Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Mathsci (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...would you be interested in mutually refraining? I might be open to it for a specific time period. In your favor, this would mean you get to "quit while you're ahead", and there are probably others who would fill your niche anyway. If this isn't your thing, I'm not trying to bother you and hope you understand.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Responded to on Abortion talk-page.) NightHeron (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the sources as they are all books I don't own. I apologize for the change and will assume you are correct. However, from my research that characterization by those sources is technically inaccurate as the question is about if it is homicide. However I did put back my other statement about the doctors of the Catholic Church --Tjpolega (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tjpolega: Yes, the point those authors make is that Catholic writers in ancient times generally used "abortion" to mean termination of pregnancy after quickening or ensoulment.

Your two recent edits don't make sense. What do you mean by "taught this"? It's not at all clear what teachings are meant. Your most recent edit seems to say that roughly half of all fetuses that survive through the first trimester don't survive until birth, and this is definitely not the case. Please either correct or revert those two edits. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to clarify in the beginning section the common misconception that abortion is usually only defined after the implantation of the embryo and not after conception. --Tjpolega (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down. The abortion page is an important article that is read by many people and watchlisted by many editors. Before making any more edits directly on the page, please correct the two that you just made. It would be best if you proposed edits you'd like to make on the article's talk-page and ask for comments by other editors, before adding them. Otherwise it's likely that your edits will just be reverted. The appropriate place for any further discussion is the abortion article's talk-page, not my user talk-page. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a question to you, which parts of the abortion page did you edit? And what agena you may serve, if it is not too much of a question? Becuase from what I've seen so far, you strongly opposed some minor (or major in the eyes of many) changes, and the article is still twisted and contains high degree of misinformation. I think you stated on your page that you edited the involvement of Catholic Church in the topic of abortion. It seems solid. TruthseekerW (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer your own question, since the full history of the abortion page, as for all pages on Wikipedia, is there for all to see. NightHeron (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm diving into it. Please clarify your recent statement. " rv unnecessary insertion per NPOV" I don't understand much of it. TruthseekerW (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered that on the article talk-page [1]. You won't get a consensus of editors agreeing to the insertion of words that please opponents of abortion but do not improve or clarify anything. In any case, my user talk-page is not the place to discuss article content. That's what the talk-page is for. NightHeron (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have already shown your point of view. I wish you the best for the upcoming Easter, as I wish to everybody on my page. TruthseekerW (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the link you sent me, it says: "engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes.". So the least think I seek is edit warring, but reverting back-and-forth is welcome as we could both see. Would be great if you considered at least one contribution a contribution. It's very hard to assume good will. I'm sorry I'm writing this in there, but I could not write that on the history page of edits. TruthseekerW (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words you're quoting from WP:BRD are preceded by "you must not". Note the word not. NightHeron (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways to understand this sentence. In the middle of the sentence there is a comma, so "engage in back-and-forth reverting, or start any of the larger dispute resolution processes" can be understood by some people as a remedy to alleviate the problem. I hope you understand. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say in response to that is to endorse the advice an admin gave you on your user talk-page after seeing some of your edits: "You may like to help at a Wikipedia in your language instead." NightHeron (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only explained how other people could understand this sentence. I read it in a hurry, so I made a mistake, I admit it, but I take your words as a personal attack. You should rethink that and try to remember what you wrote about negative conduct of other editors and administrators when you wrote your first edits in this article. That is exactly what I am presented with here now.

God Bless and have a great Easter. TruthseekerW (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack to endorse the friendly advice given by an admin as part of a welcome message to you.

You have an enjoyable Easter holiday, too. NightHeron (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another one is taking place here: Talk:Reverse sexism#Requested move 17 May 2022. Odd that they were both started by different users on the same day. Generalrelative (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the user TTT who started the second one in violation of procedure seems to have a strong male-grievance POV, essentially an SPA (although I'm not sure of the exact definition of an SPA -- well, WP:SPA says it's whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose, although that's clearly too broad). NightHeron (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TTT proposed the merge request over a month ago at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. It was another user, Felix QW, who eventually created the merge request, presumably without checking whether there was already an open request. Seems like it really was just a coincidence, albeit an odd one. And yes, I do think TTT qualifies as an SPA. Note that they hadn't edited at all since commenting on that proposal back in early April and just now reappeared: Special:Contributions/TiggyTheTerrible. Generalrelative (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this relatively obscure R&I article needs some serious NPOV work, and it would be good to have another set of eyes on it –– if it's not already on your watchlist. Generalrelative (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. It's now on my watchlist. NightHeron (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did withdraw my move request on reverse racism since I was unaware that the page was primarily about affirmative action and systemic discrimination rather than prejudice towards white people specifically for being white. However, while I think my name change was misguided, I still think the page doesn't make that distinction clear enough. I can see how the sentence doesn't clear anything up if it wasn't written well, but that source definitely does clear the difference up, and should be somewhere on the page. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please refrain from falsely claiming that discussions about an article are just forum talk or vandalism as you did at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion. The edit that you reverted was neither vandalism nor just forum talk. It was not adding some crazy falsehood to an actual article such that it could be vandalism. It was also not a discussion about general views on abortion such that it could be just forum talk. It was actually a comment on how we should be editing and writing the text on the article. Such discussion is classically what the talk pages are there for and I don’t think it’s appropriate that people who are acknowledged to be very interested in editing a particular article and also do it anonymously (as a stated on user pages) would be reverting discussions on talk pages claiming that their vandalism and forum talk. Such a thing would yield only to a non-encyclopedic article skewed toward non-factual or non-objective views. Annfrankenstein (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Annfrankenstein: Since I did not accuse you of vandalism, there were no "False Accusations of Vandalism". If you look at #6 of the FAQ at the top of the same talk-page, you see that many people before you have tried to push the same POV, and you'll never get a consensus of editors to agree to skew the article in the way that you want. Other than venting against Wikipedia, there seemed to be no purpose served by the edit that I reverted. NightHeron (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron:

You used the term RV in the edit summary, which means revert vandalism and you also said you reverted it per WP not a forum, when I wasn’t using this as a forum.

So fine if what I’ve suggested has been suggested before and has not been implemented. This doesn’t mean that you should remove the suggestion. Maybe we should think that due to the suggestions like this constantly being removed there’s never been a good discussion on whether we should edit the article in this manner.

I’m having the respect to put my suggestion in the talk page. And someone who acknowledges on their user page that they’re primarily here to edit a particular article and that they also do so anonymously is disallowing people the opportunity to even make suggestions about how the article should be edited in the talk pages. Annfrankenstein (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Annfrankenstein: "rv" means "revert" (see WP:RV); "rv vandalism" means "reverting vandalism". Your suggestion has of course been discussed at length, which is why it's one of the FAQ questions. There's never been a "good discussion" if by "good discussion" you mean one that comes to the conclusion you're lobbying for. NightHeron (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: OK, but you said you reverted per WP:notaforum. What I was mentioning was a suggestion on how we should edit the page, not a general suggestion about what I think about the topic. So your reversion based on that, combined with being someone who primarily edits a particular article you have interest in (and acknowledge also doing so anonymously) is quite improper. Also in your statements here you’ve stated on one hand that it’s necessary to remove my suggestion because the suggestion has been made many times and never followed — which in itself doesn’t make sense because perhaps the suggestion isn’t followed because people remove it. Then on the other hand you’re stating here that there’s never been a good suggestion. I think your actions here are improper. Why be so against someone putting something on the article’s talk page unless we don’t want people discussing differing opinions on how to edit the article? It wasn’t placed in the article but in the talk page where we should be discussing differing views about how to edit the page.

@Annfrankenstein: Your account info shows that you've been on Wikipedia a total of two days and have made 9 edits of which 4 have been to my user talk-page. So it's not surprising that you don't understand Wikipedia policies. There's nothing "improper" about editing anonymously. Nor is there anything improper about removing a talk-page edit by someone who, based on their own POV, attempts to start a new discussion of something that was resolved in earlier discussions and is listed as a done deal on FAQ. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and editors who volunteer their time should not have to waste time relitigating the same thing again and again. NightHeron (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Number of edits shouldn’t matter. What should matter is whether someone is following the proper policies and being constructive.

Wikipedia does have policies regarding having both an account and editing anonymously and/or through additional accounts. In most cases it’s not allowed though there are exceptions if it’s done with certain motives. What one’s motive is frequently can’t be proven. And to top it all off there’s a WP:breakeveryrule anyway.

There’s nothing listed as a done deal in the FAQ in this page like you said there was. As you mentioned Wikipedia is a project by volunteers and editors who volunteer their time should not have to waste their time relitigating things time and time again — which is exactly what they will do if every time someone makes a suggestion on the articles talk page it gets removed by someone else who has a POV that’s against it. It will mean that another volunteer will come to the talk page and think falsely that this has never been discussed and they will have to put it there only to have the cycle repeat itself when someone else removes it for not being compliant with their point of view.

If there were 100 suggestions each having their own heading on the talk page and suggesting the same thing then removing and/or combining would be a contribution to Wikipedia. Removing someone’s talk page contribution that differs from that of one’s point of view tends to starve healthy discussion on how articles should be edited. That is why I’m asking you not to do this.

(Response to unsigned edit): I've responded to your baseless complaint, and your continued complaining is repetitious and not constructive. This discussion is over. Please do not come to my talk-page again. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NightHeron,

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly reverting content when you have seen that other editors disagree. I believe you have good faith, but to resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate the three-revert rule should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thanks,

BooleanQuackery (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NightHeron, This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BooleanQuackery (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Your reasoning that it cannot be called "recent" was enough to refute it, and it was not strictly necessary to also mention that Burt is a bad source. But I believe that the more mistakes you point out in what people from the left side of the Dunning-Kruger curve say, the more likely it is that they notice that they are on the left side of the Dunning-Kruger curve, and that they stop doing it. Just take no notice of me. :) --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please get talk-page consensus before making bold removals. You don't get to remove things you don't like when you want, and then demand a consensus to put it back in. Do better. KRLA18 (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the stable version for the last 5 months did not have the incident, and after the removal back then there was a talk-page discussion that generally supported the removal. NightHeron (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in here to offer a bit of encouragement as counterpoint to the above. Please keep on being the grown-up in the room. Generalrelative (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just saw that I accidentally reverted a comment you'd made in reply to IP 191.106.134.79 when replying to their personal attack. Apologies for that. I'd suggest however that since they're copping to being Fq90, we should be deleting rather than replying to their comments, per WP:BLOCKEVASION. Thanks as always, Generalrelative (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. You were right to delete my comment along with the IP's. I'd been thinking of deleting the IP's disruptive edit, but I didn't realize it was block evasion and so didn't think I should remove a talk-page comment. NightHeron (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I suppose a stopped clock is right twice a day :) Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sentence comes out of nowhere and has nothing to do with the history of abortion. So it's confusing and irrelevant.

If your concern is that someone might misunderstand what the article is about, then maybe a hatnote would be better? (Maybe something like {{About|the history of induced abortions|spontaneous abortions|Miscarriage}}?) —Ruakh_TALK 21:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The average reader doesn't seek out hatnotes for information. In any case, this question should be discussed on the article talk-page, not here. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "this question should be discussed on the article talk-page": Fair point! I've now posted at Talk:History of abortion#Random aside about the term "abortion". —Ruakh_TALK 01:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...here. Happy to discuss as always. Generalrelative (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: I have no strong preference for having those citations in the lead. But I saw that they are in the lead of History of the race and intelligence controversy. Because fringe POV-pushers like to challenge statements about consensus, I thought that in both articles the citations in the lead might function like FAQs at the beginning of talk-pages, alerting editors that certain questions have already been discussed at length, and we do not intend to relitigate them. I might be wrong about that, though. NightHeron (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's a tricky balance. I think the gist of the consensus was that providing *enough* citations for such a dense summary would get in the way of readability. And of course anyone who's skeptical can just read the rest of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. NightHeron (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert here was thankfully corrected by another editor. I was indeed right that this failed WP:VER. Please actually read the sources before reverting and claiming "does not fail verification". Nothing in the sourced pages stated anything resembling "All of which would have been alienating and disadvantaging for Māori children". Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a judgment call, and not at all obvious, whether or not the source is RS (I thought it was), whether or not it needs attribution (I thought it didn't), and whether or not that part is OR (I thought it wasn't). I'm of course willing to go along with the decision of a second editor, who agreed with you. Your message on my talk-page is unwarranted. NightHeron (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the drive, if you are done with Trần Lập, you need to mark it as done on the Requests page. Hope you understand. Mox Eden (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mox Eden: I thought that the GOCE template on the article talk-page was enough. Sorry. Now I no longer see the article listed on the Requests page for Oct 2022. NightHeron (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NightHeron: Do you mean the September 2023 section? Because it is still there and it will not get archived by YiFeiBot unless you mark it as done. Mox Eden (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mox Eden: Thanks. I found it and marked it "done". NightHeron (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Ngôi sao Nguyên bản
	Thank you for helping me improve the article Trần Lập. I really owe you one! Mintu Martin (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to NightHeron for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2023 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up a thread at ANI over this account impersonating you: NightHeron1. Seems to be a ham-handed attempt to exploit your good name to add SPAM (pun not initially intended but endorsed ex post facto). Generalrelative (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now indeffed. Nothing to see here. Generalrelative (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

DocZach (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying. We're all trying. You're not making it easy. NightHeron (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my absolute best to assume good faith in everyone else. Originally I made a mistake by assuming bad faith for another editor, but then I apologized and refreshed myself on the policy, and I recognize how it feels when people assume bad faith in me as well.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean either of us is maliciously trying to target someone else or ruin an article. DocZach (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You're doing what you think is best. There's nothing malicious about your or anyone else's participation in the talk-page discussions of your proposals for the Margaret Sanger and Abortion articles. NightHeron (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. (sorry, I'm autistic btw) DocZach (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, DocZach, I am not being sarcastic. I really do agree with you about the importance of assuming good faith. When I was a relatively new editor, like you are now, some experienced editors treated me poorly, so I know how unpleasant that is. NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to compromise on disputes we had about the Sanger article. I am glad we could come to an agreement. Thank you for your help and contributions. DocZach (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I was pleased that we could focus on what wording would improve the article, rather than on what would agree more with our own personal viewpoints on the topic. That made compromise possible. Thank you for suggesting very reasonable edits to the Margaret Sanger article. NightHeron (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]