User talk:Arcturus

You have two black metal bands in your profile unintentionally--ulver and arcturus. Just thought i'd let you know

Hi. I'm not sure what you're asking about disambiguation. RickK 04:45, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're dong it backwards. You're writing it as [[John Waters|John Waters (filmmaker)]], and it should be [[John Waters (filmmaker)|John Waters]]. RickK 22:18, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Sheldrake redux

Hi there, Arcturus. As you can see from this edit, even minor copy-editing work is still being reverted by the usual suspects. While I would hope that WP:DR would be fruitful, I'm not holding my breath. It appears Esowteric is correct that Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans and WP:FRINGE are believed by a majority of editors to trump concerns about NPOV and BLP as we see them. It's a big problem for Wikipedia that a small group of dedicated ideologues can lock down particular articles, but I'm not sure that we are in a position to solve it, given that our views are clearly in the minority. What do you think? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi HappyWanderer15, the reversion is not surprising, nor is the response to the recent proposal about Sheldrake being a biologist. I think we have to go through the motions here - proposal on Talk page etc - before we can move to dispute resolution, but as soon as the stonewalling is complete I think that's where we should go. I give it 50:50, but the advantage of DR is that it should bring in other editors who don't spend all their spare time at the WP:FRINGE Noticeboard, and I would hope we could get a truly unbiased arbitrator mediator. Arcturus (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:DR as it is not a process by which an "unbiased arbitrator" makes a decision for or against you. It is a process by which editors can agree with each other using the help of a mediator. Mediation and arbitration are very different processes and DR is an example of the former. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a difficult, involved, and last-resort process which exists to impose solutions on disputes "that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved." Attempting to bounce to DR after your proposals have failed multiple times will likely be considered forum shopping. You have clearly declared your intention to keep going to different areas until you get the answer you want. Historically, this results in very poor outcomes for both the editor and their POV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed it. Arcturus (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comparing it with a court of law: judges aren't "unbiased"; they are biased for applying the law. We don't consider WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP as "just another opinion", in order to give it false equivalence with WP:FRINGE views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well said, —PaleoNeonate – 07:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data

You appear to be updating the cases in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data for the UK each day but not the deaths. (The deaths were not shown for a period but are now back.) Perhaps you could do both to avoid confusion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles Ah yes, sorry about that. Thanks for reminding me. I keep forgetting in that template. Even though the death data is extremely questionable, I guess we should put in it now and revise it in future, if needed. Arcturus (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is questionable, but updating is the least bad option. The evidence is that the figures for almost all countries are very unreliable, but official figures are better than none at all. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Full protection on Susie Boniface". Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, I mean the 'which idiot' thing. Since the history makes it clear who put it there, that is a clear PA targeting an specific individual, which is not acceptable. Please don't do it again. With regard to the comment you went there to make, you might have been looking for the main talk page, rather than the 'Current consensus' subpage? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Well I couldn't find anything in the history because it only appears when trying to edit. Instead of issuing yet more blocking threats (this is on of the more unsavoury aspects of Wikipedia, that so many users just can't help threatening blocks; it's laughable) why don't you just tell me who it is? Arcturus (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I find one of the more unsavoury aspects of Wikipedia to be people who blatantly ignore the no personal attacks policy. Understand this: you are not permitted to call other editors idiots. I'm not running around indiscriminately threatening people with blocks - I'm an uninvolved administrator informing you that you are breeching one of our core conduct policies. It's not a threat, so much as a warning - I'm not obliged to give a warning before blocking an account, but in cases like this I prefer to do so out of courtesy. Since you seem not to appreciate warnings, if you do it again I will go straight to the block.

With regard to the editing message on the subpage, the correct place to discuss it is at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic. You are welcome to do so, but if you are disruptive or abusive you know what will happen. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Yes, using the word 'idiot' was uncalled for. I knew that at the outset, but the banner in question is so infuriating that it provoked such a response. Regarding your responses to me, here's some advice, sincerely meant. Try not to talk down to other editors as though they are children. There's no need for such constructs as "Understand this" and "if you do it again", and I find the general tone of your last response somewhat threatening. I've not looked at your edit history and other responses to editors, but I would hope your words here are not typical. Arcturus (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for at least accepting that calling another editor an idiot is uncalled for - had you accepted that in your initial response, I wouldn't have resorted to the constructs you mention. If you feel I've been patronising towards you, I apologise for that, but please consider that the only interaction we have ever had is over an abusive comment of yours at the talk page of a highly contentious article. If my response was less than cordial, that's probably because my experience has been coloured by dealing with hundreds of people who have left similar messages in the past, who are often deeply unpleasant to interact with. I'm delighted to find that you are an exception to the rule.

Seriously though - don't call people idiots, or anything else similar, even if you think they've done something indescribably stupid. You can say 'This message is fucking stupid' - that's fine, you're commenting on the content - but as soon as you start commenting on the contributor who put it there, you've crossed the line into personal attacks. That policy really is worth reading and taking on board, I do not mean to be chilling or threatening, but it is my duty to inform users that it's a core policy, and it is enforced. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 16:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Okay, thanks. Let's draw a line under this. However, do you know of a straightforward way to identify the editor placing a message on a (Talk) page that only appears when editing the page? I could wade through the various procedures, but maybe you know anyway? Arcturus (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Those are called editnotices. I don't know if you can see the button (it may be limited to admin/TE/PM only) but on clicking "Edit source" there's a "Page notice" link on my interface, which takes you to the page of the editnotice. If it's not there, you can manually go to the page of Template:Editnotices/Page/%PAGETITLE%. In this case, the editnotice for the page is Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I confess that I'm not clear on exactly which bit of code causes that message to appear, so I can't tell you right now who put it there - I'd have to do a bit of reading to figure it out myself. Given that the page is there to record consensuses that have been arrived at on the main talk page though, I'd be surprised if it wasn't put there without discussion. The message is definitely jarring, but I believe that's the intention - if someone was planning to change one of the entries on the list without consensus, their account would be probably blocked without further warning very shortly after they clicked 'Publish changes' - I think it's only fair to draw their attention to that quite prominently. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah - I see ProcrastinatingReader got in a helpful response while I was composing mine - thanks, templates are definitely not my area of expertise, that's very helpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, ProcrastinatingReader Thanks both. I'm just having a look now, but it seems like I don't have the authorisation to work with edit notices (not a problem). Looking at the history, the banner has attracted criticism today for being too severe. It looks like a recent addition. I'll put in a comment. Cheers, Arcturus (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There is currently an edit request for its removal, or trimming it down. I agree with you that one needs a change. Editnotices are quite easy to create and generally don't take much discussion, so unfortunately a lot of pages (across the wiki) have poor, unnecessary, inconsistent or unwelcoming editnotices. Generally speaking, it's much easier to create one than it is to get consensus to remove one, hence it's hard to tidy up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see, the banner has been there since March 22. It's been tweaked a couple of times, but there's not much difference between the original and the current version. It's been worked on by three editors, all of whom could reasonably be described as exceedingly experienced and well-regarded. By all means express your view about it but... you know... play nice. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Just seen it. Thanks. I've put in a comment suggesting toning down or removal. Arcturus (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Alert to COVID general sanctions

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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Comment deletions

You are repeatedly deleting my comments at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration, and have had to be reverted several times now. Stop it, or you will no doubt get sanctioned for such disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Okay, sorry - looks like there's been some kind of software (?) SNAFU here with messy results. Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:Okay, thanks. A couple of comments were duplicated. I thought it might have been the result of an edit conflict or something. The page seems in order now. On a personal note, I see you are a cancer survivor. How do you feel about the effects lockdown in the UK has apparently had, vis-à-vis cancer treatment? I'm not trying to make any judgement or anything, but I would no doubt find your views interesting. Arcturus (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The impact this whole COVID-19 episode has is to crowd out everything else (including cancer diagnosis and treatment). Although people have been encouraged *not* to defer visiting their doctor for investigation of other health conditions, in reality people will have deferred, and the net effect of this on public health will only be known after a while. Of course, if the virus outbreak becomes more severe this "crowding out" effect would surely be more pronounced, which is why the "let it rip" school of thinking is so very hazardous to public health. Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I know of someone who needed urgent skin cancer treatment in the last couple of months and there was no problem. Treatment was immediately available (NE England). I do wonder sometimes what the real situation is, and the government has done themselves no favours by instilling fear into the population. Anyway, back to more mundane matters; GBD :) Arcturus (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

soapbox

You are well aware that article talk pages are for discussing article content, and not telling us how crap we are, or that you will not edit an article.

If you do not wish to edit an article, that is your privileged, we do not need to know it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)