CommonKnowledgeCreator While this Wikipedian believes that Wikipedia is not a democracy, this Wikipedian believes that editing Wikipedia is the best way to be a good citizen in a liberal democracy in the Information Age.

Hello, CommonKnowledgeCreator, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Scotch-Irish Americans, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy tag from Template:Waterbodies of Connecticut because it was making Connecticut appear in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion‎. If you think that a template should be deleted, please visit Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: My apologies. I did not intend for the Connecticut article to appear in that category. I just thought that the template itself is duplicative considering that all of the links to other Wikipedia articles included in the navbox are now included in more precisely defined navboxes than that template. I'm not very familiar with the bureaucracy of this website. – CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your thorough expansion of the legality section of National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I was not aware of the depth of the treatment the legal questions have received from reliable sources, particularly the CRS report; in retrospect, the article was certainly lacking in that area before your expansion. Thanks! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 14:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also from me for your great work, which has much improved the article. KarlFrei (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you created Template:House of Stuart Lord High Treasurers, Template:House of Tudor Lord High Treasurers, Template:House of York Lord High Treasurers, Template:House of Lancaster Lord High Treasurers, Template:House of Plantagenet Lord High Treasurers, and Template:Pre-Plantagenet England Lord High Treasurers. However, they are practically useless because they use titles instead of names to identify the holders of the office. Thus, under Template:House of Plantagenet Lord High Treasurers - the section for Edward III lists several Bishops of Lincoln - but the reader is required to click through to the various linked articles to discover that they are the same person. Same thing applies with the Edward II section where there are two Bishop of Winchester listed, but only by clicking through to the linked/piped articles is it clear that they are two different people. Worse, on that example - one of the bishops (John Sandale) is also listed earlier under his own name - thus obscuring that he did hold the treasurership prior to becoming bishop. These links fail WP:EASTEREGG and MOS:PIPE, which helps keep confusion down for the readers. They need to be fixed and brought into line with those guidelines. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I've removed the ecclesiastical titles and added lineage position numbers for peers. I believe that should be sufficient to make the links consistent with MOS:PIPE and WP:EASTEREGG. CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you not just link the article title? There is no real need for the pipes anywhere in those templates. We don't generally do such pipes in other navigation templates. See Template:Dukes of Norfolk or similar... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: The MOS:PIPE states "it is possible to choose more specific... display text for the intended context", which I think implies that using more specific display text where possible is preferable. The MOS cites piping "Henry II of England" as "Henry II" as an example. Likewise, most of the article title links in those templates are longer than necessary to get across who the person is, and because the peerage titles are probably more familiar than any individual holder of the title, it is more intuitive to list them that way, also in keeping with the MOS:PIPE section about intuitiveness. CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policy on how to handle disagreements. You were bold, you were reverted, you discuss. The explanation you added broke another policy namely that on synthesis -----Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: Considering that the content that I added included multiple references with direct quotations, it is quite easy to tell that you did not review the content that I added carefully enough to recognize that it did not in fact violate WP:SYN but instead that the text that was added was both correct and explanatory. I will discuss that more in full on the Ulster Protestants talk page. Additionally, it seems to me that your revert was an abuse of the WP:BRD cycle and you should review WP:Revert only when necessary. - CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: And it also appears that I have been blocked so I can't explain why my edits should be retained. - CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: A response to my comments on Talk:Ulster Protestants would be appreciated and appropriate. - CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little difficult to respond when you are on a flight and trying to sleep. I can't see anything in the block log for you -----Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: I apologize. I assumed you were still logged in and not on a long flight. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place to ensure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that they can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "They think this source is unreliable", but rather write "Disagreement about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BusterD. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ulysses S. Grant, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. As a user-driven database of graves, Find-A-Grave doesn't meet the criteria for reliability established at WP:IRS, despite its usefulness in such matters. I've taken the liberty of removing your recent insertion. BusterD (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: Apologies. I was unaware. I don't need guidance. Just polite and honest folks such as yourself to articulate when something I've done isn't up to snuff, why, and to do so for the right reasons. (And possibly somewhere where I can find a reliable source for those specific ancestors of Ulysses S. Grant, if you have any suggestions. I purchased Ron Chernow's recent book and was surprised to find that it didn't mention his mother's ancestry at all.) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking feedback in the spirit in which it was given. I'm not saying that I'm the authority on this subject at all, and I don't deny the usefulness of the Find-a-grave site, especially when pictures of gravestones are attached to entries. There is some material on Grant genealogy available on google books. Grant worship was societal back in the day as much as Lee worship was and is these days. This site seems useful, and this book would be helpful. I encourage you to discuss this material on the talk page before reinsertion. There are editors who spent long hours scrubbing and pruning this (then bloated) page to a more reasonable size, then citing the crap out of it prior to promotion to FA status. I'm sure some of those page stewards will want some input on additions of large blocks of text which may be considered to be of dubious value to the main article. I could see a sub-article on this well-documented subject based on the genealogical material clearly available for consumption. Again, thanks for taking my reversion kindly. I'm still happy to help if I can do so. BusterD (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have reminded you, there exists an Early life article on the subject which would benefit greatly from additional research and citation. BusterD (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

close, but hey you got the cigar - some of the articles titles and lead sentences leave you off the hook - there were some rushes that developed into sustained and long term high value production fields... :) JarrahTree 23:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

eh, fair enough :-) btw, here's the standard awful warning about our cryptocurrency articles - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from elsewhere online. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: The content I added was copied from the political views section of Seth Moulton's Wikipedia article, which as per the article's revision history, has been included in that article since its 30 April 2017 revisions. The web page you cited in the edit summary as a copyright violation was posted on April 18, 2019. It's pretty hard for something to be a copyright violation when what is supposedly being plagiarized was published two years later. I'm reverting your revert. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. If you include the source article in your edit summary, it also helps prevent false positives of this type. Sorry for the mistake. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Kavanagh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, while I appreciate the effort you have put into linking think tanks, organizing them according to their geographic location does not strike me as logical, and in any case, the number of think tanks means that categorization and lists are going to be more suitable for navigation. The very similar Template:American think tanks was deleted almost exactly a year ago on similar grounds. You can find the current discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 25#Think tanks by office location. -- choster (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Stockholm school, supply-side economics and neoclassical economics are independent theoretical currents, not currents of neoclassical synthesis. And monetarism, new classical macroeconomics and new Keynesian economics are also independent currents, not currents of new neoclassical synthesis. So your edit of template "Macroeconomics" is unacceptable. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

CommonKnowledgeCreator (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Internet connection broke and was using xfinitywifi. Blocked from IP Address 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:0/64

Accept reason:

I unblocked the IP range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social selection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Financial crises has been nominated for merging with Template:Stock market crashes. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora!

Thanks so much for all your help in editing the 2020 stock market crash article. Due to the fact that this is a global event rather then centric on the America, I've changed the layout of the article and attempting to globalized it. I've notice quite a bit of the work you've done has being based on America, including adding the table summaries of the Dow Jones (etc). Please use 2020 stock market crash in the United States to describe the impact in the United States, rather then the main article which is globalized. I really appreciate all the work you've done for the article! Foxterria (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a section on "Philosophy/Literary theory" to this template, and included a number of philosophers who clearly predate the concept of evolutionary psychology. Can you please explain why? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Because all of these philosophers originally articulated the assumptions about human psychology that would ultimately be examined experimentally by evolutionary psychologists. Adam Smith's book The Theory of Moral Sentiments supplemented David Hume's ideas about moral sense theory that was researched experimentally by Jonathan Haidt, and Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France influenced his research on political psychology as well. Emile Durkheim's texts on suicide, religion, and social anomie influenced Haidt's research on both happiness and moral psychology along with Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone, and Haidt mediated a joint American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution task force on poverty citing Robert Putnam's Our Kids research about the breakdown in American civic life in working-class communities and its implications for democracy.

William James is the founder of American psychology, and his research into psychology was influenced by Darwin's research on the emotions, and James would later be cited by Randolph M. Nesse in his emotions research for making distinctions between mood and emotion as well as his critique of previous basic and dimensional models of emotion in Good Reasons for Bad Feelings. Hobbes and Kant in Leviathan and Perpetual Peace make many of the conjectures about violence, war, and democracy evaluated by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature, and Pinker cites Thomas Sowell's trilogy on culture in addition to Jared Diamond's in The Blank Slate. Both Pinker and Haidt cite Sowell's A Conflict of Visions for Sowell's articulation of the tragic-utopian conceptions of human nature dichotomy for moral psychology.

Sowell's ideas about culture being a means of transmitting dispersed knowledge in society in the same way a price system does in a market economy was an expansion of the same topic as articulated by Friedrich Hayek in "The Use of Knowledge in Society" as "spontaneous order" (who in turn was re-articulating the same principle as articulated by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations as the "invisible hand" and the statement by Adam Ferguson that societies are the "result of human action, but not the execution of any human design" in his History of Civil Society), and is the information signaling system analogue in economics to Richard Dawkins' and Daniel Dennett's ideas about memetics being an information science theory of culture and cultural evolution. Sowell, along with James R. Flynn, emerged as an early critic of Arthur Jensen's ideas about race and intelligence, and both later were critics of Richard Herrnstein's and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve.

David Hume was identified as the founder of cognitive science by Jerry Fodor, and Hume's ideas about aesthetic sentimentalism in his Four Dissertations were re-articulated by Denis Dutton in The Art Instinct. Edmund Burke continued the sentimentalist tradition in his Enquiry. The evolutionary psychology tradition is much older than you seem to realize. Tooby's and Cosmides' formulation of evolutionary psychology is just the modern restatement of the "science of man" concept Hume proposed in his Treatise on Human Nature. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- this appears to be primarily original research WP:OR and synthesis WP:SYNTHESIS based on primary sources WP:PSTS - unless reliable secondary sources WP:RS can be found (and more than the opinion of one or two authors), edits based on these theories should be reverted - Epinoia (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: You are wrong. Review WP:Not original research. The contemporary authors cite the classics authors in their books. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: Nor is it synthesis. Review WP:What SYNTH is not. Synthesis requires combining sources. There is no summary or conclusions drawn from multiple sources. Just an inclusion of the writers whose ideas the authors of the contemporary popular science books cite extensively as the originators of their hypotheses. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- then you need to cite those "contemporary authors" and not rely on primary sources such as Adam Smith's book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Hobbes and Kant in Leviathan and Perpetual Peace, etc. - unless there are reliable secondary sources that unequivocally support your theories then it is original research - to cite someone as an influence does not make them a member of a later group - for example, T.S. Eliot was influenced by Jules LaForge, but that does not make LaForge a Modernist writer, he was a Symbolist - so although Adam Smith may have had ideas that were precursors of evolutionary psychology, to say he was an evolutionary psychologist is nonsense - unless you can present a reliable source that states unequivocally that Smith was an evolutionary psychologist it is original research and synthesis, drawing conclusions not explicitly stated by the sources - Epinoia (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: Your conclusion is wrong. The conclusions are explicitly cited in the sources and that's my whole point. The contemporaneous authors are not citing them as an "influence". The contemporaneous authors are citing the statements and scientific assumptions that the preceding authors made about human psychology as being the people who originated them, just as scientists in any field do when they are doing research. But more importantly, evolutionary psychology is not a new idea. It is the "science of human nature" originally put forward by Hume and the other Enlightenment-era thinkers whose assumptions could not be tested fully until the late 20th and early 21st centuries. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the science of man is not evolutionary psychology and to claim that it is, is false equivalence and an anachronism - Epinoia (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: Nope. Jerry Fodor identifies Hume as the founder of cognitive science. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- cognitive science is not evolutionary psychology - see the article on Cognitive science: "The cognitive sciences began as an intellectual movement in the 1950s, called the cognitive revolution. Cognitive science has a prehistory traceable back to ancient Greek philosophical texts (see Plato's Meno and Aristotle's De Anima); and includes writers such as Descartes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Benedict de Spinoza, Nicolas Malebranche, Pierre Cabanis, Leibniz and John Locke. However, although these early writers contributed greatly to the philosophical discovery of mind and this would ultimately lead to the development of psychology, they were working with an entirely different set of tools and core concepts than those of the cognitive scientist." - Epinoia (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: Nope. See the cognitive science article's section on "Scope." -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- that section is about contemporary cognitive science, not about retro-applying it to thinkers of the past - it states, "Among philosophers, classical cognitivists have largely de-emphasized or avoided social and cultural factors, emotion, consciousness, animal cognition, and comparative and evolutionary psychologies." - trying to characterize figures from the past as cognitive scientists or evolutionary psychologists is misguided - Epinoia (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: You said that evolutionary psychology is not cognitive science. Given the decline of behaviorism, best evidenced by the replication crisis in developmental psychology and education research and the absence of the replication crisis in behavioral genetics, an alternative theory about the proximate and ultimate explanations of human behavior and cognition developed and that is evolutionary psychology. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: And I would reiterate that Jerry Fodor identified David Hume as the founder of cognitive science. Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, Randolph Nesse, and the other evolutionary psychologists routinely identify the philosophers and social scientists that originated their assumptions in their work as well so identifying the philosophers who originated the assumptions of evolutionary psychology is not misguided if the evolutionary psychologists explicitly do so themselves. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- there is a difference between saying someone "originated their assumptions" and claiming them as a member of a group - for example, the article Proto-Protestantism identifies a number of religious movements that held beliefs similar to those of later Protestants before the Reformation of the early 16th century - while these groups may have had Protestant ideas, they were not Protestants because Protestantism did not exist at the time - they were forerunners - it's the same with "the philosophers and social scientists that originated their assumptions", they could not have been evolutionary psychologists because the discipline of evolutionary psychology did not exist in their time - and the writers who acknowledge them as originators did not simply repeat their philosophies wholesale, they took certain aspects, added them to other influences, added their own ideas and came up with their own unique viewpoint - to say that Aristotle was the founder of formal logic does not mean that Aristotle was a Logical Positivist although Aristotelian principles may have been incorporated into Logical Positivism - there have been claims that Jesus was a Communist, impossible because Communism as a socio-politcal ecomomic philosophy did not exist at the time - and Jerry Fodor is only one opinion (not a fact) which needs to be supported by the work of other scholars (see WP:UNDUE, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all") - Epinoia (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: I don't think so. Evolutionary psychology isn't a discipline. It's a theoretical framework for understanding for the human mind that came about as a logical corollary to the cognitive revolution. Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker notes that Hume's critique of the teleological argument in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion was what laid the foundations for evolutionary theory itself when the character Philo observes that reproduction is more responsible for the order and intricacies of organic bodies rather than design, so your concerns about undue weight to Jerry Fodor's identification of Hume as the first cognitive scientist is unfounded. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- "laid the foundations for evolutionary theory" is not evolutionary psychology - Hume was not an evolutionary psychologist because evolutionary psychology as a framework for understanding the human mind was not developed until after his death - the article on Evolutionary Psychology states, "Evolutionary psychology has its historical roots in Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection" - the article doesn't mention Hume - and there were many proponents of evolutionary theory before Darwin, but Darwin formulated the mechanism of natural selection that explained how it worked - Epinoia (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: Evolutionary theory is necessary for evolutionary psychology so while the article may not mention Hume and yes Darwin worked out evolutionary theory in detail, Hume originated the theory by his observation. And no, there weren't very many proponents of evolutionary theory before Darwin because most people believed the teleological argument (especially in the form of the watchmaker analogy as put forward by William Paley). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- we seem to disagree on one point: that one cannot be a member of a group that does not exist - for example, Jesus was the founder of Christianity, but he was not a Christian in the sense that later defined Christianity, belief in the Trinity, purgatory, etc., the formal religion of Christianity was formed after his death and did not exist in his lifetime - similarly with Hume, he may be regarded as the founder and espoused ideas that were later adopted by cognitive scientists and evolutionary psychologists, but Hume himself was not a cognitive scientist or evolutionary psychologist as these fields did not exist in his lifetime - you may find a source that says he was the founder, but you will not find a source that states unequivocally that Hume was a cognitive scientist or evolutionary psychologist - to say that he was is drawing conclusions not explicitly stated by the sources - as quoted above from the Cognitive science article about the forerunners of cognitive science, "although these early writers contributed greatly to the philosophical discovery of mind and this would ultimately lead to the development of psychology, they were working with an entirely different set of tools and core concepts than those of the cognitive scientist." - however Hume may have influenced later theories, he was not a cognitive scientist and evolutionary psychologist and nothing can make him so - Epinoia (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: No. Our disagreement stems from a difference in understanding of how intellectual movements/fields form and change. There is no actual organization of people called "evolutionary psychologists", or there shouldn't be. There may be specific research institutes and learned societies that are dedicated to understanding human psychology within that framework, but evolutionary psychology at the end of the day is a set of ideas, not a group of people. The people in the evolutionary psychology navbox are the philosophers and scientists of relevance to the development of the set of ideas that now make up what we call "evolutionary psychology". If by chance we find that an idea was not original to one person because we find that some other person formulated the idea before the first person (even if they do not fully expand upon it), then we still say that the other person is the originator of the idea and thus should be included among the group of people who contributed to the formulation of the set of ideas. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- the article on Evolutionary psychology states, "Evolutionary psychology...examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective" - and as for proponents of evolution before Darwin, see Evolution#History of evolutionary thought or History of evolutionary thought - Epinoia (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: Whatever. I'm done with this argument. If you are not willing to acknowledge that these Enlightenment-era philosophers originated the assumptions made by the evolutionary psychologists (which they themselves acknowledge), then there is no point to continuing this dispute (especially since your objections seem to me to be related to ideologically motivated objections to evolutionary psychology rather than from mutual understanding of what evolutionary psychology is, and I've got better things to do). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming late to this discussion as I was away for the weekend. CKC -- your argument is entirely your own, and I don't believe you have WP:CONSENSUS for it. At the very least, I think this calls for an RFC to get other editors involved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the philosophers cited by early writers on evolutionary psychology be listed in the Template:Evolutionary psychology? (See preceding discusson between CommonKnowledgeCreator, Epinoia and WikiDan61. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As the creator of this RfC, I was the editor who initially questioned CommonKnowledgeCreator regarding the addition of a "Philosophy / Literary theory" section to Template:Evolutionary psychology. Based on the above discussion, I believe the addition of this material to be WP:OR or, at best, WP:SYNTH. The fact that early writers on evolutionary psychology cited earlier philosophical works regarding the "theory of mind" does not make those earlier writers evolutionary psychologists. The fact that the articles on the philosophers who have been added make no mention of evolutionary psychology would lead one to wonder why they are included in the navbox template. Such a template should bring a user to articles related to the topic. the "Principle of Least Astonishment" should guide us here: if I click on a link in the evolutionary psychology navbox, I should arrive at an article that makes some mention of evolutionary psychology. None of these added articles do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - there are no reliable sources that state unequivocally that anyone before Charles Darwin was an evolutionary psychologist - the article History of evolutionary psychology states, "The history of evolutionary psychology began with Charles Darwin" - historical figures before Darwin may have been influencers, precursors or forerunners, but could not have been evolutionary psychologists - the article History of evolutionary psychology does not mention David Hume, Immanuel Kant or Adam Smith and the articles on those persons do not mention evolutionary psychology - navboxes should be bidrectional (WP:BIDIRECTIONAL) and therefore anyone not specifically identified as an evolutionary psychologist in their article should not be included in the navbox - Epinoia (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - just on the general principle of holding an an RfC on your talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John from Idegon: I created this RfC, not CommonKnowledgeCreator. I opened it here because the prior discussion had already occurred here. If you have an actual valid opinion on the merits of the arguments, I'd be interested in hearing it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that CommonKnowledgeCreator is the only proponent for this change to Template:Evolutionary psychology, and they have chose not to comment on this RfC, I'm going to conclude that they do not feel strongly enough about the matter to argue their cause. Therefore, I will close this RfC within 24 hours and proceed to undo the discussed changes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: As I stated in the preceding section, I do not believe that this disagreement stems from a mutual understanding of what evolutionary psychology actually is and is instead motivated by ideological opposition to evolutionary psychology (even though I've provided references that indicate that the figures I added to the navbox originated the scientific assumptions made by evolutionary psychologists) so there is no point to me bothering to continue a dispute with people who will look for any pretext and any administrative policy to revert anything I do to try expand and connect articles related to evolutionary psychology (despite the fact that as far as I can tell from the by-subfield replication crisis in psychology has become the theoretical paradigm of the field) following the main Wikipedia policy to be bold. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– please remember to assume good faith (WP:GOODFAITH) – accusing other editors of being "motivated by ideological opposition to evolutionary psychology" without any evidence does not appear to be assuming good faith (WP:AOBF) – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: College-educated editors are statistically overrepresented on Wikipedia. A reliable ideological difference across countries is that college-educated people tend to lean to the political left, and a longstanding criticism of Wikipedia has been that it has a left-wing bias. As Steven Pinker has noted in The Blank Slate, most of the opposition to evolutionary psychology historically has come from left-wing academics and activists. Customarily reverting content that you are ideologically opposed to is bad faith editing, and because the user-base of this website is not ideologically balanced, it doesn't appear to me that raising concerns that opposition to my edits are being done in bad faith in this context is out of the question. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Straw man, you are arguing against a bias, not dealing with the issue – for myself, I have no ideological opposition to evolutionary psychology, so your assumptions about my motivations are fabrications and therefore not assuming good faith – based on the claim that the history of evolutionary psychology began with Charles Darwin, it is impossible for anyone before Darwin to be called an evolutionary psychologist – that's not bias - Epinoia (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: I don't see how raising a concern qualifies as a straw man. You admonished me for not assuming that your opposition to my edits was being done in good faith. Given the systematic biases on this website, I think it is perfectly fair to be concerned that when disputes on topics such as this arise that it is not being done in good faith. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– if you have any evidence of other editors acting out of bias or not acting in good faith, please present it – thanks – Epinoia (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, CKC, your argument is that there is bias against Evolutionary Psychology at Wikipedia, and therefore you alone have the knowledge to correct that bias? You have received no support for your position from other editors, no consensus for your edits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: No, my argument is that there is a left-wing bias among Wikipedia editors because college-educated Americans are statistically overrepresented among the editors, and that this bias manifests itself in the way its editors create and implement the website's editorial policies to articles about topics like evolutionary psychology (which has generally received more criticism and ideological opposition from the political left) that impedes the development of Wikipedia's coverage of those topics because as social psychologists have said about hostile work environments is that they develop such that "little things stop people". (And no, I sincerely wish I could have some help in editing articles about topics related to evolutionary psychology, but given the ideological biases of the people on this website I doubt that I would receive any.) As I said, there is no point in continuing this discussion since you're all determined to revert my contributions and have identified editorial policies that appear to justify doing so, and given the ideological biases of the editors on this website, I doubt I that there would be anyone else on this website who would be willing to defend my contributions anyway, so just go ahead. I don't care. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it intentional that your username is similar to this editor's? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice added unsourced content to Utah Territory. The second time your edit summary said "Content sourced on U.S. Census articles linked in table", but there was no link in the table. Am I missing something? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: The links to the U.S. Census articles in the table. The population statistics are sourced on those articles. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Utah Territory, there is a "Historical population" table, which you added. Where is the source to support the table? You need to add an inline citation linking to the source of your edit. I am going to delete your unsourced edit, and if you add it back again without a source I will report you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may help. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming unused works as references in the World War II article, and other articles. It isn't even clear why you think that a history of the US Federal Reserve is a relevant reference for a top-level article on this war. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Well, I would say that the Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States which was a great power by the time of the war and one of its more significant combatants, and the history of its central bank would of importance to the financing of the U.S. war effort via debt monetization by conducting open market purchases of government bonds to pay for military expenditures, so if you pissant ex-military history professors don't want my references on your articles then you can remove them yourselves (especially since if any of you history professors and high school history teachers ever bothered taking any economics courses this would be common knowledge among you shitheads). I'm not spamming anything. The books I'm adding as references to the further reading sections of certain articles are books about the histories of institutions or biographies of historical figures that are of enormous importance related to those periods in the economic history of the world (which would include a number of wars). They may not cover the entire economic history of the world during that period, but they are usually related two of the greatest powers during those periods, namely the United States and the United Kingdom. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting a torrent of abuse here, but here you go. If it helps, I actually have an economics degree. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Its not torrent of abuse; its called "dressing down". If you don't want it done to you, then get your head out of your ass. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I was majoring in math and econ in college (and plan to finish at some point), and I learned about the functioning of a central bank, open market operations, and its relationship to debt monetization in ECON 102. If you have an economics degree, then it shouldn't be that mysterious to you why I added it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommonKnowledgeCreator, with this edit at World War I you added this book, the synopsis of which has little to do with World War I. User:Nick-D's caution about "reference spamming" seems appropriate, as this link does little to improve the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Well, I actually own a copy of the book itself. It has chapter subsection about World War I. You wouldn't know that if you only read a synopsis of the book on its publisher's website since the synopsis is about the book in general, and as far as I can tell all you've read is the synopsis, making you just as much of an ignorant shithead looking for any excuse to revert what I do. But since you ignorant people control this website, you're allowed to. Fine. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to read WP:EQ. Insulting other editors is not appropriate. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quite rightly reverted your edits on Blueprint (book). Wikipedia is not your personal interpretation or analysis of things. Do not include citations on a book article which are unrelated to the book. Your misinterpretation of genetics is obvious. By the way, have you edited under a previous username? Sxologist (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sxologist: You are correct that I am not a geneticist but it's not my personal interpretation that Plomin co-authored a previous article stating something that is different from what his subsequent book stated as per the direct quotations in the reviews cited by the article because you do not need to be an expert to simply look something up and note how the explicit text is different. But if that is insufficient to persuade you to leave my edit as it was, then I won't bother continuing arguing with you. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no offence, but you are misreading what he wrote. He has been consistent. He never says traits are 100% heritable in the book, that's not how genetics works. He says that genetics is the largest factor on all traits, which is correct. It's bigger than all other variables combined. That's why two identical twins reared in different families at birth are just as similar as those who were raised together with their biological parents. The same goes for large adoption studies, in which adopted children correlated with their biological parents for traits, and 0 with their adoptive parents. And I have to note, that you cannot include a reference about a book that is unrelated to it. You appear to have done this on other articles as I see another user noted on your talk page. You can only include material relating to the article in question. You will irritate other editors when you do that. But not because they simply disagree (disagreement and relevant takes are okay on article), but purely because the reference has to be talking specifically about the book (provided it is reliable, and is only given due weight). It's always good to refer to many of the available wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and Wikipedia:Citing sources to ensure you have things in order. Sxologist (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sxologist: No offense taken. I haven't read the book and don't own a copy of it, and if you say that Plomin states in the book (with a reference to the specific page number) that traits are not 100 percent heritable, that's more than fine with me because that's what I was under the impression that he always said, as per the behavioral genetics Wikipedia article that summarizes the article I had posted to the Blueprint article (which is itself a systematic literature review on twin and adoption studies that includes the replicated finding that no traits are completely heritable). This is also why I found it peculiar that the reviews of his book said that he was arguing that everything was heritable and thought that it might be worthwhile in noting that he previously stated that that was not the case (especially if there was a shift in his thinking about the subject). But thank you for the correction; I wouldn't want to mischaracterize his views on the subject. (It seems to me that that happens enough to people who write about these topics professionally.) And if it's a problem to include what I added for reasons related to Wikipedia's style guides, then I have no problem leaving the article as it currently is. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Everything is heritable" is the first law of Behavior Genetics, and is indeed correct. It's just not 100% heritable. It's kind of complicated to explain that to general audiences though. It just means everything is under genetic influence. Sxologist (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sxologist: Apologies. What I meant to say is "completely heritable." I'm already familiar with all three of the laws of behavioral genetics after having read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and part of both of Judith Rich Harris' The Nurture Assumption and No Two Alike. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just tired and not choosing my words as carefully as I should. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you've been working on G factor (psychometrics)#Social exchange and sexual selection. I started a thread on the article talk page about possibly trimming parts of this section that don't relate explicitly to the topic of the article. Perhaps we can discuss there before you put more work into the section? Best, Generalrelative (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: Thanks again for the courteous discussion in the thread. I wish every editor that I've had disputes with had your degree of civility when raising an issue with content that I've added. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that means a lot to me, thank you. Back atcha. Generalrelative (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Federal Reserve template and other navigation boxes: the supplemental guideline WP:NAV advises that "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value," and "If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them." 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sections of the Federal Reserve navbox and other templates that other editors feel are too long and should be broken off into separate templates then I have no issue with that, but all of things that I've linked are established by articles with reliable sources even if the reason why I've added may not be explicitly obvious. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It should be explicitly obvious within the text of the linked article, and the various coinage adjustment acts (to give one example) do not appear to meet that standard. Also, I do not take the view that every addition to Wikipedia has a place "somewhere." 73.71.251.64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Reserve is the current government entity with the most control over current monetary policy in the United States and the coinage acts passed before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 was related to the regulation of money in the United States. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Next time you start creating WP:RM discussions for articles that are closely related by topic, I strongly recommend you should follow the procedure for bundling multiple articles into a single requested move, rather than nominating each individual article in a separate RM discussion. The procedure can be found here. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Love of Corey: Apologies. I am not very familiar with the bureaucracy of this website and don't bother to learn it because it evolves faster than I can keep up with. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's evolving faster. The bundled RM process, specifically, looks the same as it was when I first looked at it last year. Love of Corey (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Love of Corey: I've been here longer than that and I have no idea when these things were created and have never bothered to learn them. It's not something I've ever come across until recently. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really make sense for you not to stay up-to-date with these policies, since you've been here longer than me. Everyone else I've met always knows what they're talking about when they cite official Wikipedia policy. Love of Corey (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Love of Corey: Well, sorry, but I don't. I just need helpful chaps such as yourself to inform me when I've done something that's not by the book or up to snuff. I just try to contribute content when it appears that there needs to be greater common knowledge in society about it. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, note that I have not even bothered to create a page for myself. That should tell you enough about me as an editor. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CommonKnowledgeCreator! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at 2020 United States presidential election that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tartan357: Frightfully sorry! As per the section of my talk page before the sections you've added, I am not very familiar with the bureaucracy of this website. Correspondingly, I have nothing but the utmost gratitude to the helpful chaps such as yourself who are and are attempting to keep our beautiful Wikipedian realm from becoming a complete and utter dumpster fire (like certain evil blue websites have become). I sincerely apologize that my edit did not fall within site standards. However, there are discrepancies with the Federal Election Commission count cited in the current revision of the 2020 U.S. presidential election article with the U.S. House Clerk's Office results. The former puts the total vote count at 158,383,403 while the latter has the total vote count as 158,481,688, because of this, there are also discrepancies in the vote totals for each candidate. I'm not an elections lawyer, but since the FEC's regulatory purview is campaign finance law rather than election canvassing, the reference cited is probably not the document that the January 2021 Electoral College vote count was based upon while the U.S. House Clerk's Office results presumably were. I am not attempting to change the meaning of the article, just trying to get the counts to the most authoritative source. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 stock market crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Observer effect.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RegionalAccreditors has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking do many of the world's various economies to a minor contents page about US banking policy before 1913 does not help our readers and will waste thousands of hours of research time especially for students. Rjensen (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen: The template was created from the Federal Reserve System navigation template. A template about money and central banking may seem "minor" or like "spam" to you, but considering the importance of money and central banking to market economies, I actually believe that linking these articles together including the articles about financial institutions located in other parts of the world will help readers in the English-speaking world to better understand the historical development of the structure of the monetary and financial institutions that coordinate their economic activity given the institutions similarity and historical overlap of territorial boundaries. As someone who lives in the United States and interacts with people who are college-educated on a regular basis, I am often amazed at how ignorant college-educated people (particularly in STEM) are of the history of these things and don't realize how much of the structure of the institutions are related to the history. I also sincerely doubt that it will waste anyone's research time but actually save them time because they can now find Wikipedia articles on a large group of articles about similar topics. So unless you have a reason from WP:NAVBOX, I'm reverting your reverts. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's wonderful that you created the navbox "Money and central banking within the contemporary United States (pre–1913)", but please stop adding it to countless articles where it is of little relevance. Please take a moment to read WP:NAV. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I've already read WP:NAV, Magnolia677. Since you actually haven't cited any of the criteria it lists, I think you actually might be the one who needs to. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Apologies, but you haven't cited any reasons yourself. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The more minor stuff you add the worse it is for readers. Rjensen (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen: Who reads navboxes? Navboxes are for navigating the site. How does it make it worse for readers? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

stuudents who click on your links will waste their time and not so as well on exams andtermpapers. Rjensen (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen: As far as I'm concerned, as per WP:CITE and WP:RESEARCH, students who cite Wikipedia in their term papers or to cheat on their final exams deserve to fail and have their time wasted. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English Chancellors of the Exchequer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Jake Paul, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CommonKnowledgeCreator! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Jake Paul that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not clutter the infoboxes for public companies by adding secondary stock listings to the traded_as= parameter . Longstanding consensus is that the field is only for the primary, home country listing of the company (and the infobox documentation reflects that consensus). Very rarely, a company will have, as a result of historical legacy or merger, two primary listings that are appropriate to include (Linde plc and Shell plc are examples) but otherwise there should only be one. Thank you in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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 09:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CommonKnowledgeCreator. I noticed you made some edits to the Issue One article back in October, namely adding a new section about the Council for Responsible Social Media. Given your interest in the subject, I'm hoping that you can review a proposal I recently posted to the Issue One pageTalk page . I am requesting an update to the History section that would retitle the section and simplify a number of details. I have a COI as I work for Issue One, so I'm hoping an uninvolved editor like yourself could take a look at what I've put together. AR at Issue One (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, CommonKnowledgeCreator. Just checking to see if you've had a chance to look at the request I posted at the Issue One Talk page. I've reached out for editor input at a few WikiProjects and haven't found any interest, so I'm hoping an individual editor like yourself who has been active on the page in the recent past can take a look. Any help or feedback you can provide would be much appreciated. AR at Issue One (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Environmental policy of the Joe Biden administration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CommonKnowledgeCreator. My name is Karen and I work for F&G, an annuities and life insurance company. In compliance with WP:COI, I requested an updated infobox and other tweaks here. I saw that you've edited other financial pages and was hoping you might be willing to review my proposed changes. Let me know. Best regards. Kep728 (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Misandry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—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. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Apologies for violating the 3-revert rule, but I do not believe the content I posted violates WP:SYNTH. The references describe that the play was created to explore double standards for male speakers versus female speakers, as the opening sentence of The Guardian reference rhetorically asks, "Would we allow a female leader to speak like Donald Trump?" and as 3-17-2017 The New York Times reference paraphrases one the play's co-creators as stating that she "envisioned the gender swap to explore double standards, and to invite viewers to question their own biases." The double standard explored is about when female speakers engage in behavior that would be considered to be impolite or rude if a male speaker did so and vice versa. Per WP:SYNTH, there is no new conclusion being drawn or implied because it is clear from the references that the play was created to explore double standards that audiences hold male speakers to due to personal bias (i.e. prejudice against men or misandry) and not double standards that audiences hold female speakers to due to personal bias (i.e. prejudice against women or misogyny). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, per the WP:What SYNTH is not sections "SYNTH is not presumed", "SYNTH is not explanation", and "SYNTH is not summary", what is the new thesis that I've introduced and is it not verified by the sources? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that double standards for men and women is the same topic as misandry?

Every cited source should be talking about misandry explicitly, not just gender differences. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Person A is being held to a double standard by the personal biases of Person B because of Person A's sex, then Person B holds a sexist prejudice. If a woman is held to a double standard by the personal biases of another person because she is a woman, then that other person is a misogynist. If a man is held to a double standard by the personal biases of another person because he is a man, then that other person is a misandrist. This very simply and logically follows from the definitions included in the Misogyny, Misandry, and Sexism article ledes, and as such, cannot be my personal viewpoint or SYNTH. The sources say nothing about gender differences, but do explicitly say that the play's co-creators developed it to explore double standards that male speakers are held to by the personal biases of audiences and specifically by Hillary Clinton supporters. While the sources do not explicitly use the words "misandry", "misandrist", or "misandristic", the sources are describing misandry and that such words are not explicitly used by the sources is your only issue with the summary added and the sources cited as far as I can tell. However, per the WP:What SYNTH is not sections I cited before, you have:

1. not identified any new thesis or conclusion I have introduced that is not verifiable from the sources,
2. not shown that I am not just explaining the same material in a different way, and
3. not shown that the summary of the sources that was included was not accurate, not neutral, or not verified.

Per WP:What SYNTH is not, SYNTH is not a policy but part of the WP:NOR policy, and nothing I added was publishably original since no new thesis or conclusion unverifiable from the sources was introduced. Also, SYNTH is not a rigid rule because Wikipedia has no firm rules, and as such, policies are not supposed to be enforced zealously and especially SYNTH because SYNTH is not ubiquitous, SYNTH is not a catch-all, SYNTH is not presumed, and SYNTH is not obvious. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the three revert rule, since it has been more than 24 hours and you have not provided a clear explanation as to why the content I added to the Misandry article violates WP:SYNTH (per WP:What SYNTH is not) or any other Wikipedia content policy, I will be restoring it at some point in the next 24 hours because as far as I can tell it is just a BOLD edit that you did not like. However, I will wait to give you an adequate window of time to respond. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you add it again you will be repeating your violation of WP:No original research. You built your own thesis about this material, deciding on your own that the play is relevant to the topic of misandry. It is not, until you can find an explicit connection in the media. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no violation of WP:NOR. There is no new thesis or conclusion that is not verifiable from the sources since they describe men being held to double standards that women are not held to, which is a form of misandry. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources do describe the play raising issues about sexism which misandry is one category of. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you refuse to follow policy, in which case you'll be reported. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If I violate a policy, I do not do so intentionally because I don't review every last policy before I make an edit. After all, Wikipedia does not have firm rules and that is why rules are not supposed to be enforced zealously against BOLD edits that are simply disliked and that do not clearly violate a content policy (especially WP:SYNTH). With respect to WP:NOR and as I have said more than once before, there is no new thesis or conclusion being drawn that is not verifiable from the sources because the sources explicitly describe the play raising issues about sexism and describe men being held to double standards and with in contempt and not women, so the sexism in question cannot be misogyny but misandry. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are simply too many policies that another editor could argue an edit is in violation of to review before making one. This is another reason why Wikipedia does not have firm rules. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not excited with using those Dorchester Reporter articles as a source when the MBTA press release is available instead. They're written by the "managing editor"; given that this is a small newspaper, I'm not sure there's actually any additional editorial oversight. Given the mundane subject that's not a huge issue, but there's no compelling reason to use it in favor of the MBTA website.

Please also read WP:THIRDPARTY carefully. Independent sources are required to establish notability, and articles must be based on them. All of the relevant articles already satisfy this standard. However, Once an article meets this minimal standard, additional content can be verified using any reliable source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already read WP:THIRDPARTY. Yes, independent sources are not always reliable and the claims being made here are not exceptional (since its about an announcement of system maintenance and repair). However, given the MBTA's ongoing longstanding issues with organizational management that stretch back over the past decade, the MBTA's internal organizational conflicts, and organizational performance issues related to safety and its workforce culture, I'd argue that independent sources on articles discussing ANYTHING having to do with the MBTA should ALWAYS be preferred if one is available rather than any MBTA press statement. Ditto for the UMass System. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's what you said have said (either in edit summary or a talk page post) rather than linking to a policy that didn't support your edits. I still don't really agree with the rationale - the information we're citing, whether in the Dorchester Reporter or on the MBTA website, still comes from the MBTA. I'm going to add the MBTA press release as a second source, which hopefully is an acceptable compromise. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's what you said have said (either in edit summary or a talk page post) rather than linking to a policy that didn't support your edits. I still don't really agree with the rationale - the information we're citing, whether in the Dorchester Reporter or on the MBTA website, still comes from the MBTA. Not sure I understand what you mean from the wording of the previous comment. The press release is fine as a second source, but it should not be used as the first source. While WP:THIRDPARTY notes that churnalism is a serious problem, WP:THIRDPARTY does caution against using press releases for assertions in general (presumably for conflict-of-interest related reasons) and which is why press releases in general should be avoided when other primary sources are available. While WP:RS does not require that reliable sources be without bias, WP:NPOV states that all articles should be based upon reliable and independent sources. So, as far as I can tell, the policy I cited and other core content policies do support my edits (since I generally try to avoid using press releases if other primary sources are available). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [1] you say you are removing duplicate references. But I don't see the The Georgetown Law Journal reference anywhere else in the article. All apologies if I have missed something.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion. I had included the 2019 CRS report on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and Georgetown Law Journal as references for the sentence that mentions that a state's power to regulate the administration of presidential elections is made pursuant to the Presidential Electors Clause of Article II, Section I. I didn't realize that it was overkill because the GAO report does reference Article II, Section I on page 3 for a state's power to create a framework of election law regulating election administration in presidential elections. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, on page 7. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I figured it was something like that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook 185.173.207.13 (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Election denial movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election denial movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

rootsmusic (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook has been lock date of birth 150.129.110.47 (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

block date of birth 150.129.110.47 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook has been lock unlock 150.129.110.47 (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kilu zin 27.109.113.92 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kilu zin 27.109.113.92 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, and well-constructed and ordered (which is 51% of navbox creation). Wanted to give more of a thanks than just a "thanks", and you deserve one of those templates for "a job well done". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Thanks! However, I didn't create the template. It just occurred to me that it was a little strange that the Enforcement Acts and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964 were not mentioned in the Voting rights in the US navbox (even though all of those bills included voting rights provisions) or the federal agencies responsible for enforcing them. After all, it is why the United States Department of Justice was created by the Grant administration in the first place. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was talking of those recent additions and how you laid them in. Well done. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Regarding your edits on the 2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump article, you may want to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David O. Johnson: Apologies! I am superficially familiar with WP:3RR. My intentions were not to initiate an edit war or to entirely remove User:Michael.alexander.kaufmann's contributions. It's just that the content that User:Michael.alexander.kaufmann added was mostly redundant or would have lead to the article becoming overly detailed. For that specific article, we need to keep the content about specific state-by-state challenges to a minimum and leave coverage of the specific cases and their reasoning to separate articles about them. Any litigation or petitions to state election agencies should be kept to barebones summaries. Otherwise, the article will become overly detailed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Form I-9 does not belong on the Ronald Reagan navbox. You seem to be adding anything done within a presidential administration or in congress to presidential navboxes. I've asked you several times not to do this, yet you've added hundreds of entries to presidential navboxes, thus more or less hiding the president's real accomplishments and understandable chronological timelines under a flood of either good or tangential entries. I've only checked a small percentage of these additions - there are way too many and they come so quickly to spend time on each one especially - since you ignore requests to stop doing this. I'm assuming many would fit and many would not, and it may take a team of editors to decide which ones should stay and which should be removed. I just know that several articles I've chosen to check haven't panned out as appropriate for the navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Presentment Clause of Article I, Section VII of the U.S. Constitution, a bill becomes a law only if:

1. The President signs the bill into law;
2. Congress overrides a presidential veto of the bill;
3. The President does not act on the bill within 10 days (Sundays and when Congress is out of session excepted).

All federal government departments, agencies, programs, and regulations are authorized by organic or delegating laws made pursuant to the Constitution and passed by Congress, which are then effectuated by the President issuing executive orders or by federal agencies proposing regulations. If a federal law, federal government department, agency, program, or regulation is made pursuant to a bill signed into law by a President, then that decision is part of the administration's public policy. Even if the President vetoes the bill and Congress overrides the veto, the bill is still ultimately enacted and effectuated during that administration (if not fully effectuated). I can understand that not every article at present will mention the President, but that can very easily be changed. While I can appreciate that the length of some of these navigation templates will grow to the point where they should be broken into separate templates, that does not mean that the articles should not be included in navigation templates for presidential administrations. It just means that the templates should be split into separate templates. I've made similar arguments about articles related to Supreme Court cases. There is a need to keep articles related to U.S. public policy easily navigable, and in my experience, content issues in general with articles typically do not get addressed if they are only included on categories and lists. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha, that might be the difference in viewpoints. The navboxes are not about presidential administrations, they are about individual persons. A person who becomes president has major accomplishments and direct interests which may become laws, but entries in a biographical navbox should be for the defining events in that person's presidency, not everything that crosses his desk. That's how I've gone about building presidential navboxes, as individuals and not as an overriding overview listing everything related to their administration and every bill they sign. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do now understand each other, but I must take issue with your characterization of the purpose of listing the policy decisions as "accomplishments". Instead, and in keeping with WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:FORUM, the purpose is to create a comprehensive but easily navigable list of the decisions of a presidential administration (in whole or within a particular policy area) regardless of whether the decisions were net-positive or net-negative in the short-term or long-term for the country, while the articles are not intended to express an opinion in favor or opposition to the policies but instead are supposed to provide a merit-neutral description of the policies and summarize research conducted by professional policy scholars, social scientists, journalists, and historians about the policy decisions and assessments or evaluations of them. I generally agree that biographical navboxes should be kept to articles about the President as a person, but for some presidential administrations, particularly during the 19th century when few administrations did much of long-term historical significance to how the federal government operates, I would argue instead that it would be unnecessary to create a separate navigation template for the administration in many of those cases. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view better, thanks for the detailed explanations. The key point probably hinges on careful arrangement of entries, which should, on a good navbox, tell the story in understandable form. While questioning inclusion of things like Form I-9 I can tell you have a good mental map of what you're trying to accomplish, so I'll try to 'curb my enthusiasm' for challenging things that seem to clutter the biographical navboxes. But please arrange the new entries in understandable sequence and bundled topics, preferably chronological, as you've done with good work on non-presidential navboxes. I agree that 19th century navboxes, or even pre-Taft, do fall on the biographical end of the inclusion spectrum. Thanks for putting up with this time-sink discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, and thank you for the civil discussion! I don't think a talk page discussion qualifies as a "time-sink" if the discussion leads to a mutual understanding and resolution to a disagreement. :) In keeping with WP:NAVBOX, I really should reorder entries chronologically and will make a point of doing so going forward, as well as including a date for the decisions in plain text since many articles titles don't necessarily mention when the decisions were made. Likewise in keeping with WP:NAVBOX, the arrangement style I've been following is simply to create child navboxes for specific policy areas and to create a parentheses group if a specific law or other decision authorizes the creation of departments, agencies, programs, regulations, or other policies. With the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachments, I've created separate groups for the impeachment processes against them because, while not being policy area, impeachment is the legislative branch's ultimate check-and-balance power under Article I and Article II of the U.S. Constitution over the executive branch and so articles related to a presidential impeachment should also be included in a navigation template about a presidential administration. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Like I said, you seem to have a good mental map of what you've been accomplishing, so I'll try to keep out of your way on your project. Not everything needs to be dated, just putting things in as much chronological order as possible tells the story well. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CommonKnowledgeCreator!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what experience you have with ArbCom. I'm assuming little. Apologies if I'm incorrect:

You're correct that ArbCom's decisions are over conduct. However, they make statements about content policy when it's relevant to a dispute. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Boilerplates contain many such statements. --Hipal (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience! I try to stay out of the Principal's Office. :) Thanks for the links! I'll take a look. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I would like to know what your intentions are for the integration of the Media and human factors template and the Digital media and mental health template. Your removal of content from Digital media and mental health has left a large number of links defunct, so I want to know what your plan is.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I've misunderstood what you've meant, I have no plans on integrating them. I split the links from the Digital media use and mental health template because it occurred to me that a large number of links were to articles that are not exactly mental health related so I created the separate Media and human factors template. Which links are "defunct"? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the idea of having the Digital media and mental health template link things like Digital zombie together with Attention economy, and Information overload. I also liked linking together things like Information overload, Online youth radicalization, and Body image.

What I'm left with now is terms like "Anxiety disorder" and "Eating disorder," without anything explaining the link between those Psychiatric disorders and digital media. Lau737 (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. While I don't disagree with your sentiment, I removed them because those articles don't connect their subjects with mental health at all. While I would not be at all surprised if there is research that identifies "information overload" as an externality of an "attention economy" and in turn to attention disorders, neither the Attention economy and Information overload articles discuss mental health at all. Likewise, while the Body image article does talk about mental health, the Online youth radicalization article does not discuss mental health issues at all. I was intending on expanding the Digital media use and mental health article to have specific sections on anxiety disorders and eating disorders, but I need to first have a discussion with a few other editors who were involved in a previous featured article review (FAR) notice discussion that led to the demotion of the article from featured article status. We could also add a Template:Excerpt on the articles about the specific disorders that would link from the Digital media use and mental health article sections once they are added. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those things are just implied. Information overload or pollution may cause anxiety or fatigue which then increases the risk of mental illness. Echo chambers and online youth radicalization are also headcanon for "mental disorders and the internet," or at the very least the psychological altering of internet users. With the Digital media and mental health template feeling impaired in its current state, I'm inclined to simply restore it to its original form. Lau737 (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NAVBOX. Restoring them would likely cause the Digital media use and mental health template to no longer satisfy 3 of the 5 criteria for good navigation templates:

• "1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject."
• "2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article."
• "3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent."

WP:NAVBOX goes on to state that "If the collection of articles does not meet these criteria, the articles are likely loosely related. A list, category, or neither, may accordingly be more appropriate." Per the policy, I think it would be more appropriate to keep them separate. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Media and human factors template doesn't score any better on these points. Renaming the original template "Digital media and humanity" or maybe something even better, should resolve these issues. Lau737 (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair criticism, but I think it's better to keep them separate in light of all 5 good navigation template criteria which also includes:

• "4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template."
• "5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles."

The original template satisfies Criterion 4 at least as is. While the Media and human factors template does not, it does satisfy Criterion 5. Perhaps if the new navbox was retitled "Media externalities" or "Externalities of media", it would more clearly satisfy Criterion 1 since externalities are broadly understood in economics as all indirect effects to third parties and are not limited to something specific like mental health effects. I was just under the impression that "human factors" encompassed that itself, but perhaps not. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps "Socioeconomic impacts externalities of media". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good ideas, I'm going to put some thought into choosing the best or least-worst name.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or actually, how about "Socioeconomics of media"? Socioeconomics usually refers to the broad interdisciplinary study of using methodologies within economics to study social institutions and methodologies within sociology to study production, consumption, and distribution of goods and services. That would not limit the template to externalities (e.g. the articles about Mobile phones and driving safety, Texting while driving, and Smartphones and pedestrian safety), and would also encompass topics like Attention economy and Information pollution. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I've created a new template called The Digital Age.

It can also be seen via this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Digital_Age

If you approve, I will start implementing it.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your work, I still think it would probably be better to keep the templates with the possible renaming that I suggested before and including some of the links that you've included in this template. Per WP:NAVBOX, "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." I'd also add that I'm currently in the middle of a discussion for a proposal at the Village pump idea lab where I cited the "Just one out of who knows how many" section here on my talk page and at Talk:Presidential Succession Act#Removal of presidential navigation templates where it's pretty clear that a fair number of editors seem to think my interpretation of WP:NAVBOX is wrong. Also, apparently "The Digital Age" is a band from Waco, Texas rather than a period of economic and technological history. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Information Age (also known as the Computer Age, Digital Age, Silicon Age, New Media Age, Media Age, or Third Industrial Revolution) is a historical period that began in the mid-20th century." It's not my fault if bands use generic terms. The above template should increase another 50% in size before I even consider it to be too big. My primary concern is usefulness, not size, and the template probably will be used.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. FWIW, the reason I deleted A. Johnson from the Republican & Democratic party templates, was because the dates made it appear as though he was US president for only three years in one & for only one year in the other, when in fact he was US president for nearly four years. I couldn't think of any other way around the potential misreading. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could also just allow the reader to click on the link to the article about their Presidency if they are confused. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not every reader does that. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then that's their own fault for a lack of curiosity I suppose. But according to the Presidency of Andrew Johnson article, Johnson was a member of the National Union Party for the first 3 years of his Presidency and then rejoined the Democratic Party when he ran for re-election in 1868. There's no squaring this historical circle. :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CommonKnowledgeCreator, I saw your note a WT:NPP and thought you might be interested in becoming an WP:AfC reviewer. See the criteria here and the reviewing instructions here. A few of benefits is given it is draft space, there is no need for AfD, you can add comments providing guidance without making a decision, you can help drafts along by adding sources or cleaning them up in order to accept them, get some practice nominating drafts for CSD (usually G11 or G12) and so on. Feel free to ask me questions or at WT:AFC. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like important work, but I agreed to go through the training program for NPP and I think it would probably be better for me to complete that first and get some experience doing that before I'd feel that I'd before joining WP:AfC. While I've been contributing to Wikipedia for years, I feel like I need a better understanding of Wikipedia content policy before I'd be that useful for something like what WP:AfC requires. I'll keep it on my radar though, and thanks for reaching out! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CommonKnowledgeCreator :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that an experienced editor is doing something like this. I'm definitely interested, but I don't know when I'll get a chance to respond. Please let me know if you plan on closing the page and I haven't responded so I can do so. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on keeping it open pretty much indefinitely, so pitch in whenever you have the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to editor CommonKnowledgeCreator for making awesome improvements to the challenging but impactful Digital media use and mental health article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at Talk:Digital media use and mental health#Structure, there's more to come! :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. :-) As it looks like Sandy may be too busy to reply, I'll take the liberty of chiming in on the other section. While I'm no substitute for SG, I've known her for 15 years now, including watching her work quite closely back in 2008 (when she was effectively a co-Director for the FA process, and I had aspirations of taking Lord Keynes to FA status. ). I tend to be in agreement with here about 70% of the time, so hopefully some value in my reply. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you already saw my comment, but did you check out the The Wikipedia Library? Seems like it would be useful for you to access lots of secondary sources, given you are a heavy contributor. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've tried using it before, but I think when I made the request for what I was looking for, it was denied due to a backlog of other requests. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting idea but please think about not doing this for other presidents. Full biographical navbox fulfill the complete subject matter, and removing the Nixon bio navbox from these articles restrains access to the other parts of the subjects life. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my discussion at the Presidential Succession Act talk page. I know we had discussion about this topic this past January, but other editors felt that legislation articles do not belong in biographical templates. I believe your concern could be addressed by including an above line in the template with the biography article linked. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They legislation articles belong if the president themselves had a major hand in initiating and organizing the issue, not just adding every bill that crosses a president's desk to sign. Signing is participating as the end-decider but in many cases the president has not agreed beforehand and the legislation is brought by individual Senators and Representatives. Other topics, on the Nixon navbox the Watergate material belong on his bio navbox, etc. Biographical navboxes are maps to all of the major subject articles on Wikipedia, not just some. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[The] legislation articles belong if the president themselves had a major hand in initiating and organizing the issue, not just adding every bill that crosses a president's desk to sign. I'm not sure I agree. Under Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States". Which is to say, only members of Congress propose legislation, hold hearings on proposed legislation, and pass bills into law. The President signs the bill into law and can veto it, but Congress may override the veto and the President and the executive branch will still be responsible for effectuating and enforcing it under those circumstances. Once the legislation is signed into law by the President, how the law is effectuated and enforced becomes part of the administration's policy. Scandals may not be a policy, but they are part of the history of an administration even if the President is not directly involved. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop and revert all of your changes to the long-term navbox moves. There is no consensus to have two navboxes for each president in this form. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't two navboxes for each President; there is one biographical navbox for person who served as President and one navbox for the Presidency, the presidential administration, and its policies. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the navboxes for each president alone and don't remove them from the pages. This is a circular discussion. Okay, as a concrete example that what you are doing is harming the navboxes, if you move items out of Lyndon Johnson's navbox then his template will lose things like Great Society, War on Poverty, 1965 Civil Rights Act and many other entrants which are determinative of Johnson's time on Earth. As I said, please stop removing entries from existing navboxes and removing them from pages, there is no consensus to do either. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a circular discussion. Okay, as a concrete example that what you are doing is harming the navboxes, if you move items out of Lyndon Johnson's navbox then his template will lose things like Great Society, War on Poverty, 1965 Civil Rights Act and many other entrants which are determinative of Johnson's time on Earth. The only things "determinative of Johnson's time on Earth" was his birth date and death date. The Great Society, the War on Poverty, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other bills he signed into law were enacted during his Presidency, which is a notable and broad enough topic that it has a separate article about it and other articles about specific policies and laws implemented during the Johnson administration. His biography navbox still includes a link to his Presidency article, so it is unclear to me that the biography navboxes are being harmed at all. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've asked a couple of times, please help out by putting the navboxes back on the articles (do we need a bot to do it?) and don't remove anymore, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I've addressed your concerns and at least one editor has expressed thanks to me for replacing one biography template with a presidential administration template. Since we appear to be talking past each other, I've started a discussion at the WikiProject United States Presidents talk page. Considering that there is an entire WikiProject devoted to coverage of United States Presidents, I think what those editors think about this should be given greater weight than your or my opinions alone. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidency of Jimmy Carter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidency of Richard Nixon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidency of Ronald Reagan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidency of Gerald Ford has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidency of George H. W. Bush has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidency of George W. Bush has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The navboxes have contained presidential entries since their inception. You know this, there is no need to explain but I'll try: Separating their presidency from an individuals' full life, including overlaps such as family, campaigns, books, and the rest, just doesn't work in terms of offering readers a full map to Wikipedia's topic collection about the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wanted to drop by to assure you that I'm not ignoring the comment that you made at the navbox discussion, but will get to it tomorrow. Can only do so much of that kind of "backroom" stuff a day, arguments and all. Sometimes in a well-attended discussion I'll go half a week before even reading the comments. So it's not you (to coin a phrase), it's me, and thanks for the ping. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, none of the edits I have made have violated any content policy. As such, it appears to me that you are in violation of the WP:OWN policy, specifically the following examples from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

Actions

"2. An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not."

"4. An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior."

"5. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions."

"6. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative... often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article..."

Statements

"4. Please do not make any more changes without my/their/our approval."

-- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name First Amendment is spelled out, not "1st Amendment". Here is the n-gram showing this is the correct usage. Please change this in navboxes I may have missed and other places where you've added it (I don't mean the names of the navboxes you've created, since they are not in visible space, but in their mainspace viewing text). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inspiration to correct the full direct link names of the amendments in mainspace, i.e. '5th' to 'Fifth'. I've chipped away at some of them since I left the above note, and will keep at it when I'm online. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spent a lot of time fixing these links to the correct names, so thanks again for inspiring this. If we had an interaction ban in place things like this would not have occurred, and many other good things have come out of our tussles. So let's try to make up a bit, and exchange secret Santas and stuff. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said at the noticeboard discussion, I don't believe an interaction ban is what's necessary. However, as you yourself have noted in our interactions, essays are not policies or guidelines under WP:P&G, and WP:LAWYERING and WP:TEXTWALL are themselves only essays and not even explanatory essays under WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. As such, they do not have wide acceptance within the Wikipedia editing community. This is probably due to the fact that WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:DETCON, and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY require that consensus be based in existing policy rather than popularity or exclusively in the common sense of editors.

If you find that someone (and certainly myself) has responded to a comment that you've made with a comment that appears to be a wall-of-text that cites multiple policies, perhaps you should consider that maybe you have just violated the letter and principles of the policies or guidelines cited rather than that the other editor is wikilawyering—especially since the policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect an already-existing community consensus about a topic per WP:NOTBUREAU. When another editor has cited a policy or guideline in a discussion is also the point at which you need to stop reiterating the same argument if it is likewise not based in policy or guidelines per WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEONING—and possibly even if it is based in policy or guidelines if the other editor's argument is as well.

As far as our disputes related to navigation templates are concerned, you need to appreciate that many editors do not like navigation templates and want to eliminate them from Wikipedia altogether. While I am not one of them, many of their complaints about navigation templates are defensible and particularly complaints related to template clutter and oversized templates, and which is why coming up with more objective language and restrictive criteria for WP:NAVBOX guideline is appropriate.

If you are willing to affirmatively acknowledge all of this, I believe we can move forward. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Moxy🍁 19:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going with the navbox list, remember Blair House, Truman's official residence from late 1948 until 1952. You added one I'd never heard of (or at least didn't remember, Seven Buildings), thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]