User talk:Shibbolethink

If you're here to place a D/S notice for any topic related to science, medicine, or anything that might remotely be considered a conspiracy theory, don't bother. I'm already aware. You may point to this notice if it ever comes up.

WPMED Hot Articles:

152 edits	List of common misconceptions
138 edits	Comstock Act of 1873
126 edits	Nicol Spence Galbraith
107 edits	2024 Tamil Nadu alcohol poisoning
99 edits	James Alison Glover
45 edits	Source control (respiratory disease)
39 edits	Jenner Medal of the Royal Society of Medicine
33 edits	List of pharmaceutical companies
32 edits	Simone Badal-McCreath
32 edits	Influenza A virus

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 26 June 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

Flying car discussion

I will not participate in the discussion on Talk:Flying Car which you requested. As it is clear from the discussion at ANI that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and the UCOC do not apply, and that anyone who disagrees is liable to be punished, and that certain editors or their points of view are not allowed to be challenged, it is clear that my presence there is not desirable, and that it will not be welcomed.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

All good, I just wanted to make sure you knew in case you wanted to participate. I make no comment on whether NPA etc should apply, clearly they should but I'm not sure it rises yet to that level on any side or from any user. I would welcome your presence, even if it were only to briefly say whether or not you think the proposal is a good or bad idea. I understand why you might feel unwelcome, even if I very sincerely would want you to feel the opposite. Each of us can and should determine which spaces we feel comfortable enough to participate in. Have a great day — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson

Since the sources mention that super unhealthy diet as his diet, the article should place more focus on his connection to the diet, and only secondary focus on the daughter's connection with it. I haven't researched this, so I'm wondering if she started using his diet and is suffering the effects. That family seems to be in danger because of that diet. They could suffer both physically and mentally. Have there been such problems? --- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I think if you or I started a fad diet and did media appearances and started a podcast about it, we probably would attribute any negative effects to external causes. For example, if I were to have a terrible reaction to COVID-19, or pneumonia, I might attribute it to something other than my diet, even if my diet were partially responsible. We absolutely have no way to know, and we only know what Peterson and his family tell the tabloids. That's why I think it's probably most important that we just report what our sources say, and bring in the mainstream view whenever possible. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree. I was just curious if you knew more about this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What I will say, from a medical perspective, is that absolutely the deficit of vitamin C and calcium from a carnivore diet can predispose one to more severe infections. You have to be extremely careful which meats you eat and how fresh... There's a reason why sailors kept limes on 19th century naval ships! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Hello, Shibbolethink,

You can not move a category page as if it was an article or draft. You have to use Categories for Discussion and nominate it for a category rename. Then a bot will recategorize all of the contents of the category to the new name. Please don't move a category page again. It doesn't matter whether the request is from a RM or decided by an RFC, a page title change has to go through CFD so our category bot can handle all of the associated recategorization. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ah this I did not know or had forgotten. Thank you for the reminder and won't happen again — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

3 vs 2 is consensus?

Please explain to me how this RM discussion, where two were in favour and two against, with the latter putting significantly more effort and rationale in their argumentation, is considered consensus to move: Talk:S.M.A.R.T.#Requested_move_28_October_2022. It seems to me that the discussion was merely a charade, in reality older and higher privileged editors simply made a decision and that was that. I think it at least should be relisted again. Regards. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Cc Shibbolethink. For future reference, the closer's talk page or Wikipedia:Move review is the standard way to challenge move requests. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Mango från yttre rymden, how's it going. The proper procedure for this kind of thing is to first go to the closer's talk page (@Shibbolethink in this case) and try to resolve it there. And then if that doesn't work, to head over to Wikipedia:Move review and make a claim for why the close should be overturned. I'm going to move this over to my talk page and answer there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay so here's my response. This is a consensus because, per WP:CONSENSUS, discussions are not decided merely by a vote, see WP:NOTAVOTE. The clarity of argument, strength of policy, procedures, and the amount it is convincing to uninvolved editors is how consensus is decided on wikipedia. In the case of this move, I had relisted it once, to try and gain more input. And the only input that was received (from an uninvolved editor, mind you) was in favor of the move. Next, as @Pppery pointed out in the discussion, it is true that WP:NATURALDIS supersedes WP:COMMONNAME in this case. And other editors agreed with them.

Avoiding ambiguity is one of the #1 things we do when we decide titles on wikipedia. We don't want visitors to end up on the wrong page, and we definitely don't want them to end up on the wrong page without an easy way to get to the right one. Hence, we have disambiguation pages for exactly this reason. This is a perfect example of how to use disambiguation pages. Multiple pages have S.M.A.R.T. as an acronym. And ACROTITLE tells us not to use the periods, but also WP:PRECISE tells us to use the most precise possible title to avoid ambiguity. Hence, the policies in this case favor the move.

These policy arguments were also the most influential on the uninvolved users who joined the discussion (e.g. @SMcCandlish). As to whether I should have relisted the discussion, WP:RM explicitly discourages second relists when it is unlikely a more robust consensus will develop. We had extremely little input in this discussion, it seems even my pings to related pages did not draw a lot of interest. So a relist would not have made sense. It was also clear to me that we had a consensus, from uninvolved input and clarity of policy arguments.

However, you are absolutely free to disagree, and pursue this further at Wikipedia:Move review. Good luck and I hope you find what you're looking for here on wikipedia.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The Church of jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Hello. This is Jgstokes. I have been a Wikipedia editor for the last 15 years. Much of my work here has focused on articles about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the largest religious sect in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. In my recent efforts to continue to improve that project, User:FormalDude has been helping me work through existing policy and make chages to that where we can. Changes are in the works for the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. I recently saw your good faith efforts to change the mid-sentence capitalization of "The" in the name of the Church. I am not familiar with the policies cited that led to the consensus to use the lower casse "t" in the name of the Church in mid-sentence. So I wanted to reach out to you on this, based on FormalDude's recommendation. The Church itself is an incorporated entity, and all sources covering developments relating to the Church use the upper case in reference to the full name of the Church. With that in mind, whenever you are able to do so, could you provide me with a more complete explanation on the decision that was made? I have no desire to be a nuisance, but I was unable to participate in the original discussion on this, so I would like some clarification on these points. Take whatever time you might need to reply. I look forward to dialoguing more with you in the future on this. Thanks for your time. Jgstokes (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concern, and also why the LDS official church-made style guide uses the capital T in its official name, to differentiate itself from other LDS churches in the early movement, to show its followers it is the "one true Church", etc. I honestly and truly do not care much either way, but I do think it's important that wikipedia be WP:CONSISTENT for all religious movements (and indeed, all movements, groups, and corporations), and treat no particular such group as different or special. Indeed, there is no organization or movement or company for which we allow mid-sentence capitalization of "the", even if it is part of the proper name of that group or entity. This is because, in wikipedia parlance, definite articles in mid-sentence usage are not part of proper nouns, basically ever. There are a few notable exceptions, but that's the general rule of thumb, and the community has decided that the name of the LDS church is not one of those exceptions.

See, for example, WP:THE and the similar situations we have for The Coca-Cola Company (List of assets owned by the Coca-Cola Company) or The Crown (List of current viceregal representatives of the Crown).

I understand why the LDS leadership would want to have this capitalization, I understand why these are the rules for the church itself. But on Wikipedia, we have conventions and rules which seek to encyclopedically describe all of our content in the same neutral manner. And that requires us to sometimes use wikipedia-specific conventions to the great consternation of the things, organizations, and people that we cover here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment 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 19:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book):

I see you considered the capitalization here. What made you decide to go back to the lower case the?Naraht (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Met a user who disagreed, so WP:BRD — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

• News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"

• In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"

• Interview: Lisa Seitz-Gruwell on WMF fundraising in the wake of big banner ad RfC

• Opinion: Privacy on Wikipedia in the cyberpunk future

• Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed

• Op-Ed: Diminishing returns for article quality

• Book review: Writing the Revolution

• Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality

• Essay: The Six Million FP Man

• Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff

• Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"

• Featured content: A great month for featured articles

• Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler

• Concept: The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Musical deaths, murders, Princess Di's nominative determinism, and sports

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

• CommonsComix: Joker's trick

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
44		Alay (talk)	Add sources
63		Association for Research and Enlightenment (talk)	Add sources
48		Amano-Iwato (talk)	Add sources
15		The Legend and the Hero 2 (talk)	Add sources
22		Pipa Jing (talk)	Add sources
12		Yei Theodora Ozaki (talk)	Add sources
50		Tenome (talk)	Cleanup
35		Electoral history of the Libertarian Party (United States) (talk)	Cleanup
690		Mythic humanoids (talk)	Cleanup
36		Siraya language (talk)	Expand
75		Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters (talk)	Expand
34		Unit of selection (talk)	Expand
9		1924 United States Senate election in Iowa (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
104		Banchō Sarayashiki (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
712		Kumiho (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
56		Frozen zoo (talk)	Merge
280		Fringe science (talk)	Merge
1,257		Shapeshifting (talk)	Merge
69		History of education in China (talk)	Wikify
678		Phonetic transcription (talk)	Wikify
33		Mark Doty (talk)	Wikify
3		Greenville Wildlife Park (talk)	Orphan
13		Mongolian cosmogony (talk)	Orphan
2		Bear Ridge (talk)	Orphan
6		Keigo Seki (talk)	Stub
4		1818 United States House of Representatives election in Louisiana (talk)	Stub
8		1929 United States House of Representatives elections (talk)	Stub
4		1812 United States House of Representatives elections in Louisiana (talk)	Stub
58		Gun (Chinese mythology) (talk)	Stub
6		1818–1819 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:27, 28 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) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Acts of the Apostles on a "Religion and philosophy" 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 05:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your page move closure

About your closure at Talk:1788–89 United States House of Representatives elections#Requested move 19 November 2022, hope you will consider reopening and relisting that one, because a) all those page moves may have been ill-advised, and b) I would like a say in the matter and I don't think there was consensus for the page moves. In the first place, you brought up CONSISTENCY, which was not mentioned by any of the participants in the RM discussion and does not apply. Even if we were to go by the MOS:DATERANGE community consensus (which also does not apply), the only exception to the preferred state of non-abbreviated years (1881–1882, not 1881–82) requires us to ask what the convention is in reliable sources. Since that convention might be one thing for, say, sports articles, it could be something different for, say, political articles, because the sources for each kind of article would give a different convention. That is why CONSISTENCY was not raised in the RM discussion.

Most importantly, an editor raised the main red flag: editor Carter (Tcr25) stressed that these articles were not cases of election cycles that span the two years, they were cases of the elections for seats in the House and Senate, some of which were held in one year and others held in the next year. That would be two groups of things that just happen to have taken place in sequential years and absolutely not a DATERANGE situation. So the original titles in the date format XXXX and YYYY..., which does not and should not indicate a date range, is the only correct way to express the content of those articles. Again, it would be most appreciated if you would reopen and relist this move request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

In the first place, you brought up CONSISTENCY, which was not mentioned by any of the participants in the RM discussion

CONSISTENCY says: We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. Zzyx said: we should at least use the standard MOS:DATERANGE two-digit ending years format. Amakaru said: I definitely prefer a two-digit second year XXXX–XX where it's a pair of consecutive years. Zzyx also compared the use case to NBA seasons.

SUPERVOTE is when someone references an argument in the closing that was not made by any participants. That isn't the case here. Just because no one explicitly used the all caps shortlink doesn't mean that consistency wasn't a major argument in this discussion. It was.

Re: Carter's comments, no other discussion participants seemed to have found them particularly convincing. And as Zzyx says, these were elections that overall spanned two years, even if some seats were run in one year and the other in the next year. They were overall one "set" of elections. It was, as they say, " one series of elections that spanned two sequential years to elect a specific meeting of Congress" And that is what swayed subsequent commenters to support the move.

It appears to me, overall, that your request to relist is just dissatisfaction with how the consensus went down, not a procedural issue with the close. I don't think anything you bring up here was inadequately addressed in that original discussion, and I don't think a reopen is appropriate. An appropriate amount of time passed, eight editors participated in the discussion (more than most RMs), etc. Five explicitly in favor of the move and one supporting it while also supporting XXX-XXXX. Only a single editor was opposed, and their arguments didn't convince anyone else who participated. I don't think a relist is appropriate.

I would urge you to take this to move review if you think it's a reasonable case, but I disagree and will say something similar over there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, put your mind at ease, Shibbolethink, as I highly respect your judgement. While I have taken a few RMs to MRV before, I doubt that I could build a case for this as an unreasonable closure. I would think that with editors like Amakuru in support, that most editors would agree that yours was a reasonable close. It's just that I think that more weight should have been given to Carter's argument, which effectively nullified both CONSISTENCY and DATERANGE. So had I closed this one, I would have called it "no consensus" for now, but that's just me. Just as one of the supporters indicated, it's just not that big a deal. Thank you for you consideration, and Happy Holidays! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 15:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

And you as well :) I will definitely take that under advisement in future closures, I think you're right and I definitely have been drifting towards more contentious closes, as a personal challenge. But I will definitely consider more relists moving forwards! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

of sandbice and men

Of course, a man's sandbox is his castle, and far be it from me to pass judgment on someone else's castle -- I don't even know if it's a serious proposal or what -- but I think an RfC to deprecate ProPublica (based on stuff from 2016, no less) would be an absolute travesty, regardless of whether it went through or not. jp×g 04:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean probably not going to happen. I thought perhaps a "reliable except for reporting on scientific/data topics" would be the optimal middle ground that allows them to still be used for their extremely rigorous stories, but I have also seen quite a few examples of good science/health reporting, so I am not sure even that is a fair call.

My overall perspective is "they screwed up in these two instances" and we should just accept that as a reality, and that RSP is not really gospel. But that overall, ProPublica has an excellent reputation they completely fumbled in this instance, which will make me skeptically eye everything else, but not call it "unreliable". Not yet anyway. Ball's completely in their court if they end up screwing up worse after this. They already lost major grants... [1] (is that because SBF is bankrupt? Or because of their concerns over the reporting? Unclear. I would want them to be independent of funding, but I also personally would not fund an effort to investigate the origins where that was their first use of the money).

I absolutely adored ProPublica, have donated to them, read their newsletters, etc. Which was why this was such a shock. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy 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 08:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Reger story

I read your user page, about waste of words, and there's a matching story involving Max Reger, for a smile (but it's better in German): He wrote to a critic: "I'm sitting in the smallest room of my house and have your review before me. I'll soon have it behind me." - Seriously: during the infoboxes case of 2013, I invented the 2 comments per discussion restriction, which the arbs then used against me, and I found: it's no restriction, it's a blessing. For the infobox discussion for the composer, however, it took a few more comments than 2 (but by then I was free of restrictions). - 10 out of 12 arbitration candidates don't see infobox battles and one didn't answer - interesting. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Please fix the description of my questions to the arb candidates (not the current arbs, but those seeking election). I didn't ask them to weigh in (arbs can't weigh in), I asked them for ideas to end this perennial conflict. So far: no idea. They don't even see a conflict. - When the first RfC for Olivier was closed, I asked them to look at it. Just now, I asked them to look again. I wonder if they'll still see no conflict. I stand by my one and only comment: the common belief has been that the principal editors decide, repeated in 2015, and I rested the Reger discussion on that premise: I was the principal editor, and I decided. Has anything changed? Should that be the premise? No answer from the candidates to this comment (which they should have seen if the looked carefully). I also stand by the last part of my comment: always a waste of time. Unless someone has a good idea for peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes will do! Thank you thank you.

I love that story, it reminds me of Gell-Mann amnesia. The idea that we read reviews and treatises of stuff from our own area of expertise, and think "wow this is total BS" and then we flip to the politics section or economy pages, and think "now this is what I like". lol. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

IP User

I would just ignore that IP user. I'm not sure what drama is behind the retired editor, but for whatever reason they have been super hostile. It's not even worth responding. From the very beginning from when I was introduced to that RfC I have been met with nothing but hostility. It's rather silly, but you can tell from the responses it's someone who isn't prepared to argue in good faith. Nemov (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeaaaaaaah. I did actually look into their background of their old account and they got blocked like 5 times (and another time as an IP) for edit warring and for being so confrontational.

But I always need advice on how to not sweat those things, lol. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking about going to the noticeboard about it, but it's probably a waste of time if the user has already walked away. The editor isn't going to convince anyone with that type of behavior. Nemov (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeaaaaah, I usually find it's better to reserve that for the most egregious cases. Those noticeboards can be so contentious, it only helps to go if it's a situation where it's really really necessary. Otherwise, better let people talk up a storm of sound and fury signifying nothing, as they say. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)