User talk:HandThatFeeds/Archive 2020

How improbable

 * Thanks! Yeah, I always liked the petunias bit much better. More mysterious & humorous! &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Winston Shrout
What is your objection to saying in the Redemption article that Shrout is imprisoned until such date? I believe it worth mentioning because Redemptionists are known circulate rumors that promoters are not actually in prison. You will note that I did not restore his location in the prison system. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Primarily WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL. This is not information that is encyclopedic, it only serves folks who want to obsessively follow someone's punishment. We have adequate sourcing that he is imprisoned, and people sometimes get out earlier or wind up convicted of other crimes that keep them imprisoned later. When he is convicted of something else or released, we can note that with an appropriate citation. I do not believe his projected release date is appropriate for the Wikipedia page. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems off-topic from the main thread, you may merge it back if so desired.
I'm afraid reality doesn't work that way, as individual behavior is part of the merits behind an edit. I'm not so sure, the result should be what matters no? If an article is written like an advertisement does it matter if it was produced by fanboys or UPEs?

It also becomes impossible to have a collegial atmosphere when one cannot identify if the person they're communicating with is the same person they were communicating with yesterday. This is stronger, but even in discussions what should matter is the quality of the arguments and not the identity of the ones making them. There is an issue that those with chronic rather than acute disruptive behavior patterns become harder to exclude, and I haven't thought of a good solution for that myself, but so long as the focus remains on the quality of content and arguments, I think the best material will still win out. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the former, it does, because allowing edits by UPEs to go uncontested is an implicit allowance to be more brazen. Drawing a bright line is better than "but why did you allow X and not Y?"
 * With the latter, part of the quality comes from knowing whether the editor actually understands the material, or is just repeating things they believe will let them "win." It's not possible to objectively determine the quality of an argument independent of an individual's motives.
 * I can respect a desire to just allow information to stand on its own merits, but experience has shown me that too many people are willing to manipulate facts to gain results that are counter-factual, or even detrimental to others. We are social animals, and motives are a factor in judging an argument, not simply the statement being made. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On the first point I would again disagree, allowing fanboy edits, or any other kind of problematic editing go uncontested likewise provides an implicit allowance to be more brazen. Bad edits should be challenged regardless of the source.
 * Regarding the later. I don't think that is quite right, climatology experts funding may indeed depend on the position that they are arguing, that climate change is a critical problem, but that doesn't mean their argument should be discounted on that basis. You may counter that in that case people are just using alleged motives to discredit rather than known ones, but I think the argument still fails even when those cases are excluded. You can both have a bad motive for making an argument and make a good argument. Consider I may present arguments for mandatory vaccination solely because my company stands to make a lot of money and they are paying me to make that argument, that doesn't make mandatory vaccinations a bad idea. Likewise I may argue for homeopathy out of the purest motives that I genuinely believe it helped me, will save lives, and reduce medical costs, however that doesn't make my arguments for homeopathy good. Court proceedings offer an extreme example, the advocates on both sides are being paid large sums of money to make arguments yet discounting them on that basis would be silly, or should pro se filers always win?
 * More generally outcomes are independent of motives. Actions that spring from the best of intentions may result in terrible outcomes. Extremely loathsome and self-serving motives may inadvertently produce a result that greatly improves things. At the very best known motives serve only as a heuristic when making fast decisions, useful perhaps in limited circumstances, but sub-optimal when there is time for a more deliberative process. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, bad edits should be challenged. The problem is that something that looks like a good edit at first blush may turn out to be a bad edit when you see where it's coming from, as that points you towards intent & how the edit is framed.
 * An argument can be good and still fundamentally terrible. Bathroom bills are an example that sounds legit on the surface, but turn out to be backed by anti-LGBT groups, and later become a venue to abuse people who don't "look right" according to some nebulous standard. In those cases, it doesn't matter how good the argument itself is, because the outcome is intended to be oppressive. Knowing motives is crucial for a deliberative process, as it adds more information to the argument itself.
 * And that's my fundamental issue with "the argument should stand on its own merits." It's an argument for excluding facts which are relevant to the decision-making process. It's ultimately detrimental to the entire process of evaluating knowledge & making informed decisions.
 * That said, I don't think we're going to persuade each other, and I'm not going to spend more time debating it. Thank you for the polite discussion, though! &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Drat, just when things were getting fun.
 * Well, I won't detain you then, and thank you for the polite discussion as well. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/955978140
Any explanation? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, an explanation for your edit would be appreciated. You added a pipe with nothing on the other side. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a space to sort the page at the very top of the cat. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't know what you feel that's better, but it's at least an explanation. I won't re-revert if you restore it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 01:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Source your revisions
I revised the topic with sourced documentation, you filed to do so. If you can source your changes, please do so. If you are only trying to cast doubt on religion/church. This is not the place to do so.

Elkrivermr (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC) elkrivermr
 * It would help if you told me what article you're discussing. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Death of Elijah Mcclain
You edited out a reference to his toxicology report from the coroner and removed the coroners reference to his hospitalization for the use of Psychedelics. You stated it was "irrelevant" but its important context to understanding and perhaps explaining his mood, language, and behavior on the eve of the incident. Readers should be able to have that information so that they can make a full assessment of what took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.131.68 (talk • contribs) 11:17, July 1, 2020 (UTC)
 * First, please remember to sign your posts.
 * Second, the majority of your comment was speculation & opinion, not factual. You need reliable sources to post relevant information about his mental state at the time, not a past incident of LSD use. It's not relevant to his death. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

First, my apologies for not signing.

Second: My edit was not conjecture, opinion, or speculation. I used the same source as references #1, #6, #8, #12, #14, and #23 for the wiki entry, so that seems to be a fairly reliable source for the majority of this entry, furthermore, it was a verbatim quote from the coroner and the coroners report dictated from within the linked article. I never injected emotion or my opinion, it was a straight up verbatim copy/paste from the source. I felt it relevant in that readers could use deductive reasoning to determine on their own if past behaviours are indicative of how this event went down, and if they contributed. The coroners report did mention "excited delirium" which absolutely can be an effect of psychedelic usage or an abnormal mental state. They may be unpopular facts but they are nonetheless relevant. I left this opinion out of my entry purposefully.

Please do let me know if that does not meet a minimum requirement for a relevant entry, and if not, I recommend and will suggest in a talk that Uelly, Wugapodes, and other power mods move to re-write the entire article without sourcing from the "Senintel Colorado" as a source if you have deemed it "irrelevant and/or "unreliable" 70.168.131.68 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice aggressive commentary there. You're conducting WP:SYNTH to tie these things into his mental condition at the time of his death. The sources do not do that. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I think we will just have to agree to disagree, good day to you. 70.168.131.68 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Hi, just pinging you about my answer in the Talk page. Cheers. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

On Oahspe category edit
Hi, I see you reverted my edit of Oahspe categories. Perhaps my justification for including it as an Abrahamic religion could be seen as long winded or irrelevant, since most often it seems most sources outside of the book itself don't dwell on it too much. But otherwise I don't see how the other two could be called "tangential". Oahspe is well known for its religious vegetarianism and I think it definitely could be included in the New religious movement category aswell?

Anyway, thank you for your time and hope I've not been a bother. 69.120.202.15 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it belongs in the Abrahamaic category, as it only "praises" those prophets but is otherwise unrelated to those faiths. We can discuss that, and the vegetarianism more on the Talk page. As for New Religious Movement, that one's been hotly debated on the Talk page, you might want to look through those archives to get more context. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Cyberslug1
Thanks! I was trying to work out which warning was appropriate for them. I've left them two standard DS/alerts that are relevant to the Proud Boys topic area. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! I use Twinkle, which lets me pick from a drop-down list of warnings & warning levels, makes it much easier. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)