Jump to content

User talk:Zenomonoz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Mctuker)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elon Musk on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red December 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 18:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elon Musk on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding {{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}} to your user page.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 17:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Anonymous8206

[edit]

Re: [1]

Predictable given their notice: "I will delete anything you have to say if I have a problem with it..this is my talk page not yours". Their UTP is not for constructive criticism. I don't know if they qualify for a NOTHERE indef, but nobody could argue that they are an asset to the encyclopedia—or have the potential to be one. In cases like this, the only hope is to make things so unpleasant that they leave on their own. I've seen that succeed multiple times. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah I'll keep an eye on this one. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now indeffed, and I didn't have to lift a finger. Rejoice! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Was going to report them shortly. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red February 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331


Online events:

Announcements from other communities:

  • Wiki Loves Ramadan begins on 25 February - a great opportunity to focus on women from Islamic history

Tip of the month:

Suggestion:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Gay Agenda

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can you explain why my edit needs to be reverted without reason? "Critics" is far from unusual on Wikipedia, and the norm for handling this kind of dispute is supposed to be refraining from reverting the edit until it's been discussed. Ozone742 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone742 this is my personal talk page, please open it on the article talk page here: Talk:Gay agenda. thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. I wanted to ask you specifically why you reverted my edit without cause. Ozone742 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ozone742, it wasn't without cause, another user already reverted you on this. Specifically, WP:LEAD is a summary of the body of the article. You removed the word "disparaging" alleging bias. The article reflects what the WP:RS state, and "gay/homosexual agenda" is a term with origins in socially conservative Christianity. If you can find WP:RS that support using your interpretation then you are welcome to provide them. It isn't up to individual editors to be completely overriding what WP:RS say. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was. If you disagreed with my edit you should've actually explained why you reverted or just created an article in the talk page yourself.
Yes, the lead is a summary of the article, and the article shows that this belief is far from limited to Christian groups. Heck the very next sentence in the lead shows that. The previous sentence already explains its origin in Christian, circles. Thus making the description I removed redundant.
Why is the burden to provide reliable sources on me and not the people including the subjective term? If anything, you need to provide evidence that the term is disparaging. Especially since none of the sources in the article confirm this. Probably because it's no different than, for example, saying the term is insulting. It's a subjective term. Ozone742 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply on the article talk page, I'm not having this discussion in two places at once. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well done

[edit]

Good job at "Effects". In particular, your method of doing individual removals of a reasonable-sized chunk, each one with a specific edit summary tailored to it and explaining exactly what the issue was *in that chunk*, is ideal. I know this is taking you time and work, and just wanted to make sure that you knew that your efforts are appreciated. Keep up the good work! After the dust settles, we can take another look at whether a merge makes sense. I would let it lie dormant for a week or two before moving on that, just to see if anything got stirred up (and because WP:NODEADLINE), but at the end of a waiting period it would be fair to take up the merge again, if you feel like. Given the orphan status, it's definitely not urgent. Once again, thanks for all your diligent work on this; well done. Mathglot (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's appreciated. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

[edit]

Hello User:Zenomonoz, I have noticed that you have arrived at several articles where you have not edited before in order to undo my contributions. I would like to assume good faith, though it appears that you are WP:FOLLOWING my edits. If this is not the case, please forgive me. However, I am concerned by this recent pattern. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

??? Anupam, uh, no, I am not "following" your edits. I have a lot of Satanic Panic related articles on my watch list because I edit in psychology. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for the inquiry. Happy editing, AnupamTalk 01:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam, I checked our edit interactions and I've only also undone one of your edits on Promiscuity, an article that I have a long period of editing in. If you're going to suggest somebody has followed you, you'll probably need to provide multiple instances of somebody coming into obscure articles they never edit in, to challenge your editing. Following is a form of harassment, so accusing people of harassment is kind of inflammatory (WP:AOHA). Anyway, I'm not taking it personally, but just keep that in mind in future. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zenomonoz, I appreciate your input. However, it was not just at the article you cited, but also at Believe the Children and sexual partner. You never previously edited those articles, though the reverts were made in close proximity. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, I have assumed good faith and trust that you had these articles on your watchlist as you have stated. Best wishes, AnupamTalk 02:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anupam, we already discussed Believe The Children. You should be able to figure out that sexual partner is closely related to promiscuity, so is likely on my watch list. You added the exact same content to that article that I reverted on promiscuity. If you're going to add in claims from primary source studies, I'm within my right to revert you. Not to mention the WP:UNDUE nature of the content. That does not constitute harassment. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zenomonoz&oldid=1274457501"