User talk:Thmazing

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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarack

A year or so back you asked by the presence of Tamarack (Larix laricina) in the Flathead Valley of Montana, in contradiction to the range given on the species page. It seems likely to me that the name was being applied to the western larch (Larix occidentalis), which is native to mountains in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and southern British Columbia. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

It occurs to me that if you were ignorant of the independence requirement in WP:N you might be unaware of its editor related cousin Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of both, I just couldn't see how either was relevant. Thmazing (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were not aware of the independence requirement in WP:N just the other day, I understand that you are now aware of it. I must have missed your COI disclosure regarding the Association of Mormon Letters, where can it be found? I would also ask why if you are aware of COI have you been editing those pages directly? Perhaps you are not actually aware of what WP:COI says? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted my previous comment because it was rude. I understand your feelings may be hurt and I don't want to pile on. (In short, I never said I was unaware of the independence requirement.) Wikipedia is not a sport where people should strive to win or lose and I apologize if I made you feel you needed to win. I hope you have a pleasant week. Thmazing (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, as you can see from the reply I was writing below I can roll with it. I obviously misinterpreted what you said about the independence requirement, I'm sorry. It was a good discussion and as you might have noticed P-Makoto is rather brilliant even if a bit tunnel visiony at times. I don't think I won or lost anything (which in classical rhetorical parlance means I must have lost lol) because all good faith discussions make wikipedia a better place in the long run. Friction in this system is good, as long as it doesn't turn into fire. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That's one of the things I like about this place. Thmazing (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I may very well be. To be fair there is a lot to read... Care to point me in the right direction? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime now... The link is needed to add Template:Connected contributor to Association of Mormon Letters and related pages properly (it can be added without the link to the COI disclose, but its less clean that way). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please follow the WP:COI rules for all pages where you have a COI or WP:PAID conflict? I don't see where you have disclosed, on enwiki, your COI with regards to e.g. Irreantum, the AML and its awards, or any other pages you may have a conflict of interest with (like Elias: An Epic of the Ages). Fram (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mystified what COI you imagine with Elias; this suggests to me you may be unclear as to what COI means? As for, say Irreantum, I believe I have not edited that page since a COI came to exist. Surely you understand that time is linear and edits made before a COI exists do not have a COI? That said, I probably will keep updating the AML Awards page which I (arguably) might have a COI on, so I I'll go ahead and post a notice. That said, you should definitely revisit the COI rules. Thmazing (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a member of an organization, and you edit pages related to that organization, you inarguably have an WP:ACTUALCOI when it comes to those edits and are strongly discouraged from making them. If you don't edit those pages, you still have a potential COI that ought to be disclosed on your user page. JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to agree with you as, at first read, everything you say seems obvious. But on closer look you seem to be saying that one should post every imaginable COI related to any organization one might be ever be affiliated with. Of course, that's not actual Wikipedia policy but I was curious how you handle that so I went to your page. And while I learned that "This user has published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals" and that "This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in molecular biology," I didn't see any COI announcements regarding the organizations you're connected to. I'm not sure how you get a PhD in anything without being a part of some kind of organization so I'm curious why you haven't displayed those potential COIs on your user page, even if you're not editing those pages? I took a look at your contributions and in those rare times you're not debating whether to debate articles or alter Wikipedia policies or making comments on user pages or marking things as non-notable you're . . . actually, those seem to be the bulk of your edits. But still. By your logic, shouldn't your user page be covered in possible conflicts of interest? I'd love to mention specific examples, but you've done a pretty good job hiding your identity. Me, I'm public. Anyway, thanks for stopping by. Always nice to meet new people. Thmazing (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote 230 words blustering over my saying you ought to disclose potential COIs, after spending however long digging through my contribs, just to avoid addressing the blatant actual COI evidence pointed out above... JoelleJay (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thmazing, I'm intrigued as to your definition of "linear time". Personally, I think that an edit claiming you've been the editor of a magazine since the previous year probably came after your appointment as editor. But perhaps I'm incorrect; do you wish to explain how time works again? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. My memory was off. I did go add the COI notice. Thank you all for pointing out my oversight. I'm a bit embarrassed, to be honest. Thmazing (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Large parts of Elias: An Epic of the Ages are cited to your own blogpost on your substack, not to an independent WP:RS. How you can claim that you don't have a COI here is beyond me, but considering the problems raised by others above, I shouldn't be surprised. It isn't a one-off lapse either, here you you use another of your blogs as a source, and here yet another one. There seems to be a pattern here, I guess I would easily find other examples if I kept looking. Using your own work as a reference is part of the WP:COI page anyway, but using unreliable sources to do so pushes it clearly beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable. Fram (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh. Well that's something different than the complaint made before. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

But as I'm sure you're aware, Wikipedia encourages people with expert backgrounds, scientists for instance, to edit Wikipedia to bring their expertise to the site. There's a difference here in that I didn't place this anywhere peer-edited, so I can see why you're mad. Thmazing (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the guidelines and probably I did cross a line here. I'll work on getting that published elsewhere, but if you want to throw some sort of notice on the page in the meantime, I won't be offended. Thmazing (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how what I explained now is any different than "pages you may have a conflict of interest with (like Elias: An Epic of the Ages). " which I said before. Can you please also do the necessary for all other pages where you have some form of COI in your editing? It's not up to me to do this, you should do this yourself, on pages where your COI has been pointed out here nown and on other ones where this hasn't happened yet. It has been done this week at Association for Mormon Letters by another editor after they waited for months for you to do the necessary. You have wasted enough time and patience of other editors here with deflection, omissions, misunderstandings, bad memory issues, and so on. If you don't do it yourself, I will bring this to the appropriate noticeboard (probably WP:ANI). Fram (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we're talking about roughly a dozen edits over roughly 8000 edits or .15% of my total edits. Even if we quadruple my infractions, which seems a number higher than likely, it's less than half of one percent of my total edits.

I know you just got out of arbitration yourself and so I can understand why you'd want to share the love, but I feel like the conversation we've had has already solved this problem. Unless you actually are threatening to report me for additional infractions you imagine might exist? But I can't believe you really mean that.

Let's not forget that this piling-on is only possible because I have voluntarily made my identity public. So a small number of errors seems like maybe I'm doing okay?

I've been in edit battles with sock puppets before. I know what bad-faith editing looks like. As far as I can tell, even in your opinion, none of the examples here involve me being shady—just sloppy. Mea culpa.

I think you might feel better about things if you report me. I mean—you're Fram! You have a reputation to maintain! (I was lurking on a Discord channel earlier today and you came up. "What a coincidence!" I said to myself.) So if you want to, please go ahead. I won't be offended. I've observed plenty of these battles in the past and I'm confident that, even with my errors, I have demonstrably been acting in good faith. The numbers back me up.

I'm not sure how you all ended up here (perhaps you're on another Discord channel complaining about me?) but I want you to know that I appreciate the feedback. I'll admit that it's hard, when you become officially affiliated with something you've long been editing, to make that transition. But I'm not afraid of feedback or pushback which is why my identity is public. Although I'm a big supporter of Wikipedia's anonymity policies, I do think that people calling kettles black should consider making themselves as public as the kettle.

Sincerely, Thmazing (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do COI editing, so no idea where you get the pot/kettle idea from. I am also not threatening you with arbitration. More importantly, no, this discussion doesn't seem to have solved anything at all. Your penultimate edit was to go to Talk:Brad Teare, not to disclose your COI, but to make a different edit. "It seems like we're talking about roughly a dozen edits", well, extremely roughly, it's a lot more, but in any case even one edit requires disclosure. So, one final time, are you going to make the necessary COI disclosures about all the pages you have edited where you have a COI, or not? Fram (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 already touched on this, but looking more closely, your dismissal of your COI on Irreantum beggars belief. You claim "As for, say Irreantum, I believe I have not edited that page since a COI came to exist." These are your edits to that page; every single one came after your COI started, you edited it last in October 2023, your name is immediately visible again and again when one just looks at the page history... Perhaps next time, if you don't remember the facts, first check such things before dismissing the concerns from others? Fram (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my COI notice on that page you'll notice I discovered I was wrong. Consider me sheepish and apologetic. Thmazing (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the COI notice on the page it says "Although I haven't made significant edits since taking over Irreantum's editorship, I have fixed some dashes and added a citation and such." which doesn't appear to be truthful, you have made significant edits[1][2] since taking over Irreantum's editorship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Association of Mormon Letters is this [3] supposed to be the COI notice? It feels like it should be mentioned in the edit summary of edits like this [4] (edit summary: "removed notability warning for two reasons: patently untrue and to draw attention to the sources issue which is more significant and urgent") but I don't see anything. If you never actually made the declaration thats fine, but please clarify if that was the case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider James Goldberg a COI? You and him served on the same board. It seems you, and two other people related to the AML have been editing his bio? Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you all clearly measure "a week" much more strictly than I do! I haven't had much Wikipedia time of last as I have several writing projects coming due and it's a busy time at work as well. I see from the conversations elsewhere that this has been interpreted as me being recalcitrant and avoidant, which hurts my feelings, but I understand that rage must be spent. I hope things work out to your satisfaction. Thmazing (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pekovich moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Mike Pekovich. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning RE: "Belgian schools," etc.

Hi. Explain this mention to me. I'm considering blocking you for harassment for that and for your conduct above otherwise, so please be concise when providing this explanation. And no more personal comments or tone, please; no more passive-aggressive masquerading as light-hearted, either. A matter-of-fact approach is now required. Thank you. El_C 01:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of completeness, noting that I've added @Special:Permalink/1212687110#Weak_response_to_persistent_CIO_emboldens_violators to the evidence section of the ongoing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management case, citing this. Am leaving it as placeholder for now, though, pending your response as well as due to time constraints. El_C 02:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the message as it was clearly inappropriate and was meant to be left there for a week without further responses. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thmazing, although the edit in question has been removed, I think El_C probably still wants a reply to his question. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 11:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not being obtuse intentionally, but I wonder if you can explain why a light-hearted comment about someone being Belgian is worse than the full on doxxing that editor has been engaged in? I wasn't trying to be rude or intimidating, only expressing that Wikipedia may not be the place for calling out people's life details. If Fram was also warned, I apologize for even asking the question. Thmazing (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain El_C wasn't talking about the "Belgian schools" part of your comment. It is the condescending tone of: "your English is very good...I'm sure you've been practicing for a long, long time" that you should be apologizing for. ~Awilley (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a compliment?

Something I've noticed about this conversation is that people keep accusing me of attacking and mocking others when I have done no such thing. Is this projection? I don't know. It's perplexing.

Nevertheless, I do feel bad if Fram feels hurt by anything I've said. I genuinely assumed she knew how famous she is and wouldn't mind a bit of banter. I'm flattered she paid me a visit! We are not enemies here. We are fellow Wikipedians. We are together joined in perhaps the greatest (certainly the most broadly democratic) task in the history of human knowledge. I'm genuinely not mad at anyone. I've had some of the gray areas of policy cleared up for me by people whose entire life is enforcing policy. You are all welcome to my talk page anytime. Thmazing (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your impression of Hoid as Wit WP:BAITING people is not fooling anyone and is the main reason why everyone is mobilizing and grabbing pitchforks. We would love for you to help improve The Encyclopedia, but your unwillingness to address things that originally weren’t that big of a deal is spectacularly self-defeating. The fact that most of the active admins are WP:INVOLVED now and thus not going to do anything is simply riling the crowd up more. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A Motley Vision for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Motley Vision is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Motley Vision until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Thmazing jps (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of redirects and articles

Hi!

In case you weren’t aware, titles around here are generally not case-sensitive so there’s not really any reason to create redirects like you’ve been creating.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd noticed that this was a change that had been made. Currently, I only make the redirect if what I typed failed to get me to the site. I've no idea why sometimes this happens. Thmazing (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, separately, about Googling, it may interest you to know that one of the top results for "Thmazing wikipedia" is the Timothée Chalamet article and your name as disclosed on your user page (or even that page itself) is nowhere on the first page of results. Seems like search engines don’t like WP’s annoying little sister which must not be named.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's wild. I have no memory of even editing that page. Thmazing (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives