User talk:Roggenwolf/Archive 1

Archive 1

All Pages:

1 -  ... (up to 100)

April 2024

Hi Biohistorian15! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Murray Rothbard 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. Thank you. BBQboffin^{grill me} 19:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I've been using the feature erratically. I'll try to stop. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Social construction of gender

I don't have access to the article you referenced, but does it actually mention Judith Butler in it and say that she is alluding to Nietzsche? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, just found your message here cleaning up... I corrected this somewhat contrived edit of mine just now. I hope this helps. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 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 20:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick thank you

I am a new editor so I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place to send this, but I wanted to say I received your thank you notes this morning, and I greatly appreciated it! Great way to start the day and still getting my sea legs here.

Best, and thank you,

Bluetik Bluetik (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, no worries! While I'm relatively new too, I'm really beginning to figure it all out. If you have any expansive questions, you can always email me as well btw. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nonidentity problem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Sparrow. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Western conservatism

Greetings.

First off, thank you for your excellent work, although you sometimes fail to distinguish between mainstream conservatism and separate ideologies such as libertarianism and fascism.

Given your insistence on including a section on Western media in a global template for conservatism, I created a new one called Template:Conservatism in the Western world, into which I incorporated your Media section. I also moved some other sections from the old template into this new one. I see this as a strategic move in order to avoid Western-centrism in the standard template while also identifying Western conservatism as possessing certain historical characteristics such as Christian values, monarchism, imperialism, and a relatively positive view on liberty. Meanwhile, Asian conservatism—for example—is characterized by Asian values such as collectivism, filial piety, and ancestral worship. Trakking (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

While transferring large parts of the standard template into the Western template, I excluded Russian elements, since prominent Russian conservatives such as Konstantin Leontiev, Aleksandr Dugin, and Vladimir Putin have been anti-Western. Trakking (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sure. However, I did try to supplement certain Islamic theorists to counter-balance my euro-centrism before, e.g. Muhammad Asad, Ahmad Fardid, Ali Khamenei, Ruhollah Khomeini, Sayyid Qutb and Ali Shariati. I really don't see why we couldn't just include some of these theorists in the "Intellectuals" section, you supplement some respective journals from the Arabic context and we call it a day.

On top of that, we could, in fact, add some Russian theorists and publications too.

With the East Asian variety I am unconvinced. Including figures like Confucius may be problematic, and AFAIK the attached template only contains politicians under "people" anyway. However, we could include something from the media section!?{{Conservatism in South Korea}} Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Khamenei and Khomeini are already included in the Politician section, where they most belong. Shariati is too leftist; Fardid is too obscure. However, Asad and Qutb are notable and influential, so I'll add them to the template.

Yes, Confucius is wayyy too proto-conservative, if "conservatism" means a modern ideology that originated in the late 18th century as a reaction to the French Revolution and its children liberalism and socialism. I have added Yukio Mishima—a great, although eccentric, representative of Japanese ultraconservatism. Trakking (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I was actually looking at that template yesterday and wondered the same thing. But I clicked on a random name and it said "writer," so it's obviously a mix. I'm gonna go ahead and organise it. Would be great with another prominent intellectual representing the Far East. Trakking (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

On a closer look, I cannot find any proof that Muhammad Asad was a conservative. Although he had personal ties to the Saudi royalty and was a proponent of an Islamic state, there is also accusations of him being a Bolshevik and modernist. Trakking (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, looks good after all. Two questions though:

• Why not title the template along the precise lines of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_conservatism
• Is Brazil ("Janismo") a sufficiently Western country?
  • Would likely imply Gomez Davila, Bukele etc. come back in as well...

Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I knew there was an article called ”Western conservatism,” but on a closer look it turned out to be about a form of conservatism in Western USA. Thanks for informing me about Janismo, which I had mistaken for Mellismo; it has been removed now. We could create another template for Latin conservatism and include it in the article Liberalism and conservatism in Latin America. What do you think? Trakking (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I will be very busy ensuring NPOV over at the Eugenics article this and the next few weeks, but may personally get into creating more templates after that. On that note, might I ask for some elementary aesthetic/functional formatting help from a more experienced editor, such as yourself, over at my newest sidebar? Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Great initiative. The template looks good, but in accordance with Wiki norms I would diminish the image to about half its size. Trakking (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, just did as you recommended (couldn't find precise wiki rules relating to it though). Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that it is more of an unwritten norm than an official rule to keep images in templates rather small. Trakking (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of eugenics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedigree.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You are once again edit warring on the page Dysgenics, in what is very clearly a contentious topic area related to WP:FRINGE science. [1][2] Believing that this area should not be considered fringe or contentious does not make it so. I will ask you to self-revert in the interest of collaboration. Generalrelative (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Generalrelative (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I am well aware. Though if you are referring to the "Dysgenics" article, it is/shouldn't be subsumed by that category either way. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

Your comment above –– that edit warring to add an opinion piece titled "Research on group differences in intelligence" to the article's "Further reading" section [3][4] isn't subsumed under the race and intelligence topic area –– strains credulity. Here's another alert that appears to be necessary. You've been asked by an experienced editor to please slow your roll within contentious topic areas. I will second that request. Though I have no doubt you believe yourself to be correct (and are in that sense acting in good faith), your actions in topics related to eugenics amount to a Gish galop of POV-pushing which even dedicated editors will have a hard time keeping up with. For someone who has been editing the encyclopedia for less than six months, your pace of getting into contentious arguments is indeed concerning. I understand that you may have come to see me as an opponent, perhaps even an ideological opponent, but my goal in reverting you from time to time, and in posting here, has everything to do with protecting the encyclopedia's core policies, including especially in this case WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I am in between degrees. Is it somehow illegal if I plan to overhaul the eugenics and dysgenics articles to more accurately reflect scholarship?

I think many of your edits are sensible, but I am personally very uncomfortable with contributors that are strongly on the deletionist side of matters. I hereby ask you to please perform manual reverts when it is clear that someone just spent 2h writing a paragraph and you just take issue with a single sentence. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me this insight into your motivation. I saw that elsewhere you state that you are writing a thesis on Wikipedia and have been reading all kinds of stuff about the project. [5] How that squares with being in between degrees I'm not sure, but in any case you are welcome to contribute as much as you like, so long as it is in line with policy and community norms. But here's the thing: contentious topics are marked out for a very good reason. It is relatively easy to lose one's editing privileges if one refuses to behave collaboratively within them, or indeed disputes the ground rules over and over in a way that becomes onerous to deal with. I've seen it happen probably a hundred times. When experienced editors advise you to slow down –– way down –– it is vital that you at least hear us out. Complaining that it's just a small clique of power-users with good connections to some admins that's responsible, and I'd likely soon be banned if I raised the issue on any other noticeboard [6] gives me the sense that you may not have the requisite faith in the consensus process to last long here. But I hope that isn't so, since you clearly have strong research and writing skills that could be useful to the project, and I too think that many of your edits are sensible. I do, however, think that your sense of what constitutes mainstream scholarship with regard to eugenics is quite noticeably off-base, and I believe that in time a consensus will emerge to revert a great number of your additions. I simply don't have time to mount such an initiative at this time. Thanks for hearing me out. Generalrelative (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that thesis is already finished, and I still like it here for now... You are right, I do not trust the "consensus" on most articles but will try to abide by guidelines anyway.

I understand that the lede may have to be rewritten etc. etc., but trust that this time serious removals of content (as opposed to additions, that is...) will be briefly discussed on the talk page first. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Only time for a brief reply now, but see WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. The latter is policy. Generally speaking we do try to hash things out on talk whenever possible, but the onus does ultimately lie on the shoulders of the party seeking to include disputed content. For this reason, large reversions may sometimes be necessary, until consensus for inclusion is determined. Generalrelative (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello! SpicyMemes123 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philosophy of medicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biohacker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.

Edits like this [7] are the definition of WP:PROFRINGE. Please cut it out. It is onerous to have to patrol your many, many edits knowing that from time to time you will inevitably pull something like this. Here are some other examples: [8] (my revert explanation: [9]); [10] (my revert explanation: [11]); [12] (my revert explanation: [13]). I could go on and on. These are just a few that I've taken the time to revert. Many more of your thousands of edits over the past 6 months deserve scrutiny, and I simply do not have the time. The fact that you often make sensible edits does not exempt you from taking due care when editing contentious topic areas. Generalrelative (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, sorry about the Gwern link, didn't know there was a decisive WP:NOBLOGS.

Secondly though, you will certainly not have to continue (specifically) "patrolling" my various edits personally as this is against WP policies.

If I look at some of your edit history I can surely find dozens of moves on your part.

Furthermore, you do not personally own "contentious topic areas", and thank god for that! Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. I will unfortunately have to continue following your edit history until you either reform or are prevented from making this type of PROFRINGE edit by administrative action. That's one legitimate (if boring) way that ordinary editors like me do our part to maintain Wikipedia's core policies. If you disagree with my understanding you are of course welcome to raise the issue at a behavioral noticeboard yourself. But I think we both know that my understanding enjoys broad community consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we both know that much. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay! So please stop editing against what you know to be the consensus. We don't expect everyone here to agree, just to abide by our collaborative process. Generalrelative (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope I'm not piling-on here but I have a different criticism of that edit to human nature. It seems to me that ramsey's "life-history trait clusters" described in human nature are unrelated to life history theory, despite having a similar name. Thus, it isn't helpful to add a hatnote pointing to life history theory (or its section on humans), and even less helpful to point to another topic (r/K selection theory) connected via life history theory without explanation. Jruderman (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right in retrospective. It was a superficial reading, and GR reverted it already. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Dysgenics, you may be blocked from editing.

This comment by an IP editor, which you removed, was unambiguously aimed at improving the article. There was no room for misinterpretation here. Your edit was straightforwardly disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It was an edit by a highly disruptive IP-user that also had nothing to do with the thread. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I think you're at least equally disruptive to the project, yet I have not reverted your talk page comments. You are creating a tremendous time-sink by WP:SEALIONING a pro-eugenics POV across the project which will take a lot of valuable editor time to undo. The only grounds for removing comments are if they're clearly WP:FORUM / WP:SOAPBOX or egregious WP:PA. Simply being mildly off-topic for a particular thread is not a valid reason to delete. In the future you can feel free to add a new header, per WP:SHOWN. Generalrelative (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Unironically thanks for the info, but I hope you're not serious. The IP has added unsourced allegations to lots of politically controversial articles. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The comment you removed has a source attached, which makes it removal even less justified. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Theodosius Dobzhansky, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please slow down. You need to review how defining works. Because categoization requires that the feature be a defining feature of the page in question. I have removed several catergorizations that clearly don't meet this. I see no evidence that he was regularly described as a eugenist. Being on the board of the society for demography and social biology isn't enough by itself if reliable sources don't also regularly describe him as being one. Mason (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll re-consider only when I have supplemented better sources for the claim. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Biohistorian15,

I just saw your revert here. The edit summary "Appears to me like a valid and sourced criticism was unduly removed" suggests that there may have been a confusion with another revert, because my commit didn't intend to remove criticism, actually, I'm the one who introduced the paragraph in the first place and I wanted to reintroduced a reworked version of some removed content.

My intent is mostly to explain Torres's view first, with their own words, because I think people would otherwise have the impression that they just believe that existential risks are sci-fi, whereas their position is actually more radical than the one of most longtermists they criticize. The crux seems to be that Torres basically doesn't like technological solutions (and that Torres would be ok with human extinction because that would be less suffering [14], but I decided not to add that to the article).

thanks Alenoach (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Don't worry, I won't revert again now that I get the context. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are ok with it, maybe you can undo your edit. It may be more transparent if you do it yourself, but if you prefer I can do it. Thanks. Alenoach (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024 (2)

No need for a template. You know that your edit warring at Flynn effect is against policy. The WP:ONUS is very clearly on you to achieve consensus. I have given a detailed explanation for my revert on Talk. Please self-revert and engage there. Generalrelative (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Richard Hanania shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligence (journal). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:No Nazis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Raladic (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Unbelievable, just unbelievable. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We take edit warring seriously here. If you don't immediately stop it, you'll get blocked, not because you are right or wrong, but because you are not behaving in a collaborative manner. Never try to force your preferred version. You are not alone here, and you must respect other editors, so discuss this with them on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Biohistorian15 What is unbelievable? You were edit warring. Don't make that edit again. Doug Weller talk 07:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topics alert for pages related to gender-related issues and people

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This 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, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Mason (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent changes still don't use edit summaries. Mason (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to mostly non-controversial additions of relevant templates or to fairly standard template edits - the de facto two other contributors I now quite well by now -, I see no real need. If I am reverted, I will specify my reasoning one time, and usually back down after that. If I have to argue a lot in either case, it's likely WP:OR. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Making your changes clear to other people is obviously a need. It isn't just about the active edits. Its common courtesy and the norm to other people, even if it isn't obvious to you. See the first few lines of the link. Please don't make me ask again.

"An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page. Summaries help other editors by (a) providing a reason for the edit, (b) saving the time to open up the edit to find out what it's all about, and (c) providing information about the edit on diff pages and lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists). According to the consensus policy, in general, edits should be explained." Mason (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I know it may not feel/seem like it, but I'm trying to help you here. Mason (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try in the future. Thank you. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s especially helpful to leave edit summaries for your uncontroversial edits to articles where you are likely to also make controversial edits. (And to explain your potentially controversial edits, of course.) Jruderman (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I'll try. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point by Jruderman! It really helps establish your credibility when folks start skimming your edit history if they see that you make lots of reasonable edits Mason (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Another case where I strongly urge edit summaries: when the net length change, e.g. +12, may hide a substantial and meaningful change. Example where I changed the first sentence of an article: Special:Diff/1238486383.

I also try to split edits out into chunks that can be explained separately. Crucial if any might be controversial or reverted. You can read more about this part on my new user page.

If I'm not doing anything weird, and neither the page nor my contemporaneous edits are controversial, writing "punctuation gnoming" (or even just checking the 'minor' box) tends to be enough. Jruderman (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Linking to the discussion about edit summaries

Biohistorian, is it okay if I link to the "Please use edit summaries" section from my user page, where I talk about my own thinking on edit summaries? The discussion includes insightful comments, but I thought I should check before adding a link that might be embarrassing. If you'd prefer I omit such a link, I have good alternatives, such as paraphrasing and copying. Jruderman (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll eventually delete the thread though. If you know how that works, you could activate an archive bot and permalink to the thread somehow. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for permission, and thanks for letting me know about the disappearance issue. I think I'll link to a versioned permalink.

imo an archive bot set for 2–3 months would make sense here, but that's up to you. Jruderman (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, if you know how to set it up, I'd be glad. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've set it up for you -- discussions to be archived after 75 days, but the most recent 3 discussions will always remain unarchived. Those numbers can be easily changed if you wish. This addition also put a standard header on your page, which will include links to the archive and an archive search box, once you actually have archived conversations. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism at Big lie

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Big lie. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024 (by Generalrelative)

Your recent editing history at Curtis Yarvin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Generalrelative (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Mankind Quarterly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Generalrelative (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior has been accepted

Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Conservatism template

Hello Biohistorian. I have reverted your recent addition of the Conservatism template at Joseph Conrad here as I could not find any reference to Conservatism in the article. Similarly at William Wordsworth. Perhaps those additions should be discussed at the relevant Talk pages? Many thanks. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I had already opened that exact discussion there before you pinged me. I'll look into making the template more concise. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the format of the template is the issue. Have you opened a discussion at each of those two venues? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit Warring over Conservatism Template

Biohistorian15, this is edit warring [15] and I believe you are well aware of WP:ONUS. I reverted your insertion of that template on C. S. Lewis with a clear policy based objection. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. You have added a political template to a section discussing Lewis' religious views. Per ONUS, you need to gain consensus before this challenged information may be re-introduced to the article. And in my view it has absolutely no place there whatsoever. I ask you self revert. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a sidebar template and not an infobox. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

An irrelevant distinction. It has no place in an article that does not discuss Lewis' poltical views. Per ONUS, get a consensus before re-asserting. I shall revert it out now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)