User talk:Crossroads/2020, 4th quarter

Thank you for the courtesy edit

Darn implicit biases! Although I would much rather have a thoughtful, respectful Wikipedian like you identify and kindly fix one of my implicit gender biases than have the bias continue it's secret sabotage in my brain. I really appreciate your courtesy edit (diff). :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Mistaken undo

I mistakenly undid your edit. It was a slip of the finger and I immediately undid it.Editor2020 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I've done that myself. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Postmodernism entry

Hi, Crossroads. I'm the person who proposed revisions of the postmodernism entry. I'm giving up. It would take too much time to make the entry what it should be. If you have an interest in doing so, I'm convinced the proper way to proceed would be a complete rewrite from start to finish. Piecemeal revisions of individual sentences, paragraphs, or sections result in a mess. And the current entry is quite a mess because of such piecemeal revision over time. Better to start over and redo the whole thing at one go. Good luck. Mryan1451 (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Mryan1451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mryan1451 (talk • contribs)

Human

Thanks for your edits to human sexuality. I am looking to put this through a GA review at some point and the Psychology section is probably my weakest area. I ended up mostly pulling from other articles as you probably realised. I know you are well versed in Human Sexuality here, but wondered if you had any expertise on some of the other aspects in that section (i.e. sleep, consciousness, motivation etc)? AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: No problem; thank you for improving that article. It's good to see the problem tags get taken down and to see it improve, as there is no shortage of research about that particular species and it gets a lot of interest, haha. Unfortunately I don't think I will be of much help in those other areas. Still, I'll try to read it more and keep watching it, in case I can help in some way. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-consensual condom removal article

I've semi-protected the Non-consensual condom removal article for a month to stop the IP-hopping disruptive edits. If you run into any further problems with this disruptive editor, please let me know, and I will try to do something about it. -- The Anome (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Black liberation and collective liberation

Sorry for the tough time you are going through. I wouldn't necessarily call "black liberation" a vague term, its more of an umbrella term. For the BLVC their dedication to "Black liberation and collective liberation" is probably best explained with this source. So basically "committed to dismantling systems of oppression and violence. The organization’s work is centered in healing and transformative justice principles, and nurturing the state’s emerging Black leadership to lead powerful campaigns." Either way I didn't find your comment the least bit racist and I hope this find you well.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate this, thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. I would like to inform you of this (in french, ″feu″ means dead), and to assure you, if any needs, that the reason of my intervention on WP:RA was to prevent a risk of future false accusation of SP, not to dissuade you to help for a welcomed cleaning. Out of WP, I discovered that the problem is larger in France than estimated, as some high school books endorsed the idea. Cheers. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Wow! signal

Hello Crossroads, You may not quite believe this, but I have just noticed that a Dispute resolution noticeboard thread has been opened without any notification to any editor who opposed the non-referenced content being placed in the Wow! signal page. Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Opalzukor (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow! signal

Just to inform you that ExoEditor has again opened a Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion, despite being rejected a few days ago. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration request you are party in

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wow! signal and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The filing editor failed to let you know about the request. In my capacity as a clerk, I am doing that for them. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

David and Jonathan

Don't threaten me Crossroads. It won't work and just serves to irritate. If you want to make a complaint because you think I've violated norms then please do so. If you want to reach out and engage constructively on an issue then please do so. But DON'T threaten me. I think you're opinions are verging on NPOV so work together rather than edit war.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You know better than to edit war, ignore WP:ONUS, and make unfounded accusations of bias. [1] Will reply there also. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I'm not familiar with the topic. But looking at the text and the article's talk page, it's clear that there is no consensus for your text. I'm going to revert with WP:Status quo in mind. It's correct to state that the onus is on you to convince others to keep your text. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

New Yorker piece

I thought I'd respond here to the points you and Davide King raised at Talk:Antifa (United States), as it's probably not directly relevant to the article, but nonetheless worth clarifying what I was getting at in my comment last month. From what I recall I was mostly peturbed by the kid-gloves treatment of Joey Gibson in the paragraphs after the one beginning "Another man in black bloc" and concomitant description of his critics as some kind of frenzied baying mob. The extensive space given to fringe figures like J.W. Matt Hennessee, Ron Herndon and Najee Gow – who are quoted in things like this precisely because their views are those of a small minority, but who Mogelson would have us think are a significant tendency – is another concern. The passage "the man ran over a Proud Boy in the parking lot ... Although he wasn’t a member of Rose City Antifa, he had shared a social-media post advocating violence against racists" is almost laughable in its desperation to draw connections that aren't there, because there's no vast left-wing conspiracy, just a city annoyed at the continued presence of racists. There are other misrepresentations that I probably couldn't go into without raising BLP issues. As I said at the talk page, this doesn't mean we shouldn't cite it, though I do think we should avoid listing it as further reading (which we wouldn't do if we're citing it anyway). Hope this clears things up somewhat. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. No worries. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow! signal case request declined

The case request "Wow! signal", which you were a party in, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. I want to apologize for my behaviour. I'm going through really rough times in life. Feel free to delete this; I just wanted to let you know my apology. Kind regards. ExoEditor 15:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Criticism of evolutionary psychology

Ethics as science and ethics as moral philosophy discern. Only the latter is prescriptive.

Evolutionary psychology is a subfield of biology, a hard science, and also consequently makes no prescription of right or wrong, as well as any axiological hipotetization.

"My" argument only ruminates on Pinker as a source, deconstructing in detail the matter and his statements.

Statements about natural phenomena have no relationship at all with moral conclusions.

The discussion on the entry fell into infinite regress due to fallacy fallacy fallacy based on this erroneous interpretation that biological fitness has anything to do with "rightness" from exclusive human science perspectives.

We are not dealing with humans as subjects, but with humans as animals, as any other animal, in the topic.

Also, psychology in general is not limited to human mind, nor evolutionary psychology. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Will reply at Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your statements above are not relevant. Read WP:No original research. I had to revert your last string of edits because it was full of stuff that was not cited to any source. All material must be cited to a source. Read WP:V and WP:Cite your sources. Also, do not add material in front of an existing source that does not come from that source, thus making it look like it is supported when it is not. A bit of your material did have sources, so only that may be re-added if every point in it is supported by those sources. Also, when it comes to conflicting viewpoints from sources, keep WP:NPOV in mind. We as editors do not decide which side is right and which wrong. Crossroads -talk- 17:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC) You also need to write more simply and clearly. Stuff like "only the latter axiological/value prescriptive, and in concepts and arguments absolutely nontangent due to the indiscretion in between natural and human sciences" is not plain English as required by WP:MOS. Crossroads -talk- 17:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Pinker is the source. All of them posit the same argument.

The supposed "critics" are using is-ough problem to attack the idea on moral grounds in place of attacking the rationale behind the idea, which would be the correct atitude in dealing with a natural science.

There is no axiology proper on a biological approach. If they want to discuss ethics they can discuss ethics, but is has nothing to do with the validity of EP Claims. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are the ones decidiny to talk politics in place of english proper.

The current state of this topic is misleading. ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC) ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to repost this stuff on my talk page. Keep it on the article talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Red House eviction defense

For what it's worth, it was not my intention to "imply that maybe the violence was started or engaged in by the journalists". I assume that's not the case, it's just that the source does not say whether the violence was upon journalists or passers by or who. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, my previous wording was awkward and I meant that the text reads that way to someone else, nothing about your motives; but I will quote the source here: Protesters have been regulating who can enter the area, banning anyone from taking photos or video, including pedestrians and neighbors out walking. Some have enforced that policy through violence, though most confrontations have been verbal. One journalist was assaulted Tuesday while trying to enter the area. Protesters surrounded a TV crew from KATU with umbrellas to prevent them from filming. One protester grabbed a phone out of the hand of a KATU journalist, smashing it on the ground with their heel. When the journalist went to retrieve her phone, the protester stepped on her hand. [2] Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, my concern was that the general comment on "some" and "most" confrontations didn't specify journalists, and it was only the two examples that did. I'm happy enough with your new wording if you are as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

ARBCOM

I had another look at the case and don't think you are helping Flyers cause at the moment. I generally agree that it serves no purpose. Flyers retired (and I have no reason to think she will come back) so it will consist of either virtual gravedancing or undue focus on Wandering Wanda. Halo hasn't edited in three months so I wouldn't expect much contribution from them. As for GorrillaWarfares recusal, if it broadened to gender issues in general then it would be a no brainier, but I am not sure her and Flyer had any great animosity, if anything there seemed to be at least a grudging respect in their interactions. It appears all you and Pyxis and a third (maybe me?) are doing is pissing off Arbs. It is going to go ahead no matter what, and it will most likely be a bloodbath if the acceptance page is anything to go by. No point in making it worse than it already is. AIRcorn (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn, I don't have anything more to say to the arbs now. They seem determined to go ahead with. I really liked Zaereth's idea of waiting until after the holidays, though. That would really help my stress level. Feel free to echo what he said if you want. What do you mean by "bloodbath"? There's no grounds for sanctions on the rest of us who have argued against having the case. Still, I won't pester them further, but I did have the right to argue against a case. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Just that these can turn nasty. I was peripherally involved in one a few years ago. It has the potential to cause rifts that will last for a while and even though it is not involving anyone else we still have to edit with the editors making the cases against the two involved. The last one I was in took a long time after the case to settle down, and even then it was only after further sanctions were meted out. Some editors never forget and there will be a permanent log of all this to fall back on. The timing is unfortunate. I am away this weekend and then it is basically Christmas. I don't actually think I interacted with Wanda much at all, but will look through some diffs when I can. Flyer I ran into a lot in various articles. AIRcorn (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you undid edits in the article for DID

I noticed you undid all the edits, even though the majority of them were in the very small and unexplained rights movement section. I understand removing the other edits given explanation. If the rights movement section exists, what is the point if it is almost empty and contains almost no information? I don't understand. TruthSeekerSeven (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

TruthSeekerSeven, you can restore things that are reliably sourced, but WP:WEASEL wording and violations of WP:SAID have to be avoided, like adding "somewhat" before "controversial". Changes to sourced material based on personal views must be avoided. If you wish to say more to me about this, please only do so on the article's talk page, not mine. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you TruthSeekerSeven (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Irreversible Damage

Hello! I've agreed not to edit the Irreversible Damage article anymore, but all of your objections are, obviously, correct. I'm not sure under what circumstances are we allowed to cherrypick comments from a random Youtube video--especially if the statements are contentious. As for the Turban citation, there seems to be many users who doubt the reliability of Psychology Today: [3], [4]. It's basically the equivalent of a SPS in my view. It obviously should not be used as a statement of fact, and it's clearly undue for the lead. Anyway, happy holidays! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy holidays to you too. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I know we have disagreed pretty severely recently at several locations, but I want you to know I appreciate your level-headedness and civility throughout all of our interactions. You do well in making sure disputes never become personal, and I hope more editors follow your lead there! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

ds alert

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

—valereee (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)