User talk:BrigadierG

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reverting metaverse article rewrite

I manually reverted your edits to the page on metaverse since your changes deleted well-sourced descriptions of various implementations in favor of fluffing up more recent developments that have largely been unrealized, incomplete, or otherwise heavily marketed with little substance. It gave undue weight to the (non)progress of Roblox and Fortnite metaverse developments, with a needless insertion of player count info and other marketing drivel. Your deletions also took out significant well-sourced criticisms of the metaverse, and added a somewhat extraneous mention of the Khronos Group. It's important to keep the scope of the article on the metaverse, and not virtual reality developments at large (they are not one and the same, metaverses have been around for decades without it). As such, I reverted your bold changes. Now for the good that I saw in your edits, there was some mention of the metaverse having conflicting descriptions and definitions, and that would be a helpful detail to flesh out in the article (since it has popularly become many different things). Have a nice day. Mewnst (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed, you are deleting well-sourced links and "took out significant well-sourced criticisms of the metaverse" and are going overweight on unrealized/under-developed areas of the metaverse with extraneous mentions of specific projects with considerable "marketing drivel," as mentioned by Mewnst --ScholarCode (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I haven't made any edits to the Metaverse article in over a month, and the changes I did make gained consensus via the talk page initially, I'm gonna guess this response is just reactionary to the warning I left on your talk page yesterday. Obviously we assume good faith on Wikipedia, but this reply encouraged me to look a little more closely at your edit history, and it seems like pretty much all of your edits are just Wikipedia:REFSPAM of your own articles which don't pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you have problems with my edits to the Metaverse article, open a thread on the talk page.
BrigadierG (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear that I disapprove of ScholarCode's invocation of our minor reference dispute. They do seem to be blatantly promoting some self-authored preprint. Mewnst (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Your GA nomination of Metaverse

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Metaverse you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period, or to track the GA review progress, via the assessment page. Thank you! UnidentifiedX (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Metaverse

The article Metaverse you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Metaverse for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of UnidentifiedX -- UnidentifiedX (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

If a user has added extra information with a credible source please do not just revert an edit just because it doesn't appeal to you. AtishT20 (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did so because the IP in question is relatively unambiguously WP:NOTHERE as far as Pakistan is concerned, with a talk page covered in warnings for vandalising articles about Pakistan. I removed the WP:WTW language and moved the source into the travel section to match other articles in the same series. BrigadierG (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, just as you did on Arkon's page it appears that you have added this warning not because the editor did anything wrong but because you disagreed with what appears to be a perfectly reasonable edit that you didn't like. As I noted before, the irony is that you don't have any of these awareness notices on your own talk page nor a self declared notice. Perhaps you should add the awareness template to your own talk page. Springee (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many ways to show one is aware of a DS area, one of which is participating in cases on that area at WP:ARE, as I have done.
The fact is, I place notices when new editors place controversial edits in THE GENSEX area whether I agree with those edits or not. For the current DS regime to work, this function is required (unfortunately); believe me, I would rather see an update to the regime. Hell, I placed a notice on the Talk page of one of the ArbCom members who !voted in the last changes to the sanction when their AWARENESS had expired.
Also, are you staying my edits for some reason? Newimpartial (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting /s/developer/editor

About this revert. I oppose this change but don't want to do reverts of reverts without a discussion.

A software editor (short for editing company when talking about a business) develops and commercializes software, while a developer only develops the software and might distribute their work with external publishers/providers.

This distinction is rarely needed because "software company" is broad enough, but if the development role is to be mentioned, then editor is more appropriate given Mosaic Group activities. Freedatum (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for reaching out to discuss.
I don't think "software editing" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this kind of activity. I'm a software engineer working at a startup and I've never heard the term used before. You might maintain software, you might develop software, you might publish, update, patch, release, create, or deprecate software, but never "edit" it (even if that is literally what you're doing to the source code). When I search google for "software editing companies" I mainly find lists of no-code tools and not software companies that focus on acquisitions + maintaining existing software.
What would change my view on this subject is evidence of mainstream outlets or popular, recent academic sources dividing commercial activities in this way. BrigadierG (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wut?

Please edit/retract this. Polygnotus (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? BrigadierG (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your userpage it says: "I don't take this stuff too seriously. If you ever catch me acting like a nerd, please trout me appropriately." This is it. We disagree about something so silly and tiny and you are taking it way too seriously. Polygnotus (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I was, admittedly, acting somewhat like a nerd on that talk page. I think you're wrong and your arguments are bad, but https://xkcd.com/386/ is eternal. Probably due a TROUT per my own bar, but I stand behind everything in that comment. BrigadierG (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically I probably am wrong (I get 49% on a good day). But I do assume you are a goodfaithed person and I am not casting any aspersions. I just disagree with you about something tiny. Polygnotus (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the "something you just made up" that rubbed me the wrong way. I (at least believe I) was making an argument from policy, so to say I was making stuff up seems like an assumption of bad faith. BrigadierG (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it but like... this is clearly a limitation of using written text as a form of communication. We are on the same team and we agree about a billion things. Just because you are wrong on this one thing doesn't mean we can't have friendly banter. The policy you are referring to is about how we write articles on Wikipedia; not how we interpret sources because even reliable sources give undue attention to trivial stuff (but I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense that this is a difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia). I've read quite a bit of the WP:PAGs and as far as I remember they don't say anything about the location of a sentence relative to the length of a source (but if they do, cool, TIL). If I want to cast aspersions or ABF I can do way way better than That's just something you made up, right? If you look at the aspersions page they are talking about participation in criminal acts, membership in groups which take part in such acts, or other actions that might reasonably be found morally reprehensible in a civilized society. Polygnotus (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to re-litigate, I think we're talking past each other. I wasn't talking about the length of the source, I was talking about the length of Persson's article. IE a sentence in a long article carries less weight than a sentence in a short article. That's why I mention DUE. The amount of word count an aspect of a topic gets should get should be proportional to its contribution to the whole, and that becomes stricter the shorter the article becomes. If Persson's article had less to say, I would agree commenting on Mensa might be undue. It's pretty trivial stuff though.BrigadierG (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But... you were talking about the location of the sentence that mentions his alleged Mensa membership relative to the length of the source (half way through & at end of article).... see here and even compared to the description of his appearance here. Polygnotus (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The location relative to the length is my clunky way of saying "its position". Is it near the top or the bottom or in the middle. But there are no PAGs that say that that is important. Hence my comment about making it up. DUE is about how Wikipedia is written, the sources do not follow our rules/policies/guidelines. Polygnotus (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote out a relatively long response about defining "prevalence" in terms of media coverage of celebrities, but I think instead I will drop the WP:STICK and just say it's neither here nor there and not important to resolve compared to contributing elsewhere on this site. BrigadierG (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

New page reviewer granted

Hi BrigadierG, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I hope I can make this website a better place BrigadierG (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:BrigadierG"