Jump to content

User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

(Accidental)? revert of WP:BRD revert

This[1] reverted a WP:BRD revert I made. I'm guessing that part may have been accidental, as the article is being edited in multiple areas? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes agreed. Fixed it — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I restored back with HEBs edits, because I think they ameliorate a lot of NPOV concerns — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Following up from AN/I question

I don't want to make the AN/I thread longer than it already is, but I did want to respond to your question about why it's not enough to TBAN a transphobic editor, in terms of their future interactions with trans editors. I'm answering this in the general context, not necessarily the specifics of Roxy's case.

You're right that a GENSEX TBAN would likely cover commenting on other editors' transgender status. The issue is that someone who has outed themself as a transphobe (or any other kind of -phobe or -ist) doesn't need to make further comments to create a hostile environment. Every time I put an article up for DYK or GAN, I put myself at the mercy of whoever comes along to review it. And at any moment an editor could come upon an article I've written and decide it needs major changes. In all of these cases, I am expected to trust that any criticisms come from a place of wanting to improve the encyclopedia, not from some ulterior motive. If the person threatening to fail my GAN or saying my creation needs a ground-up rewrite is on the record that trans editors are lesser than others, how can I assume good faith? How can I and that editor ever resolve any content dispute from a position of mutual respect, when I know they don't respect me, and they know I have no reason to trust them?

And that's me. I'm the kind of stubborn bitch who fights back even when it's easier and smarter not to. What about the people who aren't like me? The person who gets a talkpage message from this generic transphobe saying that whatever they're currently doing is bad and they need to stop, and recognizes, "Oh, that's that person who got away with saying that transphobic stuff," and chooses to just roll over. Who lets half their article get cut, their GAN get failed, whatever, because why should they try to convince anyone that they're being targeted for being trans, when the community's already said that this person's transphobic views aren't an impediment to them editing here?

The off-wiki term would be "hostile work environment". If one employee keeps saying racist things, the office becomes a hostile environment for racial minorities, and that doesn't change if you tell the racist that they're not allowed to talk about race anymore. So too here. Of course we can't use "hostile environment" as an excuse to remove those who merely make us uncomfortable (for instance, those with political views that may correlate with bigotry but don't guarantee it), but it's different when a person's laid their cards on the table.

I know you and I disagree as to exactly how may cards have been laid on the table in this case, but I hope that answers the general question of why a TBAN is insufficient in such cases. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it definitely does, and I think I see where the discussion was going given especially RtDs response to all of this, and why it wasn't enough to save them from the CBAN. I'm definitely not in the camp of "oh woe as them, Roxy was the victim of a witchhunt" or whatever. I see quite clearly that Roxy's behavior led them to this point, and their inability to communicate clearly and concisely any effective contrition was part of the whole package. I think probably their tendency towards sarcasm and vague-ness probably did not help. I take your point to heart about any editor who encounters them outside of GENSEX having that chilling effect, and I see that's why many editors agreed with the CBAN. I truly hoped he could moderate that behavior outside that topic-space, where such disagreements are more likely to flare up. But I see that an editor who knows about that history probably would not feel comfortable with RtD critiquing their material, even outside of it. My sincere hope is that RtD will examine those issues, more clearly and irrevocably state he does not have negative positions on trans people by virtue of their being trans (which I actually think he doesn't) and is not a transphobe, and revisit this all in 6-12 months, accepting a voluntary GENSEX ban etc. I think anything less than a clear statement of that will not be enough. I don't actually know what to make of his TERF comment, although I lean towards interpreting it as inflammatory sarcasm. but I am not he and so can't really say anything about it with authority. I'm sad he won't be around in other topic areas where he had a good head on his shoulders, but I don't pretend that I know better than ANI, I think this probably was inevitable given the course of events and how RtD responded to them. Thanks for the answer, it is, as always, appreciated. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

The Medicine Barnstar
To Shibbolethink for reviewing COVID-19 pandemic for Good Article, you truly have done a great review, (in Top-100 list all time) thank you Ozzie

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help Ozzie! You've been very responsive and are clearly very committed to improving this vital article :). I'm finishing my review up today, everything is looking great from my end! Congrats on being the main contributor to such an excellent piece of content. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic

Shibbolethink I know you've contributed to the COVID-19 pandemic article (and talk) and therefore I'm wondering if it comes to an end (U.S. [2] already) via the WHO if you would review it once I've nominated [3] , thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to (and am honored by the request). I think whenever WHO rescinds the declaration is a good time to do so, as it should enter a steadier state with fewer big upsets. One hopes, anyway! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thank you (I don't think WHO will take long)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • that was fast[4] should you agree w/ the prior posting and today's event let me know (I'll nominate in about 1 week),thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, works for me! I think Bon courage is in some sense correct that the "pandemic goes on" but I think this is enough of a milestone that the article has achieved some stability. Any new resurgences will be a footnote in this article in all likelihood, compared to the massive stable information already here. So yes, I would agree with the nomination and I'm happy to review it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thank you, will take a look at a couple of things on the article, it will be GA nom in a week, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • done (a little sooner)[5], Shibbolethink I have added/adjusted some things however should you find that anything (including text, ref, image) needs to be changed, added or deleted. I will act on it immediately, I thank you for your effort--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    Starting the review today! Wanted to give it a few days in case there were any chaotic edits to the article after the announcement. But looks quite stable to me. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Shibbolethink, I wanted to thank you again for reviewing the article ( I noticed that tomorrow marks two weeks since the start[6] which I thought was a week or so[7] how might you see the time frame) ,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    Ack, sorry!!! I am currently in the process of moving my entire life from med school to residency, movers coming on Wednesday so I'm in crunch mode! But this review is how I've been spending my evenings. I would estimate I have it for sure (100% certainty) done by the one month mark at June 9th. But I also think I'll probably have it done (~70% certainty) by June 1st. If that isn't soon enough let me know! But I want to be thorough :) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, I thank you for your candor, and the effort you have put into this review, if June 1st is possible, I would be more than happy to help get the article there ,,,should you find that anything (including text, ref, image) needs to be changed, added or deleted. I will act on it immediately please feel free to contact me here, or via email or MDwiki, thank you for your ongoing effort,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa Reference 6 is a dead link, without an archive. I think the first use of the ref [8] is likely unnecessary, as there is already another ref (ref 7, see below). I see the value of having it in the list for the second use [9] but I think these refs [10][11][12][13] would be just as valuable, but also live/verifiable. I prefer the European one (first in that list) the most, as it is very comprehensive with well-cited evidence. Any of these may need to be archived.
Reference 7 [14] URL is no longer accurate, though. Here's the permalink you can replace it with ([15]). Should probably also add the date.
Thanks! Will add more below as I find them — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
[16] reference has been added (removed other ref) (will continue)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
[17] added European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (answered your question below)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Q: can I just edit these things, or is that poor form if I'm doing the GA review? Seems dumb to just drop them here when it would be just as fast to fix them myself. My understanding of the review guidelines seems to suggest there wouldn't be anything wrong with it, per se. And I'm happy to do that since these are such minor things. As long as there aren't too many, these spot fixes shouldn't impact the review overall. I suppose what this reply is asking is, "is that okay with you?" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
No problem (however, should it be too much or you just want me to do my fair part, I will)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa Ref 100 ("Cases, Data, and Surveillance") is also a dead link with no archive. It verifies that the D614G mutation is present in many VoC. Which it is! But the other sources in that citation don't really verify the statement about D614G ("Several variants have been named by WHO and labelled as a variant of concern (VoC) or a variant of interest (VoI). They share the more infectious D614G mutation") but this one from NYT does: [18] (currently also used as ref 260 in the next sentence).
I would also either remove ref 101 (citelink) or replace it with the more comprehensive, updated, and useful permalink for Europa: [19].
I would remove ref 102 (citelink) as it doesn't add much and doesn't verify those sentences it's after. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
For Ref 199 [20] I would add the publication or post date (2019-12-30). If it's a web cite right now (didn't check) then I would convert to News or Journal cite templates, because the date etc of a widespread newsletter like this is important. It would be verifiable based on the date or the archive # ([20191230.6864153]) alone. Could, for example, put it as a Journal cite and then put the date as the date and the archive # as the issue #.I say this as someone who has received every promed mail of the last 10 years — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Shibbolethink, again should you need me to do anything let me know (I'll be online today/almost all day ) thank you Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    I think the section COVID-19 pandemic § Variants needs some minor work.
    It fails to describe the fact that the WHO has downgraded all previously recognized "VoC" as now "previously circulating variants". So now, as of May 25 2023, there actually are no variants of concern. There are only "Variants of interest" and "variants under monitoring". I don't think you need to get into all those subclassifications, but I think you could say "Many of these variants have sharedThey share the more infectious D614G." and add "As of May 2023, the WHO had downgraded all variants of concern to "previously circulating as these were no longer detected in new infections." or something like that. You can then cite the 25 May 2023 WHO report and the 16 March statement from WHO to verify that.

And re: the table, one of the following probably needs to happen:

  • A) make the title "Variants of Concern (past and present)", and then remove the VoIs. Update it to comport with [22] if there are any missing etc. (least onerous)
  • This is the best choice, (done)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC) (However did you want me to add those listed at [23]...)
    However did you want me to add those listed at [22]
    Hmm let me see, I think what you can do is say (and sub-variants BA.1 - BA.5) in the omicron "lineage" box. Or the Or something like that. Nothing to acknowledge those is going to be elegant since it makes that box bigger. You could put these as a separate row right below Omicron I guess. And put "various" for detected... It's hard because the WHO and ECDC acknowledged these as all separate VoCs, but it would be crazy to add 5 more omicrons to that list. I do think we should acknowledge them somehow, either in the text or the table. You could also put "Sub-lineages of the Omicron variant (BA.1 - BA.5) were considered separate variants of concern by the WHO until they were downgraded as no longer widely circulating in March 2023. (cite the march statement)." in the text... I leave it totally up to you, but there are a few options. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • B) change the title of the table to "Previous and current variants" and note which are still current in an additional column, and add the new VoIs (There are I think 4 total VoIs now) (most onerous)
  • C) remove the table altogether (I think a tragedy, though). We need this table imo because the greek names etc. are important and obviously very widely reported. But we need to strike a balance between updating this all the time (untenable) and just keeping it the relevant stuff (probably just VoCs, and thus all past variants).
They actually did this VoC reclassification/downgrade starting with the March 2023 report, but it is still true now today in May. Not sure how you want to play that distinction but the above is how I would do it. [25] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Shibbole, you may want to cut and paste all this to the GA4 subpage. Shibbole, you may also want to avoid making direct edits to the article and leave a bulleted list for Ozzie instead. These are the norms typically followed at GA. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
will do! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Shibbolethink, I noticed you didn't edit anything to GA4 page today...I hope all is ok, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    Yes yes all good! Movers came today and are packing the truck right now. Then driving 8 hrs to NYC! I'll be able to resume on the article tomorrow, should have the review all done by Friday. Saturday at the latest — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delay, I know we were trying for June 1st but it shouldn't be much longer. Most of the remaining sections are really short and basically summaries of the 2nd level articles so I'm sure I'll have very few edits :) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
ok, sounds good and stay safe, Ozzie 😊--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


Shibbolethink, I'm happy for you in NYC and I'm certain your future is bright...(and we're close to the finish line), Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


I'm almost done with the authors...I've done all the authors that are left...Shibbolethink per [27] a responsive nominator and reviewer can complete a review in about seven days, however, [28] (100% certainty) done by the one month mark at June 9th ...which is today...and that's what I've taken time away from other things to get to this point, I really don't have much more time to spend on this starting next week ( I don't want to drop the GA however I just don't have more time) per June 7 & 8[29] I covered authors, links, adjusted sentences and so on (to help make the finish easier). I would be more than happy to do as many edits as you suggest until Monday (which is when I have another responsibility to attend to), I really thank you for your help on this, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Ozzie! I'm sorry I think I meant my June 9th which for me is tomorrow, my apologies for the confusion re Time zones. But regardless you are right this has gone on way too long and I am wrapping it up. I appreciate your willingness to do a few more edits until Monday. I think the reminder are mostly sourcing, as the writing appears quite good. I'm sorry my attention has been so split! But I appreciate your leniency and it won't be wasted, I promise. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Shibbolethink,I appreciate your effort and thank you, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


Shibbolethink it has been a pleasure to work with you ...you have demonstrated to be professional, thoughtful and very intelligent , should you ever need editorial assistance (or anything) in the future you have a fellow editor and friend in me, thank you as always, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Ozzie :) The feeling is mutual! This took a while but it was a pleasure and I am glad to have seen this article become such a shining example of what Wikipedia should be! You should be very proud! and don't hesitate to let me know if there is any other way I can help. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For GA reviewing an article with 600 citations. Wow, what a project! Thank you for helping out with this, your work is appreciated. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shibbolethink/Archive_28&oldid=1165137523"