Talk to me

Hello, Humanengr!

My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.

I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.

Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in again, Humanengr! I'd love to ask you some questions about your editing work for Wikipedia. Let me know if you're available. If not, no worries! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not receive a response to this question. Did you find the help you needed?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for checking; issue sufficiently resolved for the moment; will re-ask for help as needed. Humanengr (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Search for Truth by Natural Light, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Humanengr, I saw your message you left on my talk page about taking a look at Tulsi Gabbards political positions, could you clarify for me what I need to look at, I would love to give some notes and help shape up that article. Eruditess (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eruditess, Excellent! I've actually started one approach on this sandbox, where I've been paring down a copy of the existing Pol pos page, removing pretty much all the quotes and trimming material such as that which is sourced only to congress.gov. (I've only pared from the start of the Domestic positions § through Health Care.)

You're welcome to edit that draft into shape to merge onto the bio page to make it conform more to the extent to which Buttigieg, Harris, and Sanders cover their pol pos page mat'l on their bio pages. Does that make sense? (UPDATE: I appended the bio page pol pos § so we have that handy.) Humanengr (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eruditess, I'd welcome your thoughts when you have time. Humanengr (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a second version, regrouping under the 6 headings from 1/14/2019 (shortly after campaign announcement). Next step is probably a bit more lower-level rearrangement and further paring. Humanengr (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eruditess, I'm thinking now of splitting the bio page Pol Pos § into 3 main sub-§§: Foreign policy, Domestic issues, Governance, with a 4th for Trump administration. Do you have any thoughts on the following:

1. A Foreign policy § structured like this?
2. A Domestic issues § consisting of these §§ in addition to the ones currently on the bio page (Drug policy and criminal justice reform; Environment; Healthcare and GMO labeling; LGBT issues)?
3. A Governance § like this?
4. A Trump administration § like this?

The other main issue of course is which and how much of this material should be added.

Coming at this from the other end, I’m gonna see what can be cleaned up on the existing bio page in advance of whatever might be added from the above.

Humanengr (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No 2A12:A301:1000:0:0:0:0:2057 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Science of Identity Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President-elect Trump. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, While I appreciate your good intention edits on SIF to bring balance, I will like to inform you that the page has very contentious editing environment. Almost every edit may be contested, and have long TALK discussions. So, I suggest you go slow onn that page with smaller edits, and avoid large major changes without TALK page. We already got an editor temporary banned. We have an Rfc going. So its good to be more careful and avoid edit war. You will need good WP:RS references that support your points. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you self revert the additions to the lead, as they are likely to be contested and deleted by others.

Instead, you can make your point about media bias as a last paragraph in the article with relevant references. I am trying to avoid edits on SIF. Thanks. 10:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Humanengr (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are contributing to the SIF article, I think you should participate in the RfC Survey currently underway on the Talk page about the section on "Association of Tulsi Gabbard".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Science_of_Identity_Foundation

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent "thank" for my revert of a revert. Here's the postscript: User_talk:Remsense#Re:_"undiscussed,_substantive_change_to_site_policy" Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Deep state conspiracy theory in the United States

added a link pointing to X.com

Tulsi Gabbard

added a link pointing to The Hill

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add that timeline of Gabbard's text on February 24th, which was in correct chronological order with the other statements in the article. The role of DNI as in charge of the ODNI's Foreign Malign Influence Center is very informative and ties into the article really well. Starlighsky (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text you added combined information about the FMIC with Gabbard's comments on Russia and her potential role as DNI to suggest implications or connections that have not been explicitly made by any of the cited sources; hence violates WP:SYNTH. Humanengr (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could put it as two separate ideas:

• She would manage the FMIC is she becomes DNI.
• There are concerns about her statements about NATO, Ukraine, and the President of the United States.

Any suggestions are appreciated. Starlighsky (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See if anyone else responds on TG Talk. Humanengr (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Starlighsky (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at your 1st point -- you're right that it was in correct chronological order; my mistake there. But your proposed text (this war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns) expresses the same thought she stated in the preceding ¶ on Feb 11 : President Biden could end this crisis and prevent a war with Russia by … guaranteeing … Ukraine will not become a member of NATO" and that he should do this since it is highly unlikely Ukraine will ever become a member. and Feb 13: On February 13, Gabbard said "It is not in our national security interests for Ukraine to become a member of NATO anyway, so why not give Russia that assurance?" Humanengr (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you okay if I just put what she had texted on that day? It is notable because she had texted the day of the invasion. Starlighsky (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's substantially duplicative, it doesn't warrant its own para. So, if you think it's worth including, append it to the "On February 11, 2022 …" para. Humanengr (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand...She made the statement on 2/24...the day of the invasion by Russia.^[1]Starlighsky (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Starlighsky[reply]

The Feb 11 and Feb 13 statements address what could have been prior to the invasion. The Feb 24 statement also refers to the period prior to invasion: the tenses in that sentence are "could have" and "acknowledged". Both of those are past tense. So it's best positioned as part of that para. Humanengr (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Bennet mentioned in the hearing that she texted the evening of the invasion. This was the moment that drew national attention. Starlighsky (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her comment addressed what could have been -before- the invasion. She was reiterating the same exact point. Humanengr (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put in the framework of how Bennet was presenting it in the hearing:

She texted it the evening of the war.

I could just put that she had repeated what she had states earlier. However, it was notable just in how Bennet gained national attention in how he had brought it up. Whether he was right or wrong, it was a part of history. Starlighsky (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, with your 'repeated' and shortened a mite: On February 23, the day Russia invaded Ukraine, Gabbard repeated her point that "this war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns".^[2] I guess that could stand on its own as a separate para. Humanengr (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just add it. Starlighsky (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]