This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people COVID-19, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science the Troubles articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles She should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

HBC Archive Indexerbot has not worked for 9 years now. Unless another bot has taken over its function that is why the template is not working. I turned it off because it's usage by users ballooned to the point where it was using too many resources. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Yeah I saw that on the bot's page, but according to the Help:Archiving a talk page#Archive indexing it was taken over by Legobot using the same configuration strings? Sigma ran on my talk page fine last night, and I'm not entirely sure if I've just got the configuration wrong here for Legobot, or if the help page is woefully out of date and it's actually a different string I need to use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you for the info. I might use that myself. I hope it starts working again. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! Having just looked at the code for Legobot, I think I've worked out why it's not working here. It seems as though the only masks it treats as valid are either <#> for numbered archives, or date archives beginning with <month>. I'll drop a line on the Legobot talk page and find out if my suspicion is right. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or I might have been looking at code for the old Python version of the bot, and the newer Rust version should be able to parse it. Hmmmm. Shall ask at that talk page anyway. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: just incase you're interested I eventually stumbled upon Legobot's log page, and if I'm reading it right the reason why it's not worked here so far is because on the two times it has tried to run on my talk page, lowercase sigma bot hadn't run yet, so my archive hadn't been created. Now that lsb has run for the first time, I think Legobot should run correctly on this page next time it runs. Rather than being a configuration issue, it was just that the two bots run on different schedules! Seems that lsb has a delay of about a day before it starts parsing a talk page. If it runs correctly tonight, I'll see if I can get a note added to the help page for that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I really appreaciate your answer here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heapsort#Contentious_issue_about_siftDown_function

I don't know it was on purpose, I assume not - you have "Example text" in your answers, could you replace it with what you meant to insert ?

Thanks! 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E0:B707:D262:8B59:D50F:D059:390E (talk)

I've fixed it with Special:Diff/1060273636, I don't know (can't tell) what the issue is but replaced it with "<code> </code>" tags, apologies if you (Sideswipe9t) wanted to fix it yourself... Justiyaya 13:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I hadn't realised the tq template had broken like that when I made the reply. Thanks @Justiyaya: for fixing that! Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was interesting. Thanks for pitching in. —valereee (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. It was definitely somewhere between I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT and I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet! Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, you are now encountering the "origin story" of where Maneesh became involved in GENSEX: here is one of the first such edits, wrestling (perhaps ironically, in retrospect) with one of the other POV warriors in this area, over Klinefelter's.

Also, I had largely repressed this attack on Gender Identity, which lead to this poorly-sourced rant in article space (and Maneesh's first GENSEX DS notice).

Just an FYI. Newimpartial (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: I do love a good origin story! This one seems very circular... Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all roads lead to Rome, as it were... I was just scrolling by and happened across this thread, thank you for sharing. It is always interesting to see how POV/CPUSH editors became involved in their long and fraught disputes. It seems the topic area may become a lot more calm and reasoned if they are indeed TBAN'd. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sideswipe9th: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Justiyaya 23:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh! That is a nice template! Right back at ya @Justiyaya:. I hope whatever you're celebrating you're having a good one! Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Seems that we are posting Christmas messages at the same time :D Justiyaya 23:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, yup! Tis the night before Christmas and all that. Nephew is soundly asleep, presents piled under the tree, and everything's ready to go for tomorrow apart from a few last minute messages and edits :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Section with evidence of bad content but the many posts there show a conflict between what I was trying to achieve and what people are discussing. There is no way that identifying bad content could OUT an editor—my question concerns whether the content is bad, not whether the editor had a COI. That is what is being lost in the walls-of-text. We oppose COI not for moral purity but because having a COI usually results in bad outcomes for the encyclopedia. That's why we should collect evidence.

There are two issues. There is the obvious COI, but a second important consideration is whether the content is bad. If it is, all the editors should be indefinitely blocked without delay. If it's not, what should occur is less clear but might involve mentoring or topic bans.

Currently, the section has 960 words but I can only see one diff offered as evidence, namely this. That shows a perfectly reasonable edit with good content, although apart from a COI, the edit has a problem, namely that the source may not be suitable for that topic. The quick answer is that such a source is not suitable for a medical topic, yet there is the complication that Anorexia nervosa has been surrounded by hocus pocus for decades. I haven't fully investigated, but I suspect I would oppose use of the source with regret because the quoted text is probably completely accurate and useful.

I'm sorry to raise this on your talk but the WP:COIN section is already too long and I wanted to clarify what (in my humble opinion) should be happening, namely we should use one section to focus on bad content. If you would like to reply, please do so here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]