User talk:Pengortm

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to the apolipoprotein E article and for your comments in Talk:Apolipoprotein E. One minor request however is especially when you delete material, please include a short edit sumary. It could be as short as "see talk" if you leave an explanation on the talk page. Otherwise, please carry on. I think you are doing a great job! Cheers. Boghog (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is stupid calling it misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the article dopamine receptor D4, you claimed that there were hundreds of other studies linking this receptor gene to sexual behavior in humans. Why not link multiple studies as references in one sentence, or even a metastudy if there is one? Please clarify what you mean by this not being validated enough. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [1] is strange in my opinion. It removes a reference to an essay written about the movie by a scientist featured in the movie, and in its place puts a reference which doesn't ever mention the movie. I stated as much in my edit summary.

Have you seen the movie? What makes you think that Tierney's book has anything to do with the content? I think you should read the article I referenced, and then restore my edits. As you'll see, it is written by an anthropologist who, while agreeing with Dreger on Tierney, appreciates the importance of the movie. Dragging Tierney and Dreger into the description of this movie does a further disservice to the Yanomami, and is uncalled for. 75.142.11.87 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-- I have watched the movie, read the peer-reviewed article which is referenced (and has been a part of the wikipedia article for sometime now) and read the essay you added as well. The movie is certainly more than Tierney's book--but I think whatever position one has on the controversy, it is quite clear that Tierney's work was seminal to this continuing controversy. For example see: http://www.documentary.org/magazine/anthropologists-behaving-badly-jose-padilhas-secrets-tribe-does-some-digging-its-own http://machimon.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/secrets-of-the-tribe-yanomamo/ The allegations in the movie extend Tierney's claims a bit, but are basically the same old (discredited) claims. This is well documented in the peer-reviewed work of Dreger. I think the essay you suggest could be effectively integrated into the article, but does not require such a big change and deletion of the previous information. Since I didn't have time to re-write the article I decided it was best to revert it first (retaining the helpful reference you added to the award the movie won). The disservice I am doing to the Yanomami by trying to nip fallacious information in the bud is not clear to me. I'm sure we can better wiki this and improve it together. Pengortm (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back over your revisions and agree that I was remiss in simply deleting most of them. I've put much of it back in. Pengortm (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorry though I think I explained why I did it in the summary. Anyway, if you check the links they are NOT related to the article.

• [2]: This link goes to a "spammy" site full of links related to science, but still with no clear information;
• [3]: The second link goes to a celebrity-themed blog.

— Nuno Agostinho • ^{(Say It!)} 00:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted on the article talk pagePengortm (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your input to the Sex at Dawn article. The reason that I had reverted your edit was because you updated the intro without any corresponding changes to the body of the article. The intro should reflect what is in the article. So, I'd be grateful if you could cite the third academic article in the article body. It will improve the article, and support the claim in the intro (which at the moment is unspported by a verifiable third party source). Please let me know if you have any questions. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Good point. I believe the sentence in question in the intro does include references to the three scholarly articles. I'll try to find time to do the corresponding updates to the body text soon. Pengortm (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping a cool head and seeking dispute resolution rather than edit warring at Saybrook University. — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the request here. I think it will be granted but it' a subjective judgement on the part of the Administrator who evaluates the request so we'll see. It may take a day or two for the request to be reviewed so be patient and I suggest that you stay away from the article in the meantime. Let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about your edits on his page and Sex at Dawn. It's clear that the guy's academic credentials are shoddy (though I doubt that the admissions standards of the University of Missouri -- the alma mater of the guy trashing him -- are anything to write home about either). But that doesn't mean his thesis is incorrect. You appear to be devoted to emphasizing Ryan's shoddy resume, and the most critical reviews of the book. This is tendentious editing. Steeletrap (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome corrections or additions based in reliable sources. From what I can tell the scientists with relevant expertise have been the most critical of his book--but perhaps I've missed something or misinterpreted. --Pengortm (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please name one academic review of his book by a "scientist" other than the articles by the UMissouri anthropologist. Steeletrap (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated below the summary: "according to Ryan, the book was rejected by Oxford University Press after 2 of 3 peer reviews by primatologists were negative during the publisher's internal peer review process". Also, it is worth noting that Ellsworth's two reviews were published in a Peer Reviewed publication in a journal specifically oriented towards these types of issues. Further David Barash, an evolutionary biologist is also cited below the summary statement. While I had a substantial role in some of these edits, I am certainly not the only contributor and these were worked together in a collaborative wikipedia fashion. If you have further discussion on these articles, I think it might be more productive to have the discussion on those articles talk pages so other editors might chime in more easily.--Pengortm (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do monitor the talk page of the Ryan and Sex at Dawn articles, so will see your comments there very quickly. Looking forward to fruitful dialogue and further improvements to the article. I appreciate your edits to Saybrook's page and agree that 'Rankings' is a better title for that section.--Pengortm (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saybrook is a shit school. But so are a lot of American institutions of higher learning. Steeletrap (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to say thanks for the barnstar, and also for your generally helpful and constructive attitude. Look forward to continuing to work with you. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to inform the reader that it was that way in the original. You can't inform the reader if he/she already understands that, which is the case for the cranberry excerpt from 1672; the "sics" just detract from the aesthetics of the passage. Of course I'm sure you agree a line has to be drawn; you wouldn't quote Chaucer's The Night's Tale, Part I as

Whilom [sic], as olde [sic] stories tellen [sic] us, Ther [sic] was a duc [sic] that highte [sic] Theseus;

I think the cranberry passage falls on the side of the line where you don't need sic. Just a thought.HowardJWilk (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good catch. The IP that did that belongs to TCS Education System, and it has removed information from another article as well. I've templated it with the COI advisory and {{uw-delete2}} for both articles, and will watch their contributions. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to discuss the suggested edits I had. My first edit was to change: "Rolfing is essentially identical to Structural Integration" to "Rolfing is the best-known brand of Structural Integration". You noted that the current source, which is a reliable source, states this, and asked for a different source to change it.

My second attempt noted that Rolfing is a service mark in the first sentence (referenced by the US Patent and Trademark page) and changed the sentence in question to "Rolfing is the more publicly known brand of Structural Integration and is essentially identical." I used one of the sources already referred to in the article (Myers), which states: "In the inevitable fractures and resultant legal battles which followed Dr. Rolf's death, the terms ‘Rolfing®’ and ‘Rolfer®’ became registered service marks of the Rolf Institute, which is now one of perhaps a dozen schools of Structural Integration. Therefore, ‘Structural Integration’, Dr. Rolf's original name for her work, is becoming the generic designation for this type of manipulative approach. The word ‘rolfing’—a nickname for her work which came from her time in the Esalen Institute in California, and a name she herself disliked and only reluctantly accepted—remains, for the time being, the more publicly known term for this type of work."

While it is true to say that Rolfing is essentially identical to Structural Integration as noted in the Sherman source, more needs to be stated to describe the full relationship between the two. You could say that Iyengar yoga is identical to yoga and Kleenex is identical to facial tissue, and while true, these statements leave something out: yoga is the umbrella term and Iyengar is a subset; facial tissue is a product and Kleenex is a brand name.

I'd like to know if you have other suggestions for how to convey this information. Perhaps the description of Rolfing being a service mark isn't relevant, but the fact that Rolfing is considered synonymous with Structural Integration is because it was the first and has the most name recognition, not because they are one and the same thing. After further consideration, I believe that my second attempt captures and documents this well.

Salut.

Boser,A (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sri Chinmoy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• , university lecture in: ''The Oneness of the Eastern Heart and the Western Mind, Part 1'']. Agni Press, 2003.</ref> According to the team's website, members of the Sri Chinmoy Marathon Team
• first1=Himalayan|title=A Spiritual Powerhouse Powerlifts 7,063 Pounds - Magazine Web Edition > December 1987 - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine|url=http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5-HTTLPR&oldid=666195917 Use of personal pronouns from the author's stance (whether supported by empirical research or not) is inappropriate for the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone
Personally, I have no issue with the information, but it is written in a manner incongruent with the nature of Wikipedia.
Thor214 (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I come across as rude above, and it is not my intent. I wrote it in a hurry and did not edit myself for a tone appropriate for reasonable discourse.

Thor214 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Intersectionality. Thank you.

Woodroar (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The New York Journal of Mathematics retraction controversy.The discussion is about the topic topic. Thank you. --Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted the lead so that sentence adheres better to the source. I believe the following quotes from the source are sufficient to back up the claim made in the lead: "...there has been important, significant progress for women. On the other hand, there is still a gender pay gap" and "...there is evidence that although discrimination against women in the labor market has declined, some discrimination does still continue to exist." I've put them in a comment near the ref so future editors can more easily see what is being referenced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize the discussion that's going on regarding that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regutten (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this doesn't seem to be clear:

Y Good behavior: "Hmm, nobody's replied. Maybe they didn't see it? Maybe they're busy, or (Heaven forbid) really sick right now? I'll {{ping}} them to the discussion, or maybe leave a friendly reminder on their talk pages."

N Bad behavior: "Hmm, nobody's replied. I'm entitled to a reply! I'm going to run straight over to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and complain that nobody replied to my last comment yet. Those volunteers will make the other WP:VOLUNTEERs reply to me on my schedule!"

If you still don't understand why your use of DRN is a problem, then please stop using it entirely. The process for getting my attention is to ask me, not to bother DRN with your complaints that nobody replied as fast as you wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you made this reversion months after it appears that multiple forums (DRN, RFC, and normal discussion on the talk page) reached a consensus that the sentence in question did not belong in the article lead? I imagine this could have been a misunderstanding and I'd like to clear up your reasoning rather than going directly to WP:DRN. TripleShortOfACycle (talk - contribs) - (she/her/hers) 05:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent reversion at Stereotype threat, please see my reminder about WP:TALKDONTREVERT on the article's talk page, and note that this is a policy rather than a suggestion from an essay. I hope that we can find a way to work together collaboratively to improve the article, and reconcile our apparently conflicting views about what constitutes neutrality on the topic. As I've mentioned, it seems to me that only by discussing each issue on a case-by-case basis will this be possible. Generalrelative (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stereotype threat; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Due to repeated violations of WP:TALKDONTREVERT, I am offering a final warning here about edit warring before seeking resolution. You have repeatedly ignored good-faith attempts to engage on the talk page and have only done so in an extremely fragmentary way, responding to policy-based arguments with personal opinion and then reverting immediately without allowing time for discussion. This shows that you're not open to being persuaded, which is highly non-collaborative and contrary to community norms. Therefore please review WP's basic policies such as WP:CONS and WP:BRD before engaging further. Generalrelative (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pengortm. I was wondering if you could do me the favour of explaining how you become aware of edits to pages you are involved with so quickly, given your relative inactivity since the start of August? Examples include this revert within 60 minutes of an editor making an edit or—the reason I noticed it—this edit within 90 minutes of mine. I was just wondering if you have some tool other than a watchlist, or whether you are really checking your watchlist so often given your small number of edits. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: I use RSS feeds. Sometimes they seem to update quickly, sometimes slowly. Not sure if the speed of updating is due to Wikipedia or my RSS reader. In any case, I find RSS feeds an easier method than the Watchlist for my workflow. Pengortm (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please elaborate on why you undid these changes?—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 18:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Altercari: I believe my edit summaries explain my specific edits. Please read those. If you disagree, it is generally best practice to bring this to the ARTICLE talk page rather than user talk pages to allow other editors to weigh in more easily and see the history of discussion related to the article in question. Thank you for your work on wikipedia and collegial collaboration. Pengortm (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit summary just now you wrote I hope you are not WP:HOUNDING.[4] Good of you to include a note of uncertainty rather than an outright accusation but in any case it should be clear by now that I am definitely concerned about "related problems on multiple articles", i.e. a pattern of civil POV-pushing on your part on topics related to race and gender. That's a legitimate reason for me to check in on your contribution history now and then, especially when I see you making what appear to me to be tendentious edits on pages that are already on my watchlist. My purpose is not to disturb you but to protect the encyclopedia from harm. Indeed, it's evident from other remarks you've made in recent edit summaries (e.g. [5]) and on talk pages in the past (e.g. at Talk:Stereotype threat) that you have similar concerns about me. It should come as no surprise then that –– even when assuming good faith –– I am concerned that your biases may be adversely affecting the appropriateness of your contributions. Ultimately it will be up to the community to decide which of us is correct when the two of us disagree, and we will need to observe policies and guidelines when working out what remains in an article until our differences of opinion can be resolved. Continual recourse to edit warring, as you should surely know by now, will not result in your desired outcome being adopted. Generalrelative (talk) 00:38, 17 October 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Irreversible Damage. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Bilorv (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than send you this template again, I'll write something in my own words about your edit warring at How to Be an Antiracist: edit warring is not about number of edits, so you cannot keep making "just" one revert because it is only one. When someone raises WP:DUE as a concern both on the talk page and in their edit summary, a failure to address this comment means there is no justification for a revert. You can be blocked from editing for further edit warring, regardless of whether it is only one revert in a 24 hour period or more. — Bilorv (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - so, an IP editor makes this edit, without leaving an edit summary. Another editor reverts them, also without an edit summary. Why do you feel that the lack of edit summary in the revert is sufficient reason for you to reinstate the IP's edit? WP:BRD suggests that it's the onus is on the IP to make the case for why their edit was an improvement - why jump in with a revert of your own? Girth Summit _(blether) 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, WP:Twinkle marks reverts as minor automatically. There's no reason to revert any edit because it was "wrongly" marked as minor. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]