User talk:Mvbaron/Archive 1

Archive 1

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SummerPhD^v2.0 17:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I was aware of the DS, but I wasn’t AWARE of that one :D Mvbaron (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Your Edit war with Chas. Caltrop at Newspeak.

Boxed material all from a single edit – rev 971318978 by Chas. Caltrop; possibly copied from elsewhere.

Thanks, for the edit-war set up with yourself as fake vivtim, acting in behalf of Robert J. Jensen, Owner of Wikipedia. You need a copy of his chicanery, for your A.N.I. lawsuit

Hello Chas. Caltrop, I invite you to discuss your reverts at the talk page of Newspeak. I have twice given reasons for my additions at the talk page, you keep reverting with blanket edit summaries. Please also do not mark reverts/substantial contributions as minor edits as you did at Newspeak. --Mvbaron (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply

Later, I shall find time to fight Jensen's edit-war with you. Meantime . . . you dumb-down the article to your heart's contempt. I've concluded an eight-month hiatus, and the first thing is Jensen's troll dogging my steps. Do you think you'll be a credible victim at the A.N.I.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chas. Caltrop (talk • contribs)

content above boxed for transparency, at 02:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC) by Mathglot (talk)

I ... have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. I have no intention to fight any edit-war, but would please invite you to discuss changes to the article Newspeak at the talk page. Best --Mvbaron (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Manual vs automatic archival

Mvbaron, your recent manual archival at Talk:Newspeak (from, (to) looks correct to me. You're welcome to do it that way, if you're comfortable with it. But here's another, possibly safer method that will accomplish the same thing. As you probably noticed, undated threads don't get archived. But there are various methods to date old, undated threads: one is {{unsign}}, another is {{xsign}}. If they signed, but didn't date a thread, then try {{undated}}.

And then there's the signing/dating method I use now, which is a script from User:Anomie/unsignedhelper, which I find very handy. You can look and copy the first two lines of my common.js and it should just work, once you've read the doc. Only works on the last comment in any thread, but that should be enough for the archive bot to find and pick it up eventually. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, oh thanks. Right, that's a lot to learn! I'll read through the documentation. Thank you! Mvbaron (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Re-reading my last comment, I realized it might not be clear: the "siging/dating method I use now", means, the method I use to update the unsigned or undated comments of others. For my own comments, I just sign with WP:4TILDES. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

ah no, I understood that haha Mvbaron (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Erm

	Welcome
	Ere, ave a noyce chokkie! Twang (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh thank you! :D That looks delicious.--Mvbaron (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert

See revert. Relevance is that those genetic "reports" (SNP, through saliva) allow people to see exactly how much (in percentage) they descend from other ethnic groups. It's relevant to the page as it shows the people conducting the test just how "pure" (or how little "pure" -in racial/ethnic terms-) they really are It's not intented to be promotional, but I doubt there's a page on wiki focusing exactly on reports indicating such info, and 23andMe is the only organisation I know that does this, and it already has a wiki page indicating they indeed make such reports.--Genetics4good (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Genetics4good, hi! thanks for the explanation. (should we no move this to the talk page?) To be honest, I don't see the connection and I couldn't find it in the article. I don't doubt that some white suppremacists do think a lot about genetic tests, but I don't think this is particularly interesting. The link to that one company I think is WP:OR at that point - but maybe we can find some reliable sources to connect the two topics? Best Mvbaron (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

After reconsidering, no never mind as I didn't do enough research first and misinterpreted it. The page mentions is about the belief that "white people" (so not just caucasians or something) are superior in all or some aspects. These "white people" are not a particular race but many races which have a white skincolor. So really, even if you could find a relation between superiority in one particular aspect, you couldn't tie it to "white people" as they are not a race. So irrelevant.

Probably more interesting is looking into the "race" concept (which is outdated). For instance, even the ethnic group "caucasian" (which is one of those "white people") or other similar groups seem outdated. What exactly is being proposed to replace this (it seems there's a move to genetic clines and clusters, see Race_(human_categorization)#Clines_and_clusters_in_genetic_variation. Exactly which list of clines, clusters and "clines and clusters" exist to divide people in, and replace those old concepts of race ? Perhaps we need an image of those new groups on a map, through wikipedia graphics lab ? --Genetics4good (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! thank you for reconsidering :) it is refreshing to actually discuss content with editors. I am sorry I mislabelled your good-faith edit as promotional.

And, yeah I suppose it would be an interesting topic - although "race" was never somthing I was particularly interested in or read much about tbh - never understood what "caucasian" was supposed to mean... But the idea of a map might be a good idea, though I suppose White supremacy is very much the wrong venue for that. All the best Mvbaron (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing references

Please don't remove references from an article unless they are not reliable sources. In general, it is preferable to have more than fewer. (t · c) buidhe 07:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

okay, fair enough. However, I do know about RS - and I have only removed references that were a bit silly in their amount (do we really need three refs for a sentence that only states that the attacks happened close to the synagouge?) Also one ref was duplicated there. Mvbaron (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Hegemony

Hi, thanks for your recent interaction on Cultural Marxism. As per MOS:SEEALSO, what appears in a "See Also" section is not determined by whether a particular topic explicitly mentioned/appears elsewhere in the article. To quote the guidance specifically: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics...". Now while Cultural hegemony is not part of the conspiracy theory, it is a tangentially related topic as is other Marxist criticisms of culture, and therefore I believe there's an encyclopedic value in mentioning it in the text. It has a value in a similar way that we put information about Earth's rotation in the "See also" section of the Flat earth 'theory'. Alssa1 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Alssa1, Hi! Thanks for posting your reasoning about that see-also link - although I much rather had this discussion on the Talk page of the relevant article, so I shall be brief: Even though you are correct about SEEALSO, my edit description was perhaps misleading. What I wanted to say is: I can't see Cultural hegemony being even a tangentially related to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, aside from the fact that both feature the word "cultural". But I am happy to discuss this matter on the Talk Page further of course. Mvbaron (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting moves

Although I've moved all the related to the archives of Talk:Baháʼu'lláh; you should request for moves correctly unlike you did at the RMT where you requested a single talk page be moved to six different location. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

TheAafi, thank you very much! RIght, it seems I forgot to update the archive numerals after copy-pasting. I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused. Mvbaron (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hegel

Why are you butchering Hegel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.115 (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

hi, what do you mean? Mvbaron (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry that we misunderstand each other

I never said that you said I was stupid. I’m the one who said I was stupid, and after all, I should know. You accused me of playing games, which is in effect a form of dishonesty. I object to that accusation, which I was intending to rebut in a humorous way. I’m sorry we seem to misunderstand each other. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sweet6970! I'm sorry, I will strike my comments about you playing games - I was annoyed that you brought up a good point with the rewriting of the passage (which I support) and then immediately followed it up with something (to my mind) so obviously ridiculous that I could only interpret it as trying to play games. I'm glad that this is not the case (I think the past history of trolling on this page made me abandon AGF, I apologize). Anyways, postmodernism is quite obviously not some grand conspiracy to undermine "our western values", but I think we both know that so any discussion about that is moot. PS: are you planning on adding that proposed paragraph of yours, I think it sounds good. Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your gracious response, and for striking your comments. I hope we can get on better in future. Regarding my proposed wording (which would replace the current paragraph derived from Lux & Jordan) – I am waiting to see what responses there are from the other editors of that page. Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Neural Darwinism

Hi Mvbaron,

Thank you for the internal link info. This my first major effort on wikipedia... still learning the rules and process... your help is much appreciated. Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jtwsaddress42! Great to hear that my suggestion was helpful! And I know right? Wikipedia markup is just so confusing sometimes? I can’t edit without all these template and help pages :) btw, another great template is Template:citebook, I saw that you added references under the ref-tags, but it is very helpful to use the citebook templates - it’s a bit more complicated, but if you’re citing the same work multiple times it pays to go the extra mile. Mvbaron (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi MvBaron,

Thank you for the feedback on page editing. I meant to follow up on your suggestion for citebook templates, and also about the layout notice, but got caught up in trying to generate content first and then wanted to go back and do presentation formatting. Now that I've seen the example, I'll make an effort to apply it.

I now realize that Wikipedia requires smaller-bite size chunks that can stand on their own when submitted...

Thanks also for the feedback on quotations. I'll try to work them into the section when appropriate, but will drop the idea of heading each section that way, since it's not according to the rules! I felt that tying each section to a direct quotation was the best way to keep the focus close to the actual concepts of Neural Darwinism and would clarify/moderate my paraphrased version of what he has to say.

I'm trying to be cautious and not inject my own interpretation, so it helps to have an impartial editor... If you have the inclination to point out statements that you believe need direct reference and citations for, I'll do my best to see if I can track them down and make the citations.

Propose moving this to the talk page for further discussion

Lastly, I was thinking of organizing the overall layout of the article similar to the way Edelman does in Neural Darwinism, since this is the core work. He divides the book into three main sections, Somatic Selection, Epigenetic Mechanisms, and Global Functions. I was thinking that the main sections might go: Introduction to Neural Darwinism Population Thinking - Somatic selective systems Topobiology - Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms Building a theory of global brain function TNGS - The theory of neuronal group selection Reception etc... After the intro, the next three sections would layout the necessary background, science, and philosophy required to make sense of what TNGS is trying to do and why Edelman takes the approach he does. The TNGS section would layout a concise, but properly detailed, statement of the theory and it's postulates. By doing it this way, the subtopics can be organized in a coherent fashion that is consistent with the way Edelman presented the work.

Anyway, I was hoping to hear your thoughts on this matter, if you don't mind... and, I apologize for the long-winded post!

Thanks Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

hi Jtwsaddress42 thanks for you message! I think for your first project on wikipedia this is very polished, heck, you probably added more content to wikipedia than I did :) Nevertheless, I am happy to discuss my thoughts on the points you raised here. And, I'm glad you find the layout/referencing suggestions I made helpful - it sure took my some time to figure out wikimarkup!

• I now realize that Wikipedia requires smaller-bite size chunks that can stand on their own when submitted... Tbh, I don't think this is really needed, loads of edits can be unfinished - but of course this incurs the chance of other editors (who have watchlisted the page) changing your unfinished stuff. (as I did hehe) I don't mind this, but I often also first formulate stuff in my sandbox or an external text editor even and then put it into article-space. This is kinda up to you I think.
• will drop the idea of heading each section [with a quotation], since it's not according to the rules Ah, I don't know if it's technicaly against any rules, I just think it makes the article look like more like an essay and not an encyclopaedia. BUT: WP is a collaborative project, so by any means feel free to revert my BOLD change and if I feel strongly about it it is up to me to discuss it on the talk page. :)
• I was hoping to hear your thoughts on this matter, if you don't mind I gladly offer my thoughts! I'll moved the bits about the article to the talk page, if you don't mind. That way we can discuss the article in a better environment than my talk page!

Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

QAnon Talk Page

Sedeanimu (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Thanks for the heads up on the edit war rule. I felt that me going on that path was informal, but wasn't sure how I would convey my point:

But I think this will lead to a circular argument. However, I will reiterate that I believe you should not have bold assertions in the introduction, and one especially on an ongoing issue.

Historical dogmatism is surely present in Wikipedia, as is most scholarly books, I do not think this is a good approach, but if it is not an event which has significance to the current politic of the present times, then it is generally ignored. Multiple times do I see it though, two examples are E.P Sanders "A historical Jesus", in which is just states that he existed and lived in x place with bold assertion, without evidence, which could mislead the reader. Another was a book named "Histoire Romaine" by Rollin, where he said "x character did y", and "z did g", and now some of his history has been challenged, and overridden with other dogmas.

Given this, I am not fond with dogmatism. Now obviously there are things that are most plausible like: "when one jumps on earth, they fall", I believe Renee Descartes would question this, but encyclopedias are not supposed to be Descartes; point being it is circumstantial. However, things are still unfalsifiable, secondly, sometimes accepted dogmatisms have shown to fall flat on their face, in retrospect. Proving that people did not do something is nearly impossible unless they are tracked with a live camera for the rest of their lives. Obviously, the direction I'm going may seem over pedantic, but it's the only way I can best articulate what I mean.

In particular, this article wouldn't be an acceptation. Especially to cover the entire article as "untrue". But I once again said in my original edit that criticism was fair, but I suggest that it stays in the articles content, and the arguments be fleshed out as citations. This website isn't a public academic journal or research article, it is supposed to be a reference article. So, I believe that the consistency should be maintained that instead of saying an assertive like "this *is* not true", it should be "x people (or) most (scholars,etc) believe: y dogmatism"

So, my new edit would to either remove it, and leave the analysis to other sections, or to rephrase it. I believe rephrasing is important, because once again it is ongoing. Say we lived in the era of Sigmund Freud, then wrote an article on homosexuality. One may say, "homosexuals *are* x". This is clearly not true, and even for his time, such a dogmatism would be bad.

It is of my opinion that all assertiveness should be removed, one should not be sure as this leads to ignorance, which leads to confusion or suffering. Christians believed Jews were demons for a time, and they were the authority. Again it seems overly pedantic, but this article pertains to an ongoing political issue, and I think one should not be too keen to first of all create an article, and if they do, add assertiveness to such an article. Once again the Neutral Bias policy exists, so I also think this aligns with Wikipedia's philosophy, if the creators had no ideological leanings

Thank you,

J.A.

(P.s This is the last I will have to say pertaining to this, because I barely care to continue at this point in time. But I urge you to read, maybe learn some mathematical logic, or read books on philosophy if you are in disbelief; "Mathematical Logic" authored by H.-D. Ebbinghaus is a good one.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedeanimu (talk • contribs) 08:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Yeah no problem, edit-warring and WP:3RR is a wikipedia rule that gets enforced rather strictly, it is always better to discuss a change that gets reverted by someone on the talk page first :) (see: WP:BRD for some nice overview). Thank you for the book recommendation! Mathematical and formal logic is indeed a very interesting topic I still don't know enough about.

However, one thing that I also often forget is that Wikipedia articles are not academic or scientific articles, they are meant to summarize a wide variety of reliable sources on a certain topic, and we as editors are never meant insert our own conclusions drawn from the sources.

Regarding the specific edit on the QAnon page you made: I think there are two things to note: (1) the change was to the lead section of the article. such changes are the hardest, and are the ones that get reverted the most. (2) QAnon is really a conspiracy theory that all reliable sources describe as debunked. If you think this assessment is false, then you will need to find reliable sources that describe the opposite - that is the slow Wikipedia way unfortunately...

Good luck --Mvbaron (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

Hey, why did you remove my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainchupacabra (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Zainchupacabra You are talking about this edit: (DIFF Special:Diff/1017267327 ). I reverted it, because you added "relentless internet troll" to the article, and it isn't clear what that is referring to - AND that phrasing never appeared in the quoted source. Feel free to make another sourced edit to the page, I only reverted this one because I found it was unclear. Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ivan Štironja on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 14:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pavol Hnilica on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 13:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jan Żaryn on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 09:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

What's Wrong with this section on white privilege?

I'm adding new information to Wikipedia so that people can see the counter arguments and so that they are not biased, so what is wrong with this section?

In January 2019, the term white privilege has been criticised as being a racist and divisive term by The Oregonian.

In June 2021, the United Kingdom's education committee’s report found that white working class pupils were being let down with white privilege being being blamed as one of the reasons for the devisiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccurateJournalist (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello AccurateJournalist! I reverted this proposed addition to the article White Privilege because these two sources don't meet the standards for Wikipedia. (1) is an opinion piece that is not really notable, and (2) is a WP:PRIMARY source (government reports usually can not be used for wikipedia articles. May I ask you to open a new section at the Talk page? I saw that you tried but there were some format problems, but it seems you have managed to add the section here just fine :) So we could continue the discussion there. Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please look at the Psychology of reasoning talk page

Please look at the Psychology of reasoning talk page section Lets add "in cognitive science it's know as the cognitive science of reasoning" in -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uni3993 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

talk page archiving

FYI, per this there's now Help:Archives (plain and simple). —valereee (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

woah that's amazing!!! thank you so much! Mvbaron (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Short Descriptions

Please see WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I do know that; and I also know this qualification: be short – no more than about 40 characters (but this can be slightly exceeded if necessary). The two edits of yours that I undid were not an improvement in my opinion. but as always: I'm happy to discuss it on the talk pages. cheers -- Mvbaron (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Important Information

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Mvbaron (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for responding to my talk comment about the knowledge and understanding page. It has helped me 'understand' how the talk page works better and has given me some confidence to start editing! :) DannyHatcher (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ha thank you! DannyHatcher that's nice to hear! And yeah, I agree about the knowledge article/lead section btw. It would be good to improve it. not exactly sure how, but the term "understanding" actually doesn't come up in the main article and shouldn't be in the lead therefore... I'm curious what your angle is. --Mvbaron (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I am doing my PhD about learning and understanding, more specifically the theory of understanding using the bayesian brain hypothesis alongside cognitive load theory, and much of the philosophical conversations about understanding suggests understanding comes from knowledge of parts, not just knowledge of causal links. With lots to expand on of course. Is there a template or quick way to timestamp these talk things? I am doing a copy paste change in the edit window. Testing a tag Mvbaron User:DannyHatcher 7 November 2021

ah interesting, ping didn't work, you do it like this:

Markup	Renders as
{{u|Mvbaron}}	Mvbaron

and signing your talk posts like so:

Markup	Renders as
~~~~	Mvbaron (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

wikipedia markup (see H:MARKUP) is hell :D --Mvbaron (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Markup	Renders as
{{u|Mvbaron}}	Mvbaron

is there a quick way to do a ping? I found the "sign your posts on talk pages" button DannyHatcher (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Juneteenth, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. That template cannot be removed without a full discussion on the talk page. I suggest you put it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't template me like this... and don't try to scare me. Mvbaron (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Episode 9 of Season 1 titled, "Indifference"

Episode 9 of Season 1 titled, "Indifference" description denotes a disreputable attorney, when in fact the character is a physcyotherapist. The blurb at the end states "This is not in reference the the actual case of Lisa Steinberg." Her abuser was an attorney . Please fix the description because it could be troublesome, due the the different Career's of the adult men involved In both the episode and real life stories. Thank You, Love the show! 2601:18C:C980:4C60:4540:CA71:29B4:E5D4 (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The what now? --Mvbaron (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

White genocide and “muslims”

Hello! I noticed that every time I delete the word Muslims from the white supremacy conspiracy theory, you bring it back. Is there a problem? There is a difference between religion and race. Islam is a global religion. A Muslim , a white cannot be written. A white person can be a Muslim. There are many white Muslims in Europe and North America, such as jonathan AC brown as well. Countries like Albania, Bosnia, Russia and Chechnya are white and Muslim European countries Saxsd12 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

sorry i mean “white genocide” Saxsd12 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Saxsd12, thank you for the message!

Yes, I brought it back because the article is describing the conspiracy theory. I 100% agree with you about the word Muslim! But, the conspiracy people are making the error, and wikipedia is just describing the error. They say "Muslims are invading Europe", and they are wrong. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, just describing what they are saying. (Just like people that say "The earth is flat" - it is wrong of course, but wikipedia still says "there are people that say that the earth is flat".

Does that make sense? Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but whoever wrote this might think that Muslims are like Jews, a Ethnoreligious for example, that's why I deleted it more than once. In Europe, blacks are considered black, white white, and Afghani Afghani, whether black is Muslim or Christian, his religion is not important, but if he is white Muslim or Christian is also not important for this reason deleted it Saxsd12 (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

yeah I know, I agree with you. But wikipedia is really just reporting what the conspiracy people are saying - and they are wrong. The sentence is like this: Less frequently, black people, Hispanics, and Muslims are blamed - it just reports who the conspiracy people are blaming. They might blame, for example, little green men on the mars, and we would still report this (even though it is wrong). Mvbaron (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

But on Wikipedia, anyone can write. Whoever wrote this is someone who believes that Muslims are of an ethnicity like the Jews, so I deleted it more than once. Refugees from Eritreans,Nigeria for example consider them as black and refugees from Albania consider white no one cares about their religion as will refugess from afghanstan are seen as Asian, so I will delete the word "Muslims" and replace it with Asian Saxsd12 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The waves of migrations mostly came from Asia, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa, such as Eritrea and Nigeria. Knowing that no one cared if they were Muslims or Christians, everyone sees that they are not white. As for the refugees from Bosnia, they are seen as white, but they are also Muslims. Here is the difference and the other thing is that the majority of English speakers believe Muslims are a ethno-religous like jewish, so these mistakes must be corrected so that they do not spread everywhere Saxsd12 (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Saxsd12, there is a misunderstanding here: This sentence describes something false - I know that Muslims are not an ethnicity. But the conspiracy says "Muslims and Black people are invading Europe" <--- this is false, and wikipedia just reports what the conspiracy says.

Example:

If the conspiracy says "the earth is flat" then wikipedia writes "The conspiracy says that the earth is flat".

If the conspiracy says "the Muslims and the Jews are invading Europe" then wikipedia writes "The conspiracy says that the Muslims and the Jews are invading Europe".

Both are false, but both sentences only report what the conspiracy theory says, and not what is the truth. Mvbaron (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I know, but the conspiracy theory is linked to the genocide of whites and has nothing to do with a religion with white ethnicity. Who wrote this is referring to Afghan and Iraqi immigrants who are considered Asian and not Muslims, some of them are not Muslims as well as some of them are atheists, but they are considered by non white immigrants in any case Saxsd12 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The conspiracy is called the "white genocide conspiracy", but in it's (nonsensical) view, these conspiracy theorists also target people they (sometimes mistakenly) believe to be Jews or Muslims. Whether or not it's a mischaracterization of race or ethnicity, the article goes into great depth about how the "white genocide conspiracy theory" is Islamophobic and antisemitic. The article lead is just summarizing what's already well-sourced in the body of the article. You're right that it's nonsensical, but that's why it's a conspiracy theory. Politanvm ^talk 18:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, will you allow me to modify the word Muslims to asians without you returning it? Because I explained why I would modify it🌹🌹 Saxsd12 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources for that? That conspiracy theorists blame "Muslims" is well-sourced throughout the article, but blaming "Asians" is barely discussed in the body of the article. Again, this article is about the conspiracy theory and summarizing what these conspiracy theorists believe. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about the topic, not what we want to be true about the topic. This isn't a place to right great wrongs. It seems like there's nothing else to add that Mvbaron hasn't already explained, so I'll probably tap out here. Politanvm ^talk 20:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The Muslims who blame them are Asian and African, and they are not white. This is my intention. As for the white Muslims, they are not blamed Saxsd12 (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy and precision is always called for. There are Ashkenazi Jews whose ancestry goes back hundreds of years in eastern Europe.There are Sephardi Jews whose North African and "Spanish" ancestry goes back even further. There are Ethiopian Jews whose ancestry may be ancient or more contemporary, depending on which authorities you believe. Analysis of the sources is essential. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

But the Jews are ethnically religiously like Sikhs and Hindus, while Muslims are like Christians, Islam is a global religion, have no ethnicity Saxsd12 (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone :D (Cullen328, since when do you have a normal signature? I needed to click on you to verify that you're not some impostor :) )

Anyways, Saxsd12, I appreciate your edits, I really do - it is good to be precise in your edits. But in the case of the white genocide conspiracy theory, the people who spread this false conspiracy are incoherent, right-wing lunatics that say all sorts of false things. They say "The jews are conspiring to kill all white people", or "the Muslims are invading Europe to replace all white people". I even feel disgust when I write these things, but that does not mean that what I just wrote is true or that I think it is true.

• An encyclopedia for better or worse just reports what other people are saying- if there are enough people saying that "the muslims are invading Europe", then we report this - even though it is completely and utterly false and incoherent.
• And: the conspiracists actually do not distinguish between Muslims that live in Europe and Muslims that live otherwise, they just say "all muslims" - again, this is false, incoherent and disgusting, but that's what they say. Mvbaron (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I know, and whoever wrote this is referring to the Afghan and Iraqi Asians, not the white European Muslims, so I will amend it so as not to misunderstand as always Saxsd12 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Saxsd12 that's incorrect: the conspiracists actually do not distinguish between Muslims that live in Europe and Muslims that live otherwise, they just say "all muslims" - again, this is false, incoherent and disgusting, but that's what they say. Mvbaron (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It is always misunderstood everywhere that Muslims are ethnic-religion in the media, news and public talk, so it must be modified Saxsd12 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

alright, I now tried to explain to you four times that we only report what THEY say - not what is the truth. Please do not respond here anymore, I will archive this section. Any further discussion should continue at the article talk pages. Mvbaron (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a source, or everything written in it is true. Anyone can write and anyone can edit, but when i edit, you're return it back. I explained to you that there is a difference between race and religion. This is what I will correct Saxsd12 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I will change the word Muslims to Asians, i explain to you why🌹 Saxsd12 (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions on RfC phrasing

Hey Mvbaron, Thank you for your comment on Jack Posobiec's talk page regarding the RfC - I'm open to suggestions on how to form a proper neutral/brief RfC.MaximusEditor (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antony Flew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Good bot. You are of course correct. Thanks. Mvbaron (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

archiving

Hey, Mvbaron! I was actually dithering over undoing this edit. It might actually be helpful to let people know what they should expect to see within the edit box. Substing is surprising for non-tech editors. You might copy/paste the subst'd template, save, the reopen the edit box and think, "Huh? Where did it go?" :D

Trying to find a balance between enough information and too much. The whole point of this simplified page is to not end up looking like Help:Archiving a talk page. But maybe there is too little explanation at the plain and simple version? What was your thinking when you added that? —valereee (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

haha hey, thanks for the reply :) Yeah my whole reason for that edit was because I added it and had some difficulty looking up what the default params were. So after looking it up (which actually isn't that easy for non-technical people, because I had to look at the raw template substitution) I thought maybe someone else would like that info too.

End the end, I agree with your revert actually. If needed we could just add a simple sentence like By default, this will archive all threads that are older than 90 days Or something? Mvbaron (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey! I'm so sorry, I meant to warn the person you reverted. Thanks for removing the copyvio! Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 00:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

haha, no worries. I figured that's what happened. For a second I was worried that in reverting a copyvio I broke the copyvio rules myself :) Since you're here: what's the best way to deal with copyvios? Revert + Tag or just Tagging? Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The4lines ping because replying doesn't ping iirc. --Mvbaron (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey! The best way is to revert and then tag it for rd-1. I would install User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel because it's very helpful, if you don't have it already. Make sure you're checking to make sure that it's not a mirror. I remember when I got first got wrongly warned. For a second you think you broke a rule and then you realize it was a mistake. Happy editing! Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 17:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks! I do not have that. Good to know. Mvbaron (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)