User talk:PaleoNeonate

Response to your comment on my page

Hi there!

Thanks for your message dated 16 December 2021. Continuous dialogue being the best way to further human advancement, would you not agree?

You state: "your edit history shows a lot of chatting on article talk pages." Could you possibly further explain this comment? I don't think I've chatted to anyone on any talk pages, and I believe your comment to be erroneous in this regard. I have only ever commented about how pages could be improved, particularly with a view to challenging bias. Which I consider to be Wikipedia's big problem.

You state: "they are not for general discussion." I haven't had any discussion with anybody in the past on talk pages, apart from right now in response to you. Given that you chose to comment on my page, I feel it warranted a response. Perhaps you could explain why you chose to engage in general discussion with me, only to tell me I shouldn't engage in general discussion? = )

You state: "Instead of complaining, it is better to link sources that contradict the contested material, or that support the view you would like the article to reflect." This sounds very much like you are implying that I was complaining. Please can you clarify, and possibly rephrase your comment on my page if this was not your intention. Or if you were implying that I was complaining, then please know that I was not complaining. If that was your interpretation, then your interpretation is in error. Complaining was far from my intention. My comments seek merely to challenge and try to make Wikipedia better.

You state: "[Wikipedia guidance] suggests to boldly edit while citing a reliable source." I used to do this, but I got fed up of power users (like yourself) reverting every single one of my edits back again the following day. You see, Wikipedia is actually not (as it claims) a free collective that can be edited by anybody. I am of the opinon that it is in fact a bastion of very biased people who keep control of the narrative by ensuring that the information is never moved too far from their particular favoured stance. This is why certain controversial topics have many "turf wars" between two camps of equally biased people of opposite persuasion on the topic. What are your thoughts on this?

By way of constructive feedback to yourself, I didn't feel that your comment came across as particularly intended to assist me in using Wikipedia, so much as to "correct me" on what you perceived to be my "incorrect use". That is your opinion, and your right. However, personally I will continue to be of the opinion that Wikipedia is what we each choose to make of it, and as such I would never dream of telling you how you best ought to be using it! That is entirely up to you. I would entrust that decision up to your better judgment as a rational adult and that you will use it as you see best. Whilst we probably do need to have red lines such as ensuring that users don't bully or abuse other users, outside of those red lines users should be free to make Wikipedia whatever it is to them. If some people did want to have a chat, such as the one you have instigated here, why not? What harm does it do to enter dialogue and find out other people's perspectives on topics on the talk pages, particularly if it enhances Wikipedia in the long run?

Now that we have started this chat, out of interest what are your thoughts on my approach to using Wikipedia, particularly as contrasted with yours and as to how it might lead to improving Wikipedia through engaging discussion with other people?

Best regards

DS — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiverseSynergy (talk • contribs) 00:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@DiverseSynergy: Sorry for the delay. My note was about the WP:NOTFORUM policy and the WP:BRD guide to the WP:CONSENSUS policy, more than my opinion or to open a lengthy discussion. Posting on article talk pages is part of editing processes, but it should really be practical, i.e. concise suggestions that also cite supporting reliable sources. Even better is to boldly edit when possible, considering that editing is a privilege to improve the encyclopedia... —PaleoNeonate – 22:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about possible sock

Hope you don't mind me asking you this here. My reason was two-fold - you and I tend to edit in some similar spaces, so you're somebody I recognized, and more importantely, you were involved in the discussion to siteban User:PeacePeace ([1]), which is who this is about. So... an edit appeared on A Thief in the Night (film) yesterday that was almost identical to an edit that User:PeacePeace had repeatedly tried to put into the article. The edit by FairNPOV here is nearly the same as PeacePeace did here. The wording is similar, and more telling, the source is added the same way along with simply dropping the entire book as the reference, no page number. Looking at FairNPOV's history, they seem to have a similar pattern of jumping into Talk pages and using them as a forum to argue (same as PeacePeace did). PeacePeace's siteban kicked in on 8 Sept 2020, and FairNPOV showed up on 9 Sept 2020. I didn't bother to compare pages beyond just the Thief page, figuring I'd seek out wise counsel first (hence why I'm here). I have only really dealt with a sock one other other time, so I'm not sure of best practices. Am I off base here, or does this appear to fit WP:QUACK? ButlerBlog (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: you may be right, also consider the edit summary type, the top of these talk pages (1, 2), the type of signature with the paren, familiarity with Spanish, etc. WP:SPI would be the place to report it. Since its your catch and a good/plausible one, I suggest to file a SPI report. If you prefer, I could do it later on today. Thanks for noticing, —PaleoNeonate – 21:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: case filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PeacePeace, if you have other convincing diffs I suggest to post a few there... —PaleoNeonate – 10:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I got behind yesterday - thanks for taking the time to file this. I added a comment there as well. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-02

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• A oauth_consumer variable has been added to the AbuseFilter to enable identifying changes made by specific tools. [2]
• Gadgets are now able to directly include JSON pages. This means some gadgets can now be configured by administrators without needing the interface administrator permission, such as with the Geonotice gadget. [3]
• Gadgets can now specify page actions on which they are available. For example, |actions=edit,history will load a gadget only while editing and on history pages. [4]
• Gadgets can now be loaded on demand with the withgadget URL parameter. This can be used to replace an earlier snippet that typically looks like withJS or withCSS. [5]
• At wikis where the Mentorship system is configured, you can now use the Action API to get a list of a mentor's mentees. [6]
• The heading on the main page can now be configured using MediaWiki:Mainpage-title-loggedin for logged-in users and MediaWiki:Mainpage-title for logged-out users. Any CSS that was previously used to hide the heading should be removed. [7] [8]
• Four special pages (and their API counterparts) now have a maximum database query execution time of 30 seconds. These special pages are: RecentChanges, Watchlist, Contributions, and Log. This change will help with site performance and stability. You can read more details about this change including some possible solutions if this affects your workflows. [9]
• The sticky header has been deployed for 50% of logged-in users on more than 10 wikis. This is part of the Desktop Improvements. See how to take part in the project.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 January. It will be on all wikis from 13 January (calendar).

Events

• Community Wishlist Survey 2022 begins. All contributors to the Wikimedia projects can propose for tools and platform improvements. The proposal phase takes place from 10 January 18:00 UTC to 23 January 18:00 UTC. Learn more.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Lists of deaths.....

Regarding this addition. I was not involved in the topic at the time, so I'm ignorant of the history here. IIRC (from some talk page comments), those lists are not the same as the current article. If that is true, your addition might be misleading. Please help me understand this. Ping me. -- Valjean (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: they seem close enough (the current article also was such a list until recently). If the template is contested a talk page post linking those would be a good alternative... This can serve for admins who can read deleted articles and compare, for new page patrollers if they see new redundant articles and for current editors if they want to ensure that this article's approach be distinct to avoid deletion, I think. —PaleoNeonate – 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm but yes, the others were not specifically about vaccination only, —PaleoNeonate – 02:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-03

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• When using WikiEditor (also known as the 2010 wikitext editor), people will now see a warning if they link to disambiguation pages. If you click "Review link" in the warning, it will ask you to correct the link to a more specific term. You can read more information about this completed 2021 Community Wishlist item.
• You can automatically subscribe to all of the talk page discussions that you start or comment in using DiscussionTools. You will receive notifications when another editor replies. This is available at most wikis. Go to your Preferences and turn on "Automatically subscribe to topics". [10]
• When asked to create a new page or talk page section, input fields can be "preloaded" with some text. This feature is now limited to wikitext pages. This is so users can't be tricked into making malicious edits. There is a discussion about if this feature should be re-enabled for some content types.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 January. It will be on all wikis from 20 January (calendar).

Events

• Community Wishlist Survey 2022 continues. All contributors to the Wikimedia projects can propose for tools and platform improvements. The proposal phase takes place from 10 January 18:00 UTC to 23 January 18:00 UTC. Learn more.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-04

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 January. It will be on all wikis from 27 January (calendar).
• The following languages can now be used with syntax highlighting: BDD, Elpi, LilyPond, Maxima, Rita, Savi, Sed, Sophia, Spice, .SRCINFO.
• You can now access your watchlist from outside of the user menu in the new Vector skin. The watchlist link appears next to the notification icons if you are at the top of the page. [11]

Events

• You can see the results of the Coolest Tool Award 2021 and learn more about 14 tools which were selected this year.
• You can translate, promote, or comment on the proposals in the Community Wishlist Survey. Voting will begin on 28 January.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		For your participation in my ANI thread. Thanks for voicing out your opinion. Rlink2 (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think your revert at DNA history of Egypt is being discussed

here. At least I assume that's what is meant by the editor you reverted. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Malone

You wrote "quite" - meaning "quote" of course. I don't edit the article or else I might have fixed it. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, thank you :) —PaleoNeonate – 02:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-05

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• If a gadget should support the new ?withgadget URL parameter that was announced 3 weeks ago, then it must now also specify supportsUrlLoad in the gadget definition (documentation). [12]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 February. It will be on all wikis from 3 February (calendar).

Future changes

• A change that was announced last year was delayed. It is now ready to move ahead:
  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress. This is for technical reasons. This is the technical name. It doesn't affect what you call the editors with this user right on your wiki. This is planned to happen in three weeks. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections. As usual, these labels can be translated on translatewiki (direct links are available) or by administrators on your wiki.

Events

• You can vote on proposals in the Community Wishlist Survey between 28 January and 11 February. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is amusing

[13] but he didn't move it. I don't know if you've been following the ArbCom discussions on discretionary sanctions, but although they've removed the Ancient Egyptian history sanctions they've made it clear that pseudoscience includes pseudoarchaeology, so I'll give this guy a talk page alert. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Lol. You beat me to it. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've seen some DS related notice but wasn't aware of the details. Hmm I think this user should be reported at ANI but I currently have no time to write the report (I should have more time later on). Soapboxing didn't stop, failure to focus on content and sources continues with accusations of relationships or conflict of interest for standard patrolling, I'm sure that any acting admin will also get a frivolous accusation of special involvement... —PaleoNeonate – 08:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you'd be the best person to do it, not me in this case. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

And why does he reply to 12 year old anonymous posts?[14]. Odd. I've seen other people do that and can never figure out why. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Article title and his accusation against you at WP:FTN#Eyes needed on some pseuodhistorian articles. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I decided to first leave them a more detailed non-automatic note about how WP works, who knows. Always difficult to tell between trolling and cluelessness, but Wikipedia is admitedly a special world. I'll only check the new posts after if they haven't been reverted/closed by someone else. —PaleoNeonate – 12:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Could be a combination. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)