User talk:Zenomonoz

DID page

Thanks for giving the page some attention, really appreciate it. Please don't take my revert as criticism of or opposition to the clean up you're doing overall. lizthegrey (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem, although I do believe the info-box needs trimming per H:IB for excessive length. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:COI with J. Michael Bailey?

You seem to care an awful lot about J. Michael Bailey –– given your extensive participation on his BLP's talkpage and promotion of his texts across the encyclopedia –– and to take disputes regarding his credibility awfully personally. Further, your previous sockpuppet account Sxologist uploaded Bailey's portrait photo. Do you have a personal or professional relationship with Bailey, or are you Bailey himself? Generalrelative (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Um what. I think you care a lot about Bailey, as evidenced by you removing a decent review published by the Association for Psychological Science and claiming it's "unreliable", and your attempt to prevent the ROGD article being included. Accusing me of being Bailey or knowing him is silly. I live on the other side of the planet. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This weird accusation is strongly weakened by the fact I also got photos of Robert Plomin onto Wikipedia. It's as simple as emailing them, asking for a photo, and then getting their photographers to confirm to the volunteers desk that Wikimedia has permission to use them with a Creative Commons license. Maybe you could've checked my uploads before you posted? Zenomonoz (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that you haven't actually answered my question. Do you have a personal or professional relationship with Bailey? Generalrelative (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don’t have a personal or professional relationship with him. As I made clear, I’ve asked for a picture before. I read a lot of books on sex research. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Generalrelative (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

P.S. regarding "disputes of his credibility". No, disagreee. I certainly dispute your removal of the academic review, not your personal opinion on Bailey's credibility. The Bailey et al. 2016 review is a reliable source on the cause of sexual orientation as it was a collaboration of many sex researchers with a variety of perspectives (e.g. Lisa Diamond). It has been very influential in academia with 618+ citations and in media. It was written in response to a proposed death penalty for homosexuals in Kenya and is very careful in its conclusions. I understand you dislike some of his hypotheses on gender dysphoria. That's fine. However that doesn't give you warrant to go around removing academic reviews, of which Bailey is not the only author, published in high quality journals, which do not have anything to do with ROGD or gender dysphoria. The Bailey review is generally agreed to accurately summarise the scientific consensus on sexual orientation. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that my edit summary stated This is rather obscure, and I'm not convinced that Bailey is a reliable source and that I later clarified that I do not agree that the content is helpful. What I meant is that the phrase , particularly the non-social environment, which you tacked on at the end of the sentence Scientists do not yet know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences obscures more than it reveals. It's also redundant, given that the paragraph goes on to say There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones (and there I left Bailey citation in place). The question of Bailey's reliability is a separate, additional concern, and it is far from reducible to his advocacy for ROGD pseudoscience. His BLP lists a number of very bright red flags indicating that his research practices may not be up to par. Generalrelative (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The review has no relation to controversies on his BLP. It looks as though Bailey changes his mind on trivial controversies when he saw evidence (e.g. male bisexuality). You are now backtracking from 'reliability' concerns and making it about redundancy. I agree regarding the sentence, although the former sentence could probably be rewritten for clarity. I'm politely noting that just before you reverted me on homosexuality, you appear to have followed me to White privilege with this edit in the same section of the page, despite never having edited that article before. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

False. My original edit summary stated clearly that I found your addition obscure. And now I've taken the time to unpack that for your benefit. No backtracking has taken place. Further, I absolutely do keep tabs on your edits because I believe that you display a pattern of tendentious editing / sealioning in the Gen/Sex topic area and behavioral genetics (see e.g. this and this). This is entirely consistent with what is permitted per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. You're not the worst offender out there, in my view, but it's definitely within bounds to keep an eye on you. In any case, I'm taking your talk page off my watchlist now. The next time I feel the need to discuss your behavior it will be on a noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

That might sound reasonable if you hadn’t claimed Bailey was unreliable in the edit summary (when an APS journal review is objectively not unreliable), hence it’s not unreasonable for me to assume you were trying to cause annoyance. I am quite cautious in how I approached this, hence I said I was “politely noting”. I can move on from that. As for noticeboard: Id note that the extreme lengths you went to on the J. Michael Bailey article to prevent my addition of the ROGD section could be seen as tendentious editing. At the time, I took that to a noticeboard was then supported by a number of long standing editors including admins. I have a pattern of coming to the table and attempt to collaborate with editors. I think for the most part I tend to be sensible, but to err is human. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Lex Fridman

I've noticed your tactful responses to new editors at Talk:Andrew D. Huberman. I would like to invite you to have a look at what's going on at Talk:Lex Fridman where there has been similarly significant influx of inexperience, POV pushing editors. AncientWalrus (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, added to watch list. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

Just for the record, I just wanted to make clear that being that he happens to be a centre-right voice from the United Kingdom (England, to be more precise), I felt as though my revisions to that end were justified. Sorry for the circular reasoning there. Do you understand now? Thank you. NavyBlueSunglasses (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes but linking to English conservatism seems unjustified. He isn’t really aligned with English conservatism. He is more closely aligned with the trumpian American movement. He works (worked?) for MTG. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose since British conservatism is often more centrist than American conservatism, and given that Yiannopoulos can hardly be described as a moderate in good standing, I suppose you do have a point. Thank you for your reply. I understand. NavyBlueSunglasses (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Why the reverts of edits on Fridman wiki page?

You reverted edits and reorganized the remaining information of what I added to the Lex Fridman Podcast section of Fridman's wiki page.

Why?

You didn't discuss your reasoning in the talk page (a talk page was already created for that specific edit). That information I added was all sourced to reliable sources. There was no original research. There was no editorializing. I added relevant and notable information about Fridman's podcast. Uhhhum (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The new edits are better. Previous text like “with an emphasis on empathy and compassion for whomever he interviews” comes across too MOS:FLOWERY and promotional for encyclopaedia. You have also attributed things to the people who said them now, which is better. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah i see. Okay understood. I'll attempt to de-flower future text.

Thank you for the feedback! Uhhhum (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Just refer to pages like WP:GUIDELINES which includes a large list of guideline pages. The 'content guide', 'editing guide', and 'style' sections might be useful. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you again

But I am going to warn you to take a step back from Richard Hanania, where you are clearly displaying disruptive WP:OWNership behavior, and to self-revert your most recent revert. You are now well over 4RR, which is entirely inappropriate, even on a BLP, when several other experienced editors have expressed their disagreement with you. I will give you a few hours to self-revert, and if you do not I will have to bring a case to 3RRN. Please save both of us the time. Generalrelative (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)