User talk:Fig wright

Add your comments to me here!

Your comment on the 2006 Israel Lebanon talk page

Re: Seymour Hersh - the last comment at the bottom of that section was at 2am on the 16th (GMT), and it was archived at 1am on the 19th. After rechecking, though, I missed tewfik's comment in the middle. (I just scan the bottom of the sections) Sorry. Iorek85 23:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol elections

Thanks for doing the extra bits. I'm not too bothered about the results 1995-2006 as they are already online. I want to get stuff online that's not generally available. Do you think I should do Bristol results from the 1970s or do some Avon county results? Andrew

multiple wikilinking

Hi,

I've been looking at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context & the general advice is not to overlink. If you think I've been overzealous on any of the pages let me know & I'll revert my edits. — Rod ^talk 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: maps, etc

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Bristol. Thanks, Joe D (t) 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol infoboxes

Hi, I agree the sort of infobox used for Redland, Redland is nice but I don't have the knowledge or skills (or software) to do the local maps (within Bristol & England). They are also non standard boxes which may mean they may not be read by other systems eg Google earth.— Rod ^talk 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the blanking of user talk pages

I see that you are reverting the deletion of material on other people's user talk pages. But users are allowed to blank their own talk page, as explained here. -- Hoary 09:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on your talk page. Fig 11:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesque architecture

Instead of simply reverting my edits in an argumentative way, please describe the political state of England at the time that Romanesque architecture was introduced. England was relatively more unified than, say, Italy. Since the political situation appears to be more your subject than mine, please construct and insert an appropriate sentence. Amandajm (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism in the United Kingdom

You may perhaps remember the case of "Thistle" at Libertarianism in the United Kingdom. I seem to be getting into an edit war with 131.111.139.102 who seems determined to reinsert Thistle, and who has also been vandalising other pages. Any thoughts/help appreciated. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - looks like there was a real flurry of activity last night. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid he's back with an account. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Severn estuary barrages.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Severn estuary barrages.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

m4 type carbine

Hi Fig. How do you know the weapon used in the Sandy Hook shooting was an M4 type carbine? I couldn't find any source for this. That's why I no longer think it should be in the article. See the talk page; unless evidence is presented, it's a losing battle to keep it in. Mlm42 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest try ever scored

Hello, Fig wright, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on The greatest try ever scored, appears to be directly copied from http://www.ballz.co.za/video-of-the-day/the-greatest-try-of-all-time-1973-all-blacks-vs-barbarians/823. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on The greatest try ever scored if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

I agree very much with your recent comment on the Circumcision talk page about how it's massively POV.

I'm very frustrated about this because it's so blindingly obvious. I've made several comments on the talk page myself but it is incredibly obvious that the editors have taken over that article and made it entirely pro-circumcision.

I'm new to Wikipedia but surely there is something we can do to resolve this?

Hawkeye499 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a new editor here. I would like to help create a more neutral position in articles relating to the Infants' and Children's Rights Movement, specifically in regards to the International Campaign for Genital Integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHGrateful (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gravitational wave observation#Detection of event by other methods

Hi, to answer your question that may or may not be appropriate for the talk page: you wouldn't expect EM or neutrinos from a purely gravitational event, unless there is matter floating around that was affected by the merger. In that case, there could be delays. For light, refractive index, as you already referred to, though it wouldn't be much given the extremely low densities of intergalactic and even interstellar gas (less than a year I'd guess). For neutrinos, if they have mass, they'd be slower than the speed of light in vacuum. But not from curvature of space: that affects everything. Gap9551 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies! Fig (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fig wright. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fig wright. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello! I thought you might be interested in joining the Gun Politics Task Force. We work on coordinating, expanding and improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics broadly related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page. Thank You!

198.251.23.11 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Areo Magazine (August 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft does not establish web notability because the references do not include independent sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Areo Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Areo Magazine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fig wright! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Areo Magazine (November 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gene93k was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Added sources fail to cover the website in depth.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Areo Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Areo Magazine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

• Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fig wright. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Areo Magazine (March 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Recently added [1] has one paragraph about the magazine and seems to be the best source. [2] is an interview with the founder so has WP:PRIMARY issues but otherwise significant coverage.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Areo Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Areo Magazine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Areo Magazine

Hello, Fig wright. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Areo Magazine".

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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! GamerPro64 01:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Areo Magazine (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Just because subjects covered in the magazine are notable, doesn't make the magazine itself notable.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Areo Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Areo Magazine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Areo Magazine (September 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eternal Shadow was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Areo Magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Areo Magazine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eternal Shadow Talk 18:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Areo Magazine (December 2)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by I dream of horses was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: I reviewed the last source added to the article. It doesn't prove notability. I have faith the other reviewers checked the other sources.

I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 06:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Areo Magazine

Draft:Areo Magazine, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Areo Magazine and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Areo Magazine during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 06:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Areo Magazine

Hello, Fig wright. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Areo Magazine".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. ✗plicit 06:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Queer theory

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Queer theory, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, and commenting on content

Hi, Fig wright, and welcome to Wikipedia. A couple of things regarding this comment of yours at Talk:Queer theory:

This page has no real criticisms of queer theory in the criticisms section because it's defended by editors who don't want it criticised.

The talk page is the place to go to discuss improvements to the article, so thanks for creating that discussion. Up to the word because in the sentence above, it was great: it was all about the article. After the because—oops! you unwittingly fell afoul of a couple of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, namely:

Assumption of good faith – a behavioral policy promoting good relations between editors, it basically says that you should assume that other editors are here for the same reason you are, i.e., to improve articles; and
Comment on content, not on the contributor – this is a behavioral policy related to WP:CIVILITY, which says that article Talk pages are reserved exclusively for discussions about improving articles, not for discussing editors.

The second half of your comment violated both of these, because 1) you are implying that other editors have improper motivations for editing at that article, and 2) you are talking about editors on a page that is reserved exclusively for talking about article content. The behavior of other editors can be discussed, but not at articles; the proper place for that kind of discussion is at the Ttalk page of the user concerned. Going forward, please don't talk about other editors at article talk pages, and please don't impugn the motives of other users at any page. Thanks, and once again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, doubling down; that's bold. Shortly after having the behavioral issues above explained to you above, you then reinserted your content at the article (diff) for the third time in 12 hours, with the edit summary:

if you insist on disingenuously deleting the whole new paragraph due to objections about the Twitter line then I know you aren't acting in good faith. Fig (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you take some time to read both Wikipedia:Assumption of good faith, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, in particular, the section on § Focus on content. And let's add to that, the policies on consensus and edit-warring. Your best move now, would be a self-revert at the article, followed by an attempt to gain consensus for your position at the talk page, instead of repeatedly reinserting your preferred version of content in the face of opposition. Seems to me you're in violation of four policies at one article in a very short period; this is not the collaborative way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again, Fig. I see that this is at ANI, now; pity, I had hoped this could be worked out, short of that. But then I noticed this edit at Talk:Queer theory, tripling and quadrupling down on previous comments you've made about other editors, and I understand why it's been brought to ANI, now. Experienced editors might call this a WP:POINTY edit. If you could just dial back the accusations, assume good faith on the part of editors who don't agree with you, and discuss calmly at Talk, I think you'd have much better luck moving the article in the direction you'd like to see it go. Editors are only human, and being constantly berated for having nefarious motives which sound like accusations of sympathy for pedophilia, or at least a willingness to whitewash an article about connections with pedophilia, makes it much harder for anyone to just set that aside and listen with equanimity to whatever arguments about content you are trying to make.

A change in approach where you would listen politely to what others are saying, while still stating your disagreement (politely) in turn while you make your case, is much more likely to result in an outcome that would be closer to what you want, even though I suspect you will never be totally happy with it. But this is the nature of editing at Wikipedia, collaborating with a few editors or a few hundred thousand potential editors who may have radically different points of view than you do on a given topic, and reaching compromise wording, even if it's not 100% what you would've written. Think about a big, extended family dinner you've been involved with: are you able to discuss some hot-button topic of the day calmly with that uncle of yours known for his provocative views (in your opinion) about some topic, without shouting at them? Bring those same skills of calm discussion here, and you'll be all right. (If you always end up yelling at them, well, then that's a yellow flag for how things might turn out here, but I hope that's not the case.) Best wishes, Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quintupling down

Your edit at Talk:Michel Foucault predates creation of the ANI thread by a couple hours, but I only just noticed it (diff):

But...good luck achieving any of this, because many of the critical-theory adjacent pages on Wikipedia are these days defended by a critical mass of sympathetic editors who will constantly remove such references and white-wash articles.

I've lost track of how many times you've made accusations of bad faith against other editors, but I believe this one is around the fifth, and the latest one (or, latest that I've seen). I responded at the ANI thread concerning you (diff) in a very mild fashion, giving you a lot of latitude, and even some positive strokes, but I'm starting to wonder if I did the right thing there.

So, here it is, in blunter fashion: your WP:ASPERSIONS and accusations of bad faith against other editors are inaccurate, they are rude, they are WP:UNCIVIL, they are against policy, and they represent a continuing pattern of violation of behavioral policy on your part. So now is the time to just knock it off, once and for all. If you want to achieve success here in the long term, then one way or the other you're going to have to deal with other editors who have different views than you, and making wild accusations here isn't helping you get there. If you're not able to rein it in, then maybe you need a wake-up call from an Admin; I hope it doesn't come to that. Please just dial it back, discuss in a collegial manner, and avoid the accusations. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing Wikipedia for 20 years - I know how the system works. When there's a gaping hole in a controversial article it's perfectly obvious within a couple of edits if there's a critical mass of defensive editors keeping it that way. 15 years ago, yes I would have played the game and spent 10 hours doing the passive-aggressive dance with those who have all the time in the world to waste. But now I have a life, a family, a mortgage, and all the rest... and I have neither the time nor the inclination to burn my remaining hours on this planet in this way. I've left good quality academic links on the talk page - editors interested in the truth can build on them as they see fit; if no editors are interested in the truth then the links can sit there for the inquisitive to see. Fig (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been editing for 20 years, yes, but it's very clear to me that you don't understand how the policies WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS work. Perhaps this is because of your lack of experience: you have fewer than 2,000 edits over that entire period, with 38 mainspace edits in 2023, and a total of 314 edits since this day in 2013 a decade ago. So it is hardly surprising that there are major gaps in your understanding of Wikipedia's collaborative editing environment. That is not an accusation, merely an observation: I wouldn't expect anyone with so few edits to really understand how things work around here with that level of edits.

The accusations you have repeatedly made about other editors are serious ones, and if true, those editors (including me) should be sanctioned, or blocked. If you believe there is a critical mass of defensive editors acting against policy, then you should warn them (and me) on their Talk pages, and if you don't get satisfaction there, then the next step is that you should take them (and me) to ANI.

But if it is merely a content disagreement that is involved, then it is a completely different story. In that case, you should seek consensus among other editors at the article Talk page, and if those four editors are a cabal standing in your way, then you should seek wider input from the community at large, and get ten or twenty or a hundred editors to join in, and then a mere four editors won't be a factor anymore.

So, you have a decision to make: either there is a group of editors who will constantly remove such references and white-wash articles, in which case you should warn them, and then take them to ANI; or else it's merely a content disagreement, and you should point out their invalid arguments and whitewashing by drawing more people into the discussion (see WP:APPNOTE for how to do this) and swamp their invalid arguments with a mass of editors who can easily see the truth of your position and quash them. In other words: put up, or shut up. Mathglot (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your commitment. (And your evident free time.) Enjoy your weekend. Fig (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS If you are genuinely interested in exploring the association of queer theory with paedophilia, then you could read this 4-part article written by a feminist academic (under a pseudonym, and thus can't be referenced in Wiki pages):

[3] . Fig (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When there's a gaping hole in a controversial article it's perfectly obvious within a couple of edits if there's a critical mass of defensive editors keeping it that way. I supported including one of the sources you added, but it is impossible for a discussion to reach any kind of consensus when you start throwing around aspersions. Your comment at the Foucault article, and specifically the statement that editors who disagreed you are "sympathetic" to Foucault's views, is what pushed this into ANI territory for me. I agree with you on one thing; life is far too short to spend time trying to find consensus in a discussion that turns that ugly that quickly.--Trystan (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You were correct, but you said it in a mean way...so I chose the incorrect option instead." Fig (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Trystan (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lack of neutron star merger detections in O4

Hi, thought I'd comment on the talk page where NOTFORUM does not seem to apply.

I'm calling it: there's a problem with the LIGO detectors that's made them not sensitive to neutron-star frequency signals. Yes, this is original research. But the probability of there only being a single NS detection at the current advertised sensitivity range, over 5 months, is essentially zero.

LIGO's observation sensitivity is largely dominated by how small a vibration it can detect of a given frequency. It's very insensitive to slower events because of lots of earth-based noise like earthquakes, and has certain sensitivity drops due to things like the mains hum at 60 hz. In theory at least, a neutron star merger should be strong at the same frequencies that a black hole merger is- GW150914 was strongest around 150 hz, and GW170817 was similarly strong from ~80 to ~150 hz. So one would expect that if they were less sensitive to neutron stars, they would also be less sensitive to black hole mergers too. A comparison between their strain today versus late in O3 shows across-the-spectrum improvements.

Looking at it from another angle, there are only two [confirmed] BNS mergers. Of course there's the many unconfirmed events from O3, but none of those were especially confident. It took five months between the first and second BNS candidates to be detected, no less (and no P_terrestrial < 0.1 event was detected for the remaining 11 months). Although many more events are coming up in O4, that's partially because they've drastically lowered the threshold for a published superevent: while very little was published above 2E-8 last run, nowadays all sorts of events as high as _E-5 are being published - if you only include the events detected in the current run of 2E-8 and less, only 48 such events have taken place in 159 days - 1 every 3.3 days, compared to O3's 1 every 3.9 days. If you take this apparent 18% higher sensitivity and find the cube root of it (105.9%), you'll find it scales fairly well with the 140->150 mpc sensitivity increase LIGO has enjoyed in the time since (7% more) - the extra sensitivity distance (7%) of course not translating to quite as many detections (5.9%) because VIRGO did contribute a bit of significance to the previous run's detections. Finally, this 2023 paper estimated the BNS merger rate to be, very noncommittally, between 10 and 1700 per gpc^3 per year (one model gave a much more specific 44+96
−34, or at LIGO's current 'highly significant' detection range of 160 mpc, about 0.17 to 29 events per year for the first broad estimate, and a more confident 0.75+1.63
−0.58 events by the second estimate. Of course these values should be in practice ~tripled because of LIGO reporting less significant events than the 160 Mpc sensitivity implies, but the gist of it is that we have a very small number of BNS mergers to work off of in experience, and current estimates have them not being overwhelmingly common to begin with. It's just as likely that we got very lucky in past observing runs (and/or that many of the O3 candidates were erroneous) as it is that we're just getting very unlucky in this one - or perhaps a little of both. Their magnitudes aren't that far off- either from each other, or from our very uncertain expectations, thus far.

exoplanetaryscience (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting comment - thanks. I wouldn't say I'm fully reassured as a result, but I am not quite as concerned now.

It's tragic that LIGO wasn't running when this went off a few weeks before observing started:

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-kilonova-neutron-stars

Fig (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I think this event might have only just barely been detected by LIGO, even if it was operating at the time. The space.com article erroneously gives its distance as an insane "8.3 million light years away" (no idea where they got that from) but the paper itself gives a probable host galaxy redshift of z=0.065, which translates to a luminosity distance of ~280 Mpc, about twice the distance of the stated sensitivity range in O4. It might have detected the event, but it would have been one of the low-significance ones if it did... Really puts into perspective how little of the universe the detectors are sensitive to, even today. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I believed the 8.3m ly figure, which obviously would have made it very near indeed. Not so bothered it was missed now lol. Fig (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to post your WP:SOAPBOX violating rant at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory you will be blocked from editing the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "soapbox" rant is an absolutely serious point about the bias in the page. And who the heck are you too threaten an editor with a ban? You have no such power and don't threaten me. Fig (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for NOTAFORUM and soapbox violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Well I guess you did have that power after all! That'll learn me... Fig (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter who sanctioned you. What matters is why you received the inevitable sanctioned. Concentrate on that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]