User talk:Bakkster Man: Difference between revisions
→RE: Query about RSN CENT on COVID sourcing: strengthen my statement a bit |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1,128: | Line 1,128: | ||
:::::There is a specific behavioural problem wrt covid articles and it is not solved by bigger and bigger content/sourcing RFCs any more than the little old lady solved her problems by swallowing a horse. As I've noted before, there are thousands of covid related pages on Wikipedia. There are not thousands of pages about strokes, but they kill many many more people each year. It is a peculiar topic. |
:::::There is a specific behavioural problem wrt covid articles and it is not solved by bigger and bigger content/sourcing RFCs any more than the little old lady solved her problems by swallowing a horse. As I've noted before, there are thousands of covid related pages on Wikipedia. There are not thousands of pages about strokes, but they kill many many more people each year. It is a peculiar topic. |
||
:::::If you have questions or cannot resolve a dispute, come to [[WT:MED]] with a clear proposal of what you (or someone else) wants to write, where they want to write it, and what source(s) they want to use. Without all those, the answer is very much likely to be "Well, it depends..." and that isn't the sort of answer an RFC gives you. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC) |
:::::If you have questions or cannot resolve a dispute, come to [[WT:MED]] with a clear proposal of what you (or someone else) wants to write, where they want to write it, and what source(s) they want to use. Without all those, the answer is very much likely to be "Well, it depends..." and that isn't the sort of answer an RFC gives you. -- [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 15:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Miscapitalization of SARS‑CoV‑2 == |
|||
Hi, I'm responding to [[special:diff/1035626961|your edit]] here so as not to further clutter up the Arbitration Enforcement page. If you disagree that {{no redirect|SARS-COV-2}} is an incorrect capitalization of that term, feel free to revert my edits on [[User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK]] and change the tag on the {{no redirect|SARS-COV-2}} page from {{t|R from miscapitalisation}} to {{t|R from other capitalisation}}. You might first check with {{U|Shibbolethink}} though, as they thanked me for those edits [[User talk:Wbm1058#Re: "SARS-CoV-2"|on my talk]]. If I've adequately answered your concerns, you might remove that edit so as to stay closer to the spirit of the 500-word limit, and not waste others' time by leaving it there for them to read. Thanks, [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 23:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: [[special:diff/1035655863|Thanks]], {{U|HighInBC}}. FYI. [[User:Wbm1058|wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 00:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:02, 27 July 2021
Welcome to my humble abode.
I moved your spiking page to it's new domain. -MasTer of Puppets Peek! 19:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
And I have added a few builds to the Character Builds in the Guild Wars Universe article. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 02:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
For the Guild Wars article, should we add in Runes? Those are kinda important. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 18:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I started an Equipment in the Guild Wars Universe article. Runes can be a sub-section. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 21:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
I, Master of Puppets, award Bakkster Man the Original Barnstar for his large contributions to Guild Wars articles. Keep it up!
I will subsitute this with a good and proper Guild Wars barnstar as soon as I get my Photoshop warmed up. But you've been doing great work, so I bow to you. Cheers! :) --MasTer of Puppets 23:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Auerbachs Keller
Great choice of topic for an article! If you need help with the translation, just ask on my talk page or at the talk page of the German-speaking noticeboard. If your article is expanded beyond a stub soon, I will list it on the Portal:Germany new article announcement section, and I think it should be possible to make a nice Did you know? out of it. Thanks again, and happy editing! Kusma (討論) 04:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
How to delete a page
Hi! I saw this edit. Blanking a page does not delete the page; only administrators can do this properly. If you see a page in the future that you feel should be deleted, there are a few ways you can do this. If the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, then follow the directions on that page to properly tag the page so an administrator can delete it. If it doesn't meet those criteria but does meet our deletion policy, then you can either follow the directions at WP:PROD for uncontroversial deletions or WP:AFD for potentially controversial/debatable deletions.
Thanks for your edits! If you have any questions about anything else here at Wikipedia, feel free to send me a message. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
NOAC 2006
I am interviewing as many arrowmen as I can find on this website and was curious as to what you think about NOAC 2006. I am also curious to find out lodge names for Wikipedia users. I'm essentially trying to meet new people on Wikipedia who share a common interest. My lodge is the Anpetu-We Lodge chartered to the Greater St. Louis Area Council. If you would like to contribute to my listing, please place it on my userpage.
Yours in Brotherhood,
Anpetu-We 23:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Gw classes.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gw classes.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
List of Forza Motorsport cars
Hi, I've just moved your sandbox into your userspace because sandboxes and subpages don't belong in mainspace. I've nominated the original page for speedy deletion as well (for equally boring and pedantic reasons!) but fear not, the page (unmodified) is now at User:Bakkster Man/List of Forza Motorsport cars for you to fiddle with at will. If you want more info (or a read to fall asleep to) take a look at WP:subpages and WP:namespace and, of course, if you need any help, just drop me a line on my own talk page. Happy editing! HJMitchell You rang? 19:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Heteronormativity
I've listed some sources that may help, many are from peer-reviewed journals and I can find more if needed. 71.139.39.160 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Notable Players
Hi Bakkster, why not a list of Fender Jazz Bass' notable players? Thanks --Mxpherson (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Nike merge
I would say be bold and just merge them, but wait a few more weeks for other opinions. Maybe post it on the project pages to get such opinions. Right now I am cleaning up the sweatshop article, coding the refs, adding more balance, cutting out the partisan crap, etc...--Metallurgist (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Nike
Talk:Nike, Inc.#Merge proposal--Metallurgist (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bakkster, some other great bass players are not mentioned in the article and it's a pity I think. That is why I would like to create a section of "other notable players" (testimonials... de facto). They are also amazing musicians who have done a great job during several years playing Fender Jazz Bass.--2PlayMedia (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, however such a list will almost always be unmaintainable and/or excessively long. A better solution is a category, like List of Precision Bass players, otherwise we end up with personal preference of who is 'notable enough', aka which bassists do I like, or every single bassist who ever used a J-bass and it overwhelms the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- You can find the list I created here: [1]. --2PlayMedia (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would trend away from calling it 'notable' players. Is there a definite way to determine whether a player is 'notable', or will we have to argue every time someone wants to add a player who is either relatively unknown or rarely played the J-bass? Can the information be easily verified to keep people from adding players who have never recorded or performed with a J-bass? At the very least it must be cited. See more at WP:Source list. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- You can find the list I created here: [1]. --2PlayMedia (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Since the 1950's on bass guitar page.
Good point about the citation for 'since the 1950's - do you think it would be better to move the citation tag to that place in the statement? Dinobass (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
re: Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Ted Nugent, you must include proper sources.
Ted Nugent
The source is already cited...incorrectly. Nugent clearly states in the interview that he recieved a 1-Y classification...not 2-S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makalu7 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, then add a sentence pointing out his error and cite the deferment codes. Also, don't vandalise the article by adding the term 'chickenhawk'. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I did that originally and it was deleted. Tell whoever deleted it to stop reposting the error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.23.238 (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- The first edit just needed citation, and to not be confrontational. Next time, I simply suggest not escalating and trying to make the subject look bad. Thank you for providing the reference. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The subject has obvious credibility issues and deserves confrontation instead of weasel words like what is there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.126.207 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- There is nothing that is a WP:WEASEL word in that section. Our goal is not to confront quotes ourselves (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) but to present both sides neutrally. Perhaps you can find a citation so we can add something like "Some have expressed doubt about this explanation due to the mismatch of deferment codes" and still be NPOV. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
well I pointed out the inconsistency by using the phrase 'consistent with the interview in High Times' and that was deleted while the phrase 'contrary to the interview' remains. Is it you who is weaseling words here and not willing to admit it? There is also the inconsistency of someone who did hundreds of concerts over the years claiming that he was also enrolled in a community college at that time. Which was mentioned and deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.204.138 (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's because we don't know which way it's consistent with the article. Did he have a student deferment and say the wrong code, or did he say the right code and say it was student deferment instead? Rather than making that assumption, we either need to let the reader decide or cite someone else who further clarifies it. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- You may want to keep an eye on the article because User:Mr Pyles recently reverted to a version by User:Makalu7 past yours. Honestly, I have almost lost track of the article and it may take a complete research/rewrite to get it back in shape. - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
David Camp
Your incessant edits to cover up the corruption and violation of the Jewish religion that your activist organization purports to uphold amounts to nothing more than vandalism. Isn't your Jewish Press the paper that incessantly praises Dr. Baruch Goldstein? Please stop or your account will be reported for vandalism. Reacespeaces (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Those accusations are unnecessary, I have honestly no idea what you're talking about. I offered to discuss it with you on the article talk page, but you have chosen to break WP:3RR instead. If you want to discuss this rationally feel free. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| In recognition of having recently completed your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia, please accept this token of my appreciation :)
Thanks, Bakkster Man, for helping improve racing-related content, and for all your hard work on the encyclopedia! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
I have a question regarding page blanking of unregistered users' talk pages. I've written out my mild confusion regarding the discrepancy between Wikipedia policy and what you and another editor are prioritizing. I would like corroboration on whether or not reverting such edits is the correct thing to do. I noticed that you reverted a prior instance of page blanking on that very page, so I followed your example and went ahead and undid the most recent instance of page blanking there. Is that the correct course of action? — 173.60.134.88 (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
Missing cites in Intelligence quotient
The article cites "Gould 1996" and "Detterman & Daniel 1989" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
'Confirmed cases' and 'Suspected cases'
My bad on the prior … I see now that your 'Confirmed cases' aligns with WHO's UO7.1 confirmed by laboratory testing irrespective of severity of clinical signs or symptoms
and your 'Suspected cases' aligns with that plus WHO's UO7.2 diagnosed clinically or epidemiologically but laboratory testing is inconclusive or not available.
Apologies for the confusion. Humanengr (talk) 06:02, 23 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 |
Interview request
Hello, Bakkster_Man!
My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.
I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.
Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just checking in again, Bakkster_Man! I'd love to ask you some questions about your editing work for Wikipedia. Let me know if you're available. If not, no worries! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Dalorleon, I'm not available right now. Thanks. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
| February 6th, 11am-1pm E.S.T: Coronavirus in New York City: Translate-A-Thon - ONLINE | |
|---|---|
.jpg) Hello Bakkster Man! You are invited to join the Brooklyn based Sure We Can community for our 3rd NYC COVID-19 themed Wikipedia Edit-a-thon / translate-a-thon - ONLINE - Saturday, Feb 6th, 2021 11am - 1pm. The edit-a-thon is part of Sure We Can's work with NYC Health + Hospitals to stop the spread of Covid-19. We plan to continue to work on translating the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into the many languages spoken in New York City; as well as, work on other ideas about how information on wikipedia could slow the spread of Covid-19. We'd love to hear if you have any ideas. If you can not attend, please feel free to comment on my talk page.
| |
--Wil540 art (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I see your point w/ the revert, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
General Sanctions Alert: COVID-19
 | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Template:Z33 Twassman | Talk | Contribs 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
your interpretation of this quote is simply wrong
you said "Actually yes, the WHO report explicitly says that the deliberate bioengineering theory was ruled out, and thus needn't be investigated."
and you quoted "We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release"
that statement does NOT rule out deliberate bioengineering; it rules out "for release", i.e. it carefully does not rule out lab-leak. please go back and correct your statement 74.62.185.8 (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Make this comment on the article's talk page instead, please. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I had to post here, that talk page is locked, dude, WP:activists did that better to control the party line about the pandemic. wikipedia has a lot of egg on its face for the politics it has played the last few years. cheers 2603:8001:9500:9E98:6903:3D2E:DA7B:305A (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- While this sounds like you intend to WP:RGW, I believe I have clarified this statement in the places I've made it. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I had to post here, that talk page is locked, dude, WP:activists did that better to control the party line about the pandemic. wikipedia has a lot of egg on its face for the politics it has played the last few years. cheers 2603:8001:9500:9E98:6903:3D2E:DA7B:305A (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello!
Hey Bakkster Man, just wanted to stop by to say hello. I'm happy we're in alignment on the SARS-CoV-2 issue; given your greater experience round these parts, I'll defer to your suggestions and will try to contribute as I can to improve the page.
In unrelated news, I see we have a few not-quite-similarities. My mom's from Michigan, I currently live in Germany but struggle with the language (did the horribly inefficient information encoding in the declensions not drive you up the wall?), and I recently built a fuzzbox distort-o-matic. Unfortunately, I was trying to create a crystal-clear preamp for listening. Basically this in reverse, a biologist learning that electrical engineering ain't trivial. Whoda thunk? SSSheridan (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @SSSheridan: Glad to help, and fun to hear of the coincidences. Always nice to know a bit more about who else is volunteering. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @SSSheridan: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#How we discuss and explain COVID origins Bakkster Man (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Man of reason
Thanks for being a voice of reason throughout all of this. I think the heated back and forth that is currently going on about the issue is tiresome, and has been for some time, given that there is a total lack of evidence either way, leading to endless and pointless arguing. I think the recent stories in Wired and Nature have the best take on the current controversy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia: Cheers! If there's one thing I try to be online, it's that. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
COVID origin
re. this - try User:RandomCanadian/The origins of COVID-19: literature review. Of course, still a work in progress in it's early stages. Feel free to help - while most of the papers listed will likely have to be read, one basic step that doesn't require reading them is verifying if the paper was cited by others as well as the credentials of the authors. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Great start, I'll try and contribute as I am available. Might be a longer term effort that needs extra help (many hands, light work), but certainly helpful. Will probably want to include non-MEDLINE at some point, with the recognition that they're not as reliable as MEDLINE. Both because they may be useful sources of information (even if we need to cross-check them with others), but also because if nearly all info on a particular hypothesis ends up in these journals that's a pretty strong signal of being WP:FRINGE/ALT. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Blog entry on wikipedians and lab leak
I just published a personal recount of Wikipedia's coverage of lab leak in my blog, please read and share. Forich (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Notice
See here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
"Good Faith"
Disagreeing with a line of reasoning is not bad faith. Cancel Culture has no place on Wikipedia.Tuntable (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tuntable: Context? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Normchou. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48
Request for Clarification
Hi Bakkster Man, please can you clarify this comment you made in an ANI about me [2]. Was this comment directed at me? Since we have disagreed in the past, do you perhaps think I am a "bad actor" for wanting to include alternative POVs on COVID-19 origins? Why do you think it is counterproductive to apply accurately with bad actors? Good night. CutePeach (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach: I do not think you're a bad actor. I think your heart is in the right place, but you're still a little new on Wiki which can lead to reverts and disagreements on a contentious issue like this. Definitely not the kind of 'bad actor' I'm referring to. Quite the opposite, actually. I'm saying you (and other editors like you) end up having to deal with the blowback from other editors that share your viewpoint, but behave inappropriately (accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being CCP agents, off-wiki harassment, absolute refusal to build consensus, sock-puppeting, etc). Those truly problematic editors cause significantly less trust for other WP:SPAs, which was the issue I was replying to so I could express my agreement with.
If I remember correctly, a few SPAs quoted and took out of context some of WAID's earlier comments to try argue their content into articles. Since (unfortunately) Wikipedia's processes often favour hardline positions and argumentation via strict textual analysis of policy, it seems more understandable why some might not wish to give any way to (mostly) SPAs with possibly questionable intentions (given their offwiki commentary).
I think everyone needs to settle down a bit and have a bias towards consensus rather than their own POV, but this is the baggage we're all dealing with that gets in the way. - I will admit to being a bit confused why you came to this presumption now, nearly two months after that original discussion. Particularly since if you look above in the ANI, I was explicitly in support of including the WP:FRINGE/ALT POV in the proper context. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply sir. The reason I requested this clarification is because we discussed a few edit proposals which you didn’t respond to, so I assumed you thought I was one of those bad actors. Let me respond to your other comments later. CutePeach (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach: I hear you. I think most of them I just didn't have any feedback to the comments, or didn't find them actionable. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply sir. The reason I requested this clarification is because we discussed a few edit proposals which you didn’t respond to, so I assumed you thought I was one of those bad actors. Let me respond to your other comments later. CutePeach (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
apologies
I didn't mean to bite you. I am just really shocked that a discussion could be conducted for over a week without bringing in the well-intentioned editors who would likely be interested. —valereee (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: No worries, I get it. Personally, I'm more concerned with the tone used in comments directed towards you, than the lack of notification (to the best of my knowledge, noticeboard notification isn't required). I was under the impression I had satisfied his concerns about the article (IMO, very minor), which is what I see the noticeboard as being for. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- The reason I came to the board was someone came into the article and removed three paragraphs. When I questioned it, they mentioned the discussion, and when I got there I was like, wut? This has been going on for over a week?! :D I'm thinking maybe FTN should recommend notifying unless there's a good reason (like expected canvassing) not to? —valereee (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I would expect a link to the noticeboard to be unnecessary in most instances. If editors are engaging in discussion and consensus building when necessary, then there shouldn't be brigading concerns. But this is also a relatively atypical case in that usually articles are ones with high degrees of disruptive or problematic editing, rather than well intentioned editing. The proposer only made one talk page comment, and nothing on the article itself, making it extra strange. Long story short, in general I don't think talk page notification for the FTN would be a good mandate, but in a case like this of mere conceptual content disagreements rather than serious policy issues, it should happen. I'll keep an eye out for this kind of thing in the future if articles seem less like a magnet for POV-pushers and more like an article that needs to help. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's great, and I agree with you completely about the type of article. TP notification for things like The truth about Pizzagate, not so much lol... —valereee (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Valereee: I would expect a link to the noticeboard to be unnecessary in most instances. If editors are engaging in discussion and consensus building when necessary, then there shouldn't be brigading concerns. But this is also a relatively atypical case in that usually articles are ones with high degrees of disruptive or problematic editing, rather than well intentioned editing. The proposer only made one talk page comment, and nothing on the article itself, making it extra strange. Long story short, in general I don't think talk page notification for the FTN would be a good mandate, but in a case like this of mere conceptual content disagreements rather than serious policy issues, it should happen. I'll keep an eye out for this kind of thing in the future if articles seem less like a magnet for POV-pushers and more like an article that needs to help. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- The reason I came to the board was someone came into the article and removed three paragraphs. When I questioned it, they mentioned the discussion, and when I got there I was like, wut? This has been going on for over a week?! :D I'm thinking maybe FTN should recommend notifying unless there's a good reason (like expected canvassing) not to? —valereee (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Useful info about Bloom preprint from TWIV episode 774
Hey Bakkster Man, I thought you might want to listen to this/see it [3], it's an episode of the podcast This Week in Virology, which is being debated as a reliable source for attributed quotes at RS/N. I think what the experts Kristian Andersen, Robert Garry, Kathy Spindler, etc discuss about the preprint is very relevant and if the preprint stays in that article, their expert opinions about it probably are also relevant. I'd put this in that talk page section myself, but I really don't have the time anymore to engage with that discussion, and it would DEFINITELY get in the way of my (so far successful) wikibreak. So I figured you may be interested. Anyway feel free to use or not! And good luck, keep up the excellently NPOV and level-headed way you've been dealing with these very contentious and fast-moving articles.
A) link to the episode [4] (The good stuff starts around 18 minutes in)
B) a link to a transcript [5]
C) some paraphrasing I did off-hand while listening:
- 1. It isn’t really that unusual to delete things from this database. The authors of the original study are correct that it’s redundant and unwieldy and unnecessary to keep sequences on the SRA. Most groups don’t post on the SRA at all.
- 2. Because it’s nanopore it’s not ideal for phylogenetic analysis but it doesn’t preclude the utility of it. What phylogenetics tells us is in Point 6. But as to whether this preprint is a bombshell about the early outbreak, it really is not.
- 3. The table 1 of the final paper from this group contains everything you need to reconstruct the sequences. So Bloom really isn't finding much of anything here.
- 4. The journal they published in is an appropriate journal for this, it has an impact factor larger than the top 3 virology journals combined. It’s a specialized diagnostics journal which is exactly the venue for this type of research. It is not "hidden" by any means.
- 5. The data as it stands is very suggestive that MULTIPLE wet markets appear to be the introduction point into Wuhan, consistent with the "circulation not point event" hypothesis.
- 6. There very likely were multiple abortive (not successful) introductions of the virus into humans from animals, and then one or several appear to have been successful, starting the overall outbreak. But focusing on one single "patient zero" is not justifiable at this point.
Anyway, hope this is helpful! Keep up the good wiki-ing.
Best, Shibb
--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
For your tireless high-quality contributions to the large body of articles related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, I award you with this barnstar:Forich (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| message Forich (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC) |
ArbE case
Respectfully, I think it might be better to withdraw this case and wait for this editor to submit their own, likely very weak ArbE, and then fire back as a boomerang.
As an aside, I’ve been collecting diffs for some time and I think the case for tendentious editing on their part is getting pretty strong.
So if they don’t submit pretty soon, I’d be happy to.
Of course it is 100% your call, just my recommendation.—Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer to keep this case going, as I think it's a pretty cut and dried issue of ONUS and BRD. I wouldn't be opposed of you thought tenditious editing was worth bringing up. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I think since RandomCanadian is buying in as well, I’ll just go ahead and shoot my shot, and put my diffs in that ArbE. So go ahead and disregard the above :). —Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
RE: Query about RSN CENT on COVID sourcing
Hey. I was hoping at this point to have caught up with that AE case so as to be able to respond your query, but it's just so long, it's pretty daunting. So, I'm not really able to advise on that at this time. While intuitively, it feels like the AE case should come to resolution first, again, that's just a feel which I may be way off on. Regards, El_C 13:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: Thank you, and no worries. I was expecting it would probably be best to postpone filing, although I would intend to workshop such a proposal around before filing to attempt to get more valuable input from such a question. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not gonna lie. The thought of another COVID RFC does not excite me. The COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis article is shaping out fairly well, so I would recommend against any more RFCs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: This was the impression of Colin as well, and I don't disagree. If I submit such a request, (and I'm not certain I will, especially if there's not an appetite for it) I'd be seeking buy-in from multiple parties to refine the request, and attempt to make a generic request rather than one solely focused on COVID. Maybe it's not practical to expect, but I'm willing to give it a try in the hopes one large
argumentdiscussion helps us avoid repeating it ad infinitum. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)- @Novem Linguae: retagging so it works... Bakkster Man (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Please please please do not make generic source guideline clarification RFCs, especially when we all know you and everyone likely to respond is fully focused on how that affects Wikipedia's reporting of covid controversies. We need another large argument like we need a hole in our heads. These RFCs not not just ineffective, but actually harming the project. We are still dealing with misinformation about the last time, with editors claiming "MEDRS does not apply". By doing this you are kinda feeding the troll. We really do have enough guidelines and policy already to answer any question you might have. In 20 years, these GAP pages have not suddenly become murky and vague. It isn't like you are having a similar problem on lung cancer or weight loss, etc: I can see your contribs!
- There is a specific behavioural problem wrt covid articles and it is not solved by bigger and bigger content/sourcing RFCs any more than the little old lady solved her problems by swallowing a horse. As I've noted before, there are thousands of covid related pages on Wikipedia. There are not thousands of pages about strokes, but they kill many many more people each year. It is a peculiar topic.
- If you have questions or cannot resolve a dispute, come to WT:MED with a clear proposal of what you (or someone else) wants to write, where they want to write it, and what source(s) they want to use. Without all those, the answer is very much likely to be "Well, it depends..." and that isn't the sort of answer an RFC gives you. -- Colin°Talk 15:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: retagging so it works... Bakkster Man (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: This was the impression of Colin as well, and I don't disagree. If I submit such a request, (and I'm not certain I will, especially if there's not an appetite for it) I'd be seeking buy-in from multiple parties to refine the request, and attempt to make a generic request rather than one solely focused on COVID. Maybe it's not practical to expect, but I'm willing to give it a try in the hopes one large
- Not gonna lie. The thought of another COVID RFC does not excite me. The COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis article is shaping out fairly well, so I would recommend against any more RFCs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Miscapitalization of SARS‑CoV‑2
Hi, I'm responding to your edit here so as not to further clutter up the Arbitration Enforcement page. If you disagree that SARS-COV-2 is an incorrect capitalization of that term, feel free to revert my edits on User:CutePeach/YESLABLEAK and change the tag on the SARS-COV-2 page from {{R from miscapitalisation}} to {{R from other capitalisation}}. You might first check with Shibbolethink though, as they thanked me for those edits on my talk. If I've adequately answered your concerns, you might remove that edit so as to stay closer to the spirit of the 500-word limit, and not waste others' time by leaving it there for them to read. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)