Nosebagbear (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC). Balancing selection keeps two or more alleles at intermediate frequencies and prevents fixation. If some topic is controversial enough to get an argument on Wikipedia with a lot of people involved, it is almost certainly notable, and we should be able to get other sources to support its existence. But this is not the way to achieve a balance. I'll defer to the current committee on whether they think the present system is sustainable. I urge you to withdraw your insinuations of incompetence. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2. With 3O, opinions are offered and the parties take them or leave them, but it's been my experience that they settle the dispute more often than not but that's largely because only two editors are involved and, more often than not, one or the other of them, or both, is a newcomer. People mention AFD, but the sorts of sockpuppetry that we largely get at AFD are pretty much always of the kind that are illegitimate anyway. Regarding specifics of implementation, should we make some sort of change to {{, Several issues: 1) is the claim, "settle" is ambiguous? So apparently as CX has had more development, the devs have already inserted hints about this (e.g. Best Wishes. Say they support an unpopular political candidate. 1. Classic examples of traits that resulted from stabilizing selection include human birth weight, number of offspring, camouflage coat color, and cactus spine density. Some examples of such an occurrence include, in no particular order, Lana and Lilly Wachowski, Courtney Stodden, Caitlyn Jenner, and Elliot Page. The editors who display the service ribbons know that the awards are either humorous or humourous, depending on continent.) The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines.. 3) it may vary by location. Neither of them requires participation to "work" or be successful. After suitable This prevents the closer from weighting arguments (grudges are fair to consider), and has the effect of potentially preventing sanctions on a main account (i.e. If never the two accounts shall meet, why should we care? But the parties say that they want to expand the case to include multiple articles. Not an issue for the English Wikipedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC). I would create a second account under my real identity if I could, and use my real-name account for noncontroversial editing and all noncontroversial project space discussions, while using my anonymous Levivich account to edit controversial topics (like war, politics and religion) and related project space discussions. Regarding just email, you could disable the ability of brand-new editors to email you, but of course hostility is also on-wiki. These early stages will involve writing, but you won't yet be trying to write a complete paper.You should instead be taking notes on the readings, sketching out your ideas, trying to explain the main argument you … The current definition does not accommodate for prospective scouting of disruptive innovations, a likely hindrance to policy makers. In these cases, a pronoun parameter would not be strictly necessary. --, I don't have an answer for you, but I certainly hope the goal here is not resurrecting MedCom. Otherwise oppose all three options. Yes, I agree, If we were to follow Herostratus's logic then under 13s would not be allowed to use the Internet at all, because the Internet is not censored. Disruptive selection appears to be the rarest form of natural selection and, indeed, there are few well-documented cases of it. 1, Sec. That's silly. In RFC, which often fails to achieve enough participation from third-party editors and often fails to achieve consensus even then, a party either has to participate or be ignored, so they usually participate, like it or not.) extremes. Prominence in less reliable or deprecated sources that are published using traditional editorial methods should also be considered in apportioning coverage to factual claims, though not viewpoints or expressions thereof, that are verifiable through other means. There is, quite literally, no possible way for this to be motivated by anything, Let's get down to brass tacks here. We won't have mediation, as long as we don't have any mediation projects and Wikipedia projects are always individual user driven (aside, I thought the 'Mediation Cabal' -- which was different from, and complimentary to MedCom was great back in the day). The new criteria should be "Objectivity and expertise with respect to the item at hand". And even this I haven't done it for over a year now , because there are many more critical priorities, such as checking the new articles and drafts from new editors that are much more likely to have severe problems. Segregation of edits of different types. This discussion is aimed at ", If you want to propose something new that is, If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many, If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use. There's no restriction on using secondary sources that analyze "unreliable sources" in their proper context. Also some comments from me here. Publicly disclosed alternate accounts are fully free to edit in any way with few restrictions; however, WP:PROJSOCK states that undisclosed accounts may not edit the Wikipedia namespace. Then let's SNOW close it rather than leave it open. Typically, I'd post this question on WT:CSD but since it involves a wider range of admins and editors than those who comment on that talk page, I thought I'd raise the question here and see if there was the feeling that it would be worth setting up an RFC or having a fuller discussion. Ironically, once you’ve created your account, the first thing Bing Ads does is ask you if you want to import your Google AdWords campaigns (clearly, they know that most people start with AdWords and then expand to using Bing Ads). Sources like The Epoch Times would count in this category. Every time that dispute resolution of complex content disputes is mentioned, there is agreement that such a process would be a good idea, and it is left at that. Several years ago User:Jimbo Wales mentioned that the WMF could hire professional mediators. Removing the short-case requirement at DRN could do the trick, but I'm concerned that it might make DRN even less appealing for new volunteers than it is now and might risk its collapse. Then in their core courses, students might explore marketing, finance, operations, and information systems. Since stabilizing selection favors the middle of the road, a blend of the genes is often what is seen. Unless RS verify said document as legitimate, then the document is not self-verifying. It’s tough when markets change and your people within the company don’t. Photo from Wikimedia Upward-facing triangles are structurally sound (like rectangles) and therefore symbolize stability and trust. Global warming is driven largely by the emissions of greenhouse gases due to human economic activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, certain industries like cement and steel production, and land use for agriculture and forestry. There is no penalty for failure to agree to DRN. The president of the United States (POTUS) is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America.The president directs the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.. Otherwise just improve DRN. Ok, here's where I'd start in identifying the main issues I expect the community would have with that: No, User:Beeblebrox. I'm sort of the opposite of you: I've only ever edited under one account. Potential harassment concerns following users around in project space that they don't like from disputes elsewhere. However, this does not mean that all individuals are exactly the same. I am now a grandparent, and my children were in the first generation to be brought up with the Internet when it was really in its "wild west" phase, but I brought them up pretty normally to be allowed to use what was available and they have turned out OK. I think I remember one editor who made good edits to dinosaur articles was less than 13 when they started, so I'm not sure why we need to exclude them on that basis. In each case, this necessitated an overhaul of the pronouns used in the article on that person. As Xaosflux notes, we already had a discussion very recently, and this is reaching SNOW oppose territory. Current it is not officially strictly allowed. You’re in. Evidently editors are supposed to know that Deletion Review is for appeals from errors by closers, and not for changes in circumstances. Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. That is not about to happen. In 2017 and 2018, there were two offsetting issues with the Mediation Committee. That may or may not indicate anything, because it doesn't distinguish between cases declined and cases that failed. Talk! For example, sunglasses would have 3 purposes. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC), I am an editor on multiple other Wikipedias, and the Content Translator is not limited there. Should the scope of Deletion Review instead actually consider point 3 cases? Removing. Scrap PROJSOCK per the others. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC), Can we officially allow (vote) a user to create a wikidata page only for the purpose of linking to profiles in different languages? This is much harder to spot, and potentially of much greater impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundown96 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC), The terminology is present on many (but not all) cities/settled areas around the world, but seems to be more common in the US. So how about instead of saying "well, it is what it is", we start making a more determined and consistent effort to achieve balance and a worldwide perspective in judging what content is truly encyclopedic? This would. Those who do take a case often don't last beyond that one case (and often not even all the way through it) and there's rarely more than one or two individuals who regularly take and mediate cases at any given time - and without whom DRN would collapse (as it has, in fact, been on the knife's edge of doing more than once). I guess it could be that I'm simply not using the right search terms for the search engines I use. The proposal only applies to cases in which the facts are, Very much no, if something can only be found in unreliable sources dont then it should not be in an *ahem* encyclopedia article. Organizational change is often a response to changes to the environment. Most administrators passed RFA many years ago when the policies and guidelines were different, and it's likely that not all have kept up to date with the changes. I am not sure what benefit election would have. Should point 3 be either deleted or reworded? You're suggesting that we cite outlets which have no journalistic integrity. On one end, some want every article a sockpuppet has created deleted from the project (even when other editors have contributed to the article) and on the other end are those who believe another editor can accept responsibility and the work can be restored or retained. The correct approach is to note that when assessing reliable secondary sources substantially after an event, one should keep in mind the biases that arose from using primary sources. And that's been proposed, and rejected, by the community many, many times. Coverage of a leaked government document in a deprecated source does not guarantee that said document is authentic, in an untampered form, or properly authenticated. The stabilizing process is one that results statistically in an over-represented norm. I also strongly agree with Masem's point that the passage of time makes it easier to determine contextual significance. No. Having two accounts at once is different than abandoning an account and starting a new one. Azcolvin429/Wikimedia Commons/CC by SA 3.0. Sept. 1, 1971. "Stabilizing Selection in Evolution." It was first published on PyInvesting Growth investing has been extremely profitable with growth funds such as Cathie Wood’s ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) surging over 200% over the last year. Is this even the problem to be addressed? ), and I can use this Levivich account to edit project space RFCs about sex issues and no one would know Sexivich's edits in those areas were mine. Wikipedia does not have any designations of expert editors or master editors. The reason being that Wikipedia is explicitly and foundationally an an adult publication ("adult" in the sense of "XXX" rather than "complicated"), because WP:NOTCENSORED is a core policy. DRN is also non-binding unless it results in an RFC. It's an interesting idea, but it seems like the problem it's aiming to solve is an upstream one. If you run for RfA and you have positions on any number of topics that show a clear disconnect with community consensus, you will not pass RfA. We wouldn't be any worse off, other than a few minutes of admin clerk time. The fact that there was a strong consensus to disband it is not a reason in itself, but the result of other reasons. The city of London was settled by the Romans as Londinium around 50 AD. Either you have something electable, transparent, and binding; or staffed with professional mediators paid by the WMF. I urge you not to lob insinuations of incompetence at other editors simply for disagreeing with you, especially if you explicitly admit that you are unwilling to provide any logical reasoning to support your views. This would not be proxying because these are not actions taken at the direction of a blocked editor, these are articles that were started by an editor who was later discovered to be a sockpuppet but a different editor wants a CSD G5 deleted article restored or a CSD G5 tag removed under the condition that this second editor was taking responsibility for the edits.
Oxford City Vs Northampton Town, Oxford Aqa Exam Timetable 2020, Scourge Of The Skyclaves Combos, Truist Park Events 2021, Four Paws Kaavan, Under Armour Glory Lacrosse Head, Dylan Holloway Edmonton Oilers, Personalised Everton Cup, 3 Seventeen Year Olds,