User talk:MarioGom/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Per your suggestion of moving this here
Hello MarioGom. To recapitulate this conversation, when I asked how you had arrived at the title "Characterization as a cult", you said you had not used sources but had summarized the content of the section. However the same verbatim title change proposal was made 4 years ago by two editors that are now banned and who used an unreliable source as the basis for the title change. Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your explanation about this is "I have read many previous discussions over the years, and I'll never claim all my proposals are novel ". That doesn't address the question of how your summary of a section can be identical to a proposal made 4 years ago by two banned users. Are you saying it's just mere coincidence? Or are you now changing your answer to claim that you were in fact reviving a proposal from 4 years ago? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hogo-2020: I stand by my previous answers (permalink). I did not change the answer, and I think my previous clarifications would have made sense if read while assuming good faith. But since you seem to be particularly interested in my thought process, I'll try to break it down here as much as possible:
- Some historical context: this section has been subject to controversy for years. Early disputes I could find trace back to 2018 (Archive 5) when it was titled "Designation as a cult" (permalink). It was changed to "Cult of personality" (diff) in 2021. It has been subject to several disputes over the years, not just the one you linked to. Over time, several possible names have been thrown around. From a quick look to the archives, some were "Characterization as a cult", "Cult-like behavior", "Classification as a cult", "Description as a cult" (yes, some of them mentioned by SharabSalam). "Characterization as a cult", in particular, is mentioned in 4 archive pages. And one of the most recent proposals seem to have been in 2021 (Archive 41).
- When I said I'm familiar with previous discussions, that means I have read probably all of the archive pages at least once. So my views on consensus building are informed by past discussions. That was what I meant when I said I wouldn't claim all my proposals are novel.
- I don't think I ever read the linked source, although I'm not 100% since the link seems to be broken now. If you are concerned I was motivated by the contents of that source, rest assured I was not (whatever these contents are).
- SharabSalam's contributions were not particularly memorable to me, and I don't think I would had any of their comments in mind when doing any particular contribution. I had no good memory of the particular comment you linked to.
- But since you bring that discussion up, I see it already documented the use of these kind of formulations across other articles in Wikipedia: Characterization as a cult, Classification as a cult or sect, Description as a cult (yes, I have now taken these examples from the conversation you linked to). These formulations are just not so original and unique.
- In March 2024, when I was doing various improvements to the article, I came across this section again. The title "cult of personality" immediately came across incongruent with the content and cited sources. That is when I changed it to "Characterization as a cult" [1], and I made my rationale pretty clear:
rename section to "Characterization as a cult"; many reliable sources used through the article describe the MEK as a cult or a religious sect, that goes well beyond "cult of personality" which is a partial facet that might be attributed to many kinds of organizations, even some that would otherwise not be characterized as a "cult"
. - I thought about other titles like "Cult-like practices". But given the diversity of sources, I thought it would be more appropriate to have a less assertive title, something that lends itself to discuss some historiography, to have some balanced discussion about the different degrees of characterizations by different sources. "Designation as a cult" does not seem appropriate, since "designation" can imply it is a category assigned by some official body, which it is not. Same with "Classification". "Characterization" and "Description" seem fairly appropriate, but "Description as a cult" sounds a bit weirder to me.
- Have the previous occurrences of the word "Characterization" in multiple past discussions influenced my choice? Yes, I am sure they have. Had a different synonym been discussed more often, there's chanced that I would have used that one instead.
- Is this "reviving a 4 year old" proposal? No, per my above reasoning, I think that would be a misrepresentation, since I did not have that proposal you linked in mind. Although, had I chosen to bring it up based on that old discussion, there would have not been anything wrong with it. Just like there's nothing wrong with you repeating the same arguments as other banned users in the same previous discussions.
- I hope that clarifies it and dispels whatever concerns you had, even if I have no idea what legitimate concern you had. MarioGom (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- My inquiry is about the title change you proposed, "Characterization as a cult" (permalink) which I found is the same verbatim title change proposal made 4 years ago by two banned editors. On May 15 2024 I asked you how you arrived at this title, and you said "It's a summary of the content"[2][3]. But now you are saying "I have read probably all of the archive pages at least once. So my views on consensus building are informed by past discussions." These look like two totally different answers. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hogo-2020: it seems obvious you will not accept my answers as honest. That's fine. What's your point, and why does it matter? There's really not more I can tell you on this topic. MarioGom (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello MarioGom. You initially said your proposed title was a "summary of the content", and after I told you the same verbatim proposal was made 4 years earlier by two banned users, you changed your answer to saying the proposal came from reading many previous discussions over the years. I accept your answers, but your answer now differs from the answer you initially gave me, that is my point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hogo-2020: I explained why it was not a change, but an extended explanation given your insistence. But I cannot change your mind, so be it. I guess we'll have to leave this here. MarioGom (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello MarioGom. You initially said your proposed title was a "summary of the content", and after I told you the same verbatim proposal was made 4 years earlier by two banned users, you changed your answer to saying the proposal came from reading many previous discussions over the years. I accept your answers, but your answer now differs from the answer you initially gave me, that is my point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hogo-2020: it seems obvious you will not accept my answers as honest. That's fine. What's your point, and why does it matter? There's really not more I can tell you on this topic. MarioGom (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- My inquiry is about the title change you proposed, "Characterization as a cult" (permalink) which I found is the same verbatim title change proposal made 4 years ago by two banned editors. On May 15 2024 I asked you how you arrived at this title, and you said "It's a summary of the content"[2][3]. But now you are saying "I have read probably all of the archive pages at least once. So my views on consensus building are informed by past discussions." These look like two totally different answers. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hogo-2020: I stand by my previous answers (permalink). I did not change the answer, and I think my previous clarifications would have made sense if read while assuming good faith. But since you seem to be particularly interested in my thought process, I'll try to break it down here as much as possible:
Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Telegraph and trans issues. Thank you. I am informing you because you have commented on a prior RfC on a similar issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) on a "Politics, government, and law" 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 16:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Welcome to the DCWC!
Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, MarioGom! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:
- Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
- Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
- Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
- New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
- Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!
On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
COI on draft article
Hello, Looking at Draft:Ehsan Samei, I was ready to accept it as notable under WP:NPROF, but I noticed that it is unchanged since you moved it to draftspace on 16 March. Your move was due to possible COI for the creator, who has not made any logged-in edits since the move. I don't see a reason to decline the submission but I don't want to shunt it back-and-forth between draft- and mainspace with no improvements so would value your input. Thanks, Mgp28 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Another editor has declined this submission so there is no need for you to spend time looking at it. Thanks, Mgp28 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
DCWC August update
The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:
Magentic Manifestations (submissions) – 338 points, mainly from nine good articles. He's a contender for the "most submissions for a single country" specialty award, with nine submissions for India.
Arconning (submissions) – 305 points, including from six seasonally-appropriate Olympics-related good articles.
Generalissima (submissions) – 290 points, the bulk from her featured article about Greenlandic interpreter Qalaherriaq and two China-related good articles.
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) – 245 points, mostly from the achievement of bringing Genghis Khan to featured status.
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) – 144 points from three good articles, including two about Kiribati elections, and four reviews of good article nominees.
Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to 
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)