User talk:Shibbolethink

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobfrombrockley (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 13 April 2022 (→‎A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you're here to place a D/S notice for any topic related to science, medicine, or anything that might remotely be considered a conspiracy theory, don't bother. I'm already aware. You may point to this notice if it ever comes up.

Wikibreak

The days of <radiology elective> were long and beautiful and free, and felt like they could last forever.

Unfortunately, it was not to be. And the large flat hard wall of <actual grades> and <actual effortful work> came swiftly upon him.

Peace, love, and fun where fun is duly weighted by reliable peer-reviewed sources. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 08:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [1] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Störm

Hi, regarding Special:Diff/1078309460, I appreciate your assistance in keeping this SPI formatted corectly, but it's really best if you could let the clerks handle this kind of cleanup. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, will do. Just absent mindedly fixing things, but I understand your hesitance... My apologies for the intrusion — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For doing all the hard work of cleaning up after the much-needed The Exorcist move. — Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Daniel Case!! I appreciate the barnstar, and am glad you found the close effective/thorough. As Hannibal would say if he were a wikiholic, I love it when a good close comes together. :) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022 - Moved from Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19

moved from the talk page as WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove DUE content sourced to RS, and then give your personal opinion based on non-RS, NOTFORUM and TALKNO apply. I did not criticize your personal character, but I do question your conduct. Pious Brother (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Exorcist

Jeez, 24 pings... Anyway. You admit that your creation of the redirect is bold, Netoholic reverts it, so it's your responsibility to start a discussion; not post a +3000 byte message on the talk of the mover. Just noting that I don't have an opinion on this, and that I only moved The Exorcist (film) to The Exorcist (film series), because the restored content is indeed about a film series, not a singular film. If you think that the redirect should be retargeted to somewhere else, that's fine (and on a second thought actually correct). If you want to merge the franchise and film series articles, that's fine, but it has to be done by discussion. I just moved the article to a more appropriate title while it stands. Also regarding the templates, take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/The Exorcist (film), and say which template you still want to be changed: the old DYK noms or the testcase? ~StyyxTalk? 10:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: BRD. Yep, that's why I retracted it. My apologies for the pings!! Was just editing the original comment, That's my misunderstanding of how talk page pings work, I thought it only did on the initial edit, didn't mean to flood you.
  • But your implementation of the technical move request did need some work, as it didn't complete the circle of fixing the templates, the WLs, etc. hence my frustration having done it so meticulously. Didn't mean to take it out on you, of course.
  • Merges must not always be done by discussion, btw (uncontroversial merges can just be done BOLDly). It's only necessary because Netoholic requested the revert. I think Netoholic may have been confused about the way I merged them, not actually disputing the merge. But we will see in the ensuing merge discussion (which I already started and pinged you into, but you can contribute over here if you want).
  • The method you have described for finding the templates doesn't work in this case, since none of those templates will properly link to this article, and that's the problem I was asking you to fix. They don't currently link there, but should per the after-move procedures. The templates I was referring to were actually neither of those, but rather these: [2] [3] [4] [5]
  • At this point, you don't have to do anything because I'll just do it after the merge discussion resolves (if necessary).
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert at Azov RfC

Hi there. I just reverted your recent reformatting sources list at the RfC and wanted to offer a friendly explanation. I think we are over complicating the RfC (which is already a mess) and making it so so hard to understand for outside editors. I have no problem moving the lists as they are further up the RfC but I didn't think the reformatting was right (and made it harder for new sources to be added). Basically we need to encourage participation in an RfC and I think this did the opposite. I don't want to trash your work (which looked great BTW) but I think it worked against the purpose of an RfC. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir.copic: You need to be more careful with your "bold reverts", you also reverted his survey response adjustment: [6].--Staberinde (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted change Vladimir did to Shibbolethink survey response here: [7].--Staberinde (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic I think my change does quite the opposite! How would you suggest we provide this source review to RFC participants best? I have a hard time believing all these haphazard source lists which are cherry picked and all over the place, are better than one centralized clearinghouse — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for your brilliant work on sources at the very messy Azov talk page BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shibbolethink&oldid=1082477090"