User talk:Rubsley

Welcome!

Hi Rubsley! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! RFD (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Marking significant edits as 'minor'

Hi Rubsley! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at 27 Club that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thanks for your efforts to improve the article and let me know if you have any questions by posting to my talk page. — Goffman82 02:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Goffman, I appreciate that. Will make sure I elaborate more in the future. Cheers. :) Rubsley (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

27 Club

Hi, please join the conversation on the Talk:27 Club and don't just keep repeating your edits. This is known as edit warring, and may end up with you being blocked from editing. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy not to war over this.

Perhaps you can explain how the idea of the 27 Club fits with Wikipedia's definition of an urban legend.

Also, could you explain how two analyses = "repeatedly disproven"? I suppose something something that happens twice is "repeated" - but "repeatedly" is perhaps a misleading word, implying many more times than twice. Perhaps the actual number of times would be better than the open to interpretation "repeatedly"?

"Disproven" is also up for debate. Do the studies match the criteria for good science? Are they measuring the right thing? Rubsley (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

re: urban legend, see my reply on the article talk page.

re: "repeatedly disproven", I agree it sounds a little non-neutral, so I restored the sentence to read "refuted", which I think is fair.

re: the BMJ study, the BMJ article itself has a "Limitations" section that explains the rationale and pros/cons of their chosen sampling methodology. The length and honesty of this section supports its credibility. Every method has pros & cons. Perhaps it takes up disproportionate space in the article relative to the other cited study. You're welcome and encouraged to edit or expand this section to more accurately communicate what the studies say; just in keep in mind that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is to write from a neutral point of view, to avoid implying any bias or opinion on the subject matter. Goffman82 00:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The term "Republic" and change in meaning over time

Your reversion here of a recent edit of mine was, I think, ill-considered. Normally, I would respond in the article talk page, following WP:BRD. In this case, two factors make me think it would be better to respond more privately. The first factor is that your edit count is 50 and mine is a lot -- that doesn't necessarily mean that my judgement is better than ours on this, but it is something to consider. The second factor has to do with my reason for making the change you reverted -- in my edit summary I mentioned that and pointed to a relevant discussion on the talk page of another article. In that article, I had made a change motivated by my understanding of the meaning of the term circa 1800 vs. the meaning today (as the lead para of this article defines them, anyhow). The content I changed in that other article would have fit the modern "not a monarchy" definition, and I changed it to better fit the more nuanced definition the time relevant there. I was concerned that a WP editor, seeing my change, might look at this article and, seeing that the lead sentence says that the term means "not a monarchy" might change it back -- essentially revising history based on the changing definitions of terms used to describe history. It's not presently as big a deal to me now as it was at the time, as the pushback I expected against my change in that other article never materialized.

Separately, I either disagree with or am confused by your saying "when past and current usage are already defined" in the edit summary of your revert. I don't know what you mean by "already" there -- (1) in previous edits or (2) earlier in the text. My edit inserted a summary clarification ahead of the details about particular time periods and, to a reader coming on the article, the later info related to info I had provided earlier (earlier in the text), not the other way around.

For now, I'm not going to unrevert your reversion here, but I may revisit this if it does become an issue elsewhere -- as, possibly, in that other article I mentioned. Perhaps you could think about this and think about rewording the initial part of the WP:LEAD of this article for better clarity about the change in the meaning of the term over time. Cheers, and welcome to Wikipedia. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message. If I remember correctly the thing about "past was already defined" was because the word "earlier" was added when the sentence already began with the word "previously". And then "current usage" was added but, again, that the definition in question was also "current usage" had already been stated, or perhaps wasn't needed since aren't definitions current unless otherwise stated?

That was the last edit anyway. Or maybe you're referring to an earlier one?

As it stands I think the definition in the lead paragraph is basically the one from the Oxford English Dictionary. Elaborations of other definitions are lower down; and the definition that is used among some people in the US (from Madison) has its own section also.

Hope that clarifies!

Best,

Rory Rubsley (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)