User talk:Crossroads/2020, 3rd quarter

Yikes - Arabic anti-gay propaganda

Looks like Nicilosi’s tentacles have spread far and wide. Check out this piece of propaganda doing the rounds on Arabic twitter (it has pretty good production value too). Sxologist (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's sad to see. They sure did make it look slick, but of course it's all long-refuted distortions. While Wikipedia can be flawed, it has vastly better capability than Twitter and YouTube to present the best sources to its audience, and I'm glad to be playing a part in that. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Age of consent reform

I have replied to your last post here. Please respond when you have the time. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I stand by what I said about keeping it brief. More there. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Genetic literacy project

I don't intend to become involved in the dispute on this article, but I recommend reading the discussion here, particularly the comments from LiteratureGeek and from ArbCom member DGG. If ArbCom did nothing to address the behavioral issues discussed there, I had wondered whether these issues would eventually spread to other topics, and that seems to be happening now on the genetic literacy project article. I still think that ArbCom probably will have to intervene at some point, especially after AE referred the case to ArbCom but ArbCom declined to accept it. Whether or not you agree with that, you should be aware of this background. 2600:1004:B111:806B:2145:933D:AAD5:DA15 (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Article was merged, disputes burned out. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert Trivers and Jeffrey Epstein

Prior to today, there was nothing on Robert Triver's page about Jeffrey Epstein. I edited his page today to correct that, citing only his blog on his personal website. Yet it was deleted twice. The first time, I though that the problem was that I did not inclide a citation after each sentence. The second time, even when I included a citation after each sentence, what I wrote was still deleted. Nothing I wrote was inaccurate. What is the problem? McNulTEA (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)McNulTEA

As I said in my edit summary reverting you the first time, Lacks WP:RS. Don't cite blogs and definitely do not cite Twitter. As it says at WP:RS, Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. And regarding your drawing attention to posts on Trivers' blog, note this: Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Selectively looking through WP:Primary sources for scandal, quoting the bad things Trivers said in the past from his blog post, [1] and ignoring the purpose of the post, to defend himself, [2] is not appropriate under WP:BLP. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Asexuality Warning

Dear Crossroads if you going to continue to abuse Wikipedia rules and policies I will have to complain about you. Please, read definition of an organization before making false and misleading claims. AceRebel (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

AceRebel, on what basis would you write a complaint about me? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: User was indeffed. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Request

I request you to revert this collapsible version to at least giving a forceless option to see these images. 103.67.159.137 (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, learn to live with it. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not even live with sodom and gomorrah and prophet lot related writings and images in the homosexuality article for the lame excuse of some editors, but by the same way you are saying an editor to live with a same kind topic writings and images in another same kind of article, is it really a healthy sense of justice and non-partiality? How can a leading universal encyclopedia allow such kind of political biasedness? 116.58.201.113 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Length of reports

Just a friendly note that you'd be able to achieve the same results from reports that can probably be half the size of, say, the current one at ANI. Just focus on the most egregious violations. Hope this helps. El_C 18:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's hard to acheive a balance between "lacks depth to warrant sanction" and "wall of text". Crossroads ^-talk- 18:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC

Hi, I hope it's ok if I post here with a question. The PN RFC was my first experience with a Reliability RFC, and I saw that you updated the List of Perennial Sources (after another user did). How did it come out to be a consensus that it was reliable? There didn't seem to be any consensus at all that I could see, although two users on the Reliable side were a great deal more vocal than everyone else. I don't really understand how the system works, I guess. A "non-admin" closed the discussion and said there was rough consensus, but how did they get to make that ruling? I'm sorry to bother you with this, but you seemed much more experienced than I am with this. If you don't have time or don't want to answer, that's perfectly fine. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lilipo25, the way things work with measuring consensus is always a bit subjective so far as I can tell. We (unfortunately, in my opinion) can't work by pure voting the way a legislature would; the 'whoever shows up' nature of Wikipedia would allow for vote manipulation, and editors differ in their familiarity with policies and subject matters. We instead go by WP:NOTAVOTE. So the question is, do we have grounds for a WP:Close review? Even before your comment here, I re-examined the discussion and noted this: Options 2, 3, and 4, or some combination of those, got 21 votes, disregarding (as most would) the single purpose IP who was likely canvassed. There are 20 votes that said "option 1", including ones that followed that up with caveats, but the closure and RSP listing also has caveats. There are 2 votes that said "1 or 2", but reading them, they definitely lean closer to 1 and to the closer's description. It's thus 22-21 against general unreliability. I'm not seeing a close review as worthwhile. At least the closure did sound notes of caution. But there is a possible way forward; please see my comment and the closer's suggestion here: User talk:MrX#PinkNews. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It does seem to me that yellow would be the correct designation based on the RFC and your analysis. If you don't think a close review is worthwhile, I defer to your judgment on that, as you are more experienced than I. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo25, if you want to open a talk page section at WP:RSP to propose that, it may be good for other editors to see you do that, rather than me, showing that more editors feel this way about the color coding. I've been watching that page for a while, so I'll see it and comment. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Same-sex relationship

Dear Crossroads I am sorry for causing some confusion, I decided to create the category Category:Homosociality to cover articles about same-sex relationships which are platonic to make things more clear. I also decided to boldly revert your changes to the article Same-sex relationship since I belive it is important to cover the topic of same-sex interactions not only from the point of view of modern LGBT and romantic or sexual angles, but from all types of relationships (familiar, mentorhip, friendship, etc). If you disagree I would ask what article you would prefer the the topic to be covered in, do you think we should have another article focused on all types of same-sex relationships/interactions instead?★Trekker (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Same-sex relationship and replied there. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinion and input sought

Another editor with whom I've come to an impasse has requested of you "as an editor who edits in the paraphilia area, any thoughts on this?" in [exchange]. Outsiders are needed to form consensus; I have also posted a notice on [opinion]. I thank you. Helen4780 (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism

Hello I saw you contributed to that article, there is recently many edits, and many content added. I challenged some of it at talk page etc so I dont know how it works but maybe you are interested to join to the discussion or so to check content, sources etc. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm watching it and trying to thread the needle of NPOV as best I can. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism

Regarding this edit, is it really "a contentious (in the literature) claim"? I did not think it to be controversial that communism, like socialism, dates back to millennia and that communist thought has been traced back to people such as Plato and Thomas Moore. If so, then so is the claim that it started in 1917. I did remove communism from the infobox because the book is about the history of communism and Leninism and Marxism–Leninism are actually named (in academia, Communism basically mean that), so the latter two are probably more warranted, but it is not a big deal. I just wanted to explain my reasoning, so let me know what you think. Thanks for your time. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide King (talk • contribs)

I think that "they say" is safer, since "communism" as a term has not existed for thousands of years, even if some people today say that it did exist back then in such and such form. As for plain "communism" in the infobox, the book's article states that "Courtois argues against the claim that actually existing communism had nothing to do with theoretical communism", and reviewers also took it to be about communism. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, they are not referring to the term, hence why I did not italicise small-c communism. They are referring to the political philosophy that has existed for millennia and which they do not capitalise to distinguish between the practice of 20th century Communism. So the book is essentially more about the history of communism in the 20th century and Communist states than the political philosophy. It is also not true that "reviewers also took it to be about communism." For one, they all capitalise it; secondly, Vladimir Tismăneanu explicity wrote that "the Black Book of Communism succeeds in demonstrating [...] that Communism in its Leninist version (and, one must recognize, this has been the only successful application of the original dogma) was from the very outset inimical to the values of individual rights and human freedom." While basically saying that communism cannot exist in reality, he is talking about the Leninist version. Small-c communism, or at least some forms of it, are not necessarily inimical to "human freedom." Regarding this comment, it is funny you say my comments, when I was merely making and summarizing some arguments I read made by academics and other scholars, "are all highly contentious." While there may be laws against Communism and Nazism and not against Capitalist crimes, that does not excuse individuals from denying colonialist, imperialist and slavery crimes. Or was that "not real capitalism"? Indeed, some have tried to justify them as a mere 'incident' or even rationalise them, so how is that different? Do I really need to cite you a source for how "Communist" crimes are used against communism and socialism while "Capitalist" and Nazi crimes are not used against capitalism? I do not see liberals or conservative being dismissed or attacked for past "Capitalist" and right-wing crimes the same way socialist and communists are, do you? And your claim that I am "judging sources based on whether [I] agree with them" is false, nonsense, and you likely misunderstood my point, so I suggest you to provide examples. Again, nothing personal. I just wanted to clarify this, I hope it is not a problem. Davide King (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The argument of "capitalist" crimes and of a supposed relation to fascism is indeed used by anti-capitalists. But regarding "small-c communism" or actually discussing capitalism or communism apart from specific article content, it's best we not do that per WP:NOTFORUM. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Chicago PD

I noticed you trying to fix the article on the NYPD. Just FYI, it appears we've got the same issue on the Chicago Police Department (by the same editor). I would address it myself.....but I am not that knowledgeable about their PD. It just strikes me as having some of the same issues the NYPD did.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, as a way forward I'd suggest working on expanding the lead with other important content from the body. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Good idea.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Although WP:BRD and WP:ONUS dictate that the other editor on Steven Pinker gain consensus before adding the content, failure to do so is not one of the WP:3RR exemptions, and none of your reasons for reverting meet those exemptions. Please take other dispute resolution steps to resolve the disagreement, before violating 3RR. Schazjmd (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not come close to violating 3RR. I made a removal (which could have been done in one edit, but I split it for better explanation), and then made a split reversion after that. But I would self-revert had I not already been reverted, since I am going to AE. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

TBH, I agree with you on the content. I saw the back-and-forth and having templated the new editor, I just wanted to caution you in case you'd gotten caught up in the momentum. Schazjmd (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Questions on Talk:Steven Pinker

Thanks for adding your feedback to the two questions on Talk:Steve Pinker. Unless other editors weigh in with differing opinions, nothing more to do there, but at least the discussions are started in case the questions come up again. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that was a good strategy for going forward, even though in this case it's sort of moot for now since the editor was indeffed. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

And here we go again. I have a hard stop for the night, but I'll catch up on any developments tomorrow. (Good comment on the talk page, btw) Schazjmd (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. And good work on that page and elsewhere. I really appreciate your diligence and help. I'm going to open an SPI on the new account. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision of template - please consider changing your !Vote

Hello!

you are involved in the templates for discussion deletion of:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_1#Template%3AFermi_paradox

I have revised the template, please consider changing your !Vote. Thank you very much! Moscowdreams (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I replied. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:Short description

It's not what you think it is.

Read it.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Short_description101.98.135.42 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what it is. Your edit here makes no sense whatsoever, on top of being deeply uncivil. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Except you clearly did not read it. It is not even related to edit descriptions you bonehead. Read edits before reverting them. Now go away. 101.98.135.42 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your edit here made no sense https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome&diff=981057783&oldid=980722457 101.98.135.42 (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

IP was blocked as a block evader by a CheckUser. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)