User talk:Zenomonoz

Your draft article, Draft:HiSmile


Hello, Zenomonoz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "HiSmile".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate sourcing
The Daily Beast and Five Thirty Eight are not appropriate sources for an article on moral panic: as I noted on the talk page, we have generally required scholarly sources that can draw from Stanley Cohen's work, not just mass-media articles that use the phrase "moral panic". This is because the article is on a scholarly topic in sociology. Similarly, the pedophilia section is WP:SYNTH, and again has insufficient sourcing with no reference to the sociological concept of moral panic. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Please strike
Will you please strike the "personal motive" aspersion that you made in ? That is completely uncalled for on an article talk page. I would also request that you amend they don't want anything linking to Bailey because of a 'Streisand effect' to better reflect what I actually said in, where I actually expressed caution over not wanting to fulfil Bailey's Twitter expressed desire to "Streisand this thing". Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Done! Zenomonoz (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

DID page
Thanks for giving the page some attention, really appreciate it. Please don't take my revert as criticism of or opposition to the clean up you're doing overall. lizthegrey (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem, although I do believe the info-box needs trimming per H:IB for excessive length. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Lex Fridman
I've noticed your tactful responses to new editors at Talk:Andrew D. Huberman. I would like to invite you to have a look at what's going on at Talk:Lex Fridman where there has been similarly significant influx of inexperience, POV pushing editors. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, added to watch list. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos
Just for the record, I just wanted to make clear that being that he happens to be a centre-right voice from the United Kingdom (England, to be more precise), I felt as though my revisions to that end were justified. Sorry for the circular reasoning there. Do you understand now? Thank you. NavyBlueSunglasses (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes but linking to English conservatism seems unjustified. He isn’t really aligned with English conservatism. He is more closely aligned with the trumpian American movement. He works (worked?) for MTG. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose since British conservatism is often more centrist than American conservatism, and given that Yiannopoulos can hardly be described as a moderate in good standing, I suppose you do have a point. Thank you for your reply. I understand. NavyBlueSunglasses (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Why the reverts of edits on Fridman wiki page?
You reverted edits and reorganized the remaining information of what I added to the Lex Fridman Podcast section of Fridman's wiki page.

Why?

You didn't discuss your reasoning in the talk page (a talk page was already created for that specific edit). That information I added was all sourced to reliable sources. There was no original research. There was no editorializing. I added relevant and notable information about Fridman's podcast. Uhhhum (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The new edits are better. Previous text like “with an emphasis on empathy and compassion for whomever he interviews” comes across too MOS:FLOWERY and promotional for encyclopaedia. You have also attributed things to the people who said them now, which is better. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah i see. Okay understood. I'll attempt to de-flower future text.
 * Thank you for the feedback! Uhhhum (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just refer to pages like WP:GUIDELINES which includes a large list of guideline pages. The 'content guide', 'editing guide', and 'style' sections might be useful. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Uhhhum (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at John Money. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Des Vallee (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I didn't see anyone attacking you on that page. And the reverts of your edits seem fair and justified in my opinion, though maybe they would not have been reverted if you had done a better job of explaining them to other editors. Please use the talk page to discuss controversial changes instead of sending vague warnings to people. SparklyNights 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks SparklyNights. My comments do not constitute a personal attack per WP:PA. According to that page "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack", so I'd ask you to read what I wrote carefully and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. It's starting to look like tendentious editing (misrepresenting sources, restoring disputed content, ignoring guidelines and then accusing me of attacking you) and I'd rather resolve things nicely. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the only person on the talk page, and the other revert mentions "If you can rewrite it neutrally with the same refs, it should be ok" the sources being in line. Moreover "potential disruptive editor" does break WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH because it has no relationship to the content of the article, you are commenting on contributors not content. Des Vallee (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So? Many editors do not have time to individually check all of your sources. I did. I am not "commenting on contributors", I am clearly commenting on your editing and the content you include in the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hi, I was about to notify you, but you're already aware – all right ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Epstein
Hi,

I'm new to editing in Wikipedia and would like to discuss with you why you reverted my edit on the Alex Epstein page. Why do you prefer the sentence as is, compared to my revision? And when you stated that it would be your second and last attempt to revert me, was that a threat, or did you just mean that you do not care so much?

Thanks, B Brendanc12 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not a threat, it's just that I don't want to engage in an edit war. I have posted the links to the discussions on your talk page. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * as for It is evident from Epstein's own writings that he does not reject that climate change is progressing and human caused from your edit summary, I think WP:MANDY applies. This is also discussed over on the fringe theories noticeboard under the Alex Epstein topic, linked on your own talk page. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that WP:MANDY applies here, because Epstein's own writings (which serve as real evidence in this case, rather than a flimsy denial such as that in the Mandy case) irrefutably prove that he accepts that fossil fuels are responsible for the warming we have already experienced and will continue to experience. What he does deny, however, is that this warming will be dangerous. An important distinction should be made, then, in that Epstein does not deny global warming, only that global warming will be dangerous. Let us walk through the four sources ([2], [7], [8], [9] in the article) that have been referenced to prove his "climate change denier" label.
 * 1.     NBC News
 * This article labels Epstein a climate “skeptic”, not a denier, and deals more with Epstein’s comments on the Texas winter storm in 2021 rather than engaging with Epstein’s views on climate change.
 * 2.     Slate
 * The author summarizes nicely Epstein’s book Fossil Future and writes that the book “offers a newer, more reassuring flavor of doubt regarding the consequences of human-influenced climate effects.” The keyword here is consequences, indicating that human-influenced climate effects themselves are not what Epstein is denying.
 * 3.     CPR
 * The Slate article references this CPR article, and both interpret Epstein’s position similarly. Some quotes in this CPR article include one from the moderator of the debate in which Epstein is participating, who says that “We’re not up here debating whether climate change exists”, indicating that no-one on stage, including Epstein, denies climate change. Later in the article, Epstein himself is quoted as saying that he believes humans have contributed to “some warming” but not “run-away, catastrophic warming”, which, because he is speaking in the past/present tense, is an objectively true statement, and one that does not deny climate change.
 * 4.     USA Today
 * I’m not sure why this article was referenced to prove that Epstein is a climate change denier, as Epstein wrote it himself, and as such designates himself a “climate thinker” rather than a “climate denier”.
 * Given this evidence, I think it is fair to revise Epstein’s article to make the distinction that he denies the dangerous effects we will face from climate change, not climate change itself. What do you think? Brendanc12 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are free to go and make your own edits to the article as you see fit and see how people respond. Just avoid edit warring. Discussions about content of articles should take place on the article talk page. Discussions about an individual editor can take place on their talk page. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Zenomonoz, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see that after quite a long break you have once again become an active editor and that you now intend to devote more of your editing time to writing about women scientists. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our Primer. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I commend your bravery

 * Thanks Generalrelative! On reflection, you are a lot more patient than I in these cases. Best. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

BLP
Hi, this edit is in violation of WP:BLPREMOVE  and if you do not restore it and discuss, I will put it to WP:ANI. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the reliable sources noticeboard agreed with me, this comment was unwarranted. You do appear to misunderstand BLPremove based on one case I can see on your talk page. Best to ask on relevant content noticeboards rather than threatening to ANI people without good reason. It comes across a little aggressive. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Heiner Rindermann
Thank you for the constructive dialog about how to edit Heiner Rindermann. You may be interested to know that he has made controversial statements about immigrants to Germany. These statements could be construed as racist, and were repudiated by some of his colleagues. (All this, and more, is discussed in the German language wikipedia page: I read it using computer translation.) In my view, these statements, and his reaction to the criticism, are far more revealing than the fact that he once published in some anthropology journal which used to put out racist trash in the Jim Crow era (and might still put out racist trash, I've no idea). Nangaf (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nangaf – thanks for the message. Also it's best to discuss article content on the talk page for the relevant article, and then editor behaviour on their talk page... if that makes sense :) Zenomonoz (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure -- I just wanted you to know that I am not implacably hostile to the idea of identifying Rindermann a racist, so long as it is done in a way that avoids looking like entire paragraphs were pasted from RationalWiki. Not that I think you did that yourself. Nangaf (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Appropriate Sourcing: John Money
I edited John Money's wikipedia article to reflect his Ethnic background accurately, and sourced an Obituary written for his own Family by a professional writer in 2006. When he died. Why did you remove this?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-006-9132-5 50.115.92.236 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It is clearly referring to Richard Green as Jewish. Green is not a “professional writer”, he was Money’s student and colleague. Just lol. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible conflict-of-interest
Hello @Zenomonoz. Your recent edits suggest you may be involved in a WP:COI and partaking in WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTADVERT. Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV and does not permit whitewashing. We report everything there is to report on a person. Trying to obfuscate this process will result in an opened case at the Administrators' Noticeboard for you. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You are making edits without using reliable sources. And inserting unsourced stuff into the article. This isn't what conflict of interest refers to. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD :) FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * that is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. So that's irrelevant. Second, that specific essay makes reference to primary source being acceptable when they are fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. The specific paragraph in that document making reference to a birth name was written by the individual who opened the DNI case... the journalist Julia Black. That is not acceptable at all for confirming or proving his birth name. It isn't the same as the government confirming his birth name. If this alleged birth name was mentioned in a reliable independent secondary source, then the name can be used. Julia Black did not include it in her eventual Insider piece, and I cannot find any that do. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the Honorable Administrator's input: To wit, under WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This seems compatible with using government documents (which again, are not always primary sources) to support the subject's birth date and place as that can easily be verified by looking at those documents. In fact it might not even be a primary source - it's not a birth certificate.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You've posted this in multiple places now. This is overriden by WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Lol Daniel Case changed his mind. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Leonid Brezhnev&#32; on a "Biographies" 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, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Deletion discussion about Miriam Grossman
Hello Zenomonoz, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Miriam Grossman, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Miriam Grossman.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mel ma nn  14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Richard A. Cohen Article- Published Works
Zenomonoz You recently reverted my addition of an (overly) extensive list of professionally and self-published written works by the subject of this BLP. I appreciate your acknowledgement in your comment that "Some pages have a short list of notable works (e.g. cited or published by reputable publishers)..." In fact, the list I added included the ISBN of every international version of every book published PROFESSIONALLY in every language, most of them reviewed and/or cited in those languages. I did this to refute repeated previous reversions, first eliminating self-RE-published works, then the professionally published original versions (from "reputable publishers" Intervarsity Press and Oakhill Publishing), and finally, after I linked examples of professional reviews of these initial works, they were still removed again. Based upon your acknowledgement, I will add a much briefer list including only those works published reputably, or republished professionally and reviewed and cited in MULTIPLE languages (certainly notable). And regarding the initial published or re-published versions being by PATH Press, the organizational publisher established by the subject, I remind you that Wiki rules clearly establish exceptions for the use of self-published sources written by the subject of a BLP Biographies of living persons, as well as to establish 3rd party credibility to validate certain claims or facts about the subject Identifying and using self-published works.

- If you have any issues or concerns with the edit I suggest, I urge you to engage and work with it rather than simply reverting it. Please note that the repeated reversions I noted above were all made by ONE account without ANY consensus, save your support for them, while claiming that I and the 3 other contributors who sought the inclusion of the actual ideas and works of the subject, simply to balance the negative and sensational claims ABOUT his ideas and work, had no consensus. I am not trying to promote the subject, only to assure Wiki's requirement that "all encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view" that includes all sides of any controversy in an impartial tone, and this article reads like a confused mishmosh designed to trivialize and critique the subject without actually including his own ideas, impact .or activities [one example: while the subject's published works are rejected and his own ideas and research-driven therapeutic approach have been stripped from the article, controversial approaches such as bioenergetics (somatic techniques such as pounding out anger) or holding therapy are repeated TWICE in intentionally sensational and salacious ways, inappropriately in a biased lead paragraph and again regurgitated in a later paragraph.]

- BTW, I have compiled an extensive list of Wiki BLPs that include self-published works, including a number of pages of individuals known as pioneers for LGBTQ rights and understanding, and clearly aligned with many of the perspectives you have argued for in previous talk-page discussions, as well as through a previous account you established with the sincere intention of focusing on gender and sexual orientation issues. I have no desire to censor these trendsetters, nor to skew how they are documented on Wikipedia. And, I respect your well-researched and evidence-based approach to these relevant topics. It is important, however, to assure that as an editor of Wikipedia content, the same standards are applied to all articles, and all BLPs, regardless of whether editors agree with the article's subject or not. I am well-prepared to challenge this if necessary.

- I am posting edits directly because I have addressed every COI question about me on the article's talk page months ago, with NO single question or opposition expressed save the editor who questioned it (the one responsible for the constant reversions without consensus mentioned above), and the COIN [|COIN report] that individual filed last year has already been arbitrated with no action taken to restrict my editing here or anywhere. If you have qualms about this, please engage, and thank you for the willingness to work toward balance and fairness that you expressed previously. You have taught me some important lessons and raised my standards as a Wiki contributor. Truedad21 (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)