User talk:Zenomonoz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your draft article, Draft:HiSmile[edit]

Hello, Zenomonoz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "HiSmile".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate sourcing[edit]

The Daily Beast and Five Thirty Eight are not appropriate sources for an article on moral panic: as I noted on the talk page, we have generally required scholarly sources that can draw from Stanley Cohen's work, not just mass-media articles that use the phrase "moral panic". This is because the article is on a scholarly topic in sociology. Similarly, the pedophilia section is WP:SYNTH, and again has insufficient sourcing with no reference to the sociological concept of moral panic. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike[edit]

Will you please strike the "personal motive" aspersion that you made in this comment? That is completely uncalled for on an article talk page. I would also request that you amend they don't want anything linking to Bailey because of a 'Streisand effect' to better reflect what I actually said in that comment, where I actually expressed caution over not wanting to fulfil Bailey's Twitter expressed desire to "Streisand this thing". Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Zenomonoz (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DID page[edit]

Thanks for giving the page some attention, really appreciate it. Please don't take my revert as criticism of or opposition to the clean up you're doing overall. lizthegrey (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although I do believe the info-box needs trimming per H:IB for excessive length. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Fridman[edit]

I've noticed your tactful responses to new editors at Talk:Andrew D. Huberman. I would like to invite you to have a look at what's going on at Talk:Lex Fridman where there has been similarly significant influx of inexperience, POV pushing editors. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added to watch list. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Yiannopoulos[edit]

Just for the record, I just wanted to make clear that being that he happens to be a centre-right voice from the United Kingdom (England, to be more precise), I felt as though my revisions to that end were justified. Sorry for the circular reasoning there. Do you understand now? Thank you. NavyBlueSunglasses (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but linking to English conservatism seems unjustified. He isn’t really aligned with English conservatism. He is more closely aligned with the trumpian American movement. He works (worked?) for MTG. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose since British conservatism is often more centrist than American conservatism, and given that Yiannopoulos can hardly be described as a moderate in good standing, I suppose you do have a point. Thank you for your reply. I understand. NavyBlueSunglasses (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why the reverts of edits on Fridman wiki page?[edit]

You reverted edits and reorganized the remaining information of what I added to the Lex Fridman Podcast section of Fridman's wiki page.

Why?

You didn't discuss your reasoning in the talk page (a talk page was already created for that specific edit). That information I added was all sourced to reliable sources. There was no original research. There was no editorializing. I added relevant and notable information about Fridman's podcast. Uhhhum (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new edits are better. Previous text like “with an emphasis on empathy and compassion for whomever he interviews” comes across too MOS:FLOWERY and promotional for encyclopaedia. You have also attributed things to the people who said them now, which is better. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah i see. Okay understood. I'll attempt to de-flower future text.
Thank you for the feedback! Uhhhum (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just refer to pages like WP:GUIDELINES which includes a large list of guideline pages. The 'content guide', 'editing guide', and 'style' sections might be useful. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Uhhhum (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at John Money. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Des Vallee (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I didn't see anyone attacking you on that page. And the reverts of your edits seem fair and justified in my opinion, though maybe they would not have been reverted if you had done a better job of explaining them to other editors. Please use the talk page to discuss controversial changes instead of sending vague warnings to people. SparklyNights 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SparklyNights. My comments do not constitute a personal attack per WP:PA. According to that page "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack", so I'd ask you to read what I wrote carefully and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. It's starting to look like tendentious editing (misrepresenting sources, restoring disputed content, ignoring guidelines and then accusing me of attacking you) and I'd rather resolve things nicely. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only person on the talk page, and the other revert mentions "If you can rewrite it neutrally with the same refs, it should be ok" the sources being in line. Moreover "potential disruptive editor" does break WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH because it has no relationship to the content of the article, you are commenting on contributors not content. Des Vallee (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? Many editors do not have time to individually check all of your sources. I did. I am not "commenting on contributors", I am clearly commenting on your editing and the content you include in the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification[edit]

Hi Zenomonoz, I was about to notify you, but you're already aware – all right ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein[edit]

Hi,

I'm new to editing in Wikipedia and would like to discuss with you why you reverted my edit on the Alex Epstein page. Why do you prefer the sentence as is, compared to my revision? And when you stated that it would be your second and last attempt to revert me, was that a threat, or did you just mean that you do not care so much?

Thanks, B Brendanc12 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a threat [1], it's just that I don't want to engage in an edit war. I have posted the links to the discussions on your talk page. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brendanc12 as for It is evident from Epstein's own writings that he does not reject that climate change is progressing and human caused from your edit summary, I think WP:MANDY applies. This is also discussed over on the fringe theories noticeboard under the Alex Epstein topic, linked on your own talk page. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:MANDY applies here, because Epstein's own writings (which serve as real evidence in this case, rather than a flimsy denial such as that in the Mandy case) irrefutably prove that he accepts that fossil fuels are responsible for the warming we have already experienced and will continue to experience. What he does deny, however, is that this warming will be dangerous. An important distinction should be made, then, in that Epstein does not deny global warming, only that global warming will be dangerous. Let us walk through the four sources ([2], [7], [8], [9] in the article) that have been referenced to prove his "climate change denier" label.
1.     NBC News
This article labels Epstein a climate “skeptic”, not a denier, and deals more with Epstein’s comments on the Texas winter storm in 2021 rather than engaging with Epstein’s views on climate change.
2.     Slate
The author summarizes nicely Epstein’s book Fossil Future and writes that the book “offers a newer, more reassuring flavor of doubt regarding the consequences of human-influenced climate effects.” The keyword here is consequences, indicating that human-influenced climate effects themselves are not what Epstein is denying.
3.     CPR
The Slate article references this CPR article, and both interpret Epstein’s position similarly. Some quotes in this CPR article include one from the moderator of the debate in which Epstein is participating, who says that “We’re not up here debating whether climate change exists”, indicating that no-one on stage, including Epstein, denies climate change. Later in the article, Epstein himself is quoted as saying that he believes humans have contributed to “some warming” but not “run-away, catastrophic warming”, which, because he is speaking in the past/present tense, is an objectively true statement, and one that does not deny climate change.
4.     USA Today
I’m not sure why this article was referenced to prove that Epstein is a climate change denier, as Epstein wrote it himself, and as such designates himself a “climate thinker” rather than a “climate denier”.
Given this evidence, I think it is fair to revise Epstein’s article to make the distinction that he denies the dangerous effects we will face from climate change, not climate change itself. What do you think? Brendanc12 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to go and make your own edits to the article as you see fit and see how people respond. Just avoid edit warring. Discussions about content of articles should take place on the article talk page. Discussions about an individual editor can take place on their talk page. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red[edit]

Hi there, Zenomonoz, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see that after quite a long break you have once again become an active editor and that you now intend to devote more of your editing time to writing about women scientists. In this connection, you might find it useful to look through our Primer. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red December 2023[edit]

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I commend your bravery[edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Saw your post at ANI. Thanks for standing up against the worst kind of disruption. Know that it's appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Generalrelative! On reflection, you are a lot more patient than I in these cases. Best. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

Hi, this [2] edit is in violation of WP:BLPREMOVE and if you do not restore it and discuss, I will put it to WP:ANI. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the reliable sources noticeboard agreed with me, this comment was unwarranted. You do appear to misunderstand BLPremove based on one case I can see on your talk page. Best to ask on relevant content noticeboards rather than threatening to ANI people without good reason. It comes across a little aggressive. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2024[edit]

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296


Online events:

Announcement

  • In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part
    of the #1day1woman initiative!

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red February 2024[edit]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298


Online events:

Announcement

  • Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event.

Tip of the month:

  • AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red March 2024[edit]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301


Online events:

Announcements

Tip of the month:

  • When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
    and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Heiner Rindermann[edit]

Thank you for the constructive dialog about how to edit Heiner Rindermann. You may be interested to know that he has made controversial statements about immigrants to Germany. These statements could be construed as racist, and were repudiated by some of his colleagues. [3] (All this, and more, is discussed in the German language wikipedia page: I read it using computer translation.) In my view, these statements, and his reaction to the criticism, are far more revealing than the fact that he once published in some anthropology journal which used to put out racist trash in the Jim Crow era (and might still put out racist trash, I've no idea). Nangaf (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nangaf – thanks for the message. Also it's best to discuss article content on the talk page for the relevant article, and then editor behaviour on their talk page... if that makes sense :) Zenomonoz (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure -- I just wanted you to know that I am not implacably hostile to the idea of identifying Rindermann a racist, so long as it is done in a way that avoids looking like entire paragraphs were pasted from RationalWiki. Not that I think you did that yourself. Nangaf (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red April 2024[edit]

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304


Online events:

Announcements

  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Appropriate Sourcing: John Money[edit]

I edited John Money's wikipedia article to reflect his Ethnic background accurately, and sourced an Obituary written for his own Family by a professional writer in 2006. When he died. Why did you remove this?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-006-9132-5 50.115.92.236 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly referring to Richard Green as Jewish. Green is not a “professional writer”, he was Money’s student and colleague. Just lol. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict-of-interest[edit]

Hello @Zenomonoz. Your recent edits suggest you may be involved in a WP:COI and partaking in WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTADVERT. Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV and does not permit whitewashing. We report everything there is to report on a person. Trying to obfuscate this process will result in an opened case at the Administrators' Noticeboard for you. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making edits without using reliable sources. And inserting unsourced stuff into the article. This isn't what conflict of interest refers to. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD :) FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FeldmarschallGneisenau that is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. So that's irrelevant. Second, that specific essay makes reference to primary source being acceptable when they are fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. The specific paragraph in that document making reference to a birth name was written by the individual who opened the DNI case... the journalist Julia Black. That is not acceptable at all for confirming or proving his birth name. It isn't the same as the government confirming his birth name. If this alleged birth name was mentioned in a reliable independent secondary source, then the name can be used. Julia Black did not include it in her eventual Insider piece, and I cannot find any that do. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Honorable Administrator's input: To wit, under WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This seems compatible with using government documents (which again, are not always primary sources) to support the subject's birth date and place as that can easily be verified by looking at those documents. In fact it might not even be a primary source - it's not a birth certificate.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've posted this in multiple places now. This is overriden by WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol Daniel Case changed his mind. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red May 2024[edit]

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
    is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zenomonoz&oldid=1221156457"