User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 26

Contentious topics alert
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 Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC about the Riley Gaines accusations
Hi Shibbolethink, I'm writing because I think it would help if there is more focus on the content, not editors. I did not want to get into a side discussion with you in the midst of the RfC, but in response to what appears to be your suggestion that  is assuming bad faith about 's proposal, I did not have a similar read on Sativa's comment, and in any event, conduct concerns seem better addressed directly to Sativa on their Talk page, not in the midst of a discussion, where they may feel a need to defend themselves and further derail the discussion from the content.

Also, during the discussion, you asked me for further information, so I replied with a source, , and there was a further comment from an IP directed to me , and while I was preparing to reply to that, you replied to me It is so blatantly not an allegation of a crime that it boggles the mind and (while not quite reaching) gets close to WP:IDHT. WP:IDHT is part of the disruptive editing behavioral guideline, and includes Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive, which from my view, does not apply to my attempt to respond to your question. We are in the midst of a discussion that is seeking to develop consensus, and I am an attorney offering my read on sources in response to participants directly addressing me. So I published the reply I prepared in response to the IP, with another source. And then the IP picked up the IDHT suggestion in their reply, which heightens my concern about how deviating from content can derail discussion, because I was not sure what else to do at that point besides clarify what WP:IDHT actually says.

tl;dr - please be careful about suggesting editors may be engaging in bad faith or disruptive editing in the midst of a content discussion. This may derail discussion, discourage other editors from participating and/or make the RfC more challenging than it already is due to the subject matter. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Since I was pinged, I'll just say that I don't think shibbolethink was assuming bad faith but rather was clarifying for the new editor that my RFC is a procedural rather than bad faith action. I think for a new editor it is useful to help them understand when editors do these sort of meta/procedural actions to help a discussion move forward/be resolved as opposed to doing them to get one's views on an article. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 22:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your perspective Ixtal - I am concerned about the Please don't jump to these conclusions and assume bad faith in Ixtal's proposal like this comment from Shibbolethink, which especially to a new editor, might sound like the new editor is being accused of assuming bad faith about you. Sativa marked the first part of their comment with a "/s" (sarcasm) symbol and then made a comment about sources, . From my view, the comment by Shibbolethink could have more directly addressed the procedural and content issues, without personalization.
 * This is an article and topic area that seems to benefit from extra care, so I wanted to mention this generally. However, Shibbolethink, I also encourage you to consider striking the line I highlight in green in this comment, because I don't think there is evidence of Sativa assuming bad faith, and this type of concern does not seem appropriate for the content discussion anyway. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * tbf, I do see how my comment could be interpreted as assuming bad faith. Even with the /s, bringing sarcasm into a heated topic is rarely a good idea. I could've toned it down, and Shibbolethink could've taken it to my talk page instead. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 23:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I could've toned it down, and Shibbolethink could've taken it to my talk page instead Yes, definitely agree. Overall, I would also call this entire section here on my talk page ill-advised. I was not casting aspersions at any one, and simply suggesting we should take the discourse down a notch. I would say this talk page section does the opposite initially, although I'm glad we got to a cooler place in the end. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#32; on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment, and &#32;at Talk:Movement for the self-determination of Kabylie&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Signing for someone else
Just for reference, this is not a good idea in any way. It's pretty clear you were acting in good faith here, but you really shouldn't do that again. If someone forgets to sign, the unsigned template is available for that instance, or if the editor in question is reasonably active, you can just remind them that they forgot to sign. That stuff is fine, but don't put a false signature of someone else again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted! Thank you for the reminder and won't happen again — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent revert on EMDR
Not doing this on the EMDR talk page because that place is a WP:BATTLEGROUND and I would like to turn down the temperature a little:

I understand that that particular source does indeed literally say that EMDR is a pseudoscience. However a bunch of other sources contradict it, including some super high quality WP:MEDORG sources, by saying EMDR is evidence-based and giving it high grades of evidence. So I don't think that statement is justified by the balance of the sourcing even though it's a close paraphrase of the one source that does say it. Does that make sense? Loki (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * as has been described on that talk page: some parts of a thing being evidence-based is not in conflict with it also being a pseudoscience. One is not a catch-all reason for dismissing high quality sources which say the other. These are not mutually exclusive. The sources you are referring to do not even address the question of whether or not EMDR as a whole is a pseudoscience. Indeed, this is the entire point of something being a "purple hat therapy."I.e. naturopaths sometimes prescribe iron to people with iron deficiency. Naturopathy is still pseudoscience. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So, first of all, I've apparently come to your page by mistake. My apologies, I saw a BC revert and thought it was yours.
 * My issue with your analogy is that EMDR is one treatment, and the sources are saying "evidence-based" to describe the treatment. If we had a lot of sources saying that iron is an evidence-based treatment for iron deficiency, we would not say prescribing iron is pseudoscientific because a quack recommended it.
 * I understand that it's possible that EMDR taken as a whole is an evidence-based treatment but the eye movements or the original theory behind the eye movements are pseudoscientific. I don't really think the balance of the sources is behind "pseudoscientific" for either, but I wouldn't be opposed to "without empirical support" or something similar.
 * But, I just don't think it's true that a bunch of sources saying EMDR as a whole is evidence-based can be consistent with sources saying EMDR as a whole is pseudoscience. And when we have only some sources that say a treatment is pseudoscientific, we shouldn't describe it as such in Wikivoice. Loki (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

C1 and C2 (not a nasty-gram)
I think it would have been more clear to use "D", rather than "C2". Just less potential for confusion. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this, I likely contributed to the situation by putting "C: other" into the original quesiton. Perhaps I should have simply left that off. One imagines users would have still added options. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Policy Ideas at Village Pump
Some editors are kicking around some ideas for drafting a policy proposal on infoboxes for biographies. If you have any feedback I'd love to hear it. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Korean [w|W]ave
I must object to your closure of this discussion as concluding with a consensus to move. There is absolutely not a consensus to do so, and most of the P&G cognizant responses, as well as the sourcing results, support no move. What we have on the other side is a bunch of wikilawyering against the clear intent of the most applicable guideline; and examples of capitalization. Our capitalization standard is for a very strong majority of sources capitalizing, while we actually see in this case wildly mixed usage. At worst, this should have closed as "no consensus" with the page remaining at Korean wave as the status quo ante the RM. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw an overwhelming majority of high-quality sources which used the capitalized W, versus a small minority which used the non-capitalized w. The applicable guideline does not say "unanimity" and nor does it prescribe what "overwhelming" means. If the intent was not for a situation where greater than 75% of the sources use "W", then I'm not sure what situation would apply. You are, as always, free to take this to move review. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

“Comprises” in Polio article
Turns out both “comprised of” and “comprises” are accepted usage (which I hadn’t realized), so we were both right.(see “Did you know?) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise JustinReilly (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I would recommend just staying out of the Giraffe's way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One of these is the actual usage, the other is accepted by some, but not most linguists, grammarians, or style guides: —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 05:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a pretty tired discussion, periodically rehashed on WP for over a decade, and nothing has changed. There is but one well-accepted way to use "comprise".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics information American Politics
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people 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 Contentious topics.  SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Public humiliation
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Public humiliation, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_humiliation&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1155984899%7CPublic%20humiliation%5D%5D Ask for help])