User talk:Kilopylae/Archive 2

Psychoanalysis as a Pseudoscience

How does one open up a discussion for debate of an arbitration principle? In particular, I would like to open a discussion of WP:ARB/PS, principle 17. In reviewing the statements around that arbitration, I don't actually see that the use of psychoanalysis as a particular example was ever actually discussed (though I could be missing it). My general problem is that there are multiple references and text in the criticism section of psychoanalysis in which psychoanalysis is identified as a pseudoscience, and there are no references suggesting that it is -not- a pseudoscience, but we cannot label it as such specifically because the field has a large following. It's not clear to me what the thinking behind that principle actually was. I don't know what the correct solution is here, and I think further debate could be helpful. Thanks for any help you can provide! ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, one motions the Arbitration Committee to overturn the outcome of their case; see towards the bottom of this page for the formatting they prefer. But I imagine it would be best to start with an RfC on the Psychoanalysis talk page, noting in the RfC that your intention is to ask ArbCom to overturn their decision and maybe tagging the people who originally voted on it. —Kilopylae (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to use edit summaries

Hi Kilopylae, I hope you're doing well. I noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field, as it helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks, and all the best, Jr8825 • Talk 15:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you've got me quite fairly there! I suppose I've picked up bad habits from Wikia/small ShoutWiki projects. Thanks for the reminder! :) —Kilopylae (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Queerplatonic Relationships

Hi Kilopylae! I hope you're doing well. I just wanted to talk about your recent work on the "Queerplatonic Relationships" article, linked here.

While a few of the changes I made were adding new information, some of the changes I made were simply about making the definition of the term more inclusive. Queerplatonic relationships emerged from a lack of terminology to describe a relationship with deep emotional connection beyond a typical friendship, while not being romantic in nature (as cited here) but as aromantic and asexual people complicate our narratives of attraction, so do the definitions of these terms. @aromanticaardvark on tumblr, a prominent tumblr blog for people who are aromantic or on the aromantic spectrum, says it best as follows:

"Queerplatonic to me means the breaking down of narratives. It means no rules. It means doing, essentially, whatever you are comfortable with. If you want to be best friends for all intents and purposes but also get married, that’s okay. If you want to kiss sometimes but don’t want to feel obligated, that’s okay too. This is why every person in a relationship like this has a different definition of it, because there are no rules. Queerplatonic means forging your own definition, saying “neither platonic or romantic is right”, and just doing whatever feels comfortable in the moment. It means making your own structure, mix and matching what you and your partner feel comfortable with. And I think trying to strictly define a queerplatonic narrative defeats the whole purpose of it. The purpose of it is to forge your own definition, to say “none of these words fit, so I’m going to make my own”. Queerplatonic is the breaking down of boundaries, or at least, that’s been my experience. It’s uncharted territory that has no societal bounds, that has no one making a strange face at what you do or don’t do in your relationship (or at least, not from people who understand the concept). Queerplatonic means mixing and matching, saying “I want to do this platonic thing, and this romantic thing, but not this romantic thing”.

That is, fundamentally, the most important part of a queerplatonic relationship. Breaking down boundaries, blurring the lines between platonic and romantic. The specifics may be different depending on the specific relationship, but that’s one thing I’ve found that all have in common."

I don't think that limiting these terms to their original functions is the way to go. A few minor word changes would make the term a lot more inclusive and allow for a lot more people to use the term and thus explore their relationship preferences without the pressure of labeling things as specifically platonic or romantic. Creating requirements for queerplatonic relationships seems to defeat the purpose of them: a challenging of the amatanormative framework of platonic/romantic relationships and being able to build one's own relationships and comfortabilities on a case by case basis. Psychology Today, Love Panky, Queer Undefined, and other blogs and websites all define QPRs without defining them as necessarily platonic. I'd be happy to include some of the discourse around this but I feel like we can just define QPRs by their lack of being entirely platonic/romantic, rather than by necessary requirements that might be limiting to some people.

I also want to challenge your comment that "the idea that queerplatonic partners aren't always significant others, which I've only seen expressed in non-RS and is almost certainly UNDUE for the lede (it's an unusual modification of the concept)". Queerplatonic relationships are such a new term and concept and the idea that the blogposts and internet forums, in which these terms are formed and discussed and debated, feels incredibly limiting for a topic that isn't really discussed much outside of the aromantic community. I'm happy to remove the sentence, but I don't think that we can assert that queerplatonic relationships need a "partner" basis either – just as dating or friendships can include various levels of severity, queerplatonic relationships should be allowed the same amount of variability, ability to progress, and finally ability for self-labeling.

Happy to discuss further. For now I won't edit the page but I hope we can find a middle ground that we are both okay with.

AndrewAmorchetty (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Critical social justice

Hello, Kilopylae. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Critical social justice, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]