User talk:Littleolive oil/Archive 6

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wrong end of the stick"
I am typically much less concerned about who started something than I am with who stops it, but just for clarity, it was not Colin who "shot first" at this discussion. Perhaps you would review the thread more carefully, although I hope at this point it's moot (the problem in that thread has been addressed, and everyone was in agreement about that particular editor). As to the ongoing between  and, one can read the thread in retrospect and perhaps ... timidly ... suggest that had RexxS simply re-phrased his initial post from,  to something like  that would have a) avoided personalization, b) not left Colin with a need to respond, c) delivered the same message, and d) left Colin an opening to more briefly clarify with something like, "oh, but this case is different, because it is not among the first posts of an inexperienced editor, rather a now entrenched pattern". That is, avoiding personalization in the very first post would have led to the place we eventually got to, which is that everyone agreed on the current poster. My intent in posting this here is not to say who had the "wrong end of the stick", but to hopefully point a better way forward should similar issues resurface. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. The person who prolonged this was me and I’ve withdrawn my comment. I actually have no interest in judging anyone in this except myself :/ Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I hope we can help provide a way forward, if nothing else.  All the best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Your changes on WP:MEDRS
You are making changes to WP: MEDRS with the edit summary that the edit is a typo. That's not true. Further if you want to make changes go to the talk page and ask for input. Changes in meaning in policies and guidelines usually require consensus. Please go to that talk page and try to get that consensus. If you revert to a change in meaning, are challenged, but continue to push your edits you will probably run into trouble. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Watch it. Check yourself. You keep intentionally introducing the same typo - which is vandalism AND this is your second warning about it. I didn’t say anything untrue. And I just documented the existing policy (the make “correct, ” part of edit summary ) along with fixing the “typo”. I didn’t change the policy and you didn’t “challenge” you just reverted. A challenge would have reasoning. You ahem are mistaken- and an untrue statement maker. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeking another set of eyes before this gets way out of hand. Who’s edit warring rather than discussing? Re last 4 edits and counterclaims above and in edit summaries. Edits are simply the last 4 here. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An editor has indicated that they disagree with the edits, so the correct next step is indeed to discuss the proposed changes on the talk page if you cannot come to an agreement between yourselves about the content.
 * As an aside, it is typically helpful to break down your edits into one change per edit and use more descriptive edit summaries- Littleolive oil is (reasonably, I think) saying that it looks as though your edit summary is saying you've corrected a typo but that you've actually changed content. If you ARE going to do something like this in one edit, a better summary would be something like "Expanded content around peer-review and the reliability of editorials/comments. Also fixed typo (reports -> report)."
 * One final point - comments like untrue statement maker and alleging vandalism could be seen as not assuming good faith. Please remember we're all here for the same purpose to improve the encyclopedia, even if we can sometimes disagree on how to do that. Best, Darren-M   talk  09:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's not true. could be seen to have violated AGF but I could be seen to have taken the bait.  Was hoping the refusal to discuss wouldn't continue. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To add: WP:MEDRS is a strongly held guideline in terms of health related articles. Changes to that guideline should be made with consensus. If not I doubt if I'll be the only one reverting the changes until agreement I reached. Littleolive oil (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that as a continuing refusal to discuss as there's no identifiable objection to what is to my eye a clearly uncontroversial factual correction. The only identifiable one is a false claim about my overly terse (sorry) but accurate edit summary.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You edit summary wasn't terse it was inaccurate. You made changes in text but said the change was a typo. That's not true. Further, you must get consensus for changes on a policy or guideline page especially if what you add is challenged. Please read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Littleolive oil (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From WP:WPEDIT: "However, changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change." Littleolive oil (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you have bad eyesight, but it seems more like, if you're not a sock of the ex-president, you're a good facsimile. Think you're entitled to your own factz. How do my changes "alter the substance of policy" ??? FS.  --50.201.195.170 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think that the changes that is proposing could at least alter the reading of that sentence, so I do agree that they should be reached on the talk page. I have very little prior experience of MEDRS but I note for instance that the word 'editorial' wasn't used in the policy in the same context as you have used it, prior to your insertion. Even if you are not intending to make a change to the meaning, MEDRS is such a critical policy that I think the change should be vetted through consensus before being made in case other people interpret your changes in a different way to what you do.
 * With regards to the edit summary, I think we're now splitting hairs. I can understand 's point that they had used "correct, typo" to mean a) correct the policy and b) correct a typo, and I can also understand how misinterpreted that summary to just mean 'correct typo'. I think we all should be able to agree that the edit summary was inadvertently unhelpful, but was intended to be accurate.
 * I'm not so keen on comments like Maybe you have bad eyesight, but it seems more like, if you're not a sock of the ex-president, you're a good facsimile and I think should probably strike these and apologise as they stray a little too close to attacking contributors rather than debating content.  Darren-M   talk  12:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's get this straight, 50.201.195.170, you are absolutely accurate in stating that the verb should be plural: "report", not "reports". So you're right about that. Unfortunately you're wrong about everything else.
 * Your edit summary was misleading; we expect a lot more reasoning when altering guidance pages, beyond correcting simple typos.
 * The statement "Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed" is accurate (by definition), and your change was not a correction, but an expansion to explain that some minor part of the content may not have been peer reviewed. Our convention here is that sort of change to policy or guideline requires discussion and consensus beforehand, so it should come as no surprise that you were reverted.
 * Another convention here is that reversion is a challenge in itself. On policy and guidance pages, it is understood to mean "I don't agree that this change should be made without discussion".
 * Finally, your sarcasm and attacks are misplaced and not welcome here. If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia in the future, you will refrain from repeating that behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 50.201's comments about a typo presumably do not refer to changing Every rigorous scientific journal is at least partly peer reviewed; papers are always reviewed, but editorials and comments may not be. into the less informative statement that Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. and I agree with Littleoliveoil and RexxS that this constitutes a change to the substance of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement "Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed" is accurate (by definition), and your change was not a correction, but an expansion to explain that some minor part of the content may not have been peer reviewed. Our convention here is that sort of change to policy or guideline requires discussion and consensus beforehand, so it should come as no surprise that you were reverted.
 * Another convention here is that reversion is a challenge in itself. On policy and guidance pages, it is understood to mean "I don't agree that this change should be made without discussion".
 * Finally, your sarcasm and attacks are misplaced and not welcome here. If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia in the future, you will refrain from repeating that behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 50.201's comments about a typo presumably do not refer to changing Every rigorous scientific journal is at least partly peer reviewed; papers are always reviewed, but editorials and comments may not be. into the less informative statement that Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. and I agree with Littleoliveoil and RexxS that this constitutes a change to the substance of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Given the personal attack on my user page; I will be disengaging for now at least. I have alerted other editors here. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts here Darren-M. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Technique
I see you've been active on the Alexander Technique article for a few years, I'm not that active in Wikipedia (mainly because of cases like this). It's quite annoying to be taken as a quack by Hipal when there's plenty of evidence it's effective against back and neck pain. Franciscouzo (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

2021
I tried to give 2021 a good start by updating the QAI project topics. Please check and correct, - not a member, but an old friend! - For moar private "happy new year" see here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda...:O) Littleolive oil (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)