User talk:Arcturus

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

You have two black metal bands in your profile unintentionally--ulver and arcturus. Just thought i'd let you know

Hi. I'm not sure what you're asking about disambiguation. RickK 04:45, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're dong it backwards. You're writing it as [[John Waters|John Waters (filmmaker)]], and it should be [[John Waters (filmmaker)|John Waters]]. RickK 22:18, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

February 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; 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) 11:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: Come on Alex, give it a rest. There's nothing wrong, in principle, with the existence of that article, and you know it. Arcturus (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted the comments in question. Next time you're brassed off with someone or something, write whatever you were going to say on the talk page in a local text file. Or in a Whatsapp or Facebook message to a friend. Or just yell it out loud. Or, if you can't avoid it, write it into the edit window, but then wait until tomorrow to decide if it's really worth your while posting it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:. Thanks for the redaction. I already removed it and apologised. Arcturus (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arcturus, Not a problem. I have been in exactly this situation myself and no matter how justifiable it feels firing both barrels at the other person, it never is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

In my not-inconsiderate experience of these things, women are more comfortable in an environment where co-operation is the order of the day. Sadly, such an environment is not often found on Wikipedia. Arcturus, never, ever say that to a woman on Wikipedia. That is absolutely unacceptable. Don't pontificate such generalizations about women to women. That you don't see the heavy irony that what you said is what might cause women to be driven away, is very much to your discredit. I want to stress that if you say something like that again, to anyone, expect a response in the form of swift and decisive sanctions of especial severity. El_C 03:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, I'll add that women are grossly underrepresented on the project, not because Wikipedia is adversarial and they are delicate creatures. It is because, like elsewhere online, they face the prospect of endless harassment and abuse by men — one which stretches the gamut all the way from paternalism to the criminal outright. El_C 09:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing, Arcturus? Please do not post inane questions on PlainAndSimpleTailor's talk page. That does not inspire confidence that you have absorbed anything I said above. El_C 15:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Before I respond to the above comments, are you sure you've not got the wrong end of the stick here? It might be worth you looking more deeply at the various discussions, including when User:PlainAndSimpleTailor was editing as an IP. Arcturus (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arcturus, yes, I was already briefed about her highly problematic conduct (User_talk:El_C#More_recent_IP_account_of_blocked_user_PlainAndSimpleTailor), so I am well aware. Maybe I was too harsh with you, I can concede that. But, I do find it deeply troubling the sort of quasi-whitewashing about women, somehow, preferring "co-operation," and so on, as if that's the main reason for their underrepresentation on the project. No, again, it is because they face constant abuse of various kind and intensity (in online communities, in general). To me, it almost came across as if you were saying something to the effect of, as a woman, maybe you'd be happier elsewhere (because Wikipedia = serious business).

Anyway, we don't really tolerate patronizing, paternalistic discourse about races or ethnic groups — why should we tolerate it about women? I submit to you that we shouldn't. Now, I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to say something like this to a woman editor on the project whom you know and have a rapport with (hopefully, that was a given), but to say it to a woman who is a virtual stranger (and seems to be under great strain), that is a problem, I challenge. El_C 21:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I'm confused. I agree with Arcturus that in general from my personal experience, women do work better as a team than men, and seem to be more effective to encourage a team spirit and pull together to back a winner, as opposed to fighting over "my way is better than your way". Women In Red, in particular, does seem to be enriched with a positive attitude to do good work together. Also from my personal experience, such an environment isn't as common on Wikipedia as it could be, and I've seen how women get harassed both on-wiki and in real life, and frankly some of it makes me ashamed to be a man. I can think of a couple of things I would never say to a fellow human (regardless of gender), but this isn't one of them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ritchie333, if you're confused, then I obviously overcompensated in my response to Arcturus. So, I apologize for going overboard with my vehemence toward you, Arcturus. I guess whatever notion I had about Arcturus detracting from the abuse women experience in online communities may have conflated the ideal with the real. I just feel that whatever "lack of cooperation" women may encounter on the project is, in itself, doing the most damage whenever it is expressed as downtalking to or de-professionalizing them. On closer read, I may have also misread the full context of the conversation. But, him going to her talk page and asking whether she was offended, after she had quoted him in full and had complained about it representing "constant microaggressions," that struck me as inappropriate. In any case, I'll try to learn from this and do better in the future. Thank you Ritchie33 for your input. And sorry again, Arcturus. El_C 23:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C I read it the same way you did, actually: "You may not really be comfortable here." Not that I don't agree with @Ritchie333, too -- I do think many women are good at and enjoy working collaboratively, which is probably one of the reasons WiR thrives. Plenty of men working there, too, though, and I've met a few asshole women in my time on this planet. :D —valereee (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a bit of general advice, I recently encountered this post by someone who was (to put it as mildly as possible), frustrated they couldn't get a draft accepted into mainspace. I added a bunch of sources, tidied it up, suggested further ideas for improvement, and got this response, which I considered to close the matter. Sometimes people ranting are doing so for a reason, and if you can spot the reason and resolve it, they will generally calm down and express remorse. It's only when they don't that you can consider it reasonable to break out the big guns. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the report/block on PAST, fwiw I couldn't find (at a skim) any comments to suggest a justified elevated response at all, though I did look before filing the ANI. She's tied up in a content dispute, which CaptainEek is mediating, but there is no real shortcut to inclusion of the content she wishes to include, and it's not yet clear whether it should be included at all. There's a difference, imo, between using some harsh words and being frustrated vs going on a spree of personal attacks (bordering harassment), targeted and over a period of time, as a shortcut to (sometimes irritating, yes) Wikipedia-style discussion. I think some people are just not used to the model of consensus here, which is unlike most human structures people are used to, and is firmly horizontal. Resulting in lots of time & energy spent on discussions if someone wants to push through controversial changes, even if they're obviously correct. Though again, doesn't justify attacking other contributors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Apology noted and accepted. Thank you. Concerning the initial posts made above, and the debate that has unfolded thereafter; why did I post the request on User PAST's page asking if she found my comments offensive? Quite simply because she thanked me for them (see the section above entitled 'Thank You'), so it seemed a bit odd that I should be berated for making them. I needed to clarify her view on this. Had she come back stating she found them offensive then I would have apologised. I'm not sure that the reference to 'microaggression' she made in the appeal against her block was referring to me. Regardless, I disagree with the suggestion that In my not-inconsiderate[sic] experience of these things, women are more comfortable in an environment where co-operation is the order of the day. Sadly, such an environment is not often found on Wikipedia. equates to as a woman, maybe you'd be happier elsewhere (because Wikipedia = serious business). I cannot see how the first statement could in any way be construed as the latter. Maybe a bit of overthinking going on here? Also, I ended the Welcome note by stating I hope you continue to edit here and are not put off by the prevailing climate. Anyway, it's all of no matter now. What about the issue of the lack of women editors? I've worked with women, had women working for me, and worked for women. This while being employed by three global organisations over many years (not simultaneously!). I can say without a shadow of a doubt that women do prefer a co-operative environment and are put off by aggressive behaviour. This is, of course, a generalisation, but are we no longer allowed to talk in generalisations? I submit that we are, and should not be put off doing so. I stand by my assertion that the reason there are fewer women editors than men is due to the aggressive nature of wiki-editing. I've come across it a great deal recently, and I find it off-putting as well. Incidentally, I'd be a little bit wary of the analysis that makes the claim about the lack of women on Wikipedia. A large number of editors don't disclose their sex, so there could be a significant margin of error. Arcturus (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being gracious, Arcturus. I don't know what kind of White Knight trip I was on, but obviously it produced an outcome that is to my discredit and for which I am now deeply embarrassed of. I take your points, all of them. The generalizations — why should mine supersede and suppress yours? Yes, that sentence rubbed me the wrong way (and still does a bit, though that is of no moment), but it's clear that I've taken that impulse to a wrong place, and done so abusively (toward you). All I can say that I'll try to be less the language police in the future and will aim to investigate matters properly before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Being even-handed isn't something to be imposed in a blunt way and in a blind way. I thought I understood that lesson, but obviously, this is something I need to keep working on. So, I'm committing to doing better on that front, in a more level-headed way and a less stupid PC-social-justicy way. Thanks and sorry, again. El_C 14:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks again. Should you, or anyone else, wish to continue the debate about the lack of women editors on Wikipedia, please feel free to do so here, and I'll probably chip in myself. Arcturus (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C I think you're being way too hard on yourself. As a woman navigating WP, I don't actually want anyone mansplaining to me why I might not be completely comfortable here. What I want the men 'round here to do is support me when I push back. (Which, I hasten to say, is in what I've experienced: many men supporting and protecting me.) I really don't care to have anyone tell me "In my not-inconsiderate[sic] experience of these things, women are more comfortable in an environment where co-operation is the order of the day." To me that's just bullshit. Sorry, Arcturus, I'm sure you mean well, but please don't tell me what women are more comfortable with. You may be more comfortable with it. I'm perfectly comfortable with and competent at dealing with other types of interactions, even when I enjoy cooperation the best. —valereee (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Val. And sorry, I seem to have missed your earlier comment, not sure why. Anyway, I appreciate you bringing a woman's perspective to this discussion, because for me at least, as a man, it isn't at all an easy matter to navigate. Knowing when is it snowflakey, or when is it legit — it can become a challenge to know how to respond. I did consult a woman in real life about this, btw, but her view was that what Arcturus said was fine and that it wouldn't have bothered her in the least. So, naturally, I was like, hmm. Mind you, she does not nor has she ever actively participate in online communities, so there's that. I do realize that my warning to Arcturus was way over the top, to the point of being menacing outright. That I regret, have apologized for, and thankfully Arcturus was gracious enough to accept my apologies. Did I pivot too hard the other way now? From your comment above I'm sensing that's a yes. But, honestly, beyond this incident, I've just had a really tough week, so I mostly just want to be good with everyone who is good, because I need to rest and recoup my strength, overall. PSpam. btw, I did translate three of those songs from Hebrew to English, so check em out! El_C 23:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Not pinging EI C because sounds like they're got enough on their plate) Totally get that the world is difficult for straight white men right now! Common comment from the hubs: "I apologize for all my identifications." Which is hilarious but of course not required, at least by me. Things are moving fast. If straight white men are just basically trying to keep up, I'm personally okay with it. Other people's mileage may vary, especially genderqueer people and people of color. :D —valereee (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambial Yellowing on the UK Internal Market Act article

Greetings, if you have some time, please could you consider taking part in the following discussion?[[1]] I hope that your experience on the matter might clarify the issue at hand. 146.198.108.170 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis 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/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis 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.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]