User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 6

Section sizes in User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 6

Section size for User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 6 (8 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	67	67
"Misleading edit summary"	2,279	2,279
The Mediator Barnstar	1,197	1,197
appreciation	4,777	4,777
Your conduct on various talk pages	3,525	3,525
COVID-19 clarification request closed	815	815
Invitation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis	1,617	1,617
Here are some Ds alerts, from me to me	19,929	19,929
Total	34,206	34,206

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shibbolethink. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

"Misleading edit summary"

My first edit summary was not misleading, especially at the time of my edit. Consensus is not the result of a vote (see WP:CONS: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."). Even if it were the result of a vote, it was 2-2 at the time of my edit. You should also wait for the discussion to end rather than reverting as soon as you are "ahead" 3-2.

If you are referring to my second edit summary then check my first edit. The 14th reference says Cite error: The named reference "HKU_PR_20200711" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). I fixed the link by just using the reference name since they were the same link.

Remember to assume good faith and be careful before mistakenly accusing someone of misleading edit summaries in the future. CowHouse (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the second edit summary. I would have put “fixed ref name” or similar, but I understand what you mean, and I agree it wasn’t misleading now that I understand the context. I thought you were removing the primary source without saying it. But the context helps, thank you I missed that. I went ahead and removed the primary source anyway, since we only cite the secondary summary from those other sources. I’m sorry for the confusion and I do believe you edit in good faith generally speaking.—Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The Mediator Barnstar

		The Mediator Barnstar
		Thanks for your helpful contributions to RfCs! ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 02:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words as well, and everything you're doing to work on these contentious articles with patience and grace :) --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

appreciation

I think you're being very helpful--it's time to focus on what we agree on, and limit disputes. I am very much impressed by your good judgment and clear expression--and ability to keep focus and remain dispassionate and calm in an environment which tends to lead people to do the exact opposite. consider this a barnstar DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you :) I think you've been quite helpful framing this discussion as well. It's sometimes very difficult to keep the focus on PAGs, but it is clearly very important to having fewer discussions descend into SOAPBOXes and people talking past each other. I think you've been quite focused in that regard so far, and I appreciate that most of all.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to echo that I also find your contributions to the encyclopedia helpful and clueful. Thank you for the time you dedicate, —Paleo Neonate – 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, I'm happy to help-- But you will probably see less and less of me around as time goes on, and my hours are wholly subsumed into the hospital meat machine....! :) --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, in case it interests you, there's a friendly mini-thread at El C's talk page, you're more qualified than I am to participate there, without obligation of course, —Paleo Neonate – 09:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't expect that much haha, thanks for your input. I don't remember which it was, but a few weeks ago I read another WaPo op-ed and it was unfortunately obvious misinformation to me, more so than this particular one. It made me think that of course, journalists may have personal opinions, sometimes they write on it then the material doesn't pass to make the news, so they still release it as op-eds... or, perhaps it's a money making strategy exploiting controversy... In either case, while I generally find WaPo official news decent, this recently tainted my view of the paper. —Paleo Neonate – 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, of course, happy to help as always!

I really think there is a Gell-Mann amnesia type thing evident in a lot of these newspapers, not just the WaPo! When we have read a bit more than the average reader (or a lot more) about a certain topic, and we open up to read an article about that thing, we spend the whole time going "What is this? How can they get all this wrong?"

But then we flip to the next page of the paper and completely forget that newspapers are surface level about everything! They're professional interested and curious non-experts. That's their job! And it's also why for expertise-level stuff, I cringe every time I see it sourced to a non-expert source :) :) --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, and I indeed see it most of the time I read about "hacks" in papers that I have to reinterpret for them in plausible computer-science to make sense of it and ideally find the relevant vulnerability database entries... Even the terminology is misleading, just like here with viruses. —Paleo Neonate – 18:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your conduct on various talk pages

It looks fine to me. You seem a little stressed-out, though. Perhaps it would be wise to look at a relaxing photo of a beach. Would you like to see one I took a couple weeks ago? jp×g 07:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

haha yes, thank you that would be much appreciated. I would love to see that, I love a good beach. I will also tell you that it won't be a huge question for much longer, because I have had a relatively light clinical load up until very recently, and so my involvement on Wiki is likely to come to an abrupt halt very shortly :) I think my time here is very much an "idle hands" problem, where when I don't have much to do in my daily life, I default to getting into complex sand interesting discussions here. But when there are patients to see and charts to write, and tests to study for, I won't be around as much! I love it here, and it's one of my great passions to think about how we portray complex science to the lay public. But I do have to think of my future career, and that would tell me that I need to spend less time on Wiki and more time on my immediate tasks... The stress level may not go down, but at least I'll be directing it towards human beings and their complex medical problems!--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

As a doctor of shitposting, I'm writing you a prescription to look at this image for a couple minutes. It's the banks of San Luis Reservoir, as seen out the window of my friend's car. We didn't have time to stop, but it was blisteringly hot (102 degrees, I believe) so I imagine it would have been nice. What I've learned about California is that they don't have seasons here (despite claiming to) -- which means the cars don't get fucked by salt spray, but it does make it harder to appreciate the summer since the whole year is broadly similar. I guess now I have to outsource that back East! jp×g 07:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, thank you :) That does look beautiful, although also very hot! I've thought about heading out there myself, (i.e. for residency) but I might miss the snow too much.

File:Shibbolethink Blizzard.jpg

A few years ago when I was in NYC, there was a blizzard so ominous that the mayor ordered the closure of every city street and every subway in Manhattan for a night. And the labs were all closed, so it was basically a snow day, grad school edition. My friends and I gallivanted around in our BSL4-level snow gear (read: tuck your coats into your gloves, your pants into your boots, and zip-up tight) in central park for hours and hours. I remember distinctly, lying down in the middle of 5th Avenue, staring up at the skyscrapers, and watching snowflakes float down onto my cheek. Here's a pic!

I would never want to rob myself of such good times... but also shoveling snow sucks eggs, so. As they say, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 clarification request closed

The clarification request that you filed, Clarification request: COVID-19, has been closed. A discretionary sanctions talk page notice has been added to the talk page of Gain-of-function research. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated! --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 10:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

Hi Shibbolethink, the merge proposal you had commented on at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_hypothesis#Merge_proposal has now been... well... merged with (or redirected to?) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. You're welcome to simply copy your message there, for example. Sorry for the additional work caused by this, but I'm afraid that keeping the merge proposal open in parallel to the deletion discussion would cause even more work to everyone involved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! I have a sneaking suspicion that this may end up failing at AfD, but the merge request will reappear down the line when the article is more developed and it wouldn’t be synonymous with “delete.” I don’t know if that would be successful either, I’m actually quite happy with the direction of the page at present. But anyway just my prognostication. Thank you for the mopping as always! —Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are some Ds alerts, from me to me

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.