User talk:ActivelyDisinterested

LCU

What does it stand for? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Limited Contact Unit -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a science fiction reference that I'm surprised more editors havent got. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read The Wasp Factory but I don't recall reading anything else by Iain Banks or Iain M. Banks. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The works under Iain M. Banks are quite different, possibly some of the best science fiction work I've ever read. User of Weapons, Feersum Endjinn, Look to Windward, and of course Excession, all brilliant works. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Ahh! Now I get it. Interesting for science fiction, but for me it's irrelevant as I don't see civilization surviving for much longer than this century as we descend into vast chaos because of climate change. Some will survive, but at what cost? Only the wealthy will be able to protect themselves, and only by keeping slaves to work and produce for them. Capitalism as a functioning system will collapse as there will be no working class that can afford to be consumers. Capitalism requires a consumer base. Extreme vulture greed-driven capitalism will indeed survive by using slaves. I'm sure there are types of science fiction that describe these future scenarios, and as we've seen in the past, they soon cease to be "fiction" but become harsh realities. I doubt our planet and societies will be able to advance to the space exploration stages envisioned by many science fiction writers. Only the extremely wealthy will be able to protect themselves from the extreme heat, pollution, and noxious fumes from rotting oceans.

Our best bet is to devote all excess wealth to saving this planet, stopping pollution, and creating societies where "few have too much and fewer too little" (the motto of the current Scandinavian model societies), with huge, well-educated, and prosperous middle classes that can float extremely successful capitalistic businesses while keeping the Social Democratic balance of ensuring the welfare of all citizens. In them, education and health care are human rights. America is the lone exception among modern developed nations, and its citizens and businesses are paying a heavy price for that greed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately climate change is a gotcha for human perceptional bias. There is nothing you can do about the climate as it currently is, as any change will take decades to have an impact. Each individual will only start to affect any change once the climate has shifted enough for them to take it seriously. But that amount of climate change has already happened and the climate will continue to change for decades after people start trying to undo the damage.
We see climate change as a cause to take action, but it is instead an effect of our own actions. The failure to correctly see the nature of the situation will be a costly mistake. I'm sure there are those who believe they can do nothing and continue to exploit in the future, they are painfully wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You will notice harv/sfn warnings for already whitelisted items

Just wanted to give you a heads-up, that you will start to notice harv/sfn warnings for the "no link pointing to this citation" case that are already whitelisted in situ. (For starters, at Ships of ancient Rome, possibly others.) I haven't investigated yet, but just thinking about it I think I know why it's happening, and if I'm not wrong, it's related to {{harvc}}/{{citec}} and no amount of whitelisting will fix it; it will require a change to the script. I have to run out, but will get to it eventually; in the meantime, don't waste time tracking any of these at Ships of ancient Rome, or other articles, if you happen to see that the {{citec}} template is involved. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I started a discussion to ask Trappist about this case. If you're curious, you can follow along here. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'm seeing the same error messages as you, it could be an issue with the script. I've commented at the thread you started. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe you have to specifically enable them, which I had done, some time ago. Since they are only "warning"-level (that is, no WP:Verifiability is lost if you never fix them), its okay not to enable them. That said, I resolved the issue in this edit using {{cite whitelink}}, a template I had created a few months back for this purpose, and either forgot about it, or didn't realize it would handle this situation (with chapters) as well. Anyway, it's fixed, and if you (or someone you're interacting with or trying to explain things to) runs into the "no link pointing here" warning, that's one way to fix it. Trappist is not wrong—generally, a citation generating that warning doesn't belong in "Bibliography"/"Works cited"; it's "cruft", as he said, and should be moved to "Further reading", which will eliminate the error. However, the situation with chapters is different, and generally you *don't* want to move them to "Further reading", a whole, different section remote from the {{cite book}} it belongs to, you keep them with it (as Trappist also said). That's a prime situation for {{cite whitelink}}: you get to keep the chapters together with their book citation, and you get to avoid unhelpful "no link pointing here" warnings, when you already know that particular chapter isn't cited in the article.

The upshot of all this: {{cite whitelink}} is just another tool in your toolkit for dealing with false positive error & warning messages related to wrapped citations. This happens far, far, less frequently than the other false positives you are clearing, and I won't blame you if you forget by the time you eventually run into one again. Hey, I forgot, and I wrote it! Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The solution to this is to use harvc, which you can link to and which links to the full cite book. All without having to hide messages that would help article cleanup at a later date. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The unresolved {{harvc}} templates are what are causing the “no link” warning messages in the first place. You can’t fix that by adding yet another one. What you need, is something that does link to it, and that’s what the linked fix does. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello ActivelyDisinterested,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems quite interesting, but can I ask what is supported? I only edit on mobile (android/chrome/desktop site), and I can't find the information anywhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest! Unfortunately, right now ConvoWizard is implemented as a browser add-on that only supports the desktop versions of Chrome and Firefox. Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry then I won't be able to take part, hope it has good results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Advice

I started the Rfc with the question 'Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer?'. The sources speak of Columbus both ways and the editors will decide which is correct. However, now in the article after Italian there is a note and an additional explanation:  'the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity'. By starting Rfc, I don't want to give legitimacy to that information if the editors decide to keep the current state because I don't know if this information is in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. In fact, this information is not part of my Rfc question so I don't know if I can check it on some noticeboard without violating neutrality? Mikola22 (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The note appears to come from note #1 of the History of Italy article, but it's reference has been dropped off. It was referenced to Pliny Letters 9.23, were Pliny uses "Italicus es an provincialis?". As to the note it wouldn't work very well if the RFC results in the lead changing to Genoese, but it could be altered to explain that although Genoese his contemporaries my have referred to him as Italian and where that comes from. Modern Italians are also Europeans, the specific and the general are not mutually exclusive. So I would think it's something to worry about after the RFC has been closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

My Rfc question is neutral, however, some of the editors are for other option which is in fact 3rd option(keep the information as it is, which is legitimate). However, we are not discussing that option because the Rfc has a specific question. When the admin closes this Rfc he may not see the problems in the third option because we didn't discuss it and so my Rfc could be legitimation of that fact in context of Christopher Columbus and possibly an example for other articles. But this information is not in any source that talks about Columbus as far as I know, nor is it in any relevant context with Columbus so it could be WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and information in note itself may be WP:SYNTH because it is a combination of information from several sources. I am now interested in whether I saw it wrong and what should I do in this case so that this information can be checked? I thought I'd check on fringe noticeboard etc, but as I said, I don't know if I am violating neutrality of Rfc. If you don't know the answer, you can recommend some editor and I will ask him. Mikola22 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand when you say that it is a concern when the Rfc ends, but there is a possibility that the third option will gain legitimacy if the admin decide in that direction, but without discussion in this Rfc and then starting a new Rfc on that matter is almost an impossible mission. At least not within a year. Mikola22 (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not everything has to be resolved by RFC, discussion is always preferable. I wouldn't suggest having a separate RFC on this unless you've used the other options per WP:Dispute resolution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's SYNTH to say that Italicus was used during the time period would likely need a better reading of the sources than I have (I don't think it would be OR or FRINGE as there are sources saying it was used, the question would be if that is relevant to Columbus). It's likely best to wait until the RFC has been closed. Maybe asking if a non-primary source can be shown to attest for Italicus being used during the period is a place to start, a single mention by Pliny may not be due for inclusion.
I wouldn't personally start another discussion until it's closed, not due to it being non-neutral but you may start to wear down the communities patience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to clear up a separate matter the RFC may not be closed by an admin, that's not necessary for an RFC. It just has to be an uninvoly editor with experience bog closing discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. As for OR or FRINGE, the mention of information: Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity is not a fringe per se (although I haven't seen a secondary source where it says that, I guess it says somewhere), FRINGE or OR would be in my opinion, because it is not written in the sources that talk about Columbus, directly or in some context. And as for the synthesis, this is note information: Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa, it is probably two information from two side of the sources bought into one context behind Italian. (Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.) Maybe it's allowed to use more information in the note for some clarification but in this case 'Italian' is a conclusion although one piece of information say he is born in the Republic of Genoa(Italy is probably also mentioned there), and other part of information say: 'modern state of Italy had yet to be established'. For information that he is from the Republic of Genoa we know that there are sources in Columbus context, but for the other part of the information we neither have the source in this note, nor the context in which it is mentioned this information, we have nothing. Mikola22 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd still suggest waiting until the RFC is closed. Once that's done ask for reliable secondary sourcing to back up the note, and use of Italicus in relation in Columbus. It's not necessary to get everything right immediately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

List of amphibians and reptiles of Saint Barthélemy

Hi. Could you please review this recent edit of yours? It removed the short description, added a redlinked category, and other changes not mentioned in your edit summary. Just wondering if the edit wasn't executed properly? --DB1729^talk 20:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Err.. Not sure what's happened there, I'll fix now. Thanks for catching that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, all fixed now. I had been looking through the article history and must have editted an old revision. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It happens. Thanks for taking care of that:) DB1729^talk 21:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternate account?

You state on your userpage that I have an undisclosed single purpose account used to maintain privacy. Its work is completely unrelated to this account. Per WP:SOCKLEGIT and WP:ALTACCN, you should consider notifying the Arbitration Committee about this account, if you haven't already; the latter policy also states that those who maintain single purpose accounts [...] are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. The reason I came across your account in the first place was due to a comment you made on a disruptive user's talk page about "chang[ing]... the established truth" on Wikipedia, so you'll have to forgive me if I have some questions as to the nature of your SPA in light of that - of course, you don't have to answer to me personally as I am not an arb and have no interest in the private matters of editors, although I would politely suggest that you do make a declaration to the Committee. Patient Zero^talk 00:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's being used to create a single article, which I should have been able to do by now but haven't had the time. It makes no edits outside of that single userspace draft, which would be passed through AfC when created and the account password scrambled afterwards. It exists because people in my personal life know I'm working on that draft, so connecting it to this account would be doxing (but in reverse). If you wish to look at any of my editing before creating this account, then this old revision of my userpage includes a limited history of my IP editting.
If there are ever any concerns about my editting, or any other legitimate reasons to disclose the connection I would do so.
My comment to the editor in question was similar to ones I've had with other such editors whatevers their personal persuasions. See the LTA page I've been working on for instance. They are concerned about highlighting issues in Indonesian New Guinea, and I've tried to explain to them in the past that Wikipedia isn't for activism regardless of its nature (in that case with no effect). Wikipedia reflects society, so if you wish to change that you must make societal change first.
Ultimately it was an attempt to engage with an editor (who was obviously on their way out) in a natural language way, rather than the wikispeak and templates so commonly used. A fruitless one as they simply blanked their talkpage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate the explanations and provision of evidence, and as far as I can see, your usage of such an account is legitimate, and now that you have clarified what you meant in this statement to the disruptive editor, I no longer have the aforementioned concerns. Take care, Patient Zero^talk 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Just for any third party, the comment that caused this question was this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)