User talk:Anastrophe/Archive 2020-

To answer your question in more detail

First, thank you again for getting the RfC going. Likewise for commenting on actual policy at ANI.

I'd hope my edit summaries answer your question, but all I'm doing is trying out possible solutions in the context of the article. Sometimes I get so focused on a source, sentence, etc that I don't think enough about how it will work in the context of the article. Doing so made this solution appear.

Meanwhile, I agree that material under dispute in an RfC should not be moved or changed, other than removed if policy requires it. Of course, I think policy is on the side of removal until there's consensus for inclusion in BLPs where there are NOT/POV/etc concerns.

I hope this answers your question, and am happy to go into further detail. --Ronz (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2017 Shayrat missile strike. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't believe I violated 3RR, while the other user did. I'm not planning on making any changes to the article or article talk page in question until user Vnkd is back, so that we can work (hopefully) collaboratively. I'd appreciate not being blocked from the whole of wikipedia. Thanks. ADDITION: I was unaware of the 1RR in place on that article. I have no history of disruptive editing, I would hope that counts for something. Anastrophe (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It appears that your block has expired. SQL^{Query me!} 00:20, 15 February 2020 (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.

unblock discussion

@Bbb23: downgrade to partial block?-- Deepfriedokra 22:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting that, Deepfriedokra - but a mini-vacay won't kill me. It feels a bit punitive, but that and buck fifty will buy me a Snickers bar to salve my tears. Or something like that. Anastrophe (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A Snickers bar broken in the middle in the Dulles section of Sterling, Loudoun County, Virginia

Here you go. I've saved you $1.50 (do they really cost that much)?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Heh. I actually had to do a google search for something resembling the price of an individual bar, one was about that amount, but who knows if that's the insane price some online vendor charges. I can't remember when I last purchased a Snickers bar - fifteen years ago? 25 years ago? Never been a huge fan of Caramel. Butterfingers was my favorite, but I avoid sugars as much as possible, as I'm no spring chicken any more. Now you know my life story, not that you asked for it...:) Anastrophe (talk)

Anastrophe, I block a lot of users, far more for socking than for edit-warring, but even those I do my share. I can't remember a more pleasant and entertaining conversation with a blocked user. As I am human - all evidence to the contrary - I am disposed to unblock you, but in deference to policy, I do need some acknowledgments and promises from you before I do so. First, I did not block you for violating 3RR. I blocked you for edit-warring, which does not require more than 3 reverts. Do you understand that? Second, I noted the 1RR restriction on the article. To my knowledge, although certain kinds of sanctions require notice, violating 1RR does not. Technically, I did not block you for violating 1RR, but, again, do you understand? I also suggest you read more about the sanctions imposed by the community on the Syrian war articles. Finally, and perhaps most important, will you promise not to edit the article for at least a week from the date I unblock you? You are welcome to use the Talk page to discuss changes, but even if you obtain consensus for a change, you must let some other editor implement that change.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23 - thanks for your kind words. I'm at your disposal. To keep things crystal clear, and point by point:

1. Yup - I understand you regarding the block being for edit warring, not 3RR in and of itself. It's a fair assessment. The other editor seemed predisposed to ownership, and pugnaciousness - I responded not in kind, but by trying over and over again to get the editor to understand my point of view on the changes - in edit summaries, as he was. Feh! That's not how it's done. I should have taken it to talk immediately. I know better, and have done better in the past.
2. I understand - now - regarding the 1RR restrictions on the article, and as well that it's edit warring that was at issue, not the number of reversions themselves. After the first time the editor made his change - which I think was more than a month ago? Don't recall - I should have brought it to talk. As a digression - I've been editing here a long time, but I've tried mightily to avoid the lawyerly aspects behind editing, rather to cleave quite simply to good judgement - in the sense that I edit stuff, and if I see some notice at the top of the article page before I edit, I'll go with that. The 1RR notice is on the talk page, and I hadn't even considered checking for a restriction there. The edits in question seemed to be on matters entirely benign, so it didn't occur to me it might be contentious (in the sense of the greater sanctions on the whole Syria mess). But - all irrelevant to the overriding issue of being a dork and trying to reason with an emphatic editor via edit summaries. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
3. Re unblocking. Let me put it this way: I do promise not to edit the article in question for at least a week. However, I'm also predisposed to just let the block run its course, and still hold to the promise. I don't want to set some precedent that might further complicate what I assume is generally a thankless job in dealing with this sort of stuff. Having worked in customer support a lifetime ago, and also having run assorted online 'BBS'es and forums over the decades - and being a moderator - well, there aren't enough fake social media points and upvotes in the world to convince me to do it again.

So - to summarize, as my tendency to bloviate can cause drowsiness: I understand the block was for edit warring, and the block was justified for that reason. 1RR, 3RR, .0076RR are irrelevant to that overriding issue. I promise not to edit the article in question for at least a week - and then, not before some reasonable discussion has formed and consensus arisen. Hell, I probably won't edit the particular issue itself ever - I'm not invested in it. And, with all of that, I say we let the block run out on its already-set timeline. I'll live, trust me - no no, please, I know how to swim, there's room on the liferaft for the next chap who's gone overboard, I can tread water to shore.

This is what happens when I write immediate after having my morning coffee. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Anastrophe, thanks for the long but very readable comments. If it weren't for your statement that you don't want to be unblocked, I would unblock you as your insight into your conduct and promise have more than satisfied me. It's unusual for a user to say they don't want to be unblocked, so if you change your mind, let me know, and if I'm not around, any administrator may unblock you with my full consent.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely the best unblock discussion I ever read.-- Deepfriedokra 18:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

skyscraper

Good Afternoon (At least if you are on the east coast of the United States). I had made some edits to the Skyscraper article, which according to this site you had reversed. I had intended to link the fact that there were plenty of large, commercial buildings in New York before Chicago had really taken to develop, and that a good segment of the population in New York believes that they are the first city to develop a skyscraper. I am not ignoring or disparaging the accomplishments the fine city of Chicago has made in the architectural sphere, especially developing the first steel-framed commercial building, and I have a deep respect for the city. I am simply saying that perhaps this added context would, with the existing sources of the E. V. Haughwout Building and the Equitable Life Building already developed as further research, be needed aspects to this important discussion.

--Omnificent879 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Hi, Anastrophe = I didn't mean to revert anything you did - my apologies - but we edit conflicted. Forgive me? Will you go back and make them? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

LIGO

I tried to figure out when the buildings were built, and not the interferometer, but wasn't so sure on that. 1999 is fine with me. Gah4 (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"Queering the suffrage movement"

How can we resolve the issues with "Queering the 19th Amendment"?

Last time you took it down you wrote:

"as a standalone section, it would require wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources."

I have provided "wider acknowledgement of these interpretations in other reliable sources"

Perhaps there are others who would agree with the inclusion of the text I contributed. There is other material in the article that have "has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment" but discuss the suffrage movement and specific suffragists. The material I have provided is no different. Please refrain from these vague rebuttals and help make this contribution possible.

Also, your response could have been made in a more timely manner. My text was posted uninterrupted for a couple days. "please discuss on talk page. While sources have been expanded, the larger problem is that this is meta-commentary on some of those involved in the suffrage movement; it has no direct relevance to the nineteenth amendment. It may be appropriate to the larger Suffrage article as well as the individual suffrage actors"

"Queering the suffrage movement"[edit | edit source] “Queering the suffrage movement" is an effort actively underway in suffrage scholarly circles[1][2] Wendy Rouse writes, "Scholars have already begun ‘queering’ the history of the suffrage movement by deconstructing the dominant narrative that has focused on the stories of elite, white, upper-class suffragists.”[1] Susan Ware says, "To speak of 'queering the suffrage movement' is to identify it as a space where women felt free to express a wide range of gender non-conforming behaviors, including but not limited to sexual expression, in both public and private settings."[2] Suffragists challenged gendered dress and behavior publicly, e.g., Annie Tinker (1884-1924) and Dr. Margaret ‘Mike’ Chung (1889-1959); they also challenged gender norms privately in bi- or homosexual relationships, e.g., African-American activist, writer and organizer for the Congressional Union (later the National Woman’s Party), Alice Dunbar-Nelson (1835-1935).[1] “Boston Marriage” partners (women involved in intimate longterm relationships with other women) included Carrie Chapman Catt with Mary Garrett Hay, Jane Addams with Mary Rozet Smith, Gail Laughlin with Dr. Mary Austin Sperry.[1] Other known suffragist couples are Susan B. Anthony with Emily Gross, and National American Woman Suffrage Association president Dr. Anna Howard-Shaw with Susan B. Anthony's niece, Lucy Anthony[3]; Alice Stone Blackwell was "betrothed" to Kitty Barry.[2] Many leaders of the National Woman's Party co-habitated with other women involved in feminist politics: Alma Lutz and Marguerite Smith, Jeanette Marks and Mary Wooley, and Mabel Vernon and Consuelo Reyes.[4] There are also the significant same sex relationships of NAWSA first and second vice presidents Jane Addams and Sophonisba Breckenridge, respectively,[5] and the chronic close female friendships of Alice Paul.[6] "Outing" historic feminists is not the aim of "queering the suffrage movement," but identifying a broad range of gender identities within the suffrage movement attests to the diversity of those contributing to the cause.[2]

^ Jump up to: a b c d Rouse, Wendy. "The Very Queer History of the Suffrage Movement". 1920-2020 Women's Vote Centennial: the official site commemorating 100 years of women's right to vote. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Ware, Susan (20019). Why They Marched: Untold Stories of the Women Who Fought for the Right to Vote. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 161. ISBN 9780674986688. Check date values in: |year= (help) ^ Salam, Maya (August 14, 2020). "How Queer Women Powered the Suffrage Movement". The New York Times. Retrieved August 18, 2020. ^ Lillian, Faderman (1999). To Believe in Women: What Lesbians Have Done for America--A History. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 3. ISBN 039585010X. ^ Jabour, Anya (January 24, 2020). "When Lesbians Led the Women's Suffrage Movement". The Conversation: Academic rigor, journalistic flair. Retrieved August 20, 2020. ^ Rupp, Leila J. "'Imagine My Surprise': Women's Relationships in Historical Perspective". Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. Vol. 5, No. 3 Autumn 1980: 61–70 – via JSTOR.

Request for additional comment on Talk:Wayne_Williams#Aftermath

Have I gone suddenly nuts (after 18+ years of editing here with only one previous confrontation) or is Sundayclose just way off base? He doesn't seem to be making any effort to discuss my proposal on Talk:Wayne_Williams#Aftermath, he's just rehashing my original (abandoned) edit and throwing around lies, insults, and threats without even the flimsiest of pretexts. You don't seem to have an axe to grind in this matter, so I'd welcome additional input from you, whatever you think. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Cripes

Now he's going through my other recent edits and removing entire paragraphs in violation of WP:NOCITE just because I made minor changes to them. Pure spite. Also he made four reverts on Carl Gugasian in just over 24 hours because he was angry at me for correcting him when he reverted the work of three editors just to get at one editor he disagreed with, also in violation of NOCITE. What's the next step for dealing with an editor like this? 67.188.1.213 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking I'm the last person to ask for advice on this; I have purposely and intentionally remained ignorant of how most of the formal channels work for dealing with problems, as it tends to be a time-suck amplifier, well beyond just dealing with editing full stop, or editing disputes on talk pages. I've seen this behavior before elsewhere with other editors, and to be bluntly honest have fallen down this very rabbit hole of 'retribution'/'spite' myself, much to my own shame. I can only direct you to the general 'help' pages here for guidance, sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion Anastrophe. I'll paraphrase a comment that IP 67 made: Their "disruptive editing led me to look for other examples of disruptive editing in their edit history, and I found several", notably WP:V violations. As for Gugasian, I made four edits over a period of two days, removing violations of WP:RS/IMDB, WP:CITEIMDB, and WP:UGC. I'll stay off your talk page if you ask me to. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The one other time a self-important editor came after me (he thought I was a sock for someone else) he initiated the formal complaint... and got slapped down hard, after which he left me alone. So I also lack experience with the formal processes. I'll go look at WP:AN. Thanks for your help. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious. Could you please give us a link for me getting "slapped down hard" for accusing you of being a sock? Thanks in advance. By the way IP 67, I suggest reading WP:BOOMERANG before making any more false accusations. Sundayclose (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Julia Margaret Cameron on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

complaint by anonymous vandal/troll,who deleted my own content on the page in adding their stuff

You have been named in a dispute resolution request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rebekah_Jones (unsigned, by 2603:6081:2A0C:0:9AFC:4C07:D80:C280)

Response to Solar cycle edit summary

I saw your edit summary on the solar cycle article and I thought it was funny. As a subject matter enthusiast, I plan on updating these articles at some point, but unfortunately the Sun related articles have a ton of other issues that I think need to be addressed first. For example, the misleading and incorrect information given in coronal cloud, the existence of the AR12665 article, and many others. Anyway, I thought I'd just let you know. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

TheGunGuru73's talk page

Hi Anastrophe, just letting you know that I've removed your comment from the talk page primarily because I removed TheGunGuru73's and revoked their talk page access and so didn't want to leave your comment sitting there. Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't targetting your comments specifically. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Usenet

If you want to know why Usenet is not a proper channel for distributing child pornography, my comments are to the point. Of course, once you know the facts, you may search for sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Sunset, verb

Turns out we're both right. I'm American born and bred and I've never ever heard anyone say "sunsetted". Everyone always says "sunset" as the simple past/past participle. None-the-less, not worth fight about. As I'm sure you'll agree. Merry Christmas,

Example defintion

PainMan (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Tables of contents

Many devices and PCs only read down the first level of TOC. Not to sub-headings. And a subject notable enough to have its own sub-heading may have one. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C1F9:C639:1758:A45D (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Blended Archive

The next few entries are archived fro the anonymous user's talk page; the user's IP changes frequently, and I rarely engage in talk outside of article talk pages, so figured I'd copy it here for "Posterior", heh. Begin:

(I'm responding inline as well, simply for convenience, and since this isn't a more formal discussion. Hopefully it remains readable. As well, I acknowledge that your IP may change; I personally prefer to keep my talk page clear, and rarely engage in cross-user-talk page discussions. If you are inclined, I'm willing to move all of this over to my talk page for the time being.)

((I see just now by the edit history on Maus that your IP does appear to change almost daily; feel free to drop a response on my page regarding moving the conversation there for the time being))

Chill out

In response to your screed, though I doubt you'll read it:

Why do you think it proper for you to change ref names from the wp-appointed names?

Because 9,999 times out of 10000, editors use actually meaningful short names for references.

We might consider thinking of policy and practical reasons. First, wp often assigns the ref name. Not the editor. Second, what is the basis for your statistics? I think you made that up. Third, why is one ref name chosen over another? Have you considered that.

From my experience, and only my experience, I've never used any of these tools that automate some of the tasks, I do it by brute force. So, I've never experienced WP 'assigning' a ref name. What I have experienced is editing a vast number of articles, wherein ref names are simply short mnemonic words, frequently the abbreviation of a source like NYT or more specifically NYTjan22 or some such, for convenient reference while editing. So, I was unaware even of this functionality. I find 'autox' harder to deal with and follow - scanning content that I'm editing, seeing 'CNN' or 'Spectator' &c differentiates them - visually, to me - better than numerous 'autox' scattered about in no obvious order.

As for the 'statistic', I was merely putting it colloquially. I pulled it out of my ass. This article and section - believe it or not - is the first time I've seen sources with ref names as 'autox'. I've been editing here many years.

You seem to be inclined to try to insert your voice into an article that is meant not to be a platform for your voice. Not just here, but in your elsewhere calling lazy those RS sources that quite properly follow the dictionary definition of the word ban. They are not lazy. They are correct. You, fellow editor, are not above all of those RSs. And it is what they say that is important.

I have long quibbled about the over-use of the word 'ban', but it is a personal quibble. I feel gives a sense of extremity to where it overstates it. I acknowledge that the sources are using it; thus why I have left alone your reverts back to 'ban'. I don't think that any of my edits overtly put the article in 'my voice'. I'm trying to find balance. The school district has fewer than 6,000 students over twelve grades. So the real impact is (or at least was) perhaps of several dozen students not being able to read Maus in their 8th grade english class. It is still not patently clear whether Maus is "banned" district wide; from the transcript, it sounds as if it is used in history classes in the ninth grade - but it is not specifically discernable, which I why I reverted my OR on the matter.

I offer that there is no practical or policy rationale for changing the ref name. It is not meant to be your platform. And as stated, you increase risk of errors.

Again, per above. I've been going by my past experience, and I don't believe I've been distorting the content with my personal opinions. The vast majority of cites I've come across in the last fifteen years have just been mnemonic, not 'autox'.

BTW, as my computer service forces my ip address to change periodically (not my doing), would probably have been better to keep this on your talk page. Otherwise, it would be fine with me.

As up top, just let me know.

What makes you believe that your choice is better than that of WP?

What makes you think that your use of automated convenience tools overrides using meaningful short names for references?

1. There is no support for the notion, certainly you have not linked to any, that the purpose of the ref name is to communicate (to editors who click in?) something "meaningful." No support.

As above. 'mnemonic' is perhaps the better word.

2. There is a very practical reason for not making unnecessary edits. They introduce the possibility of errors. You are human, and have not been above them (as you point out below), neither am I. This is why we were gloves in surgery, and seatbelts in cars - to reduce the possiblity of errors impacting us adversely .. though usually its a non-issue. Same here.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether my edits have been 'unnecessary'.

3. This reminds me of an editor I came across who was intent on changing cite to Cite. Or the other way around. Can't recall.

I acknowledge that it may have disrupted your workflow. The change has enhanced mine. I don't think the effect has been dramatic either way, but c'est la vie.

4. I applaud gnome like behavior, and can fall into it myself. But when it is to the benefit, bottom line, of wp. Not the other way around.

What makes you think that the purpose of the ref name is to convey information or editorialization about the text?

Please, do tell what "editorializing" I have engaged in with any of the short names. Please take the umbrage down a notch. A ref name is indeed most often used as easy shorthand for cites. auto1, auto2, auto59 are emphatically not helpful to other editors.

You refer, even above, to your desire to have the ref name be "meaningful." That's what I am referring to. Your insertion of meaning. Which you wish to convey. Though it is unclear how many people you think even read a ref name. And why you should desire to convey "meaning" to them. And whether that is appropriate.

As above. 'meaningful' wasn't the correct word. Simple mnemonic characterizes it better. None of my ref names have imposed any opinion into the editable text.

As you from time to time make errors, which is of course human, you are on the downside creating more work for those who need to make sure that ones dont creep into this other needless/questionable exercise.

You have made more than your share of errors too, as you are of course human also. That you perceive it as 'more work for you' is immaterial, since this is a collaborative medium, and there are other editors besides yourself working here. Try to be less self-centered on this work, and more collegial, please.

I certainly, as I note above and as you point out (helpfully; thank you) below, make my share of errors.

It is more work for the editors of the Project. That is material. Especially because it is needless work, that you are creating. Just as when you separate sentences from their refs, etc. These acts serve to increase the number of potential errors at the project. Without any - any - palpable benefit.

I will try to do better. As far as more work or less work, I think we're dealing with nothing more than personal preference, as I explained above.

Absent satisfactory answers, I would suggest that you reconsider and stop the practice. There is no upside to it. And there is a downside

This sounds remarkably like a threat. Threats are not encouraged here; in fact, they are discouraged. I'd recommend you lighten up. I'm trying to make the section more neutral. That is the sine qua non here.

It's not a threat. A threat would be something like "If you don't, I will do something bad, which you will not like." It is, as self-described, a suggestion. Suggestions are not threats. We all know that if an editor wishes to raise an issue to other editors, or admins, there are places to do that, and it is easy for an editor to say "if you don't, I will follow wp procedures for dispute resolution, including x and y." That would be a threat of a sort, though in that manner perhaps a quite appropriate one - we have templates that all the time communicate in that manner to editors who make edits that are seen as bad for the project. But I didn't even say that. I simply made a suggestion. Thinking that, here's an editor who is well-intentioned, why not take the time to convey my thinking, and beyond that to suggest an altering in course of action.

What is "remarkably" ... not even faintly, in your subjective view, but remarkably .. like a threat?

I am happy to retract my entire, clearly mistaken as you have clarified, impression that it was a threat.

I love the fact that you use that Latin phrase. Though I think it's not the correct usage of it.

It's sort of a mixed, colloquial usage. I could have written it as 'one of' the sine qua nons, but that also isn't a 'correct' usage of it outside of conversation (a la 'unique' used relentlessly incorrectly likely one million times per day around the globe [yes, another faux 'statistic'!]. I was trying to be a bit more emphatic - 'one of the pillars' would have conveyed it better.

The change we are discussing does not make the section "more neutral" - which is what you close by saying is the sine quo non here.

It's a pleasure chatting. Have a nice day.

I was referring to the entire sphere of edits on the section of the article over the last couple of days, not that one specific instance.

Anastrophe (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad edit

You may wish to fix this edit - you reverted yourself instead of doing what you had stated you trying to do in the edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maus&diff=prev&oldid=1069159599&diffmode=source cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Kind of you.2603:7000:2143:8500:6515:C8D4:8E35:FDE7 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

On a personal note...

I've had my share of umbrage bubble up as well; we're human, it happens. I apologize if my tone in various places has been confrontational. The section, for the most part, is well written at this point - and it's been done collaboratively (though with unnecessary use of abrasives, heh). I still maintain that this will fade from the headlines in relatively short order; school districts the world over have been removing "objectionable" text based upon age-appropriateness for ages, and around the world (good luck getting Maus added to the curriculum in Iranian grade schools!). But time will be the ultimate arbiter. I will do my best to try to be less confrontational, as I would ask that you do as well. On an entirely separate note: I respect an editor's right to remain anonymous, though I have assorted quibbles with how it's employed here on wikipedia (the vast number of vandalism incidents are from bare IP's, which causes a generally negative presumption). It is worth noting however that an editor is less anonymous when they remain an IP address; IP addresses are often, though not always, geographically identifiable. If you employ a username, that is obliterated from public view. Just a datapoint. Anastrophe (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Apologies if my tone or content has been "rough language." I will try to refrain from using the word d*amn.

Gotta admit, that's a good one!

My experience -- an event that attracts more than twice the view over days of the sitting and prior US president, combined, does not fade from view within a month. Which is the focus of wp:recentism. Which of course is not a policy. But an essay. The view of one or two editors. If someone wanted to make an entire article about this, and not simply a section that is a fraction of the article in which it resides (and sits rather unobtrusively mid article, sections down).

The ip issue is an interesting one. What I see is that there is discrimination by some editors against ips. Which is contrary to wp policy. But its a fact. Anyway, yes, thanks for your note on geographical identification. I hadn't realized that editors could see that I am editing from a prison cell in Tehran. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4988:58A5:565D:7845 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that prison cell in Tehran...Avenue in Rochester, New York, heh.

There is indeed a knee-jerk response to IP editors. I can only say that on the rare occasion I come across actual, thoughtful edits from an IP user, it tends to take me by surprise, due to its rarity.

I appreciate your willingness to engage here. I hope we've found a little common ground here, and move forward without the unneeded use of 'abrasives' in cleaning up and refining the content. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we've been searching for the right forum. We've both used edit summaries to communicate. I have a sense that overloading an article talk page is a disservice to other editors if we can address a matter inter se. Only problem is I may lose track of where this page is. 2603:7000:2143:8500:4988:58A5:565D:7845 (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

Hi Anastrophe, no worries. I agree that it will be a good idea to incorporate the content about Steve Crowder infiltrating a Fat studies conference into the "Louder with Crowder" section since that YouTube video would have been part of that series. Might also trim it down as well. Andykatib 00:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There's also a handful of grammatical/typographic errors, but I couldn't understand what the intent was. But yeah, it falls into the LwC section pretty much. Main thing is appropriate weight. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Anastrophe, thanks I have removed the grammatical errors in the revised version, which went into the LwC section. This paragraph on his response to fat studies could be relevant to a few areas including Crowder's social media activism, conservative critiques of fat studies, and could also go into the fat studies section of Cat Pausé's article, given that she was a target of Crowder's activism. I have to admit I am no expert on the Culture Wars. Andykatib (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. The quote from the Massey representative may be problematic however. Her claims are based upon the Youtube comments, not Crowder; youtube comments are generally speaking a cesspool across the entire youtube platform, and I don't think it will pass muster conjoining criticism of the comments with Crowder himself in terms of BLP. But I'm not sure. Maybe it should be discussed on the article talk page. Anastrophe (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that it will be best to discuss this issue on the article talk page. Andykatib (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Pulse oximetry

Thank you for your support. I feel happy :-) 85.193.215.210 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Marlon Brando

You helped me, now I helped you. I am almost sure that the IP 195.224.241.178 and 86.187.235.123 belong to the same user, which is known as WP:LTA/BKFIP. See also here. 85.193.215.210 (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fallen Astronaut

Hello. The date you reverted at Fallen Astronaut may be correct, please doublecheck the Apollo 15 article (I checked and the IP seemed to have it right but another look could help). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn Thanks will double- triple-check shortly. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn I've posted an inquiry over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Times_and_dates, as it is a confusing matter. Hopefully clarity will arise in short order! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	And thanks for the much better wording on NRA. QuilaBird (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Why do you have to be such a schnootz?

Nobody is laughing at you, or calling you a "stupid American". Nobody committed "gross incivility to the primary readership of en.wikipedia.org". A good advice essay I found is WP:Grow a thick skin.

• In general, we should be tolerant of IP editors. They are not all vandals or trolls. This person happened to have a valid point and caught a mistake on the page, even if he didn't express it in a "100% civil" manner. There is no evidence he was making "a weak attempt to screw with people". You're the one "fighting incivility with incivility", not me.
• There is a good reason for our Talk page etiquette guideline on editing others' comments.
• Whether you use Google or not, if you just say "convert 126 degrees F to C" then Google doesn't know you don't mean temperature difference and it makes the same error. I don't believe for a minute that an "average reader" would run to Google after reading that phrase in the article.
• If you don't understand the difference between temperature and temperature difference, then the phrase "xxx°F (xx°C) temperature difference" is meaningless, and you have no business second-guessing a conversion. Understanding the difference doesn't make you a "math wonk" or "science wonk"; it just means you understand what the Fahrenheit and Celsius temperature scales are and how they work.

It's really hard for me to believe you've been here for over 17 years, and call yourself "a general reader". With over 17,000 edits under our belts, we are editors, and have a bit more responsibility than that.

WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

References

JustinTime55 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@JustinTime55:My fellow old grump (I'm 63), I generally have a thick skin. The relentless condescension the rest of the world likes to heap on Americans because it isn't mandated by the government that we use only metric does get under my skin. It's like their weakest and simultaneously most common idiotic refrain. The IP editor was - obviously to anyone who can grok the context - saying we are 'stupid americans'.

Now, to your points.

1. I am generally tolerant of IP editors. Occasionally there are decent edits, or edit requests from them. I do not assume they are vandals or trolls; if you doubt it, please review my edit history. I've had fruitful conversations with a handful of IP editors over the years (rare, because most don't have a static or persistent IP, so 'conversation' is typically not possible). You said I was being a jerk. That's a personal attack on an editor, not their edits. Yeah, I get it, you feel I overreacted, and in fact I did. I was making a point, and yeah, I know, you're not supposed to make a WP:POINT, but that's largely in edits in article space.

2. You're conflating 'editing other's comments' with deleting an uncivil comment by an IP editor with only the barest of explanations for what they were getting at.

3. Well, duh. Converted temperature difference isn't something I do on the daily. An average reader - of the talk page comment in question - would do just what I did. How can I say that emphatically? Because I did it, ha!

4. I don't (didn't) understand the difference. I do have business second-guessing a snarky IP editor who gives no meaningful rationale (meaningful to someone who doesn't spend their day doing temperature conversions). Note: His statement gave no direct evidence that it was a conversion template that was in play. Again, with such a terse "explanation" as 'Don’t consider the difference in the zero point' - uh, what? How am I to know he was referring to a template? Again - consider the full schema here - IP editor, one drive-by edit, insulting snark as first words, terse explanation. It had all the earmarks of 'stupid americans, i'll fool them with my explanation and now they'll edit in the wrong number!'.

You are welcome to being astonished that I've been here over 17 years. I am a general reader; I have my realm of specialization (unix/linux server administration for 26 years, recently retired). Temperature difference conversions? Not my bailiwick. With over 17,000 edits, and a not insignificant number of them spending time cleaning up after relentless vandals here, yes, I reacted quickly and without diving into WTF he was trying to say, because life is short. Again, consider the earmarks. I am fallible, and I made a mistake with my quick reaction. I don't think that bristling at his characterization, and your in-turn decision to say the uncivil then couch it delightfully in how you are granting AGF - nice dodge! - is quite human, and fallible.

As for your 'reference' chiding me for my user page - be a dear and click the 'Show' button beneath the main user page. There you go. I put it there because it kind of ruins the effect of tweaking the knee-jerk naïve interpretation. Oops, you fell for it!

And finally - yes, finally! - I can type a lot. I'm aware of that disability. I have no ill-will for you or even the douchy IP. Sometimes I'm more touchy than other times. I'm sure you are too, being a similar old-fart. I'll repeat, I'm fallible. I should have asked IP editor to rephrase his section title (oops, good luck asking a drive-by single-edit IP to do any followup). You reverted, we had a talk page tiff, it's over, I'm good. Are you good? I assume so. It's cool as hell that you're an aerospace engineer - are now still, or have you retired yet? Now I know what Lebanon bologna is, so I am further indebted. I love learning little things like that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Rebekah Jones

Thanks for whacking away at it - I find just reading some of the changes that make it into my watchlist exhausting. Jane (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't done much editing all that recently, but I appreciate your comment. Unfortunately, the user who did a whole lot of edits over the last month has been blocked as a sockpuppet, which complicates fixing or editing the page. Quite a few intervening edits means it can't just be rolled back to an earlier revision. Frustrating. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, I think there’s been more than one conducting sock puppetry on that page, and I suspect it’s not just this page but more widely on Florida-related pages. All Florida newspapers are geo-blocked for me so I can’t even verify whether some references say what they’re supposed to say. Frustrating is an understatement. Jane (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Genius

May I award thee:

		The Userpage Barnstar
		"I am many, I contain multitudes". Herostratus (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

JBL

The IP which you recently dealt with on JBL is a disruptive LTA known as the Linde plc vandal. It's best to simply ban revert and deny any recognition. John Yunshire (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@John Yunshire, perhaps, but restricting editing to verified users will cut down on the repeated drudge work. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing edits without cause, comment, or reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:EF3C:6100:F444:6159:55E5:F649 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

boop

Crime in the United States#Influences on Crime Deletion

@Anastrophe This edit note isn't 100% accurate:

19:02, 8 November 2023‎ Anastrophe talk contribs‎  89,232 bytes −410‎  (→‎Influences on crime: checked source, no claims even vaguely resembling these appear in the source. Likely WP:OR (no mention of stockton or oakland in source). Out it goes.)

Whilst the sentence about Stockton and Oakland, is referenced, and I can't seem to work out where it came from either. The first sentence is definitely in the source listed.

First Sentence: "Research suggests that being socially isolated along with parents not setting boundaries while not teaching their kids about the risk and consequences of certain actions can cause them to commit violent acts as they get older."

Source: "Environmental Factors Contribute to Juvenile Crime and Violence (From Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints, P 83-89, 1997, A E Sadler, ed. -- See NCJ-167319) | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved 2022-12-20.

"....Even if violence is not modeled in the home, research suggests that the absence of effective social bonds and controls, together with a failure of parents to teach (and children to internalize) conventional norms and values, puts children at risk of later violence...."
I think the source covers the first sentence. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my changes on Carnivores ?

This is the 3rd time you have removed my changes, I need to do this for a school project for college and it is very frustrating to me why you keep removing changes and I don't understand why I am citing all my sources and keeping everything said on the website. Andyvrabel (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andyvrabel, please read the message I already left on both the Carnivore talk page, and your own talk page. This is a collaborative medium. I have explained why I removed your changes. Please review my previous messages to you. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

fragmentation problem

You can read about this in https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/3582 if you need more info Robercik st (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is there's multiple issues at work here. First, the question of whether or not free space fragmentation is the cause of performance issues, or rather over-utilization of the disk space. Virtually all filesystems are prone to performance issues as available free space diminishes, and since we don't have meaningful metrics to rely on, we can't ascribe one over the other.

Secondly, most of what you've written is narrative opinion. The link to the ZFS code discussions isn't a reliable source for the claims being made - not by wikipedia's standards. You'd need to find a secondary source that describes these issues.

Lastly - I suspect you may not be a native english speaker, based on the many grammatical and spelling errors in the content presented. That's not a problem itself, fluency in any language isn't easy. However, for the content to be appropriate to the english wikipedia, it would have to have all the errors fixed before being posted into the public encyclopedia. That however is dependent upon the precedent issues with the content that I described. Numerous opinions on the 'net suggest that by far the larger issue is over-utilization; fragmentation being pointed to as the proximate cause of performance issues hasn't been determined as fact.

If you can find a better source - a general technology news site would be a good start - then possibly the claims could be notable for the article. I looked around and couldn't find any discussion of the matter - only blog posts and forum commentary, which just aren't acceptable for making broad claims in the article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So i this docs article from oracle you have:

https://docs.oracle.com/en/operating-systems/solaris/oracle-solaris/11.4/manage-zfs/storage-pool-practices-performance.html#GUID-3568A4BD-BE69-4F17-8A2E-A7ED5C7EFA79

• If a large percentage (more than 50%) of the pool is made up of 8k chunks (DBfiles, iSCSI Luns, or many small files) and have constant rewrites, then the 90% rule should be followed strictly.
  • If all of the data is small blocks that have constant rewrites, then you should monitor your pool closely once the capacity gets over 80%. The sign to watch for is increased disk IOPS to achieve the same level of client IOPS.

So there is really confirming what i wrote whether is is space or fragmentation or both but I think that users should know that things because they place on zfs big TB of data so moving it will be very costly especially on production. And there is scarse info about that real problem in zfs.

I don't know of such requirements on ext4 for example and from my experience postgres workloads works very well after 90 % full FS on ext4 so that kind of problems shouldbe stated surely

Of course you can correct gramar errors but idea stays right :) Robercik st (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting and useful link. However - it's important to be aware of the WP rules about synthesis. The Oracle page is a 'good/best practices' guidance page: it doesn't state anywhere that these are, specifically, limitations, deficiencies, or shortcomings of ZFS - they're merely suggestions for maintaining good performance. So, the material would certainly be useful in the article, but it can't be presented specifically as a "limitation" unique to ZFS.

If you want to craft a new segment, perhaps to go under the 'read/write efficiency' section? - I recommend posting it to the ZFS talk page, where I'll be happy to do 'wordsmithing' on it so it reads better for article space. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

But I didn't find such recomendation for eg.: ext4, xfs or other filesystems so I find it very specific limitation of zfs which can surprise users in very bad way in case of TB of data. An also it confirms what it is stated in https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/3582 especially comment with paragraph from author of ZFS: Matt Ahrenz on ZFS / "Block-pointer Rewrite project for ZFS Fragmentation". So there is clearly problem specific for zfs. Robercik st (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But again, you've just given the definition of why WP:SYNTHESIS isn't accepted: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

We can't make the conclusion that it's a unique limitation of ZFS; a reliable source has to. Nowhere in the quote from Matt Ahrenz does he mention ext4, XFS, ReiserFS, Fat32, or any other filesystem, nor does the Oracle document.

If you can find a reliable source that says that it is a limitation unique to ZFS, then by all means, that would be appropriate to the article. Until then, we can't make claims that can't be verified directly from the sources. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok but can we put fragmentation as limitation specific to zfs in that it is not fixed so we can;t defragment as Matt Ahrenz says so ? Robercik st (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Robert, before we go further, I'd like your permission to copy this whole thread over to the ZFS talk page. I don't want there to be any sense that I'm "gatekeeping" the content - I'm not an expert, though I did run ZFS filesystems in production for many years. The fragmentation issue - from what I've read - is quite a complicated matter, since it's not fragmentation in the sense the majority of people think of it - as in, it's not file fragmentation, it's free-space fragmentation.

But - with your permission, let's move this over there so that we can get more eyeballs on the matter and come to a collaborative consensus. Sound okay? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ofcourse You can copy

Ofcourse it is free-space fragmentation issue and i believe that Oracle recommendations are because of that problem with fragmentation and this is clearly problem with zfs itself. I can hide itself when we have mostly cold storage but it hit hard in cases described in Oracle docs so we need to expose that in article for sure it creator of zfs says we have problem ;). Also very suspicious is that Oracle doesn't give solution to revert this lower performance and if it is because of fragmentation there is no solution other than rewriting whole dataset :( which is shame. Robercik st (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Shame for fs that is advertised as last word in FS :) Robercik st (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

transcranial magnetic stimulation

Dear Anastrophe,

Thank you for your help in editing the article "Transcranial magnetic stimulation" by eliminating the additional section "Theory" I wrote. You noted in the comment, "None of this material is associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation the topic of this article." In this additional section, I tried to help the article (as much as I could) to explain to readers the nature and theoretical grounds of the effect of the transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain. I showed that the effect of TMS brain stimulation could appertain to the innate neurophysiological mechanism that provides coordinated neuronal activity in different organisms for the nervous system development. I believe there is no sense in discussing the importance of the central epistemic aims of science, which are scientific explanation, description, and prediction. Would you be so kind as to explain your argument for eliminating this text because the mentioned one (above) seems insufficient? If you think that some scientific explanation of TMC would be desirable, I also ask for your advice on what I can add to this theoretical section (or change) to make it suit your requirements.

Best regards, Ana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Padovana (talk • contribs) 06:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

While I admit that I didn't read all of the sources proferred in the text, a cursory review of them suggests that none of them discuss direct stimulation of the brain via magnetically generated currents. The theory is divorced from the mechanism that the article discusses. A theory that doesn't even address the technology itself isn't helpful to the average or general reader, which is the audience we write for. Perhaps a 'see also' would be sufficient or acceptable, but other editors would need to chime in. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response! The proposed (in the added section) theoretical explanation of the central issue of the article (of the direct stimulation of the brain via magnetically generated currents) shows, in very simple words, neurophysiological processes that underlie the observed effect of the Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain. If you think that the article needs a more substantial (which is also more complex for comprehension) theoretical explanation of the observed phenomenon, please let me propose one because I do not believe that the lack of any scientific explanation would strengthen the topic. Ana Padovana (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, as someone who has gone through TMS treatment, the problem is the the 'observed phenomenon' are so highly variable and divergent, that a theory that suggests it explains the results is premature. TMS has an extremely high relapse rate, and 'failures' - which are hard to quantify alone - are common, as I experienced. A theory that attempts to explain a phenomenon which isn't repeatable in the main may be misleading. We need sources that discuss the theories in direct relation to the actual treatment, otherwise it's synthesis. (It is 'bedtime' where I am, so I won't be responding to any replies until tomorrow). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Good morning! Sorry to introduce you to my opinion again, but now, I present it to you in expanded form point to point for your convenience :

1..I agree with your doubts regarding the theory “that suggests it explains the results is premature”. Notable, the proposed theoretical section presents the shared intentionality hypothesis that establishes the neurophysiological Model (mother-foetus interaction ) which is given from Nature. This Model shows the scope, crucial conditions and features of a beneficial influence of EM fields (mother’s heartbeats) on the child’s nervous system to design a medical therapy. To my knowledge, it is the only one known case in Nature of the beneficial impact of electromagnetic (EM) fields on the development of the nervous system. That is why I proposed the theoretical section in the article based on the shared intentionality hypothesis.

2..Yes, perhaps you are correct, and this theory “is premature”. It is also correct that any medical therapy should be based on scientific knowledge (it should also adhere to the four Pillars of medical Ethics). The central epistemic aims of science are scientific explanation, description, and prediction. Therefore, a scientific explanation should not only explain the underlying processes but also show the scope, crucial conditions, features of the treatment method applying it in practice, and the direction for future research. Regarding the Transcranial magnetic stimulation method, the shared intentionality hypothesis shows that neurophysiological processes (which appertain to natural innate neurophysiological mechanisms as it is seen from neuroscience data obtained from 20 years of research) dictate limitations to the scope, crucial conditions, and features for designing medical treatment based on EM field influence.

Even though the theory seems premature (from your perspective), it is scientifically robust, and it already yields limitations for therapy that would avoid adverse effects of its blind use (blind in the sense without knowledge of how EM fields beneficially impact a nervous system in Nature).

3..Your concerns regarding the TMS method are clear, you are right in your doubts: “the 'observed phenomenon' are so highly variable and divergent. TMS has an extremely high relapse rate, and 'failures' are common”. Therefore, it is even more crucial to study theoretical grounds. Again, following the four Pillars of medical Ethics, which are:

-Beneficence (doing good)

-Non-maleficence (to do no harm)

-Autonomy (giving the patient the freedom to choose freely, where they are able)

-Justice (ensuring fairness),

Scientists need to explain the phenomenon (its theoretical grounds) before designing a correct therapy. Why do you think that limitations posed by the theoretical section (‘that attempts to explain a phenomenon which isn't repeatable in the main’) may be misleading? In contrast, I believe that the theory helps achieve more predictable and reliable results.

4..I agree with you that ‘we need sources that discuss the theories in direct relation to the actual treatment.’

However, in modern science, scientists tend first to describe processes in Nature and only then emulate models based on this knowledge for their further practical application.

Nowadays, the shared intentionality hypothesis is the only one that attempts to explain neurophysiological processes manipulated by electromagnetic oscillator. The central argument of the hypothesis relies upon the effect of electromagnetic oscillator on the stimulation of coordinated neuronal activity. Again, the mother-foetus interaction is the only one known case in Nature with the beneficial impact of EM field on the development of the nervous system. This mechanism drives the development of the nervous system. Perhaps the TMS ‘phenomenon isn't repeatable in the main’ because the TMS method does not correctly apply knowledge about magnetic stimulation from Nature to treat the nervous system (since it does not have a theory that explains what happens to the nervous system under the influence of a magnetic oscillator). The shared intentionality theory would be the first source (not the last) that discusses the magnetic stimulation of the nervous system in direct relation to the actual treatment. This theory seems incomplete. However, any theory (based on neuroscience data) about neurophysiological processes has limitations that appear from the measurement techniques of neuronal activity observed in vivo. Neuroscience data (obtained from MRI, fMRI, EEG, fNIRS, and MEG techniques ) only show indirect evidence of coordinated activity of neurons that we register to attend correlates. Most likely, these techniques observe interference patterns resulting from the superposition of all oscillations of neuron orchestra.

In conclusion, if we agree with the fact that the TMS method exists (in the sense of already existing therapeutic practice), to my mind, the only scientific way to improve this method (and avoid adverse effects) is to propose theoretical grounds based on knowledge in neuroscience about different processes from periods of human body development that can be applied to a treatment of a nervous system. If you think my arguments make sense, please allow me to proceed with the theoretical section improvement and let me know what theoretical arguments you would wish to include in this theoretical section of the article. Ana Padovana (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert in any of this. What I do know is that you have to find sources that present a connection between these theories and TMS treatment. It's not up to an editor's discretion to assert or propose a connection - reliable sources have to make the connection - a direct connection. I have not read the entirety of the sources you present; do any of them assert that there is a connection between them and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation treatment? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

In the revised theoretical section, if you confirm, I can include sources that assert a connection between them and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation treatment, as well as a connection between electromagnetic fields and altered neuronal activity that provides morphogenesis and cognitive achievements at the embryonal stage of development. In the modified theoretical section, I can make a focus on them. Ana Padovana (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

'Electromagnetic fields' is too vague a connection. For example, nowhere in nature is the brain exposed to short bursts of stimulation at high frequencies, at very high current potential, applied 5 times per second, repeatedly. The brain is exposed to random magnetic field changes due to solar activity - has a connection been stated between those and what you describe? Has any source asserted changes in cognitive development as a result of repeated MRI's? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

To my mind, the section "Theory" does not need to compete with the sections "Medical uses", "Research", and "Treatments for the general public," which already exist in the article. These sections ("Medical uses", "Research", and "Treatments for the general public,") have already presented experimental sources directly connected to the TMS treatment. The revised section "Theory" can explain the neurophysiological processes that underlie the TMS treatment and propose the natural models. One of them is the mother-foetus based on the shared intentionality hypothesis, which attempts to explain neurophysiological processes manipulated by EM oscillator. The central argument of the hypothesis relies upon the effect of EM oscillator (mother's heart) on the stimulation of coordinated neuronal activity. Again, the mother-foetus interaction is the only one known natural mechanism with the beneficial impact of EM field on the development of the nervous system. My theoretical sources assert changes in embryonal cognitive development as a result of Low-Frequence EM fields, that this mechanism drives the development of the nervous system. Thank you! Ana Padovana (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that is far divorced from what TMS actually is. High frequency magnetic pulses with a 40+ ampere effective potential bear no plausible relationship to the pulse of a mother's heart (at very low frequencies and barely measurable potential) affecting a fetus. Again - someone other than us editors - a reliable source - has to have articulated that the theory, the hypothesis, is foundational to TMS. The theory, the hypothesis, in vacuo isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Again, that's 'synthesis'. The two have to have been conjoined by a source, not an editor. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear all,

Thank you for the valuable comments and kind responses! It is so pitiful that you spent so much time answering me without a fruitful outcome for the article! Sincerely, I tried to do my best to show your readers–patients, physicians, and businessmen–that Transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy needs to be carefully rethought. Exposing patients to high-frequency and high-power electromagnetic fields that have no prototype-analogous model in Nature–a similar impact on the animals' nervous system in Nature–is unreliable. Again, in contemporary science, scientists tend first to describe processes in Nature and only then emulate models based on this knowledge for their further practical application. Scientists need to understand and explain the phenomenon in scientific terms (its theoretical grounds) before designing a correct therapy. That is why I suggested to introduce the new section "Theory" in the article. Again, the mother-foetus interaction is the only one known mechanism in Nature with the beneficial impact of EM field on the development of the nervous system. This mechanism drives the development of the nervous system. Anyway, our discussion has already finished. Thank you so much! I wish you all the best! Ana Padovana (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on O Brother, Where Art Thou?. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

:@NinjaRobotPirate: What a ridiculous accusation. I did not revert article content - which is what is forbidden to do repeatedly - I reverted hidden text being presented as if it's a WP policy. Please retract this accusation. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Meh. You'd think an admin would know better. I'll edit the hidden text to at least present as a GUIDELINE rather than a policy, and I'll make it polite. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Beheading video

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Special WP:BLPCRIME exception for beheading cases?. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)