User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Reddit post

Hi Shibbolethink, I started reading the PDF version of your Reddit post and found it interesting. I agree with 96% of the material, however the remaining 4% makes our points of view as dissimilar as RaTG13 and SARS-COV-2. Given that most lab origins proponents have emphasised that GoF isn't necessarily involved, and given that one prominent lab origins hypothesis doesn't include it at all [1], I believe your post is overfixated on GoF as the primary means by which the yet unknown progenitor of this virus may have gained functions to obtain transmissibility in humans to become what we know it as today. Do you intend to update your paper to include the latest developments? I'll keep reading and provide some more feedback. CutePeach (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

As I say in the post: Here’s a choose-your-own adventure and Firstly, if this post looks long ( and I’m sorry, it is ), then please skip around on it. It’s a Q & A. Go to the questions you’ve actually asked yourself!. You...don't appear to be doing that. You've gone to questions you've already decided are invalid and then decided they are an overemphasis on something you personally believe is not as likely. This post was written to also answer the many people who believe in the bioweapon conspiracy theory.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Activist essay

Thank you for your contribution[2] to the Activist essay. Your interest is very much welcomed. Terjen (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC closure at DRASTIC

Would you mind reverting your RfC closure at Talk:DRASTIC? Obviously you are an involved editor and WP:RFCCLOSE says that - Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion. This is a contentious issue of labeling people as conspiracy theorists and really should be closed by someone uninvolved and neutral. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The RFC PAG says that I as the starter can withdraw the RfC when consensus becomes clear! But sure, yes I will.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies and well wishes

Shibbolethink, I am getting tired of what seems like you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I'm sure I could think of at least ten instances where you disagreed with me on various suggestions where your reasons were less than fantastic. For example, when I suggested adding the Menachery et al paper on SHC014 to list of GoFR experiments, you disagreed and the reasons you gave indicated you hadn’t even read the sources I provided [3] [4], even though they are just two of many. That experiment is definitely notable and should be #2 on the list.

Our recent disagreement on the inclusion of Bloom’s findings in the COVID-19 investigations page really highlights the problem, and you voting to remove the section entirely, instead of including opposing POVs for WP:BALANCE is indicative of a serious problem a red flag. Your recent RFCs on the DRASTIC and COVID-19 Investigations pages and the votes they received should show you that the problem is not just between us and that you are allowing your POV to influence your editorial decision making. I for one have never tried to include my POV to the exclusion of others, if I have, I'd expect you to point it out so I can right myself.

Unfortunately, I'm very tired from my excursion to Potipot Island, which I’ll be writing an article about tomorrow - so I can’t exchange much further on this today. I hope you can think about this and perhaps JPxG above has some words of wisdom for us, as they seem to have a lot of experience here. I totally appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and I completely respect your integrity as a scientist. CutePeach (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, going on a pretty long wikibreak as you can read in the relevant section above and on my user page.. Yesterday was my last day in the wiki-verse for a long while. I addressed several of these arguments already, such as describing a PAG-based reason (lack of focused and in-depth coverage in secondary sources) for why the inclusion of the SHC014 experiment was UNDUE. You can address that argument on that relevant article talk page, by, for example, including an unbiased set of sources about GoFR (gathered by searching for GoFR, and not for SHC014) and pointing out where they mention the experiment you'd like to include. That would be the most effective argument and evidence imo, because it is what WP:DUE tells us to do. I also am not sure why you're citing the RFCs when they appear to be achieving consensus I am happy with? Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not winning RFCs. Please take these arguments about content to the relevant article talk pages, where more active users will be able to discuss. And, in the future, please AGF. I have never been trying to "win" arguments against you. We simply disagree on matters of PAG, and I would prefer if you made arguments that were based on those PAGs and the sources. Thanks. I believe the recently declined ArbE demonstrates that my behavior in this topic area is not of concern at this time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

And I didn't participate in the WP:Arbe against you as I didn’t think there was anything wrong with your behavior. You clearly have a POV, and that's totally okay, but in several instances, I felt you were allowing it to influence your editorial decision making. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies and well wishes. CutePeach (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Delay (audio effect) on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"Any and all advice", eh?

Well, luckily, you didn't ask for good advice, so I can post here without worry :^)

It seems like you are getting a little frustrated by the drama of late (the RfCs, the AN/I threads, the arbitration proceedings, etc). I think this is fairly normal, and you aren't really doing anything wrong. People are just insanely mad about politics and have been for a long time -- I don't know what your background on this specific item of wikidrama is, but I remember that people were going ham about it on AN/I back in December. There've been a wide number of RfCs and noticeboard threads and etc about the exact same subjects that keep getting brought up and rehashed again and again. I apologize if I got a little huffy on the RfC at Talk:DRASTIC: my perspective is that I saw a shitty microstub at AfD but managed to find some sources for it, so I wrote an actual article; this was able to survive deletion, in large part because all I did was write down what reliable sources said about them (carefully avoiding anything that could be construed as support/opposition to the "lab-leak-iverse"). So one can imagine my surprise after going back to minding my own business, seeing it pop up on my watchlist, and noting that it's been chosen as the weekly battleground for the traveling COVID-19 circus: is COVID a conspiracy, or is it a conspiracy to say that COVID is a conspiracy, or is it a conspiracy to say that it's a conspiracy to say that it's a conspiracy to say that it's a conspiracy to say that [loud farting noise]?

Anyway, I read that huge-ass post you made on Reddit about the coronavirus, and it seemed pretty smart. Most of your posts on Wikipedia seem pretty smart to me. I am happy that you edit here, I think the place gets better from you doing it, and I wish for you to stay safe and not get owned about politics. That said, I think everyone's capacity for rational thought about COVID articles was exhausted months ago, so it might just be the case that "leakiverse" issues can only be addressed productively once things have calmed down a little. jp×g 08:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Haha, contrary to your subtext, I did find this advice valuable!!! I really only came back to wiki this spring, when I finished studying for my licensing exams, so I actually had free time for a short window, lol. So I've missed a lot of this drama and probably repeated reinventing some wheels as a result.

I definitely think your DRASTIC article is good, and it has progressed well from my limited view of it, now less of a stub even. I guess my entire role in that RFC was to be like "oh idk if we can say this, let's just put all the evidence out there and see what people think." Truth be told, I am not even that confident in the vote I put in, and if you asked me today, I would probably tell you differently than when I started the RFC. My opinion drifted more and more towards the consensus as I saw arguments I hadn't considered, yknow? But when I made it, I didn't pay enough attention to framing, etc. and so the whole thing got way out of hand. And it became clear that "the most neutral language" does not mean "the most vague language" in the RFC text and I paid the price for that discrepancy! I definitely did not intend for it to become a circus, that's for sure! Lesson learned that RFCs do not really solve problems when the argument is brewing elsewhere, anywhere, it will find a way to exist where you want it least. Life, ahem, finds a way.

I'm learning to be more reserved about the leak stuff, and engage in feeding battlegrounds less, and that has helped, I think. Short, sweet, PAG-based responses where appropriate, otherwise let people talk and talk and talk and talk themselves into a hole. It's a work in progress :). I appreciate your kind words, and also your level-headedness in dealing with persnickety articles like DRASTIC and all these insanely-long RFCs about PAGs like BMI and MEDRS. You were really very cogent there about the problems in those efforts, and I've resisted the urge to start more RFCs as a result.

It's not like it's necessarily new to me that I should be extremely calm and PAG-based in my responses, and not see dispute resolution as a solution when talk page discussion is probably enough if we just actually do it, but this, as in many things, is easier said than done. Truly it is a never ending battle with the devils of our worst natures. I appreciate the appeal to cooler heads, as always. And thanks again --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Filamentous influenza viruses

Hi James, thanks for the link to the paper - I hadn't seen that one. Best, Graham - Graham Beards (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Hi Shibbolethink, thank you for all the hard work you're doing on COVID-19 articles. It is great to have someone with some subject-matter expertise, a level head, and knowledge of PAGs. I have a friendly constructive suggestion that I hope you won't object to: could you try and collect your thoughts on talk page posts for a little while before posting? As I'm writing, you recently followed up a comment at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 with 12 more edits, including one made after another editor responded. I fully agree with the points being made in your comments, and am just worried about the challenges of engaging with commentary that shifts and changes over 20 minutes, as well as the technical difficulties of edit conflicts during that time. Again, thanks so much! If I had more time and no respect for space in your user talk page, I'd post more compliments to reflect in the length of my writing that my feelings toward you are 95% gratitude and 5% hope for minor improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, Ah yes, sorry. To be honest this is how I am with basically every form of communication. Every girlfriend I have ever had has described it as "staccato" texting [5]. In grad school I had a post-doc supervisor who would tell me "the little dings I get from your texts haunt me in my sleep, because there are so damn many." So please, know that you are not alone, but that I am also extremely indignant and stubborn about this exact topic. It's like which way the toilet paper goes to me, I think text messaging should be like IRL chatting, and just as chaotic. But not everyone agrees!

Luckily, it isn't completely up to me. There is actually a PAG on this: WP:TALK#REPLIED. I try to be very careful to not edit after someone has already replied. And if I do edit after a reply has happened, or more than an hour or so after the original, I will use strikethroughs and underlines and an "edited" tag. But please, let me know if I do that right after someone replies, and I will add an (edit conflict) tag. And if I do it A LONG TIME after they reply, feel free to WP:TROUT me. I would deserve it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Which way should the toilet paper go? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY OVER-HAND! IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE! The Coriolis affect does some crazy stuff, my friend. Crazy stuff.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

100% Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Also worth saying that you can probably graph my blood alcohol content by how many edits I make post-first-submit. 12000% I am way slower and way worse at getting it right the first time after my third old fashioned. All the more reason for a good TROUTing!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Assassination of Jovenel Moïse 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict at ANI

No concerns; if nobody acts on the request for a boomerang by tomorrow I'll re-close it then. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry again for the trouble :) --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay @力:, admin Acroterion blocked that IP for 3 months, so you can probably go ahead and re-close that section or wait for an admin to do it. *shrug* FWIW, I totally empathize with wanting to get those things closed as soon as the actual issue is resolved, so they don't devolve into content discussions as is standard operating procedure in COVID-19 origins land. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I will wait to give the blocking admin an opportunity to close; otherwise I'll re-close in about 2 hours. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi

I'm sorry to bother you about this. You edited the Alternative Medicine article to come to a compromise, and it seemed like it would remain a consensus. But another user has reverted your edit. I reverted it back to yours bt it will surely not stay that way for long. I'm wondering, as a relative newcomer, do you think this has grounds to go into further conflict-resolution? Before you edited, it was a clear WP:RS/AC violation, I think. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

POV coatracking?

Some of my recent edits have been called POV Coatracking, Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles (A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.). On that basis my edits are getting reverted. I hereby explain my position.

I've made a few edits back in March in the Investigations into the origins of COVID-19 page that summarize the information contained in the source. They got reverted because editors considered me "editorializing from sources which don't support text"[6]. To avoid a probably unconscious bad summary, my edits that followed have been very specific quotes from the sources. When done that way, these edits tend to pile up and can get redundant with previous edits. Although most of them have been edits on the critic side of the page, I've made clear that the edits need to be kept short (per due weight) and include the praise side, see here . In fact, many times since March I've come to the page to introduce edits favorable to the WHO study (the new lancet letter, for example) but only to found that someone already made the edits, beating me in time. I tend to give a public thanks to the person that makes the edits, as can be easily proven.

So, please stop assuming I either pile up individual pieces of information in a Coatracking fashion, or that I have a POV on criticizing unduly the subject of the page. I am legitimately concerned in giving more weight to the negative reaction to the WHO study because I believe the article will be improved by that, as many RS sources cover it. Just read the lead Scientists found the conclusions of the WHO report to be helpful but noted that more work would be needed. In the US, the EU and other countries, some criticised what they said was the study's lack of transparency and data access. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom said he was ready to deploy additional missions for further investigation. This is a misrepresentation of the way RS talk about the credibility of the report, and me saying so with all the sources of my edits do not deserve to be called POV, instead they are regular discussions on improving the article. Forich (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to be very clear about this, my reversion had nothing to do with you as an editor or your behavior. It has everything to do with that section becoming a place where we just hang every little criticism from every source, even when it is neither DUE nor helpful in portraying the overall perspective of the reliable sources. I was not criticizing you as an editor with that revert, but I am criticizing the inclusion of that quotation, given that I cannot find any coverage of her statement in secondary sources. It is, therefore, UNDUE, and furthers the state of that section as a place where a bunch of different opinions are placed, in an UNDUE weighting. Hence, COATRACK. I'm sorry that it was such a confusing criticism, and I absolutely think you added it in good faith. If you'd like to argue further in favor of its inclusion, please do so on the article talk page because I am not interested in criticizing your behavior, but the content itself. Thank you. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the response, keep upnthe good work. Forich (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I want a fair discussion and Alexbrn is stopping me

Will you level the playing field and allow a fair discussion on Ivermectin? If you won't. I just give up. The existing page is offensive and biased in the extreme. Thepigdog (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please keep discussions about content at the appropriate venue (talk pages about that content), not here on my user talk page. Thank you. As an aside, there are now 6 different sections on that page about this. Maybe one or two has ever been "closed." Please re-engage in the discussions there, instead of making more new ones. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Crying PA

Shibb, you can’t go accusing others of personal attacks when you have shown to be ignorant of something as widely known as Censorship in China, which is also widely reported WRT to COVID-19 origins. If you start a debate with someone about nuclear weapons in Iran and you suggest looking into the minutes of an Iranian government organization, you can expect to be told in no uncertain terms to learn how the Iranian government governs. You would then be expected to straighten your tie, perhaps apologise for your error, and allow productive discussion ensue. I have deleted your warning from my talk page and updated WP:NPA with WP:CRYNPA. Please read WP:COMPETENCE carefully. CutePeach (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, Hi I completely and totally disagree with your reading. I and another user both concurred that your conduct fell under WP:NPA. You were (and are) calling both me and Novem Linguae "incompetent" because we disagree on a matter of opinion. That A) isn't very nice and B) demeans my intelligence, and hence is a personal attack.

I was really hoping we could have a productive conversation, but it seems that may not be possible. I'm definitely not interested in discussing this matter further, and I would appreciate it if you didn't engage with me about this topic any further, and especially if you did not engage in any more descriptions of my intelligence or competence. This is not the first time you've been warned about PAs, and not only from me.

I am happy to discuss edits and content decisions, but I am no longer interested in conversing about the subject of these conspiracy theories with you, independent of article content. Please respect my wishes, thanks. Good luck, I hope you find what you're looking for here on Wikipedia.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Crying PA

Shibb, you can’t go accusing others of personal attacks when you have shown to be ignorant of something as widely known as Censorship in China, which is also widely reported WRT to COVID-19 origins. If you start a debate with someone about nuclear weapons in Iran and you suggest looking into the minutes of an Iranian government organization, you can expect to be told in no uncertain terms to learn how the Iranian government governs. You would then be expected to straighten your tie, perhaps apologise for your error, and allow productive discussion ensue. I have deleted your warning from my talk page and updated WP:NPA with WP:CRYNPA. Please read WP:COMPETENCE carefully. CutePeach (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, Hi I completely and totally disagree with your reading. I and another user both concurred that your conduct fell under WP:NPA. You were (and are) calling both me and Novem Linguae "incompetent" because we disagree on a matter of opinion. That A) isn't very nice and B) demeans my intelligence, and hence is a personal attack.

I was really hoping we could have a productive conversation, but it seems that may not be possible. I'm definitely not interested in discussing this matter further, and I would appreciate it if you didn't engage with me about this topic any further, and especially if you did not engage in any more descriptions of my intelligence or competence. This is not the first time you've been warned about PAs, and not only from me.

I am happy to discuss edits and content decisions, but I am no longer interested in conversing about the subject of these conspiracy theories with you, independent of article content. Please respect my wishes, thanks. Good luck, I hope you find what you're looking for here on Wikipedia.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

H10N3, v2

Remember the little parenthesis here about H10N3?

Well, there's now a paper (still primary, me thinks) which details the genome of it ([7], only result I got on PubMed, also added on the article). Problem is, I don't have access to this paper, beyond the abstract (either via PubMed or via other paths), and citing only the abstract is a bad idea, especially when you know the rest of the article is likely also quite relevant... I'd go to WP:RX, but in case you happen to see this first, and do have access to it... You can email me the article (out of curiosity, I'm interested - I think you already have my email), but I trust you know what you're doing as far as adding additional details to the existing article (if you have time, otherwise I'll just do it myself). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, I'll go ahead and take a stab at it! Always happy to help :) --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)