User talk:Prototyperspective

Hello, Prototyperspective, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• How to add those all-important references
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Sm8900 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
2. Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
3. For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
4. For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Face mask

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of your edits are unnecessarily long. A maximum of two lines is preferable, but in some places you've written entire paragraphs. It's meant to consist of brief entries (in keeping with previous years, both for Science and other categories), so please try to be more succinct in future. Also, you've absolutely littered that page with red links, making the page appear rather messy. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I think it would be better to discuss this at the talk page there.

I try to fit the lengths of the entries to what's being reported. If it's a major discovery which can't be explained shortly it sometimes gets a bit longer than just two lines. And a lot of other entries on these pages are longer than the most common length. I even added an [excessive detail?] note to one of those because I don't think what was reported fits the length of its entry. Furthermore, I don't think it's consensus to keep the entries to a maximum of two lines there or that this practice would make much sense. If the page is getting too long due to longer texts I would propose converting the list into some sort of table with categories and tags and display options. This way one could filter for entries one is interested in, or filter those one isn't interested in or only show the most major discoveries etc.

Maybe it would be a good idea to add a maximum line- and/or char-count a norm for the page. However, in that case – and this should probably be discussed on the talk page – I would suggest graduating this into multiple maxima for different types of entries as outlined above and on the talk page. Namely and in short, I would suggest ca. 3 maxima with one maxima being above two lines and reserved for a category of entries with ca. 7-12 entries per month and two lines or so being the default maxima. I think I mostly would have adhered to such a norm for most entries I added and would suggest you add the [excessive detail?] template to individual entries which you find inadequately long.

Concerning the red links I don't think it makes the page look messy. It's more an issue of Wikipedia's choice of how to display links to nonexistent articles. Imo that would be the problem as the redlinks are very important to the page and not inherently a cause of any display-issues. Maybe their display could be changed somehow (page-wide or article-wide) so that the colors (if their display remains to be handled via a different link-color) aren't clashing that much. Also see WP:REDYES.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visualization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join WikiProject Climate change, where we work together to improve Wikipedia's content related to climate change. Simply click here and follow the instructions to accept! Sadads (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pandemic prevention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifestyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to 2020 in science you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please start doing this immediately. Here is an example of how to do it: Diff of 2020 in science— Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gene editing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to 2020 in science has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please be aware of WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Your changes to the 2020 in science article (transcluding content from another article) have been reverted multiple times now. You don't get to restore your changes just because you feel that there hasn't been enough discussion. At this point, your proposed edit requires some consensus from discussion, and that discussion isn't owed to you. If you tag me in a discussion, I can engage there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please make a new section when adding an entry here.

2. You are in violation of WP:BRD which I have pointed out twice now.

3. They have been reverted by you.

4. I don't "feel that there hasn't been enough discussion" but would like you to adhere to WP:BRD and WP:RECENTISM. My points about only including the most recent month in 2020 in science have been ignored and there was no consensus for either your bold and large-scale change to the basic layout of the article which has been sustained for many year nor for only including the most recent month in the article.

5. a) Your proposed layout changes requires a proper debate and consensus. I did not revert it nevertheless. b) Your change of only including the most recent month in the article requires a proper debate and consensus.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is in that section because it relates to the same article. It's absurd to claim that I am violating BRD since I have not made a bold edit, it is you who has made a bold edit by transcluding content from the two split articles into the 2020 in science article. There's no consensus whatsoever for those transclusions, so it's clearly a bold edit of yours. A bold edit which has been reverted. Your points may very well have been ignored. This does not entitle you to violate BRD, and you're not entitled to have people take your points seriously.

The edits I made were discussed and agreed by talk page participants over the course of a month. I have not decided to "only include the most recent month" in the article, and I have not proposed that. Your attempted transclusions are bold edits, and can be reverted by anybody who objects to them. If I was to make a bold edit, you would be entitled to revert it to the status quo. An edit where you transclude content from other articles is most decidedly not reverting to any status quo. You made a bold edit, you've been reverted, it's as simple as that. WP:BRD is bold edit, revert, discuss; not bold edit, revert, revert, discuss. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not making a new talk page section just because it relates to the same article is not common procedure but I don't have much of a problem with that if you insist on going against standard layout / norms for talk pages.

2. You made a bold edit by, without ever being involved in the article before, changing the basic layout of an article series which has been kept for many years and by making the page only including one month's worth of content.

3. "there was no consensus for either your bold and large-scale change to the basic layout of the article which has been sustained for many year nor for only including the most recent month in the article." (I already wrote this; it has been ignored again)

4. The edit was not agreed by talk page participants. Only one editor seemed to agree with you in the basic change without any comments about the number of months to include here.

5. The discussion wasn't going on for a month.

6. "An edit where you transclude content from other articles is most decidedly not reverting to any status quo." I was not reverting to status quo because I thought we could gain some form of unfirm consensus - I could also revert to status quo for the page instead.

7. I "would like you to adhere to WP:BRD and WP:RECENTISM. My points about only including the most recent month in 2020 in science have been ignored and there was no consensus for either your bold and large-scale change to the basic layout of the article which has been sustained for many year nor for only including the most recent month in the article."

--Prototyperspective (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gene editing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks I'll use this wording. I had the wording "added x items from {source article}" and didn't know a standardized edit-summary wording existed for such cases.

With "helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved" are you referring to only making it easier for people to look up the edit-history for the content or to some technical means by which the edit-history for the content is somehow attached/linked/integrated into the (target-)article's version history?

--Prototyperspective (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current events portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 in science, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coordination and Bone loss.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 9 October 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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nuclear power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your citation related proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open. I would talk more if you want to tour the landscape of similar proposals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Technology and society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Production.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of senescence research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifespan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPA, at article Talk pages please comment about article content, and not upon content contributors. Phrases like fringe/outdated WP:DUE-violating agenda-pushing editors are WP:ASPERSIONS if not outright personal attacks, and such accusations could lead to you being blocked. In basketball parlance, play the ball not the man. If you truly believe an editor, or even a small number of editors, is acting against WP policies at Pentagon UFO videos please raise the issue(s) at the proper venue, such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. Perhaps at those venues you will find uninvolved editors and administrators who agree with you? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JoJo Anthrax: Hello, I meant to comment about the content, not the article's editors – in your terms here the ball was everything I put in front of "editors". However, you are right in that I should not have referenced editors but only point out that this what the content of this article to me seems to be (e.g. violating WP:DUE and WP:NPOV-tone as I pointed out in edit summaries earlier as well). I don't think I will raise this issue as it's simply not worth the effort (e.g. due to the number of editors involved) – but maybe somebody else could do so, I only left this comment of support on the talk page. Thanks for your notifications, I am aware of WP:AGF which I don't think to have acted in nonaccordance to.

I truly believe that core Wikipedia policies are being broken but as of right now I don't think that solving this is my responsibility. --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - there is an ongoing RFC discussion about this, which you were previously involved in Here

		The Special Barnstar
		I noticed your efforts on Wikipedia, and generally at times I think you have raised some live policy issues that need to be addressed, but your posts were dismissed without the issues being considered. Clearly you genuinely want to improve articles. Being a wikipedia editor is a tireless job, that doesn't seem worth it at times, so just a bit of encouragement for you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immunity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of senescence research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifestyle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wild pig.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solar power has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—PaleoNeonate – 05:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Standardization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compatibility.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Standardization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live it's about 20° F warmer than what was formerly normal this time of year. – Sca (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merck.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 16 November 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of computing 2020–present, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Firewall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if it was possible for you to join the meeting with the Community Wishlist Survey team today? We could talk about your proposal. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the invitation! Sadly, it's not possible because I'd like to remain pseudonymous for now and intend to be AFK at that time. We could discuss per email, via Matrix chat, per this talk page or by comments at the proposal.

I think the best way to start to building the (pseudonymous, granular and certified) badges, ranking-list/s, reduced time from interest-to-first-line-of-MediaWiki-code (may include mentoring-related things, a GUI e.g. for this and tutorials), statistics, code-issue-findability and so on would be to later create a new page for it (on meta.WM).

Such wouldn't be needed for putting the banner only on software/software-development-related pages which I'd suggest doing at least during the first run of this (which could be improved upon yearly).

-- Prototyperspective (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You just thanked me for an edit. So you might be interested in this PDF I uploaded to zenodo a few minutes ago. It deals with energy sector information.

• Morrison, Robbie (6 February 2022). Which open data license? — Release 06. doi:10.5281/zenodo.5987672. 14 pages.

Best. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to COVID-19. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful about adding reports based on new papers. Hundreds of thousands of scientific publications appear annually, so it is impractical to add brand new papers otherwise we just puff up articles with newish stuff that has not been time-tested or gives a narrow perspective, i.e. WP:UNDUE. WP:NOTNEWS. Instead, Wikipedia aspires to WP:SECONDARY for most articles and for mature themes, WP:TERTIARY.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cautioning but I'm not adding info on random papers but very carefully selected ones that are appropriate in the relevant articles. I'm very well aware how many scientific publications are published, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs to partially (some are always very up-to-date) remain very outdated and incomplete. I'm aware of all of these policies and the edits are compliant with them. They all have good and reliable WP:RS and if you think that some of the edits does not adhere to any of the policies please point out why.

I agree with you in so far as these are important considerations one should make in terms of deciding a) whether or not to add the content and b) how the content is added (such as pointing out that something is not yet time-tested or isn't the full picture) and that these are relevant policies one needs to closely check to see whether or not the edit is compliant with.

I'm editing lots of science-related articles but I don't know why you reverted some of my edits in specific as they aren't any different from the rest of the respective article or from what other editors are doing (and are WP:DUE, useful notable info at an adequate place in adequate length and policy-compliant). I'd like revert these two reverts: 1 2 either in full or partially if that's okay with you (if you have any concerns they could get improved too). Prototyperspective (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First thanks for responding and starting this dialogue.

For big topics, the goal is or should be exclusively secondary or tertiary sources. Wikipedia is a repository for digested information, hence my recoiling from someone systematically adding recently reported factoids, seemingly based on their appearance in Science (mainly a source of primary refs). I confess to being anti-new literature (one of my missions is to eradicate temporal terms like "recent", "modern",...)

You are correct that many or most articles in Wikipedia are loaded with primary refs.

1. My experience suggests that often these primary refs are "baked in" because the contributing editor got to the article in its formative stage. Such primary references are slowly being replaced by reviews and books (one of my self-assigned mission in Wiki-Chem).
2. Another reason for primary refs is that they cite historical precedent (i.e., the discovery paper). There seems to be consensus for recognizing foundational paper(s).
3. For thinly referenced articles, primary refs are often inserted, including by me, just to be illustrative and because we have access to nothing better. The prevailing feeling is that an article with only primary citations is much better than an article with no citations.
4. Lastly, many primary refs are added by authors of the paper. I spend a lot of time identifying and removing such COI papers. It is fairly common problem, not just by young investigators. Even established scientists can be oblivious to conflict of interest.

You are welcome to revert my deletions, but I might re-revert. But let's see how it goes. Further suggestions is to avoid "Researchers showed... " "A recent finding ..." Just state the finding/facts, period. Good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again I mostly agree in principle – these are important and relevant considerations to the specific edits/type of edits I'm doing this way. I developed broad criteria for which studies I add and outlined them in detail at a page I could link here (as there wasn't much interest in it I haven't updated that list even as the set of criteria and examples have grown further)...one of the criteria is "at least one news report by a reputable/reliable source" (not just a study). And I never add any study just based on some score or appearance in some specific journal for example.

Rarely, I'm only using the report by the authors' university instead of the news report by a reputable/reliable source as a second reference to the study itself if it's more informative than the latter...in the case of the edit to methanogenesis which I think may be right to revert and either wait for further secondary research & reviews to come out or to revise before readdition one, the most reliable secondary source was in German so I decided not to add it there. In that case, I hope editors don't forget to add it later on and I still think brief info about this before that occurs would still be due, relevant, adequate there ( won't readd it though).

I don't think it's quite adequate to degrade scientific papers as primary refs and consider their use problematic. They are some of the most highest-quality reference that are and currently could be used on Wikipedia. In the medical fields, I understand and support the WP:MEDRS where mostly reviews are needed for references. Other than that, papers usually aren't written by one author but by multiple authors which co-review and share responsibility for the finished result and they get reviewed by others etc.

In terms of new literature: there are certainly many things that need to be minded and some things don't get more suitable to add in time. I think here we differ in how we view the best approach to how such should be solved: while I pointed out WP:RECENTISM to some editors in comparison to which I think I take a more antirecentist standpoint, I tend to be supportive of adding new literature – which often is particularly valuable imo – rather than opposing and supporting its removal but consider the issue at hand in most cases is adding it in an appropriate way, replacing older content with better content over time and filtering out (afaik few) entirely undue additions.

For example, with the appropriate way I'm referring to making sure that the info about the new literature contains necessary contextual / relevant info for the readers...such as that this is only what a) one study [which is in the refs] b) indicates (maybe also why) rather than a definitive fact, or that something is controversial (I'm not saying that controversial things are usually due), or which severe issues make it currently largely unpractical or a relatively minor notable aspect, or including the year the study was published, or keeping the info as short as a brief mention, or making sure that the location of the content is adequate and has sufficient info about comparable things, and so on. There's more things to consider and sometimes reverts facilitate revisions towards better quality, but I'd generally favor improving article contents by adding/partly-removing/rephrasing.

_______

• Re 1.: Yes, that would be a great thing more editors should probably be doing: usually if something has been added, only very rarely does somebody check if there's better sources for it (or new info about it to add besides it) such as reviews. Moreover, as I hinted at earlier, sometimes (rarely) info about something like a study is very appropriate and relevant in an article while later on the info should get entirely replaced...broadly speaking for example something like "researchers are currently looking into these possible explanations and have devised theories x y and z" – which fields and lines of research is currently being done may be very appropriate but temporary content to include even though people shouldn't forget to update it in time (which often takes decades) and describe it in an appropriate way.
• Re 2.: Haven't really thought about it but maybe it would be good to combine the historic reference with a newer one such as (this is an example there are better ways): <ref>{{cite [...] }} * Original study: {{cite [...] }}</ref> with the actual ref being the review (on the left) but the historic/original ref still being used and linked/directly-accessible.
• Re 3.: There's far too few review articles overall and in many areas and it doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon. There may be some growing awareness of this though – for example here it says "Decisions relevant to global challenges must be informed by the best available evidence. It should no longer be acceptable for evidence to be out of date, biased or selective.". Many articles here are relevant to some degree in some shape or form to global issues (e.g. from articles about sustainable concrete to most diseases).
• Re 4.: Haven't experienced this a lot. I think it would be good if they asked about it on the Talk page instead and if more authors did so in cases where their paper is actually relevant. I was never asked to add a paper by any author or organization or anything similar and don't have any COI (that I know of so far) btw. When content gets removed, I'm usually supportive of making a talk page entry if it may be due in the article.

_______

It's good to have this discussion, even if only for formulating some of the considerations. I'm not offended by reverts of course and if reverted again we could discuss an edit more specific on the respective Talk page. I already try to avoid such phrases in general-topic articles but usually fail to do so because often I consider it to be the necessary contextual info for e.g. showing "that this is only what a) one study [which is in the refs] b) indicates (maybe also why)". I'll try harder to avoid these and there may be better ways to indicate that something isn't for example long-established definitive scientific consensus as the complete-and-only-explanation without sacrificing the due brevity of the content (as describing in more detail why exactly the study concluded/indicates this may often require). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re 3; World problems might be an emergency, but editing Wikipedia is not. You quoted an opinion column by a scientist urging other scientists to adopt new procedures to keep up with new original research materials. Us humble Wikipedia editors were not that writer's audience, and we (most of us anyway) are not qualified to do that, anyway. Nonethless you seem to be pushing that anyway. In the Wikipedia namespace, here is a sample of prior discussions in which problem behaviors were described by at least someone (sometimes admins and arbitrators) as "Editor on a mission". You're effort to improve articles is welcome. But you're going to have to deal with the fact that our compendium will always be behind the latest and greatest issues from your favorite bit of the professional science literature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI @any interested editors, we're having a similar discussion in article talk here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm not "pushing that" (not entirely sure what you are referring to though) and I'm not an "editor of a mission" (in case you suggested so). I think you misunderstood me there, that linked article just helps to highlight the importance of Wikipedia which integrates summary knowledge and also the importance of it not being entirely outdated or inappropriately incomplete. It's important that Wikipedia doesn't succumb to recentism, and I have pointed this out before, it's also important that it's not outdated when it's not due...it needs more editors (who update articles...adequately of course and including science-related ones). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Climate justice into Climate change mitigation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that other text myself and I didn't attribute it because of that but also because there wasn't enough space for the edit summary and the copying wasn't that extensive (& the text was modified/shortened).

Please let me know if there are plans to enable copy-attribution without long manual edit summary texts such as via a dropdown next to the edit summary where one could select "includes content from page [select]" (just as an example!) or if there are yet standards about what should be done if you wrote the copied in text yourself and/or significantly modified it. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary field now has a 500-character limit, so there is likely space to do this properly every time. If you wrote the prose yourself, it's not mandatory, but it's still a good idea, because the prose may have been altered in the meantime by other contributors. There's no dropdown at present in the edit summary field, but that's not a bad idea. You might consider suggesting it (but I don't know who you would talk to for that). What I do is I have a boilerplate of the edit summary in a sandbox which I modify slightly for each use. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the more you copy from article to article, the bigger the longterm maintenance headaches become. IMO, it's almost always better to invest heavily in our top-article / sub-article tree. Useful organizational tools include WP:OUTLINE, set index files and Template:Excerpt, maybe others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read it. It says "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war" and the "bold, revert, discuss (BRD)" cycle. I made bold edits, they were reverted, then we discussed, then a restored contents based on this discussion. If people aren't okay with that they should have and should participate in the discussion and properly so. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you did not get wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being blunt, but Wikipedia went through similar issues with paranormal enthusiasts a dozen years ago, and they had tons of mainstream/media/sensational sources. They too felt it was Wikipedia’s duty to report imminent scientific breakthroughs in establishing the reality of psychic/paranormal phenomena/ghosts/etc. They too had scientists and people with advanced degrees and their own scientific papers/journals with supposedly observable evidence as well as well-funded academic, private, and military research programs, and favorable public polling, all of which they felt attested to the legitimacy of their science and the urgent need to pursue it. They too felt that their field had been sullied by hucksters and opportunists in the past, but the current stuff was the real deal, and made an effort to rehabilitate the field and update historically depreciated terms with new, more scientific ones. A strong belief that the world was on the frontier of fantastic new scientific discoveries led by bold pioneers brought many to Wikipedia to challenge what they felt were Wikipedia’s outdated and biased policies. But Wikipedia, by design, stays well behind the cutting edge, and lags even further behind when a topic is characterized by WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, WP:SENSATIONALism, and primary papers that as user:Smokefoot puts it, reflect "newish stuff that has not been time-tested or gives a narrow perspective". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally get that, good point in the last sentence, and in the past I would have agreed with you...even concerning the UFO topic.

It's not by-design that Wikipedia is often behind the cutting edge per se or where and the way it is is not as clearly established as you think it is. For example, if an article is about a cutting edge topic then it's not incompatible with policies to add years-old (e.g. but not decades old) findings if they are relevant, due, notable, and (most importantly) integrated in a way that clarifies their nature and context (e.g. being "cutting edge" or not the consensus of relevant expert community and so on).

Re WP:SENSATIONAL: tabloid newspaper sources and alike weren't used there. Also (most of) the content wasn't as newish as you portray it.

Re paranormal things: I'd be somewhat interested in some link that supports your claims. I suggest you consider the possibility (I'm not saying it's like that, it's just an example!) that inducing the appearance of apparently paranormal phenomena (for example via advanced projections) can be an attempt to e.g. discredit science and reduce its credibility etc, including via provoking scientific studies of the apparently strange phenomena as well as making contemporary scientific approaches and the scientific community fail in some of the public's view etc. However, credibility of science and the framework of human knowledge (including encyclopedias) also suffers when important phenomena are ignored and not studied, people are ignorant of data, and relevant findings aren't integrated. Integrating findings in a low-quality way as you described it even or only adds to this goal of reducing credibility (again, I'm not saying this is a goal or that such phenomena have any real physical basis). This is why they should be integrated in a good way, such as in line with WP:NPOV and always clarify that this is only what person x, group y or study z concluded rather than reality and what critics are suggesting. I think Wikipedia's coverage of ufology in the Pentagon UFO videos and the recent revers in Ufology a) violate Wikipedia policies and b) reduce said credibility (with effects on public trust and support in science). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible motivations for inducing the appearance of apparently paranormal phenomena is kind of a broad hypothetical, but I suppose it could be applied to anything from classified Electronic Warfare systems that generate false visual effects and sensor data for tactical advantage…to James Randi’s Project Alpha (hoax) to illuminate the folly of pathological science. An attempt to discredit and reduce public confidence in mainstream science would be the least likely possible motivation I’d consider, but hey, that’s just me. My opinion of the issues regarding paranormal enthusiasts on Wikipedia was based on my own observations over the years, but off the top of my head, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases, Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, Brian Josephson, and Craig Weiler are some linkable examples. As for the rest, I'll just say Wikipedia takes its cue from high quality journals in a range of relevant communities as to what studies of what phenomena are "important". I'm sorry if that is a bit too brief, but that topic is better discussed in specifics at article Talk pages rather than generalities on user Talk. Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Academic_research_about_UFOs_and_related_phenomena. [1] Without secondary or tertiary sources which identify these ufology claims as "academic research" that is worthy of note, Wikipedia cannot be in the business of producing such original content. jps (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I did not insert "unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article" or violate violate Wikipedia's no original research policy or not use "secondary or tertiary sources". If there are small bits of the article you find undue for some reason, you could change them. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was wholly WP:SYNTHetic and a complete violation of Wikipedia policy. jps (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You and @Kwamikagami: you can't just delete an article without giving any reason or because you don't like it. The rationale given was "rd content fork. This isn't "academic", it's just silly.". However,

• you are supposed to cite Wikipedia polices and adhere to them, not delete things you find "silly" and with that as explanation
• it's not a content fork, I wrote basically all of that anew (nearly all of it except parts of a transclusion) and it's not the topic of the redirected-to article (also there's e.g. Effects of climate change and Effects of climate change on oceans ...or Herpes simplex research, Spinal cord injury research, NASA research, Artificial neuron, Academic study of video games as a medium, etc despite of their larger-order topic parent/related article)
• if you find the article's title inappropriate you could move it or propose another name
• the article used WP:RS like articles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, scientific studies via secondary sources, CNN, the BBC, The Guardian, etc (check the References section / the refs!)
• it does not violate WP:Synth, why would it? It did not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". Again, please explain why it would "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" or otherwise violate that policy. For example, you could have expanded the section "Research about the status of the field" if you found it too short and in the lead already it said "In the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, the topic is considered by some scientists to be a pseudoscience or a topic not worth of scientific effort, while other scientists consider such to be a potential technosignature to actively look for or investigate." (there one could add that also in other fields scientists consider it pseudoscience as well as not worth academic research). -> I'd like to revert the deletion after making some changes to the article such as changing the title and expanding the lead, so please let me know which things you find undue and why and be aware of this instead of trying to outright block me then (and even though it's actually you who is violating the policies). Here is the draft: Draft:Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena
• I will take this to some admin's board or so if you blatantly violate Wikipedia policies like this. If one-purpose accounts control decisions there via majority kind of voting-style decision-making, then it's at least documented that you have been violating Wikipedia policies and were accused of such. Again, please adhere to Wikipedia policies (mainly WP:DEL), which I did in that new article.

Prototyperspective (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts off looking like it might be a NPOV coverage of serious investigation of UFOs, and therefore encyclopedic. But after the lead it degenerates into garbage. "There's something out there we don't understand. We should investigate" is one thing. "There's something out there we don't understand. They must therefore be inter-dimensional beings or time-travelers" is just putting stupidity into Wikipedia's own voice, no different than claiming Trump is orange because he's a lizard. If a responsible WP editor feels there's something worth saving in what you posted, they're free to do so. Some of the material, presented with proper WP:WEIGHT, may be worth saving. But as it was, I judged the article to be so dominated by blatant nonsense that it wasn't worth trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. — kwami (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We should investigate" is one thing. "There's something out there we don't understand. They must therefore be inter-dimensional beings or time-travelers"" is not something the article says / alludes to and I very much oppose these hypotheses and find them ridiculous. What's your opinion doesn't matter as much as Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:DEM and WP:NPOV. I'm not sure what your actual concerns or issues with the article are and don't know why you read it this way.

@JoJo Anthrax What I intended to say is that you should adhere to WP:DEM and that you appear to me as routinely violating WP:NPOV which you shouldn't; I'll strike that part with <strike> if that was what you referring to and apologize if you found it to be a personal attack. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I intended to say is that you should adhere to WP:DEM and that you appear to me as routinely violating WP:NPOV which you shouldn't (emphases mine). Firstly, attaching me to WP:DEM here is perplexing because I have not !voted or commented at the AfD, at least not yet, nor have I made any comment anywhere about the article in question. Secondly, and most importantly, if you truly believe I am "routinely violating" WP policies, you really should report me to ANI or AE. Otherwise, claiming that I "routinely violat[e]" WP policies is an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence, and is thus a direct violation of WP:PA. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack and wasn't meant as such – I just think, and I could be wrong about this, that this is not compliant with Wikipedia policies. Namely, keeping out certain content you disagree with within a largely single-topic area in a somewhat routine way. And as said, it's just how it appears to me, I haven't checked in detail if this behavior is policy-compliant, it's quite possible that it is, but imo probably not "in spirit" of WP:DEM and WP:NPOV. This is not defamatory or ad hominem, but a concern about the behavior / style of contributing / changes made. The evidence is of course your past participation in prior removals of contents, including some of mine and I don't consider it a "serious accusation" as long as I don't submit it to ANI/AE. I think I'm allowed to express these concerns, if not you can delete that part of my comment and I apologize. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me, without any evidence whatsoever, of "routinely violating" WP policies is a personal attack. And no, you are not "allowed to express these concerns" without any evidence. Either take me to ANI/AE immediately, or self-revert those claims. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As said, the evidence is your contribution history of a large amount of past removals of contents in this topic-domain. Not any few particular diffs. It's not a personal attack and I think I'm allowed to express such concerns and I'm not required to take you to ANI/AE. If you think that is not the case please cite which part of the policy would apply. I will strike them though and apologize if you feel offended, I do believe you want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia and have good intentions. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are unhappy about the ongoing AfD here, but your comment therein, Along with a circle of other guardkeepers, is an unhelpful personal attack. Please strike that comment. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Fringe science. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. The term "fringe science" is nowhere mentioned in the sources you cited. jps (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I wasn't sure about that one...that's why I put "seems notable here" in the edit summary. You don't need to make a talk page post about that revert.

Here are some refs about UAP investigations & theories not being fringe anymore in general if you'd like to ignore statements by director of national intelligence Avril Haines, NASA administrator Bill Nelson, refs/statements of former section "Status as a field" (that section was only added to address criticisms as far as I could understand them despite lack of specificity), to some degree statements by many others (Obama etc) & news reports that clearly indicated such, and this public survey because they aren't explicit in terms of using the word "fringe":

No longer confined to the fringe, UFO theories move into the mainstream [2], Ufology: From Fringe Field to Serious Science For decades, academic researchers have dismissed the study of UFOs as pseudoscience. But as the evidence becomes harder and harder to ignore, some organizations are finally taking steps to make the field legitimate. [3] the US government was finally taking seriously what for so long was considered a fringe issue. [4] a landmark sign that this previously fringe topic has gained mainstream acceptance [5] Scientific investigations must be open to all possibilities. ... However, this new willingness to assess possibilities that had been dismissed as fringe ideas may have a cost. [6] Rubio’s comments add support to other calls to treat possible UFO sightings with legitimacy rather than as fringe beliefs, a recent shift that [7]. (and there are more)

I don't find this info necessary or highly relevant to add to the AfD, but maybe you see that differently. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No academic papers? Color me surprised. Obviously surveys of the public do not mean anything when it comes to deciding whether an idea is WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying necessarily all the parts of the article are not relevant to WP:FRINGE. Maybe some of them are. That's another reason for why secondary WP:RS are so heavily (and sufficiently!) used. Academic studies are rarely interested in whether an idea is fringe or not. What I found is: How does bringing a previously fringe belief into the mainstream affect public opinion? This paper investigates the possibility that official legitimization of a hypothesis long relegated to the margins softens public attitudes toward those who [8] It is in this particular historical context that the UFO phenomenon was able to advance from marginalized knowledge to mainstream discourses regardless of criticism and ridicule. [9] And so, in the span of a few months, a topic long confined to the tabloids and fringe media had become a “serious news story” as the Post asserted in its coverage last year, shortly after it published Mellon’s op-ed. [10]/[11]. As far as I can tell, the entire former (before the mass deletion) article would meet the criteria at that policy, so personally I don't consider it necessary to show that the general topic apparently isn't really fringe by default entirely in principle anymore. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly advise you to stop your pointless entirely undiscussed fucking around with the article title in the middle of the AfD. Such behaviour can only reasonably be interpreted as either intentionally disruptive, or as (further) evidence of a lack of competence to edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have done so if a user didn't have deleted most of the article in the midst of the AfD with the rationale They don't count as academic studied and there are no reliable sources that identify them as such. The move was to address his point, albeit due to WP:RS imo not necessary. I think deleting most of the article despite WP:RS is disruptive, especially given the WP:RS and discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So moving the page twice within a few minutes, leaving it with a title at the end that means the essentially same thing anyway, 'addresses' a point? Incompetence, pure and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the point made was rather weak but think addressing it anyway would be best. Stop calling things incompetent, and make policy-based-specific arguments. Yes, it does address his point that he personally does not "count" them as "academic" studies(/research) despite of the WP:RS. I'm allowed to move pages as far as I know and I moved it a second time to make it even broader to ensure the content is really appropriate in terms of his criticism. Your revert is incompatible with WP:RS (and WP:NPOV). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my revert (or the edits made by the contributor who originally made them) is incompatible with WP:RS or WP:NPOV (or any other policy), feel free to raise that matter at WP:ANI. Where I shall gladly respond, providing ample evidence of your inability to either understand or comply with said policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a page to address my point is one of the best examples of moving the goalposts I have ever seen. So kudos to that. It shall be used in the future when dealing with WP:PROFRINGE advocates, for sure. jps (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"moving the goalposts" means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress I think you have a false understanding of Wikipedia editing, it is not a competition.

The move was to address your point, albeit due to WP:RS imo not necessary. Your removals are very clearly and definitely incompliant with Wikipedia policies like WP:RS and WP:NPOV now – I think they already were before the page rename, but they certainly are now. You can call it whatever you like and it doesn't matter if it's "moving the goalposts". The page title can be changed during AfD faik and there are valid reasons to do so which I provided. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. What we have here is a failure to communicate. I think we're done. You just don't get it. jps (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my comment at the AfD, I notice you get offended when someone brings up competence. On Wikipedia, competence is a thing - see WP:CIR. However, let's just chalk it up to inexperience on your part. I recommend taking heed of the feedback from other editors who are long term contributors to this project. This does not mean they need to get bogged down discussing what you think are the main issues. Also, reliable sources are not a guarantee of notability or inclusion for a topic. WP:GNG says:

"...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation...despite their existence as reliable sources. (underline is mine)

Well, I hope this helps.----Steve Quinn (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, finally a somewhat specific explanation why the article wouldn't be suitable.

• As is, it's not sufficient rationale though. I think the relevant part you refer to here is perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. – I then would like to ask which specific part of "what Wikipedia is not" you think it is incompatible with?
• I have pointed out why exactly it is suitable with cited policies. Editors asking for deletion have so far, in cases where this hasn't been solved, have only cited policies. They did so without referring to any specific part of the article and/or policy. They did not really specify their concerns so that they can be understood and solved or objective reasonable policy-based rationale per WP:DEM.
• Please stop assuming I have no competence and haven't read or understood these policies. That is an easy way to just discard everything I say and what policies are saying. Instead, please make specific points.

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been bringing up WP:DEM. That is not what is happening at the AfD. It is WP:CONSENSUS that is happening at the AfD. Participants have given salient policy related arguments, which is not the same as simply voting yea or nay. So WP:DEM appears to be a misperception. Please also see WP:IVOTE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have added a part of this quote at the deletion discussion, at the same time accusing me of "bludgeoning" as potential "disruptive behavior" and quoting more in-depth discussion.

I wasn't "bludgeoning" but adressed points as far as these could be called points at all and asked for specific arguments / policy-based specific points.

Basically these two things contradict. Moreover, I'm only commenting this much and lengthy because editors just don't get to any specific points where they refer to any specific part of the article or aspect of it and/or policy.

Making a claim like this article does not meet WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVFORK or linking to such policies is not a salient policy related argument in itself...at least when counterpoints were raised – you need to add a little info why that would be the case. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because WP:PROFRINGE is a guideline, which is a short hand for relevant policies such as WP:NOR which, I believe, includes WP:SYNTH. WP:POVFORK is also a guideline, which is probably short hand for WP:NPOV, another policy. Guidelines have weight on Wikipedia during discussions. If you want to view a hierarchy of sorts, it is 1. Policies. 2. Guidelines and 3. Essays. However, since guidelines are short hand for policies, then I would say they are probably equal. Some essays are often linked in discussions because they probably have wide agreement and are a useful shorthand. For example see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, why that article would conflict with these policies.

I wouldn't cite WP:RS (incl quotes) if I didn't know all that. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I haven't had the chance to go in depth on analyzing this article. I have to compare sources to content which takes a lot of time. And I don't have the time at the moment. What I do see is valuable feedback from long term contributors to this project who are productive editors. They have offered you strategies for working on the article in agreement with consensus. This means it should be a collaboration.

I have seen explanations on the Fringe Theory noticeboard page from other editors who have given you highlights about what is wrong. Also, expecting editors to get bogged down going every detail in an article like this is a lot on the expectation spectrum. Getting bogged down like that is a time sink. And time is valuable on Wikipedia. We have to count on editors creating articles with a common understanding of what constitutes suitability for inclusion. It seems from your responses you are not aligned with this common understanding. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very agree and understand this common understanding, my time is valuable too². This is precisely why I'd like to hear actually constructive and specific and policy-aligned arguments.

Also "productive" usually refers to producing content, not continuously removing content / keeping certain content out, which many other editors have already complained about (I'd argue more often than not for good reasons), but that's another topic.

You don't necessarily need to go very in-depth with the article, just validate your claims by checking the article first to make a substantiated criticism/claim, instead of making claims without anything specific that backs it up. Note that I'm not saying there was no valuable feedback at all.

²in terms of contributing to Wikipedia, I'd like to work on completely unrelated important topics such as topics of climate change which I can't due to endless lengthy rather vacuous discussions. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, what I mean by "common understanding" is "common understanding of what constitutes suitability for inclusion." Not common understanding about time. You may have understood that but I just want to be sure. So, what I mean by not being aligned with this common understanding is you are arguing against the consensus view of long term productive editors. Also, productive editors are not simply content creators. Productive editors adhere to policy and guidelines pertaining to content on Wikipedia. There are editors who eschew policy and guidelines, and I would not call these editors productive. Of course your comment might be a sardonic one regarding productive editors who are "continuously removing content / keeping certain content out." Sometimes humor doesn't translate well on a discussion page. (underline mine) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Science Barnstar
		Given in recognition of work on a science article on a difficult topic that was deleted. Your efforts are appreciated, and given how fast perceptions on that topic have changed in the past five years, it’s quite likely you will be judged in the future as ahead of the curve. Cheers and best wishes, Jusdafax (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Prototyperspective/Academic research about UFOs and related phenomena during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Prototyperspective/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sundostund (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not kidding about this warning. This is the second time you have done this and we have plenty of evidence to indicate that you are acting in defiance of WP:OWN, WP:SPA, and WP:ADVOCACY. It is okay to collaborate, but if you return to the behavior that happened the last time, I will have no choice but to escalate. jps (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NPOV and WP:RS, you are not free to for no reason and without explanation remove large swaths of key notable WP:RS-sourced content. This is more than the second time you have done this. I don't see how any of these policies is related to my contributions, I do think you haven't checked because I don't think you'd really believe this if you had checked. But I do see how there may be an issue with WP:SPA, and quite possibly WP:ADVOCACY too, with your editing of nearly only contents considered "fringe". Prototyperspective (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content promoting fringe perspectives is not 'advocacy'. Persistently creating article content promoting fringe perspectives is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not promote any perspective/s and adheres to WP:NPOV (to which you don't adhere). If there are very few minor issues, they were not intentional and you are welcome to correct them, but that's not what the latest large-scale removal was
• It is not "fringe".
• It's certainly relevant to WP:SPA and I said only "quite possibly" also WP:ADVOCACY – Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view is what him and a very small partly-organized (on the fringe noticeboard for example) group of other possibly somewhat SPA editors may quite possibly violate with all the removals of content related to topics you consider fringe (many of these are fringe) even when the content is perfectly fine with all policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:FRIND and the removals are largely unexplained and not in line with policies.

Prototyperspective (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That response alone seems quite sufficient to justify a trip to WP:ANI. I'll give you half an hour to retract it and apologise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize, retracted Prototyperspective (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you strike out the retracted text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know which parts you are referring to. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have 'retracted' them then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I retract everything there that concerns you. If you feel like that's needed you can strike through the reply in its entirety. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting only the unfounded allegations above that appear to refer to me alone is insufficient. You are suggesting that multiple Wikipedia contributors have been systematically violating policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't saying or suggesting that nor was I not having WP:AGF, I think you misunderstood me, sorry if I was so unclear. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't suggesting that ජපස and "a very small partly-organized...group" were engaging in advocacy, that they were "SPA", or that they "possibly violate" core policies? I find that hard to believe, given that you've just written exactly that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding some up-to-date stats to Cancer#Prevention. I moved the AMPK bit to a subarticle (the main article is about 9600 words today, which means that it would take longer than half an hour to read it from top to bottom, which in turn means that basically nobody will actually read it).

Would you be willing to tackle the self-contradictions around cancer prevention stats in that article? I was looking at this diff a while ago and thinking that the numbers at the top of that edit don't match the numbers elsewhere in the article. Replacing all of them with the same set of up-to-date, global stats would be a valuable contribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, can understand that. It probably should get reduced in size even more, not just trimming new edits but by checking what and how it could get shortened in general. I think a main issue of Wikipedia today is that many articles are long and are mostly not read due to that, I already thought quite a bit about how to address it and so far I think that (beyond moving in-depth things to sub-articles albeit these are often barely read if not transcluded) it's mostly:

• making articles easily/well skimmable – this includes first and foremost having many section (sub)headers for short sections each, but also having a well-working TOC (e.g. auto-expanding/collapsing it when scrolling if it's long), making use of the bold font styling for keywords and more often using bullet points
• having more explanatory images (and this also makes it more easily skimmable)
• having very brief (& high-quality) summaries on top of every section

Would be interested in what you think about this if you have any thoughts on these and related things.

I think one issue is that readers may in some cases not be used to checking the TOC to see which parts are of interest or don't usually skim through articles instead of slowly going from top to bottom without much of an idea what they're looking for etc. I think research into how to make articles shorter / more skimmable / easier to make people find (the) contents of interest to them etc could be very useful.

Another thing is if these ways are effective, how could they get implemented at scale...if they can be implemented via code changes, we'd need more developers because it currently usually takes 5 years until even basic simpler issues are implemented, if they need editors to make changes to articles, how would sufficiently many become aware of these things and implement them, especially as it's not as fun as also adding new content to articles.

_

Getting back to the moved content in specific, I think AMPK should definitely at least be wikilinked / mentioned with three words or so somewhere (not in the See also section) in the main article...it's not just related to nutrition in terms of food (but also e.g. pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals and the general main underlying biological mechanisms of cancer). I'll revisit the page later. Concerning the stats, the new GBD study should have percentages in it, Prototyperspective (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The general concept, when we get serious about an article, is to use Wikipedia:Summary style. Cancer has done some of that, but one not infrequently finds that there are details put in the "popular" article that never make it into the detailed article.

BTW, in terms of making articles a little more skimmable, I wonder if you like this new view better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer?useskin=vector-2022 The table of contents is on the side, and sticks with you when you scroll through the article. do you think it would make people more likely to check the TOC? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I just linked the Galileo Project article to the new Draft:Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies article. I was surprised and heartened to see Galileo Project finally having its own article, which is entirely appropriate. Last time I checked, it was just a subsection of Avi Loeb's. Great work for getting that up. AtomicAardvark (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from COVID-19 pandemic into COVID-19 pandemic deaths. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and thanks for your note. A main reason for why I didn't put this in the edit summary is because I thought I wrote either most or all of it myself earlier, but I haven't checked and this (modified) part may have gotten written by somebody else: Such deaths also include, for example, deaths due to healthcare capacity constraints and priorities, as well as reluctance to seek care (to avoid possible infection). Template:CC-notice seems really useful, not sure if it would be useful if I/people add that to all the refs of studies that have that license. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Research in lithium-ion batteries, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Content attributable only to a university press release and a primary scholarly article would be original research, and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. I see from here on your talk page this is not the first time you've been warned about primary vs secondary sources. Please be more careful. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your note. I thought there were more secondary sources – this doesn't happen often and I'll try to be more careful, sorry about it. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discovery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neuroenhancement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valerian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairness.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moratorium.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Summary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop filling entries with such enormous detail? Some of them are ludicrously excessive. You were told about this before. They should be 1 or 2 lines maximum. Not five or six, accompanied by half a dozen references, as you seem to do in many cases. Please keep entries concise. Wjfox2005 (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep it as brief as possible. I'll make it even briefer. However, how short something can be describes depends a lot on the item too, for example I would have summarized most other items as brief as they are or in many cases even briefer. That's not adequately possible even when using the {{tooltip}} template for other items.

I only use two references per item and thought about cutting that to one per item albeit some may then complain about further references being required. It's not "enormous" detail. Maybe you are referring to the AI item which was an exception partly because a lot of things happened at once and it is not adequate to just focus on and name one specific product/technology while ignoring other similar developments. You could just edit things to make them shorter but not in a way that makes it nonneutrally promote one specific product/tech. I already tried to keep it as brief as possible and already clarified in the edit summary that last month was a bit exceptional.

Again, many if not most of the existing items are easily described in one brief sentence. Not so much for some other items which are usually/often both much more significant and have received much more media attention. My 2020 proposal for separating the items into three categories per month would also have addressed this issue. But yes, I'll work on the length problem. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Prototyperspective I hope you are well. The above review has been waiting for a while - would you be able to complete it? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks...I don't know how to complete and also don't know whether I can do so, as I have contributed to that article and have never completed a DYK before. If I can do so regardless, please let me know how but I think it would probably be better if you asked somebody else.

I encourage you to submit dozens of additional DYKs for info in "Effects of climate change" or any of its subarticles afterwards. There's so much important info that can be communicated in very brief DYK blurbs and currently the DYKs largely consist of completely irrelevant noninteresting content. Have a good time. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prototyperspective. Thank you for your work on Air travel demand reduction. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. However, no article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Fixing it would be great for this article. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a public place. Accidentally clicked a link while trying to click a diff. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm popping by to request the same thing. The links are unnecessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for that. It was clearly marked as being explicit/porn/possible porn and I thought it could be good or necessary because a) otherwise users may not believe it in terms of relevance etc (without any concrete illustrating links) and b) I though adding some further supporting links was needed. Generally I wouldn't do so and won't do that again. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prototyperspective. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Transportation policy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prototyperspective. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Advertising restrictions, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prototyperspective: I reviewed this article and I notice you didn't page numbers in. I put one in one references, but several others don't seem to have it. Also Ref 5 is damaged and not been fixed. I'm reluctant to pass the review unless these are fixed. Its a shame as such interesting softwar, its so weird and strange. I love this kind of stuff. scope_creep^Talk 17:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Nice to see somebody also interested in this. I've put page numbers in as well where it made sense when they were shown in the source document. The issue with page numbers is that multiple parts of a document may be be relevant, not just one, and that a citation can be used at multiple places in the article where different parts are relevant. I thought that it would be nice if it was possible to specify – or easily specify using the conventional citation templates – the page number at the place where a source is cited by ref-name. I don't think it's that useful or needed but there's times where the same source is cited multiple times referring to different pages each where this would be useful. In this case on can simply Ctrl+F for arguman/argüman in the cited source. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Prototyperspective, I read your posts and comments on Reddit^{[12] [13]} and I was curious about your thoughts on my proposal for a new Wikimedia project called Wikimedia Commons AI. It seems that you have a lot of understanding of artificial intelligence! I look forward to hearing your response! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) ^{(discover the power of thankfulness!)} – 10:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for letting me know – it's certainly interesting. I have some ideas in regards to how AI could be used to support and enhance Wikipedia but I can't do that on my own and currently there seems to be quite an unwelcoming environment for AI developers so things like that would need to be done sensibly and can easily misunderstood or worse. I've glanced over quite some AI research and have been thought about the broader subject for many years, contributing also to debates about risks and ethics. I'll probably leave some feedback there but I currently think it's somewhat redundant to Wikimedia Commons, specifically because WMC already has a well-working category system where until two weeks or so ago I made sure all media made using AI is in the category Commons:AI-generated media. It could thus be easily excluded or explored and maintained separate from other contents there. Hence I don't know why this would be needed as opposed to better organization and changes to WMC. For example something I proposed was having a tag for images made using AI or even requiring all such images to only be in AU-specific categories so that it's clear already from the category page / the thumbnail or file-title that it's not a human-manually-made image/video. Moreover, it would make such contents much less findable and prominent even when they could be very useful or the AI aspect is not that large – for example redubbed videos using reviewed machine translation transcripts to AI-generated voice. I think a better approach would be something like a WikiProject for Wikimedia Commons or Wikimedia. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! My philosophy is that AI-generated expressions should be strictly separated from human-created expressions, to make the separation between humans and AI clearer. Humans are always very competitive and want everything to be better and more perfect. Someday, there will be some kind of battle over who is better at making art, and AI will win. AI art will become superior to human art. Man-made art will no longer stand out among all the more "perfect" AI-generated art. At least that's what I fear. Which is why I think human art should be protected. S. Perquin (talk) ^{(discover the power of thankfulness!)} – 13:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human art isn't endangered by AI and AI art is human art to some degree as well for two reasons: it draws upon human art through its training (it's like summarizing combined elements of human art according to the prompt) and it's directed via skillful prompting by a human. That AI art will be better in most cases or overall is speculation and irrelevant. There is no clear separation for the reasons provided and even if there was, that's not a good reason for putting these media on an isolated project where they're just buried, hard to organize, and barely findable. On top of all of this there can be conventionally manual art where just some relatively small segments of the workflow is done by AI or where just one part of the image is done by the AI. Human art is just transformed into something that is more efficient and productive in terms of not just workflows but also which subjects and activities humans spend their time on (e.g. ideation, post-generation editing, sketching, drawing specific parts of an image, drawing specific subjects, etc). Lastly, having AI art on a separate project I think doesn't "protect" traditional fully-manual art in any way. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 in science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindawi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged with {{Clarify}} a couple of sentences that you wrote (and that I moved) in the paragraph about Kialo in Argument map § Development of computer-supported argument visualization. Could you try to improve the tagged sentences? I'm not familiar enough with Kialo to edit these sentences into a more comprehensible form, but perhaps you could take another shot at it. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I just edited it to make it clearer. The image on the right side of it helps to illustrate these things further. Here is some further info. Let me know if something is still unclear. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of computing 2020–present, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mind reading.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You've been adding links to Kialo discussions to the external links on various articles, but I don't believe a Kialo discussion meets any of the criteria under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Could you let me know which of those criteria you consider the links to meet? Thanks. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to […] amount of detail. An overview of arguments structured into a relational diagram format is very useful to these articles and more useful than most of the other external links in that section. Also Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis have you determined that the participants in a Kialo discussion qualify as 'knowledgeable sources'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claims there often contain links to such but the main point is the former quote. You can ignore the second quote or consider that it says "…still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". Prototyperspective (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see that argument getting far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that this a useful resource as a map/tree of structured arguments. It's not a linear list of arguments (or even a random news article on the subject that e.g. supports any particular editor's point of view which are common in these section); it has a relational structure and makes it possible to quickly get an overview of significant scrutinizable/scrutinized arguments on a subject. This is useful for many reasons. What I wrote above only addressed JaggedHamster's concern whether the links can meet the EL guidelines. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a check for 'cancer' and the first thing I see is a statement "Trans women can and do develop breast cancer and survivors or trans women fighting breast cancer would likely need access to women-only breast cancer support groups", based on a weird reading of a source. It's almost as if the poster doesn't know that men can get breast cancer too. It seems anybody can create an account and start writing rubbish. The thought it might be useful to wikipedia is just too absurd. Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake adding some links to useful debates there to imply that all argument maps there are of good quality.

In regards to this quite irrelevant example, I suggest you take a look at the context of this claim since the subject may be something entirely different and if it's indeed as false as you think it is considering its context (which I doubt; the user probably knows very well men can get cancer) add a comment beneath it requesting a mod to delete this argument and/or remove the link to the debate from the Wikipedia article where it's linked from due to quality-issues (it's not linked anywhere). This is just a far-fetched example, based on a very limited understanding how to navigate the site, to make the site seem never-useful where one could do the same with Wikipedia even though it's usually useful and of high quality. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources remain unreliable, regardless of how they are structured, and regardless of whether it is possible for some random contributor to request that the content be changed. This is linkspam to an oddly-structured forum, nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing about whether it's a reliable source or not because it isn't and because it's irrelevant.

Links in the external links don't have to be reliable sources and if you thought so so far you are wrong. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of weirdly-structured forums where random contributors pretend to be knowledgeable about random subjects. Feel free to point me to policy that says otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It runs afoul of WP:ELNO 2 and 10, at least. Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kialo arguments tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Kialo ID not in Wikidata indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're awesome! LuiBaum (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prototyperspective. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Online semi-censorship, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prototyperspective. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Advertising restrictions".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prototyperspective. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Transportation policy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally created a Wikibook about my idea for Wikiphilosophers (see https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiphilosophers). Would you perhaps like to think about and contribute to this as well? I look forward to hearing from you! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) ^{(discover the power of thankfulness!)} – 02:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikibooks turned out not to be the right place for Wikiphilosophers, it can now be found on Wikiversity! See https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiphilosophers! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) ^{(discover the power of thankfulness!)} – 20:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prototyperspective. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Online semi-censorship".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for registration your wish here. I looked for a short description about differences to some existing projects. Probably I did not read carefully enough. Probably a short description (Aims and goals and how it works) would be helpful. F.e. when I find an existing article in another language I can translate in browser (became also better). The problem ist to find it: Searching in German and find, that there is an article in any other language. Interface to Wikidata may probably solve it. And when you translate in advance and store permanently in WP the problem is, that all updates will not be included. Am I right when you have a solution: User with language A does a search for topic T in his language, finds a WP Article in language B (Wikidata based) and can translate in real time to his language A? --Wortulo (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and thanks for reaching out. The image at the top right of the proposal on meta that has outline (tl;dr) in the caption summarizes most of the basics quite succinctly. It also explains how it would work.
The differences to merely autotranslation in the browser are made clear in the proposal. One of the key differences is the post-editing by which auto-translations can be adjusted or corrected. Correction-diffs are used to improve the MT model and to autocorrect very similar occurrences and/or flag phrases for human review. Yes, discoverability and real-world readership are also a major difference – these pages would be findable in the Wikimedia search as well as Web search engines similar to regular Wikipedia pages but probably on some separate site. If there's no German article if you search for search term wiki no wiki page shows up but with this the MTWP page would show up using the content from the best-quality article on the subject. There are further differences. It would probably also be possible to switch to a MT version in one's preferred language when reading an article in any language using the language dropdown.
Translated articles being out of sync is a main reason for this proposal (or for why it would be really useful), it's explained in the bulletpoint list at the top of the proposal. No, that's not right: it's not translated in real-time. It gets synced so the MT article stays in sync with the source article but the post-editing corrections remain getting applied. So the MT article is always no less than let's say 1 month outdated (out of sync) assuming the source article was edited in that time. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UUUH, thanks for your answer :-) I am a "DAU" (in German the silliest acceptable user and common - that all explanations must be as comprehensible as possible). I would still like to see a general short summary. Illustrations are usually only supplements. As I understand it now, this is a huge human effort - to select articles and its postediting. In DE:WP f.e. we think, that we are the best. Translation process follows strict rules before implementing such articles. Nevertheless EN:WP has more articles (and different in content). Both is so in other languages. The search problem is only one and should be improved. But I'm unsure about the effort involved: who should do it (loss of authors) and whether it will be so easy to adopt in the target language. I wish you every success - but I think you should still work out the resources and consequences for the existing - easy to understand. Wortulo (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, glad to see interest. I think DAU translates to silliest assumable (or expectable) user. The diagram is the short summary. maybe I should make it larger so it can be read directly and/or add a paragraph to the top of the proposal. It's not an illustration. No articles are selected by humans. Machine translations from English are by now largely quite good (it depends on the length, style of writing and subject of the article). There is nearly nothing as productive and efficient as what's suggested there – manual translation is what's draining volunteer/time resources so this may salvage some of these while making interlanguage activities x times more efficient. I don't think there's anything policy-unrelated that the movement could do that would have nearly as much of a real-world impact and the effort-impact ration is unprecedented even when considering the Web at large. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Silliest ACCEPTABLE means, that it is still enough to understand, over the borderline, you can accept in discussion. Below is more (assumable or expectable) but unable to explain and understand :-) Wortulo (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Prototyperspective, you have pretty impressive timelines here. Do you think Timeline of Ufology is worth keeping? It seems like that you uploaded the figure from Limina: Journal of UAP studies on wikimedia, so you are probably personally invested in the field. Just want to get some opinion from you on how useful/hopeless that the timeline of ufology is at the current stage. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a year or so I thought about creating the same article so I think it's worth keeping. Also see here. Please don't get frustrated how things are handled on WP when it comes to this subject area and continue contributing. Thanks for this article, your contributions, and for letting me know. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think in 2022 it wouldn't worth the effort, but it seems that even in late 2024, it's still pushing buttons. There are a lot of scientific developments to make these observations credible and scalable that the fringe noticeboard people are just not seeing nor understanding. It triggered the fringe board folks this time, while it should be assigned to the astronomy/aviation board. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]