User talk:MasterTriangle12/Archive 1

FOC

Heya MasterTriangle12. I might suggest removing the last sentence from your recent edit on RSN (diff). It is okay and understandable if you feel frustrated with an editing conflict, but it is important (especially on a noticeboard not about edit conflicts) to focus on content/policy and not on other editors. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah that was a little vent-ish. I've been finding it quite difficult to keep giving the benefit of the doubt to some of the editorial claims on that page, but it's been nice to finally see some editors come in who are more familiar with the processes for resolving these disputes since this is the only page where I have had any experience with editorial conflict. Cheers for bringing that source to the RS noticeboard by the way. Do you think the claims of UNDUE also need attention? Or is that moot by this point? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the UNDUE claims are probably going to come up again, but they haven't yet, and preempting them is probably not a great use of time. My suggestion is to do good editing: search for quality sources, see where they agree with each other, and write a strong section based on the common themes of those articles and fully supported by their content. (Boring suggestion I know, but that really is the best way to handle things if you feel like there is an edit conflict.) I think looking at multiple sources brought up in Noteduck's comments [1] in the relevant talk section and seeing where they agree with each other is a good start.

One slightly more specific suggestion is this: right now, I think there's an issue where the house is being demolished while it's still being built. Often, one needs to fix or update details of a new addition. In this case, it seems like mostly-but-not-entirely correct things are more likely to be removed, rather than improved. I suggest both heeding the criticisms that have been levelled at edits while at the same time improving quality prior to being questioned on additions. Here are some suggestions:

Ensure claims are backed up by strong sources. Multiple, if possible.
Try to not just add material, but if possible integrate it into the existing context.
Consider drafting additions first. I think I'm going to draft sections prior to addition in my userspace. You are welcome to contribute there.
If things don't work out in the end, if an addition or change is being stalled and you're pretty sure it is reasonable (and at least some other editors agree, preferably), then it may be worth trying to go beyond the wp:local consensus and finding the next venue up. That's what I did by choosing RSN. Sometimes it can be hard to know what the right place to go to is, so you can always ask.

Hope this is useful! And, finally, do try to AGF. Most editors are here to improve the encyclopedia, even most of the ones you might find frustrating. Jlevi (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explain what?

I don't know what you're referring to, and your approach doesn't help.[2] I appreciate the partial refactoring. --Hipal (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi already asked you to explain yourself and I was seconding that, it seems we were both confused at your various reasonings and the intensity of your responses. And the intent of my first edit was for you to rethink your hasty imputations, but I realised that it came across as rudely informal and removed it, sorry about that. As a specific point; I can see the obvious but small connection between redlinks and WP:PROMO in a general sense, but I fail to understand why you think that is so relevant here, especially where you are saying that "redlinks alone are a blatant indicator that it's promotional", which just seems like an excessively broad characterisation. Also being "concerned that editors are following in the path of assuming bad faith of others as their main justification for their editing here" was somewhat confusing, I can see how you could think that other editors could be assuming bad faith, but for you to think that could be their only reason for editing the page is a confusing leap of reasoning, people primarily edit because of the page, not the editors. We need the opposing opinions we have for such a controversial page, but we also need to be able to understand each other, so if somebody claims to not understand you it would be appreciated if you just explain what you mean and your reasoning for it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021: Arbitration

[moved from User talk:Mastertriangle12 by jonesey95]
I have filed an arbitration case request. I have listed you as a party. See:[[3]]. Noteduck (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PragerU - dispute resolution noticeboard

[moved from User talk:Mastertriangle12 by jonesey95]
Hi there. I've named you as a "user involved" in the dispute regarding the PragerU page, which I've sent to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. [4] Please submit your statement when ready Noteduck (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it yet, should I check back in a couple of days? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest concerning PragerU

Hello, MasterTriangle12. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page PragerU, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have even the slightest connection to PragerU. I'm in NZ lmao. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand why I would ask? Have you ever looked at this[5]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I get where you are coming from now. I keep an interest in PU since it's probably the most widespread propaganda source online and disinfo/public manipulation is a big pet peeve for me, so I like to keep an eye on it even if I'm not that active on wider political topics. I don't do much actual research in the area any more but I still like to pop in on the relatively frequent discussions since they can get a bit weird and rules lawyering keeps coming up which I like to help with.

People with an actual connection to an advocacy org like PU tend to be easy to spot (very hard to identify a particular connection though), since they are usually highly politically motivated and tend to mostly edit pages that are of interest to their advocacy, if they mostly edit just that one page then that's a stronger indication. PragerU might be my most edited page but that's <5% of my edits with the rest being almost exclusively science and technology, a topic that I've never seen a motivated person of those political persuasions take a deep interest in. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its ~18% and just FYI most right wing political extremists are into science and technology (a fondness for science and technology coupled with a disdain for the "soft sciences" is actually one of the defining features of the type). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at main page edits, but yeah, lotta talk page stuff bumping up the numbers, it's basically the only page where disputes happen. And that might be true for general right wing extremists (despite the interest often being superficial), but it's certainly not true for the theocrats that surround things like PragerU. There seems to always be an absence of scientific curiosity that drives them away from anything less practical than engineering or such, and the disdain for the soft sciences is even more extreme. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all this then, its definitely in a different class of controversial from your normal science related pages. I hope you understand that if a talk log goes from #1=129 to #2=7 people are going to ask questions. Not telling you how to edit but editing a broader swath of pages (including stuff I'm not at all interested in IRL) definitely made me a better editor. Sorry again, happy editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All g, it's good of you to check. I only edit what I come across in research/curiosity so I tend to only edit what I'm proficient in, and I like to take my time so one high maintenance page is more than enough for me. Anyhow, keep up your best work :) MasterTriangle12 (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]