User talk:Skubydoo

New to Wikipedia.

Welcome

Hello, Skubydoo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Skubydoo, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Michel Platini has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Qzd (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

April 2020

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Draft:Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa,

Thanks for this message. I didn't realize I hadn't made the excerpt from the FDA document a blockquote. I've changed it to a blockquote now. Is there anything else you see that I need to change?

Stay safe,

Skubydoo (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Skubydoo! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Animal products in pharmaceuticals has been accepted

Animal products in pharmaceuticals, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for guidance on the IP thing. Silly mistake on my part. Appreciate the help.

Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Please refrain from comments like this:

I think the attempts to discredit specifically non-European scholars is part of Wikipedia’s systemic bias WP:BIAS. This practice of trying to assume a biased perspective of Indian writers (instead of creating the intellectual space to recognize scholarship from brown writers as valid, acceptable, and meaningful) and privileging European writers (as if they have no perspective at all and are inherently neutral, untainted, and superior) is extremely problematic.

I've clearly explained why I think it's wrong to pick-out Iva Patel while ignoring other sources, including Paramtattvadas. This kind of accusations can, and will, get you blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, I was surprised to see this response on my talk page. I am sure you are not disagreeing that the systemic bias in Wikipedia is problematic. Indeed, it is a well documented problem. This article[1] in the Guardian clearly explains how this affects representation of non-Western and non-English subjects, among others. See also: WP:WORLDVIEW. Rather than seeing my observation as an “accusation” could you consider the realities of systemic bias on Wikipedia? It is a problem, and we can be part of the solution. How can we all work to counter systematic bias? How can we carefully consider and make room for non-European authors? These are questions worth asking, and worth answering. Please know that including one author who is not of European origin is not enough. You have repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of non-European authors in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya talk page. I don’t want to parse out how many or which ones, because that is not the point I am trying to make. If you are offended by the idea that something you have said is reflective of Wikipedia’s systemic bias, then you know that this systemic bias is not okay. I hope we can turn our attention to how we can give the same consideration to authors of Indian origin as we give to authors of European origin. Thanks for assuming good faith and for your contributions. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

No doubt there is systemic bias. But to state that I question an author because she's non-European is misplaced; I question the source because she's not accurate, and cannot be used as a sole source, when multiple other sources, written by persons with more expertise (Hanna Kim is of Asian descent, I suppose?), have a different view. Framing that as systemic bias is not done. NB: I bought H.T. Dave, Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan (I wanted to verify one specific piece of info sourced to him; it may give you an impression how serious I take checking sources); British, I assume, and definitely not WP:RS. So, 'European' sources can be questioned as well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, after looking at your edits in a bit more detail I agree that you may not be biased against Indian scholars but take issue with scholars you perceive as religious. Of course, when there are monks writing books about religion, it is possible for that to be a religious perspective. However, when it is published by an esteemed academic press, that necessarily also makes it an academic perspective. Even though the perspective may be religious-- it is still necessarily academic. They are not mutually exclusive. The same is true for nonreligious perspectives. All of the material presented by the WP:RS in that discussion are published by reputable sources, and have been vetted by scholars who I am sure happen to be of various religious and cultural backgrounds. I think that, as per Wikipedia’s standard of encyclopedic neutrality, we should be more concerned with evaluating credibility and consensus than we are with positionality. While Wikipedia may not be the forum to address external biases, I believe (and I think you do as well) that it is important to be vigilant with regards to systemic bias within Wikipedia. What do you propose I do if I am concerned about a user’s biases, other than to discuss them openly? I am open to your suggestions. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hinduism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balaji Mandir. 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) 06:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

More content

There is a draft Draft:Vegan Medicines that overlaps in content with the article you created. I am copying content from that into the existing article, and will then ask that the draft be deleted. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @David notMD, I saw that "Animal use during product development or production" was added to Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals. Thanks for adding that information! That's definitely an important issue that needs to be addressed. Were you planning on expanding on that section or should I go ahead and add to it? Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination.

As you have made edits to Hinduism, I suggest that you nominate it for WP:GA, as I feel it is quite good. The rest is your choice.--Assassin77177 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that an article needs to meet the actual GA criteria to be successful—for example, it needs to meet MOS:LEAD, which is currently doesn't appear to. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Assassin77177, I see you’ve already nominated the page, but thanks for getting in touch. @BlueMoonset, thank you for the friendly reminder. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ACE2020

Hello!

Due to some technical difficulties on your vote in this year's ArbCom election, it was necessary to strike it. As such, you will need to vote again.

I'm sorry for the inconvenient.

On behalf of the scrutineers, —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 16:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Skubydoo, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm glad to see that you now intend to devote more of your time to creating articles about women with a view to decreasing systemic bias. As you are interested in ancient civilizations, you might be able contribute to our current focus on women classicists. If you have not already done so, you should look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193 Online events: New: Art+Activism | VisibleWikiWomen Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198 Online events: New: May Mays | Mental Health Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest Wikimedia CEE Spring: Central and Eastern European Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Dalit article

Hi skubydoo (talk · contribs), I saw your reply to my post on the Swaminarayan Akshardham talk page. Can you also review the Dalit article (see diff). Harshmellow717 (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Harshmellow717, thanks for sharing this! I responded on the Dalit talk page. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201 Online events: New: Wiki Loves Pride | June Junes | Jewellers & Watchmakers Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Query about other accounts you might know

Hi there, Skubydoo. I'm Kevin, and I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia, which means it's my job to try to sort out when confusing situations come up. As part of a current matter, I need to ask you whether you recognize any of the following users from outside of Wikipedia: Moksha88, Apollo1203, Harshmellow717, Hexcodes, Golfer1223. In other words, are these your accounts? If not, are they the accounts of friends of yours, or colleagues, or others you might know for non-Wikipedia reasons, or someone who taught you to edit Wikipedia? This is important because if you do know these people in real life, there are certain disclosures you have to make on Wikipedia and some rules that apply differently, but don't worry – if you answer to the best of your knowledge, I can help you make those disclosures. You can answer the question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88, or you can do so here and ping me. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205 Online events: New: July Julies | Finance, economics & banking | Olympic & Paralympic Games New contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: "Mind your elders" Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Moksha88 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Skubydoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Kevin,

I am not a sockpuppet of another user. If it helps, I am happy to dox myself to myself to prove I am a real independent human person. I don’t understand why I’m being unfairly targeted. Can you please specifically describe to me what behavior or edits have I made that are problematic? Moreover, how long will this block last? I try hard to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I can’t figure out what exactly I’ve done wrong.

Really hoping for some fairness here.

Best, Skubydoo (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Skubydoo (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That you are another person would simply mean that this is meatpuppetry. Please review the SPI for the basis of the conclusion of sock or meat puppetry. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi KevinL and 331dot,  

I disagree with this SPI and haven’t really responded or paid attention fully because I assumed it would go away on its own, as all nonsensical things do in the end. But this response to my request for unblocking saying the only alternative to me not being a sockpuppet is being a meatpuppet made me pay attention. I have seen the conversations between Tamzin and Kevin and sense that they feel they are doing the right thing. I was happy to read that, actually, because that gave me faith that they are people who are interested in doing the right thing.  

KevinL posted on my talk page that I have been blocked for being a sock of Moksha88. From my understanding blocks should not be punitive but preventative WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. If I have made any edits that are disruptive and not in line with Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines, I apologize. But after reading the explanation that Tamzin gave and seeing KevinL’s agreement, I am not clear on what I have done that makes me a sock. I have engaged in discussion with some of these users, and we did find agreement on occasion. I was always grateful for their engagement and never felt that there was anything nefarious about us discussing things and there being agreement.

After re-reading everything I am not fully grasping the issue, possibly because from my perspective this is just a few coincidences and spirited engagement and from their perspective it is a conspiracy. I was happy to have users engage meaningfully on a topic with me, and according to the explanatory supplement WP:NOTHERE, not collaborating and furthering a discussion is evidence of not being on Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.WP:DUCKTEST And if you look at my edit history, you will see that I am interested in contributing to the site and following policies and guidelines. That’s it. There’s nothing more to it even though yes, I can be persistent in my views sometimes.  

The impetus for my inclusion in this SPI seems to be the fact that I participated in a request for discussion. In that discussion I stated:  

Delete Hi all, Whenever I search for Swaminarayan Akshardham controversy, I get results relating to the Akshardham Temple Attack, which occurred in 2002. These redirect pages are confusing and makes the encyclopedia more difficult to navigate. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I also clarified this statement in response to another user:

Hi Jay, yes, I am referring to an external search engine. That is an interesting essay, but my comment is not related to the search panel on Google. I am not proposing to fix Google, but this is an opportunity to decrease the American-focused bias on Wikipedia. The issue, which Google is merely a tool to demonstrate, is that Swaminarayan Akshardham and controversy appears regarding the Swaminarayan Akshardham terrorist attack in Gandhinagar, India. To illustrate, the lead of the Akshardham Temple attack article, about Swaminarayan Akshardham in Gandhinagar provides some context for that controversy, "In May 2014, a Supreme Court of India bench acquitted all the six prisoners of all charges and pulled up the Gujarat Police for shoddy investigation in the case." Someone looking for the Swaminarayan Akshardham terrorist attack will search for attack, but it is reasonable to think that someone searching for information regarding the subsequent legal actions would search for controversy. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am honestly unclear as to how this means that I am somehow associated with Moksha88, or how this was taken by KevinL to be representative of "behavioral evidence." (I am assuming that KevinL is in agreement with everything Tamzin has stated, since the behavioral evidence was never enumerated.)

Tamzin says I have never voted in an RFD before, and this was further taken as somehow evidence of wrongdoing. I found the RFD from a search of the topic on Wikipedia. This is a topic I’ve edited about and there was a lot of recent activity in these pages which I was interested in participating in. I shared my perspective on the RFD. Is that not an expected part of the scope of Wikipedia’s behavioral guidelines? This is a genuine question. If this is wrong, then I would really like to know why.  

The last thing I was working on was the Prasada article, which is a sanctified offering in Hindu and Sikh traditions. Prasada are physical objects but there was literally a Buddhist belief about faith (also called prasada) in the article along with a great deal of unsourced material before I edited it. My edits have improved articles. You can see more about my contributions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skubydoo  

I even created a page Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals which was a real labor of love but this was seen by Tamzin as evidence that I edit pharmacy related articles, like another user. This was absolutely flabbergasting to me. With respect to all involved, I don’t even know how to begin to defend myself against such erroneous logic. I think I edited one thing science related when I was just starting, but overall, my edit history shows that I am a hardcore humanities person. If you look at my contributions to the Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals article, it will be obvious what my level of proficiency is with science related subject matter.  

Tamzin states that

Skubydoo's first edit was to create their talk page with the phrase "New to Wikipedia.", which is something that is fairly uncommon among people who are indeed new to Wikipedia.

Thinking that far back I think I remember there was a message asking “New to Wikipedia?” or something like that when I started, which is probably why I wrote that. Could someone please explain what is problematic about this to me? I am really sorry if it sounds like I am being difficult but I genuinely want to understand and I really don’t. To me it appears that Tamzin’s snap judgments are being taken as fact, and after the many hours I’ve spent reading about Wikipedia on Wikipedia I can’t figure out how this is acceptable and is being celebrated by KevinL.

The one thing I can think of that I did do wrong is making my own snap judgment about Tamzin. Tamzin made an assumption that English proficiency for editors who work on Hinduism related articles is exceptional. I called this racist, and I am sorry. I know now that calling people out on Wikipedia for what I perceive as racist never goes well, and is somehow perceived as aggression. I’m not sure what it is about anonymous culture on the internet or on Wikipedia that makes labeling behaviors as racist offensive, but I apologize. It was not my intention to offend, but to share my perspective. I wish my ideas would have been engaged critically by Tamzin. I don’t think it is unusual for those who edit an article about South Asia articles to have English proficiency.  

Lastly, Tamzin uses Sigma Toolforge to show there is "substantial overlap" with myself and these other users. But when you actually look at the table, it does more to how there is not overlap than to show overlap. I did edit some Swaminarayan related articles, but you can clearly see that I did not edit the same articles as these other users. I was happy to engage meaningfully with users on some of these pages. It feels good when people take your ideas seriously. But I don’t think engaging in discussion is a problem. Or is it that we found agreement in the vast sea of turmoil that is the internet? Whatever it is, I would really appreciate it if you walked me through at least some of your logic KevinL. I saw that KevinL gave a barnstar to Tamzin about this SPI, and if that doesn’t show agreement, I don’t know what does. I have been thanked by several users not in this SPI and was even given a goat by one user. (Whatever that means.) But this perception that people shouldn’t ever agree if they carefully examine the facts only in some instances-- that’s troubling. I would really appreciate some engagement with the ideas presented here. Trying not to lose faith in Wikipedia or humanity.

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)