User talk:BecomeFree

BecomeFree, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BecomeFree! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Indian cricket team in New Zealand in 2019–20

Hi. Please note that the current sport template is not used on these international cricket tours. The template instructions states "...which is either changing rapidly or about which understanding is rapidly evolving..." This isn't really the case here, as there's only a handful of updates on a match day, and not much else. It's only really used on multi-team "top-tier" events, such as the 2019 Cricket World Cup. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! BecomeFree (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslighting short description

Seeing that you edited the Gaslighting article a lot, I have come to tell you that I added the short description "psychological manipulation via doubting another person's perspective". Does this sound accurate whilst still being short enough? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Qwertyxp2000:. It is short enough. AFAIU there is more to gaslighting than (simply) doubting the other person's perspective. The 'characteristics' section describes it as the victimizer "imposing their judgement" on the victim to the point they are confused about their own judgement, and thereby become vulnerable enough for further (psychic) control by the victimizer. Gaslighting is also covert (and subtle). I think as first step we should rewrite the lead (see Talk), and then perhaps revisit this short description. I'm waiting for input from other editors, while I also think of ways of improvement in the meanwhile. BecomeFree (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello. Your assertion that "this is a less commonly used meaning of the word 'hunter'." is false. The vast majoirty of the sources that use the term hunger seem to use it to refer to the social problem. Tens of millions of people work on hunger relief in the social sense, only a handful of scientists work on hunger as a physiological feeling. There have been several previous discussions supporting this, so boldly going ahead with the rename was maybe not the thing to do.

Would you please mind restoring the hunger article as it was before your move? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable: Hmm, I see your point. Sorry about being less careful. I've reverted some of my changes, but I think to move the original page back to 'Hunger' will require some permission? I don't have permission to delete it, and then move. BecomeFree (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for being open minded about this! What you've just done looks fine to me (though I know nothing about page moves, & have never done one.) I do know something about hunger, & have strong feelings on the topic, so please excuse my blunt message. Thanks again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable:It should be taken care of in a bit. I put in a request at WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests. Cheers!—ShelfSkewed Talk 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

This is exchangeable for beer if that suits you better. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When not to link

Please see WP:OVERLINK. Just because we have an article on beef doesn't mean we should link to it. It's great that you are trying to help, but there's learning curve and at 200,000 and more edits I'm still climbing it! Doug Weller talk 17:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internalized oppression

Please see WP:GOCE/REQ#Internalized oppression; KamillaŚ requested a copyedit before translating the article into Polish, but I can't continue the copyedit while you're making substantial changes to the article. Please let me know when you're done. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 21:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis: - I'm done with my changes to that article. Feel free to continue wth your copyediting. BecomeFree (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello, I'm GorillaWarfare. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Monotrophic diet—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: - Apologies; I didn't mean to remove the text under "Examples" section. I think it got accidentally removed. The bulk of carnivore diet section has been made its own article anyway; and linking to it would be uncontroversial I'd think. BecomeFree (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, BecomeFree -- I figured it was a mistake. I didn't mean to undo all of your edits, either -- if you want it might make sense to revert to the one before the accidental deletion? I'll leave it up to you -- I don't want to undo your most recent edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivore diet

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carnivore diet; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn:. An individual revert does not indicate edit warring. The changes you made to the article are less neutral. I understand you are trying to help; you should discuss in Talk first. BecomeFree (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No editor is required to discuss changes before editing, and insisting on this is a kind of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Your edits in the article are a string of reverts and you are risking a block. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]