do lists in the talk page of articles, to add new tasks, or to work on pending tasks. Are these recommendations outdated in some way? Is the general community opposed to the use of to-do lists? It seems to me like a handy way to plan and organize, but if the consensus has changed, then WP:TODO should be updated to reflect this.  — Freoh 00:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not aware that consensus has changed. I was glancingly aware of what you were hearing from the community at ANI and wanted to let you know how these particular edits looked to an uninvolved observer. That is, not especially helpful. My advice is to tread carefully in contentious topic areas, even when claiming a tentative consensus. But of course, feel free to ignore me if you like. In any case I wish you well, Generalrelative (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice to tread carefully seems to conflict with your previous advice to be bold. I would need to read and think a bit more before adding this content into the article, so I thought that it could be helpful to list it somewhere that I (or someone else) could come back to later. I was trying to be bold by adding the content to the {{to do}} list. Would you be opposed if I re-added the {{to do}} list?  — Freoh 14:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could've been clearer. By suggesting that you "be bold" I was referring to article space. My suggestion is that you work on improving the article itself, and then if you're reverted or challenged, engage in constructive discussion on the talk page until consensus is reached. I don't think the to-do list is helpful for the reasons I've stated before. Generalrelative (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that to-do lists should be discouraged in general, then you should probably add that advice to WP:TODO and {{to do}}.  — Freoh 14:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. I think that the way you were attempting to use the to-do list in this context isn't helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will drop this issue, but given that I added the {{to do}} list after a good-faith effort to follow the WP:TODO recommendations, I would appreciate it if you would edit that page at some point to specify under what conditions the to-do list is inappropriate.  — Freoh 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eyferth study closure

Information icon There is currently a discussion at [[the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic The EyeFerth Study. Thank you. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red April 2023

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Baffling and repeated reverting

I've tried to explain this to you in the plainest language possible. I'm not the IP who was blocked. I also showed you how to check contributions. While I understand it's a strange coincidence, it's not impossible for two IPs to be from the same general geographic area. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izno blocked you for a month. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP edits. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you somehow remained unaware of this but now you know. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, fair enough. And I wasn't aware. I will refrain from editing henceforth. Everything doesn't have to be so contentious, Generalrelative. Even though we might be ideologically opposed, that does not mean we can't communicate with civility. Sometimes a simple message will accomplish twice as much as a lengthy ANI complaint. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that we are "ideologically opposed." The problem is that you don't understand the science relevant to the race and intelligence topic area, nor do you understand Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines. You chose to become a time sink and make an absolute ass of yourself based on your mistaken beliefs. That's why you were blocked. I'm not being mean and you are not being nice. At this point the most civil thing I can do for you is to explain what is going on here. This is a collaborative project, and you have shown yourself –– at least for the time being –– to be incapable of collaboration. Perhaps you are young and will mature into it. I don't know. But you need to reflect long and hard about what led to this block before you ever think of editing Wikipedia again. Including this talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Generalrelative. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red May 2023

Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Use the Google translate app and camera on your phone to translate text from an article or book

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

WP:ANI#User:Alejandro Basombrio: POV-pushing, edit-warring, canvassing

Thought you might want to comment. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug, I took a quick look. I'm usually wary of commenting at ANI unless I have something substantive to add, and it looks like Vipz has laid out the essential case. For now I'll let the comments I left on AB's talk page speak for themselves. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About recent addition

Hi. Regarding the article, I want to know if you have read the 2015 European migrant crisis part? ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 19:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got through it, though it could use a good copy edit. The term is definitely a slur used by ignorant people, but my view is that templates and sidebars become a lot less useful if they are overly inclusive of dross like this. And of course while WP:OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, we should strive for consistency. You will see that other, much more prominent slurs, while they are considered notable enough to have WP pages, are not listed on the template. Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 19:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokisaki Kurumi: perhaps political pejoratives could have their own sidebar? –Vipz (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz: past cases show that it might should be included by its "nearest" template. Covfefe gets {{Donald Trump}}, ¿Por qué no te callas? gets {{Hugo Chávez}}, Evil Empire speech gets {{Ronald Reagan}}. According to all these, IMO might be good if we have something for China like {{Conservatism US}}. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 21:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random question

Hi! Thanks for this. I hadn't noticed its addition last month. I always chuckle about how even the absolutely mildest summary of enormous accolades earns you a cn if you mention it in the intro ... I also have a huge soft spot for this page both because (a) it's not every day that you find a redlink about someone who's had an entire freaking school named after her for half a century, and (b) I actually wrote it the day before my first date with my now-partner, and we talked about it on our first date :-) Anyhow, I'm writing here because I noticed that the page has suddenly rocketed up in pageviews, and I'm wondering if you're someone who came to this page for the first time recently, maybe for the same reason that other people have. These are several times the views you get from a DYK in my experience, and I don't see any evidence that it appeared anywhere on the main page, and they've been sort-of sustained for a few days, which is different from the one-day spurt you get from main page appearances. So did another famous person with a name like Michele Clark do something noteworthy recently? Or maybe Michele Clark was mentioned on a really popular podcast or something? I was just hoping that, if you arrived at that page from the same source, you might have some insight into how it got this spike. Thanks! - Astrophobe (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Astrophobe, yeah I found the cn tag there especially eyebrow-raising because, you know, trailblazing black woman. To answer your question: she appears in the latest episode of the (quite exceptional) HBO series White House Plumbers. I was watching it with my partner last night, and having never heard about the crash of United Airlines Flight 553, nor of Michele Clark, I immediately jumped on Wikipedia once the episode was over to learn more. Thanks very much for writing the article! Generalrelative (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, I'm so glad you had the key! Being featured on an HBO series would certainly do it. And thanks also for the subsequent improvements to the page. I learned about her when I was reading The Boys on the Bus, where the (iirc) one and only mention of her is the author introducing some random thing she said with "Michelle [sic] Clark, a young, extremely beautiful black reporter from CBS's Chicago Bureau had said [...]" and then in a footnote he says "On December 8, 1972, she was killed in a plane crash at Chicago's Midway Airport". I was like, dang, what a way to memorialize someone: I thought she was hot, then she died. I'm really glad this wasn't some automated thing or mixup like these sudden pageview surges often are, and I really hope she keeps getting more of the attention she deserves! Thanks again. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also anecdotally believe that there's a systematic problem with people challenging extremely matter-of-fact descriptions about women being prominent in their field in the intros of their Wikipedia biography. In writing hundreds of pages about important women on this website, I've seen many many times people adding citation needed tags or outright removing extremely understated summaries of reliable sources to the effect that the person is prominent. Often it's by editors who explicitly allege that it's evidence that the page is being used for self-promotion, because if a woman is described in her wiki bio's intro as "commonly identified as an expert in X,Y,Z", it must be because she is writing it about herself. Of course, a 3 second skim of my contribs/userpage should demonstrate that I'm not the page subject writing about myself unless I'm somehow 300 different women. But anyhow, I've rambled enough on your talk page! Thanks for the info and for hearing me out. - Astrophobe (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could be of help! Yeah, the portrayal is brief but memorable. It definitely conveys the sense of a promising and groundbreaking career senselessly cut short in the space of like a minute. Better than the mention in The Boys on the Bus for sure. And yeah, what you’re describing is definitely one of the faces of systemic sexism –– in society broadly, and on Wikipedia as a microcosm. It’s symptomatic of the larger problem, but also a reminder of how important the work is. I say this as someone who’s made a paltry two women blue, which is nothing compared to what you’ve accomplished. Which is to say, you’re welcome to ramble on about whatever you like on my talk page! Much respect, Generalrelative (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - June 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red July 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red 8th Anniversary

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red August 2023

Women in Red August 2023, Vol 9, Iss 8, Nos 251, 252, 277, 278, 279, 280


Online events:

See also:

  • Wikimania 2023 will be held in Singapore, 16–19 August, and will be facilitated by the
    affiliates in the ESEAP (East/South East/Asia/Pacific) region.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Gerhard Meisenberg

Hi, i dont think saying "often described as white supremacist" is accurate in this case. this statement is only suppored by a single source in the article Mankind Quarterly. i think saying "has been described as" would be more accurate --FMSky (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to have this conversation with you on the article talk page, where others can weigh in. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our conversation at "Stacey Abrams"

Hi there Generalrelative,

I responded to your reversion of my edit on the Stacey Abrams page, and addressed both of the replies you left me. In my response, I used words like "deceptive" to expand upon my point that the article gives undue weight to a fringe view. I don't think you, or any other editor on the page, have tried to engage in deception. I simply feel that the language, as is, has the unintended end-result of deceiving/confusing readers about the facts of the case, namely that nothing has been found to bring the legitimacy of her defeat into serious question.

Everything I see here on your page suggests that you're a very nice, and well-liked person who wants to make Wikipedia better, just like me. I'm sure there's a very reasonable way to reconcile our different views on how to apply RS and policy here. I just wanted to go out of my way to make that distinction abundantly clear, so that we don't misunderstand each other and start our collaborative conversation off on the wrong foot. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind message, Pecopteris :) I appreciate you going out of your way to make that distinction clear, since it is indeed so easy for people to take online disagreements personally. That kind of thing will certainly help you out as you get back into editing after your 14-year break. I'm more than happy to work with you to improve the language on Stacy Abrams if we can find ways to agree on improvements. And even if we can't find a way forward there, I'm glad you're a volunteer here and hopefully we will find somewhere else to collaborate productively. Generalrelative (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just realized that I misspelled Ms. Abrams first name, so there's strike 1 for my credibility. Haha! Look forward to engaging with you more in the future. Take care. Pecopteris (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, it was in fact I who misspelled! Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! That made me chuckle. I saw your replies. I'll have to chew on them and get back online tomorrow. Thanks for being a nice person. Pecopteris (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

Hello. Letter C: Raúl Castro Ruz. I wrote a data source from US Government. I do not know if it is sufficient. YMVD (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in but no I do not think that this is even close to a reliable source. These people were pretty clearly grasping desperately at any rumor or innuendo they could find. It did however give me great pleasure to read the sentence Perhaps his performance as one-half of the homosexual team was unsatisfactory!!? So thanks for that too.
Are you aware of any recent scholarship giving credence to this? If so it *may* belong in the Raúl Castro article, but the list is only for confirmed LGB individuals. I see that the topic has been raised before at Talk:Raúl Castro but no reliable sources have ever been provided. Generalrelative (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023 at Women in Red

Women in Red September 2023, Vol 9, Iss 9, Nos 251, 252, 281, 282, 283


Online events:

Tip of the month:

  • The books she wrote might be notable, too; learn 5 quick tips about about book articles.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

About World Constitutional Convention

Thane Read founded the World Constitution Coordinating Committee not the World Constitutional Convention. Committee arranged support and we don't even know that if he was there at World Constitutional Convention .... so that's may point. --BeLucky (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. I've changed the text to read that Thane "organized" the convention. Generalrelative (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious Topics-Biographies of Living Persons

Generalrelative- please visit my Talk page to continue the discussion of your previous 2 postings. Thanks! Truedad21 (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative- in regards to your reversion and comment on the Talk page of Richard A Cohen- "Establish consensus on talk before re-adding disputed content,"

  1. I did not add disputed content. I added new content based upon a previous dispute: that self-published books are not of encyclopedic value. Knowing through my own encounter (I read them) that 2 of subject's books are professionally published, I posted those, with ISBN #s, publishers, etc. What is the dispute?
  2. A second dispute has been whether i have a conflict of interest in editing this page. As Wiki rules require, I posted my interest, motivation and (lack of any) direct affiliation with the subject. What is the dispute?

Rather than ignoring my efforts to communicate/cooperate with you, and simply reverting any edits I make, please respond to me, and on the talk page where I am following Wiki rules, clarify what you are disputing and justify your revisions. Thank you. Truedad21 (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truedad21, it's not a huge deal, but you have missed where I responded to you on the article talk page. I have neither ignored you nor failed to clarify what I am disputing. With regard to COI, it would be helpful if you addressed the unanswered question on your user talk page about the image you uploaded. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Culture/Chronic Lyme

It's not possible for me to believe that the editors with whom I spoke previously are scientific "experts". They did not respond like scientists or experts. Nor did they respond professionally. They responded like ideologues, which they surely are. On the other hand, I do appreciate your kindness and generosity and willingness to help me learn. Vt500ascott (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just begun a discussion of this matter on your talk page. Happy to continue the conversation there. Generalrelative (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truedad21 and "own work"

Based on this comment, Truedad21 uploaded his "own work" (the photos of Richard A. Cohen), but now he is claiming they are not his own work? Citing this comment, both photos of Richard Cohen and the photo with his wife can probably be nominated for deletion due to lack of permissions. I had to get the photographer of the Bailey photo to email Wikimedia to confirm it could be used, for example. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Figured out how to nominate them for deletion, done. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Yeah, I'm not an expert on the process. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zenomonoz (and Generalrelative)- I was frank and open about my very first edit on Wikipedia, my lack of knowledge about the process, and WHERE and HOW I got the photo- from the source (PATH) by request. The photo exists on a number of bookcovers and websites independently of me, and is nowhere credited to me, because I did not take it... I researched it like tens of thousands of photos uploaded to thousands of articles on Wikipedia. You both must know very well that the term "Own Work" is not a statement written by me, but a selection that either I made in error or that Wikipedia assigned to my submission. I know this only because I would never have falsely claimed that it was my own work.
In any case, if you were operating in good faith you would either challenge me to complete the proper permission process with wikipedia, or inform me that you are contesting their presence and nominating them for deletion, or to confirm permission from the owner of copyright- the only entity with a real legal right to contest their publication. What you are doing instead makes you appear, despite Generalrelative's polite language, like attack dogs simply decimating an article with which you disagree.
BTW, regarding Generalrelative's preposterous claim that professionally published books are not of encyclopedic value unless accompanied by "supportive reviews in mainstream publication," obviously selectively applied to this page and its subject and so indicative of censorship and bias toward what you deem as fringe: Cohen's books have been seriously and professionally reviewed (not to mention published in multiple countries by independent publishers). The following excerpt is from the distinguished Library Journal, written by a reviewer who openly states their disagreement with Cohen's views.
"In his self-help book...ex-gay therapist Cohen writes for gays and lesbians who want to transition to heterosexuality. His comprehensive, well-written, well-organized, and heavily referenced guide views homosexuality as a symptom of disrupted affiliation with the same-sex parent and incomplete feelings of maleness/femaleness, building on the psychological theories of Joseph Nicolosi and Elizabeth Moberly."
--Library Journal, Volume 126, No. 12, July 2001 Truedad21 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your frustration, Truedad21. Rather than going around and around with you on the matter, I've brought it to the conflict of interest noticeboard so that more members of the community can weigh in. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2023

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286


Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Race (human categorization)

I noticed that you reverted my recent edit in the above article. Can you tell me EXACTLY where it refers to "homo sapiens sapiens" rather than homo sapiens in the two references used. Editrite! (talk) Editrite! (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit changed

...because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens

to

...because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens

This is a category error because Homo sapiens is a species, not a (proposed) subspecies like Homo sapiens sapiens. Given the edit summary (Removed duplication) I just assumed it was a mistake. In any case, if you'd like to discuss this further I suggest the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faith

I just wanted to let you know that at some point I'm probably going to continue the discussion on the Domestic Violence article. I'm currently taking a break so that I come back with fresh eyes. I've already had a look back at the very early discussions and I'm VERY embarrassed by the things I said on there (I've got to learn somehow...), anyway. Now the reason I'm bringing this up is due a few weeks ago on the Dunedin Study article where you mentioned I must've been acting in bad faith in a diff (that was just me being an idiot and not reading what I wrote). I feel our previous discourse has mainly been due to misunderstanding each other, and I feel like part of that is due to assumption of bad faith, I understand that it is very easy to make the assumption in such contentious topics. Previous discussions, which now even to me appear bad faith, that I am incredibly embarrassed about, were me being clueless, keep in mind that I only started editing in May 2023. Thank you for dealing with me! It may seem like a nuisance to you, but you've actually taught me a lot of policy.

Just giving you some advice for dealing with me in case we ever bump again (sorry): often times if it appears that I'm not listening, I actually don't understand what's been said. In previous discussions I said the same thing over and over and that's really because I didn't understand. That's not to say that it was right for me to be a nuisance! It would be great if you could quote sentences from policy instead of lust saying WP:OR for example. Sorry, I don't mean to boss you around!

Sorry for adding word salad to your talk page! I just hope to clear stuff up so we can work together more collaboratively in the future, thank you. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this thoughtful and circumspect message, Panamitsu. I will assume good faith on your part going forward. That doesn't mean I will always have the time or bandwidth to explain things in a way that you find satisfying. And if you fall back into patterns that appear to others like WP:CPUSH / WP:BLUDGEON, it may result in sanctions even if your intentions are good. That's the risk one runs when editing in a designated contentious topic area. I therefore strongly advise you to avoid reviving debates that have come to a natural end. I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand. I'll do a better job at reading the policy if I don't understand something. For clarity, I'm referring to the most recent conversation on said article. The older ones have gone straight into the rubbish (and incinerated). I've seen your mention of WP:NOTDUMB, which I wholly accept the reasoning for. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright I will not be making any further comments. Goodbye, and thanks for the terchings of policy. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Richard Calthrope (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Generalrelative. They also notified me, but they have already been indeff'd for LTA. Hoping that your laugh is as good as mine. All the best, Robert. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rsk6400! Cue sad trombone music Generalrelative (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - November 2023

Women in Red November 2023, Vol 9, Iss 11, Nos 251, 252, 287, 288, 289


Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

"First" vs. subsequent CTopics notifications

Hi. This is not a big deal, but in this edit on 15 October you templated a user with a Template:Contentious topics/alert/first (r-i), which has the full, introductory text to CT, along with the custom bit about race & intelligence, whereas Galobtter had already added a CT-first (gg) in this edit of 8 April 2023, so the user didn't need the "first" version of the template a second time, just the briefer one at {{Contentious topics/alert}}. Afaik, it's not wrong to add the "first" template twice, but just wanted to make sure you knew, in case you hadn't seen the previous template, as User:Zanahary likes to blank his page frequently. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mathglot, looks like I forgot to check the history or just failed to scroll down far enough. I appreciate the note :) Generalrelative (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I saw you make a comment about opening an SPI for Truedad21. If you are unaware, I have already done so if you wish to add further evidence. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zenomonoz, good SPI. Hopefully checkuser will sort it out, though I suspect we'll continue to have to keep an eye out for new socks. Generalrelative (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised the CU was negative: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truedad21. Perhaps it would be easy to get Extended confirmed protection on the page given the clear COI edits. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, CU isn't a perfect tool, especially if someone has the energy to go around using computers at different locations. My feeling is that behavioral evidence is compelling enough for a WP:DUCK block, but we'll see what the admins think. Page protection would be an option if the disruptive edits become persistent. Generalrelative (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input

Hi, hope you are well. I just started this article: Noa Kalos. Subject came to the Teahouse and we talked at User_talk:Everknott#An_article_about_you.

Per Rolling Stone: "Editor’s note: At the time of reporting, Kalos presented as male. This story was updated Nov. 8, 2023 to more accurately represent her current gender expression." Per available sources (that I know), I've not put any mention of that in the article, and from that follows no LGBT categories either, since cats should be obvious from article text. That is the WP-way as I understand it. There may be some usable ABOUTSELF source out there, but atm I haven't seen it.

So I'm wondering if you have any advice in this situation, for example should some LGBT WP-project be added to the talkpage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm not sure that I have any actionable advice for you, other than to continue discussion at Teahouse. In the past I know that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style has been a productive place to discuss issues relating to gender transition, so you could try that, even though this is a category issue rather than one of article text. Wishing you the best of luck with this! Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misogynist Terrorism

What are the problems with the edits made on this page? Please let me know here

Thank you Adenyoyo (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Firefangledfeathers has already explained it very clearly on the article talk page. See also my edit summary. Generalrelative (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the racial achievement gap in the U.S.

This is not about race, this is 70-80% inherited genes + 20-30% environmental factors that is why neither the sub-Saharan peoples nor the Indian peoples of America ever conquered Europe.YMVD (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Generalrelative&oldid=1186589879"