Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:DeCausa/Archive 9) (bot |
Undid revision 1150215809 by Newimpartial (talk) Tag: Undo |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
::::::Using the [[WT:MOSBIO#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME|current discussion]] on removing the living qualifier from DEADNAME, in my opening post I referred to when the word ''living'' was added to the guideline, and the discussion that occurred surrounding that as context for where I discovered that it was originally added boldly without discussion either before or after. I was not aware of the [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2021_archive#RfC_on_non-notable_pre-transition_names_of_deceased_trans_people|August 2021]] RfC on a similar proposal to mine as I was unable to find it when searching for it. It was another editor who was involved in that past discussion who first linked to it. Had I known or otherwise been able to find out, I would have tailored my initial opening comment in the discussion much more closely to the closure of the August 2021 RfC, which made some specific recommendations for any future discussions on the point. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 18:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
::::::Using the [[WT:MOSBIO#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME|current discussion]] on removing the living qualifier from DEADNAME, in my opening post I referred to when the word ''living'' was added to the guideline, and the discussion that occurred surrounding that as context for where I discovered that it was originally added boldly without discussion either before or after. I was not aware of the [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2021_archive#RfC_on_non-notable_pre-transition_names_of_deceased_trans_people|August 2021]] RfC on a similar proposal to mine as I was unable to find it when searching for it. It was another editor who was involved in that past discussion who first linked to it. Had I known or otherwise been able to find out, I would have tailored my initial opening comment in the discussion much more closely to the closure of the August 2021 RfC, which made some specific recommendations for any future discussions on the point. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 18:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::::That's fine. I'm happy to agree to disagree. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa#top|talk]]) 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
:::::::That's fine. I'm happy to agree to disagree. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa#top|talk]]) 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::On institutional memory: I won't try to invoke BANEX to give a parallel GENDERID example, but in another domain there have been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=984019078 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1061510806 many], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1079793346 many] situations in which I have needed to provide background (and receipts) for the nuances of community understanding of the [[Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory]] as a FRINGE framing of its topic. I am not the only one able to do this, of course (though thanks to divergence I am often the first mover on it), but it is a kind of typical example where institutional knowledge is required. |
|||
::::Another example was presented in my [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121#Bludgeoning_and_edit_warring_by_Newimpartial ANI in February], when Czello and I discussed our encounter over a parallel case where he lacked institutional background knowledge and context, and where he expressed appreciation for the clarification I offered. My sense is that situations calling for the application of accumulated, institutional ''nous'' are far from rare occurrences. At this point I think our discussion here has nothing to do with AN proceedings, but quite a bit to do with evaluating contribution to enwiki moving forward. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 22:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*By the way, see below on New Impartial disclosure. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa#top|talk]]) 17:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
*By the way, see below on New Impartial disclosure. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa#top|talk]]) 17:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 07:00, 17 April 2023
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Leo Frank
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Re:AN
Concerning this comment - I wanted to offer a clarification, since my proposal for WT:MOSBIO isn't based on what I really want
to be able to do - if that were my animus, I would be asking for a carve-out for reverting vandalism to BLPs even in GENSEX cases, since I feel that invoking BANEX 1 provisions to do so could be perceived as GAMING the restriction, and that form of editing is what I feel the most urgency about within the topic area.
Rather, I am being straightforward and transparent in saying that I feel - as a number of editors acknowledged on "both sides" of the ANI discussion resulting in my ban - that I have institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow that would be helpful on WT:MOSBIO this yearI'll- and that, unlike vandalism patrolling of GENSEX BLPs, is a scarce resource on-wiki. I have already been deploying my P&G familiarity in the recent nationalities discussions there, just as I have discussed P&G constructively on other pages (such as a current discussion about FRINGE at RSN and the discussions and RfC that resulted in the current text of the WP:SNG section, a couple years ago). I am simply offering to contribute to a specific corner of P&G development concerning GENDERID as well - policy development being an area where my contributions have never (to my knowledge) been perceived as disruptive whether or not GENSEX matters were involved. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- tbh, I took with a pinch of salt the "I'm needed" argument. I haven't delved (and won't) into whether the other editors who have put that forward simply share your POV and that's what they want on board again. But I noted starship.paint's comment to one of them that
possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances
. I won't be making any other comment either here or at the thread. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)- Well, I won't expect another reply, then, but I will point out to you that that since Sideswipe9th and I do not ageee about certain GENDERID-related policy questions, and presumably Sideswipe remembers these differences of perspective, the explanation offered by Sideswipe in reply to starship.paint's insinuation should possibly be given more weight than you are currently giving it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- I will answer that. "institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow" is not a thing in Wikipedia. The thing - the good thing - about Wikipedia is everything is open to everyone. "Instititutional knowledge" doesn't matter, especially after only 6 years active editing. "P&G knowhow". What is that when it's open access? Don't buy any of that. DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- The institutional knowledge is in how the current form of the policies and guidelines came to be, and not what their current state is. While anyone can read the current state of them at the relevant shortcuts, finding the exact discussion where say the scope of the first bullet point of WP:YESPOV was discussed, or which of the many discussions (October 2020 WT:V, November 2020 WP:VPP, December 2020 WT:V) on WP:ONUS have resulted in it staying a part of WP:V and not becoming a part of WP:CON is something that's most easily done by someone who was involved in the prior discussions.
- Sure anyone can eventually find the information through searching the archives, but that still requires some foreknowledge of what you're searching for and which talk page or noticeboard archives you need to search for it. But if you already know that discussion W on point X was held on talk page Y on date Z, then finding and presenting the information is much more straightforward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't have any doubt that was what was meant. IMO, it's just not very important, in the sense of it rarely having any real bearing on any discussion. It's nice that you found an example - but the usual pattern is someone saying that's not what was thought in 20XX to which the reply is, so what this is what we think now. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. On perennial discussion points, for which anything related to GENDERID is, one of the first comments/questions is typically "what has changed since the last time this [point/source/thing] was discussed?", alongside a link to the previous relevant discussions. This is vital so that you can address why the previous consensus should change, by referring to key arguments and where relevant the summarised points of closed discussions, and stating how those no longer apply.
- Using the current discussion on removing the living qualifier from DEADNAME, in my opening post I referred to when the word living was added to the guideline, and the discussion that occurred surrounding that as context for where I discovered that it was originally added boldly without discussion either before or after. I was not aware of the August 2021 RfC on a similar proposal to mine as I was unable to find it when searching for it. It was another editor who was involved in that past discussion who first linked to it. Had I known or otherwise been able to find out, I would have tailored my initial opening comment in the discussion much more closely to the closure of the August 2021 RfC, which made some specific recommendations for any future discussions on the point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't have any doubt that was what was meant. IMO, it's just not very important, in the sense of it rarely having any real bearing on any discussion. It's nice that you found an example - but the usual pattern is someone saying that's not what was thought in 20XX to which the reply is, so what this is what we think now. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- I will answer that. "institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow" is not a thing in Wikipedia. The thing - the good thing - about Wikipedia is everything is open to everyone. "Instititutional knowledge" doesn't matter, especially after only 6 years active editing. "P&G knowhow". What is that when it's open access? Don't buy any of that. DeCausa (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I won't expect another reply, then, but I will point out to you that that since Sideswipe9th and I do not ageee about certain GENDERID-related policy questions, and presumably Sideswipe remembers these differences of perspective, the explanation offered by Sideswipe in reply to starship.paint's insinuation should possibly be given more weight than you are currently giving it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Incorrigible
I suddenly became very paranoid that this comment might have been misinterpreted as snidely pointing out the typo. I'm sure you're a normal person and didn't think this at all, but I'm not normal and get paranoid and worry about this sort of thing! I actually didn't even notice the typo. Am I worrying about absolutely nothing? Probably. Have a lovely Sunday! — Czello (music) 09:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you are being paranoid and worrying about nothing! I noticed the typo because of it but certainly didn't think you were pointing it out, snidely or otherwise! DeCausa (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
New Impartial disclosure
In case anyone comes here because of what I wrote in this edit summary. I messed up - I meant NI's talk page not mine. But because it's an edit summary I can't change it so putting this here instead. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)