User talk:Crossroads

Archives

2019: Q1-Q2, Q3, Q4
2020: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4
2021: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4
2022: Q1-Q2, Q3-Q4
2023: Q1-Q2, Q3-Q4

Update the Estimated number of COVID-19 Deaths

The population loss is actually 0.1-0.3% 173.44.89.180 (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edelman Family Foundation

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

Hello Crossroads. thank you for solving this. Though, I wonder, why about.com is on the blacklist, seems it now is Dotdash Meredith. Is that on the blacklist too? And if yes, does this also mean in the future, coming across the about.com references, they should be removed? Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lotje, I really don't know why it is on the blacklist or what else is on there. All I know is the page was broken, I was trying to read it, and I wanted to just get it fixed. Since about.com even in the best of times is not a particularly great source (not academic or super reputable, just a website) and most uses of it there seemed redundant, I felt it was fine to just remove it; it was the only way to save the page. I would suggest searching the archives of WP:RSN for more information about the site. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much Crossroads for your kind help and assistance. Since you mention the link is (for the time being) not a particularly great source, I feel, next time, if I come across is and it is still blacklisted, I can remove it from the article. Instead I will insert the ^{[citation needed]} template. Cheers Lotje (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thyroid theory

I need to tidy up/rewrite Biology and sexual orientation, but the thyroid theory seems to have disproportionate coverage given the primary sources. You (or I) could take an axe to it. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zenomonoz: I recommend chopping the section. I think I remember when it was added, it was by a red-linked username and I tried reverting it, but they reverted back and I didn't have time back then to argue about it (was very busy IRL). Just save or bring back whatever scientific review articles or books say about the theory, if they say anything at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why they call it Crossroads

i just thought you might like this photo.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that is a nicely named crossroads, thanks! Crossroads ^-talk- 19:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I get WP:NOTCENSORED, but readers don't expect to see a highly explicit gif when they type "Or" into the search engine. Thank you for getting rid of it. funplussmart (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Head's up

As the only other editor that has reviewed it recently, I thought I should flag up to you the latest conversation over at Talk:Orgasm. Agreed on WP:NOTCENSORED but even ignoring censorship or content issues, I think the article's better off without them. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A line has been removed from Biology and sexual orientation

In an article discussing biology and sexual orientation, there was a previously included section on prenatal thyroid hormone. This section emphasized a discovery on human chromosome 14, where researchers identified a specific region linked to thyroid disorders. This discovery was presented as significant evidence supporting the prenatal thyroid model of sexual orientation. why has this line been removed? reference is here প্রলয়স্রোত (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Consensus on the Presence of Endometriosis in AMAB individuals

Hi Crossroads!

I've recompleted the edit made on Sex differences in medicine, with sources, thank you for calling me out on the lack of sources, research on these types of things is a part of my day job, and it's easy to forget that even though their is sufficient evidence in academic lit, it's not necessarily well known.

If you're interested in reading more about endo in men, here are a few case reports you may find interesting:

https://doi.org/10.1155%2F2018%2F2083121 (this one is particularly interesting as it references fifteen additional case reports of endo in men!)

https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0770.140660

https://doi.org/10.1177/1066896918797438

Happy editing! Foxtrot620 (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connected account

Not worth reporting yet, but it looks like we're seeing the same IP - 2402:8100:259B:CE6B:8456:9EFF:FE52:6B82 and 157.38.133.116——Randomstapler's alt 02:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I thought we could wait on this, but what happened on the talk page happened.⸺(Random)staplers 05:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cass review sourcing RfC

Hi, your proposal to start an RfC and notify WP:MED on the sourcing dispute seemed very good to me, but it's been a week and nobody else has got the ball rolling. Since I'm very unfamiliar with formal Wikipedia process I thought I should at least discuss the matter with someone before wading in again. I'm a bit leery of the fact that RFCs take place on the talk page, and the potential for that to turn into the same old battleground with the same old cast of characters rather than bringing in fresh eyes to neutrally decide on policy, but it seems like that's unavoidable? Frank Forfolk (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Forfolk: RfCs basically always draw in numerous fresh eyes and comments; a lot of people watch the RfC categories, as well looking out for them at relevant WikiProjects and noticeboards. Be sure to look at WP:RFC first for instructions. Thanks! Crossroads ^-talk- 21:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to Indigenous peoples

Hello there

I slightly changed your wording of this to make it clearer that these are Singh's views. I don't have read access to the article so can't check what Singh actually wrote but I was concerned about the phrase "Indigenous people and intellectuals" as if an Indigenous person can't be an intellectual. "Some people argue..." is also a red flag for weasel words Wikipedia:WEASEL and best replaced. And stories about migration to a place aren't the same thing as stories about colonising a place and don't necessarily contradict the previous sentence. Please have a look at my rewording and see what you think. Happy to discuss on the article Talk page.

Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a follow-up adjustment. Regarding the first point, that was merely meant as a less redundant way of saying "Indigenous people and Indigenous intellectuals", since the article describes both common people as well as scholars (both of Indigenous background) making those points. I've changed this to "Indigenous people" rather than "commentators" since the latter sounds like it could just be random pundits. "Some...people" is a summary of the various people whose words or works are quoted in the source, but I won't pursue that further. Lastly, while migration and colonization aren't the same thing, a traditional history of migration would seem to contradict a definition that relies on "creation stories", and dichotomizes this with colonization only. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]