Jump to content

User talk:Curran919

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, Curran919, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Burgundavia 07:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you uploaded Image:Labrea tarpits.JPG.I wondered if you could elaborate on the source and copyright status of the of the image. You can contact me on my talk page. Cheers. Burgundavia 07:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the information. Do you know how to tag the image? Also you can sign your name with ~~~~ Burgundavia 23:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, no worries. Check out my first edit. If you father took the image, the best tag is probably {{gfdl}] which releases the image under the Gnu Free Documentation Licence, like the text of Wikipedia itself. Mention who took the picture as well, and then remove the other tags. I will make certain it gets cleaned off the other page. Burgundavia 23:36, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

RuneScape quests

I don't know if you're watching the talk page, but I don't want you to start going to work on this until you read my response. Mainly, I have two reasons for disagreement. First, it doesn't follow the Manual of Style. Second, it ruins all the links that were previously links to the specific quests. Now, it simply links to start of the article. --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Toco Beach

As I mentioned on the Talk page, I am confused by your "Toco Beach" article. I can't figure out what beach you have described. The name Toco Beach is sometimes applied to Salibea beach, but I can't reconcile your description with what I know of the place. Are you referring to some other beach? If anything it sounds like Grande Riviere. Guettarda 16:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct me if im wrong, but i believe Grand Riviere is the actual area, not the beach. I had been there atleast on 5 seperate occasions and my assumption that the actual beach (w/ 2 hotels, names escape me; of importance? must i be more diligent, and a lagoon) was called Toco (and alternatively TOKO)
Grande Riviere is about 10 miles past Toco. Two small hotels on the beach (whose names I can't recall right now) and a few guest houses going up the hill. What is commonly called "Toco Beach" (strictly speaking, Salybia Beach) is near the light house - ~10 miles east of GR. Separate town, only lumped together because people tend to call everything past Matura "Toco". Guettarda 17:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The hotels: Mount Plaisir Estate Hotel and Le Grande Almandier. Guettarda 17:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then i guess you are probably right, ill go change that around if you havent already. Just to make sure however, this Salybia Beach, is the one RIGHT down the road from the clinic and about 2 miles off of shark river (may also be local name)?

No - Shark River is west of Grande Riviere. Toco/Salybia beach is near the lighthouse - about 1/2 an hour (to make a wild guess) before you get to GR. Best thing might be to rename the article Grande Riviere and expand it to cover both the town and the bay. Guettarda 20:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, that sounds like a plan, i dont have much information on the town, and since it isnt the main focus i probably wont put much in, but I could research that and include something. I have some changes to make to another article first (i just cant get anything right...) and ill start on this. By the way, i see that there is a Trinidad article, and a Trinidad and Tobago article. Is this just because of redundancy or is the former supposed to be solely about THAT island (if so, it is horribly under-developed)? Curran919 20:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Trinidad article is supposed to be just about Trinidad. Until late last year it was just a paragraph, explaining that Trinidad is the larger island, etc. Unfortunately, someone foudn the page and expanded it into a larger article - probably under the assumption that there was no "Trinidad and Tobago" article. So what we have now is a terribly unbalanced article - but of ancient history, a rather unbalanced account of "now"...I have been hesitant to edit that page because I don't really know what to do with it. Most of what you could write about Trinidad should better fall into one of the appropriate "Trinidad and Tobago" articles. It's different with Tobago - there is lots of room for Tobago-only material...you could say a lot about Tobago that doesn't really apply to "Trinidad and Tobago", but no nearly as much about "Trinidad" that doesn't apply to "Trinidad and Tobago". Of course, you could cut the pre-1889 stuff out of History of Trinidad and Tobago and put it into the History of Trinidad, then have a separate History of Tobago and restrict the History of Trinidad and Tobago to that period where they were united. Unfortunately, the history of each island continued across the union...the political and economic developments span that time period (you wouldn't, for example, want to have one article on Indian immigration to Trinidad and another on Indian immigration to Trinidad and Tobago. As for enough info about the town - I have written over 30 short stubs about towns in Trinidad, have about 240 in List of cities in Trinidad and Tobago (which is a list of cities, towns and villages...long story). I will expand them as I get my hands on info, but there is nothing wrong with a stub as long as it has the potential to be expanded. (You might want to have a look at Category:Trinidad and Tobago and the subcategories (and sub-subcategories) to see what exists in terms of articles. Guettarda 21:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Move" tab on all pages (up at the top). You can move a page as long as the destination is either blank or has a redirect. More than that and you need to get an admin to do the move. Of course, it's generally not good to move a page without talking to the other editors involved. So what is your connection to Trinidad? I realise from Burgundavia's page that you lived there - when and for how long? Just curious. Thanks. Guettarda

  • I lived there from 1997-2001, in Bayshore; went to ISPS (im 17 now). I find this whole wikipedia thing friggin awesome, so i am trying to apply what limited knowledge and resources I have (spending most my time on RuneScape articles). Whats your connection to T'dad? Curran919
I'm from Trinidad, although I have lived in Canada (1973-1979) and the US (1994-2001 and 2004- ). Lived in San Fernando, Marabella, South Oropouche, Gasparillo, Curepe and Chaguanas. I attended Naparima College and UWI, before doing my PhD at Michigan State University. I have mostly added TT related material here, although I have also done some in ecology-related articles. Been here since September, been addicted since about December. Guettarda 15:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


>>>> I'm an Environmental Science student from Trinidad as well, and to cast some clarification as to the "Toco Beach" that you're talking about, I believe that the name of it is Saline Bay. It's about 2 mins or less from the lighthouse, am I right?

You need to address the copyright issue of your image of the Pitch Lake at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#Phase_II_-_May_11 and on the image itself or it is likely to be deleted. Thanks. Guettarda 17:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I left it up there, even though I could delete it. Can you confirm the licence that your father releases this under? If you need any help at all, contact me. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 03:02, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ive been reading through the copyright information on this site, and there is just too much information on it, im finding it very confusing in what i am supposed to be doing. I uploaded some screenshots today, and i used the same {{game-screenshot}} tag as i had seen in other images, but is what i am supposed to be doing something as simple as that? Curran919 06:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RuneScape quests

Curran, since you worked on a lot of the quests, I would like to hear your opinion at Talk:RuneScape quests regarding keeping the quest guides. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 6, 2005 07:43 (UTC)

RuneScape

Do you play RuneScape? If so, tell me on my talk page. CrnaGora 04:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Color Vision Standards (September 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Color blindness instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
A lot of these topics are already covered by color blindness article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Curran919! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Color Vision Standards (September 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:
Then it should be discussed there before splitting out.

This draft is a request to spin off an article. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article, unless the draft satisfies a special notability guide. If the draft satisfies a special notability guide, please identify the notability criterion with a reliable source.

This does not mean that the draft should be spun off, and it does not mean that the draft should not be spun off. It does mean that discussion should be on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Color blindness. (If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on the talk page of the existing article and does not satisfy a special notability guide, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.)
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Visual phototransduction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Photoreceptor. 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) 06:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral color

Hi, you made an edit to Spectral color which seems to confuse the point made by the existing sentence.

A while ago I found the sentence "One needs at least trichromatic color vision for there to be a distinction between spectral and non-spectral colors" on that page. To be clear, what that sentence does *not* mean is that you need to be a trichromat to distinguish spectral colors. It means that spectral colors are a distinct class from non-spectral colors for trichromats.

But, I believe this statement to be inaccurate. In some cases, a theoretical dichromat will be perceive some non-spectral colours. This is not about specifically human color vision, but about the theory of color vision with a given number of photoreceptors. As [Dichromacy] stated (before you edited it), *sometimes* two spectral lights are needed to match a color perceived by a dichromat. Consider a dichromat where the frequency sensitivity curves of the photoreceptors (A and B) are disjoint (no overlap). It's clear that non-spectral colours exist for this dichromat: any time *both* photoreceptors are stimulated, the resulting colour cannot be identified with a single spectral light. I'm not sure how to make this clearer. In fact all that is needed is for there to be some frequencies at which the spectral sensitivity of the photoreceptors does not overlap. That creates the possibility of non-spectral colors.

So, I edited the sentence "One needs at least trichromatic color vision for there to be a distinction between spectral and non-spectral colors" to read "One needs at least dichromatic color vision for there to be a distinction between spectral and non-spectral colors" so as to make clear that it is possible for some colours perceived by a dichromat to be non-spectral, i.e. they cannot be created by a single spectral light.

In short, I believe your recent edits to Spectral color and Dichromacy are misguided in some significant ways. I get that you have personal experience of protanopia and I respect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoh (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message.
I wrote the paragraph below before I completely understood your objection (I think I do now). In case I am misunderstanding again, I'll keep it below, but otherwise it doesnt have much to do with how I understand your objection now: that my original statement was only true when the sensitivity curves overlap. Fair enough, I agree. If you have two disjoint sensitivity curves with no overlap, then spectral light can only excite the extremes of the chromaticity channel. Hell, I may even go as far as to say that there is no spectral locus in that case, and you'd have ONLY non-spectral colors. However, I am fairly sure that such vision systems do not exist. The distinction is therefore purely hypothetical/academic. All forms of color vision in vertebrates have neighboring opsins that overlap with each other, even in the cases like mice that have huge space between their SWS1 + LWS curves.
I do think your edit is also misleading, given that any REAL dichromats will not see a distinction but I think we can find a compromise, depending on what you meant by:
"In fact all that is needed is for there to be some frequencies at which the spectral sensitivity of the photoreceptors does not overlap." I would say that there needs to be some wavelengths between them where neither are excited... not sure if that's what you meant here. If not, then see my alternative answer below the line.
----------------------
I'm afraid I must double down on the assertion. Dichromats see no non-spectral colors. This is not based on my personal experience. In fact, personal experience would tell me that dichromats DO have an innate understanding of hue vs. saturation. A dichromat has two cones and those cones MUST have disparate sensitivity curves. If they are not disparate, then the subject is a monochromat. The dichromat's color space is two dimensional. You can describe those dimensions as distimulus values (M and S excitation), or you can transform it into a more intuitive form (equivalent to opponent process channels) with a luminosity channel/dimension and chromaticity channel/dimension (let's call it Chr). Chr would therefore be equivalent to the ratio (or difference) of the cone excitations. Again, assuming M and S curves (since that represents my protanopia), a 400nm light excites only the S cone, and therefore Chr is at a minimum. a 700nm light excites only the M cone, and therefore Chr is at a maximum. The entire range of possible Chr values can be evoked by a spectral light. When you introduce non spectral light, there is no Chr value and obviously no luminosity value that can be excited that wasn't already excitable by spectral light. Ergo, all colors are spectral colors and there are not additional 'non-spectral' colors. "*sometimes* two spectral lights are needed to match a color perceived by a dichromat." This is simply not true. If you stimulate both cones at their peak wavelengths simultaneously, this is equivalent to stimulating the point of overlap of the sensitivity curves of the two cones (once you account for cone mosaic and increase the luminosity). In both cases, dichromats experience a neutral color, i.e. gray. This is why protanopes and deuteranopes perceive cyan as gray, because cyan is at the point where the two remaining cone sensitivity functions overlap.Curran919 (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put a footnote on the statement in spectral color to elucidate. See if that satisfies. Curran919 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I think the original statement on Spectral color was about whether it was logically possible for there to be a conceptual distinction between spectral and non-spectral colors. As it reads now, it's a statement about whether dichromats can distinguish spectral and non-spectral colors. As I understand it, even trichromats can't do that, it's a purely theoretical classification.
You're right that the sensitivity curves need to have no overlap for the non-spectral colors to exist for a dichromat, my bad. If a non-spectral color is a metameric match for a spectral light (your cyan example) then I agree with you that there's no reason to call it non-spectral.
Cheers
Theoh (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I have made an edit which I hope you will agree with. The key point here is whether the categories of "spectral color" and "non-spectral color" exist for dichromats, trichromats etc., in other words, whether the distinction exists. The notion of an observer *distinguishing* spectral colors from non-spectral colors doesn't seem appropriate to me (& I think you are the one who put it in). The qualitative experience of a spectral color is no different from that of a non-spectral color, I have no way to distinguish which kind of color I'm looking at. In theory spectral colours are purer, more like hues from the rainbow, but there's no way to definitely make the distinction, in my experience. They're just the theoretical limit of narrowband light) Theoh (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theoh looks good! Curran919 (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pentachromacy

Hello! I'm wading through the backlog of articles that should be merged, based on AfD decisions. Your edit here suggests that there was a deletion discussion, but I can't find it. Is it possible that you were aiming for a merge proposal discussion instead, but grabbed the wrong template? Joyous! | Talk 03:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joyous! This was a merge. Pentachromacy should remain a redirect. Sorry! Curran919 (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was it ever up for deletion? I'm just trying to get the correct template on the talk page of the article; I'm not attempting to un-merge anything. If there was never a discussion at WP:AFD, then I need to put a different notice there. Joyous! | Talk 15:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I probably made a mistake, since I think this was my first merged article. Curran919 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! I can fix the issue! Joyous! | Talk 15:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done! You just needed a different template to add to the source article and the target article. Let me know if you need to merge any other articles--I'm happy to help you out! Joyous! | Talk 15:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, I see the difference now. I've done another half dozen merges since using the correct tag, I think. I'm surprised the merged-to template doesn't have a link to the discussion on the target talk page, which is why I may have gone with the afd template, thinking they were otherwise equivalent. Honestly, the AfC (and AfD) still confuse the hell out of me after 1000 edits. Thanks for fixing it. Curran919 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia: Not Designed To Be Confusing, But It Ended Up That Way!" Sometimes there isn't a discussion. It's possible to be bold and just do the merge if you think there won't be controversy. Joyous! | Talk 17:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Philosophy of color. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a bot message? The text that I copied from Knowledge argument to philosophy of color is a quote from the original 1982 source that introduced the concept, complete with the citation... That is not grounds for attribution to another wiki source. Curran919 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the material copied from Knowledge argument is a quotation so no, attribution is not required for that. Sorry for the mistake. However you also added material copied from inverted spectrum in the same edit. So attribution is required for that addition. — Diannaa (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, right you are. That one slipped by me. I often copy things over as a basis to rewrite in one screen, but I guess after finishing the Mary's room section, I forgot to rewrite the inverted spectrum. I've changed it now. Thanks! Curran919 (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Visible spectrum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vision.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You really need to read WP:NOTVAND. Your throwing this accusation around is not appreciated - I am only trying to improve the article. Bon courage (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage Granted, WP:NOTVAND. Good faith or not, I'm calling you on WP:DE, specifically on point 4. You know reverts on heavy, good-faith edits are intrinsically inflammatory, especially when you only criticize a small portion of it; And you even admit through your unrevert that your original revert was flippant. When all of your edits on the article are reverts for WP:CRYMEDRS without any additive contribution or engagement in talk, you burn up your good faith when you get flippant with others' work. Regardless, I will try to adhere to WP:MEDRS better in the future. Curran919 (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never "admitted" anything is "flippant", and the purpose of reverts is to improve the encyclopedia: no editor should getting inflamed by reverts which do. WP:CRYMEDRS is indeed a wise essay, but the material in question was WP:BMI, so it's irrelevant to the question at hand. Bon courage (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage Going back through my original edit now, it appears you were just gaslighting me. My edit removed primary and web sources, added secondary sources, and the only web source I added was a tertiary article explaining the absence of evidence for a widely reported fact. You probably just got confused with the pre-existing primary research since I had done a lot of shuffling. Your unrevert SHOWS unequivocally that you thought your revert was NOT an improvement, so if I should only not get inflamed by reverts which improve wikipedia, then by your definition, I have the right to get inflamed by your bad revert. And how is making a revert that you later believe was bad... not flippant? Learn to admit when you're wrong. I did it in my last comment even when I wasn't. Do better. WP:DBAJ. Curran919 (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what I did. The previous version was very poor, your edit was (on consideration) better but still not great; I made some edits to improve the article without paying any attention to "who wrote what". Not sure why this is such a big deal? The article still needs work. Bon courage (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Information icon Hi Curran919! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Biological effects of high-energy visible light several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Biological effects of high-energy visible light, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I noticed you have been editing some health-related articles, and I wanted to say that a bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You're welcome to join us. It's also a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put any groups you're interested on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice user page

I just noticed the similarity in our user page formatting. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had to steal it from somewhere! Curran919 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human-Centricists

Hey there.

When you replied to me on "colour vision", you told me that human-centricists sometime REMOVE animal info just for the sake of it. Well, for the past few months I and I think a few others have been trying to deal with an infamous human-centricist that goes by "Autisticeditor 20".

This guy likes to change a LOT of biology articles links to using human anatomy links, even in articles that aren't talking exclusively about humans, and sometimes even in animal species articles, and he has gotten in trouble for many of these. He also has a record of trashing others for removing his edits and some of them are also really threatening. He's a guy I both want to revert his human anatomy links in non human articles because it wasn't appropriate to do so, but also I don't want to mess with him as he's a really scary guy.

Have you ever dealt with him, and what can I do? LoverOfAllAnimalsActivist (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LoverOfAllAnimalsActivist No, I've never dealt with him and I stick away from the genital/reproductive articles, which seems to be his main haunt. I don't really have the bandwidth for joining in drama that doesn't relate to me (I'm not exactly a veteran here...). I don't know why you would be scared of a wikipedian though, just because they act neurodivergently sometimes. Just revert if you think the edit is regressive, give an explanatory reversion reason and start a discussion on the article's talk page to cover your bases and maybe attract some support. If they unrevert and you still care, then escalate it. At a cursory glance, I see that their recent edits involved making a clearer distinction between polygyny and polygyny in animals, which is not emblematic of non-human erasure. Dunno... don't be afraid of the revert button, just be kind when you use it. Curran919 (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All WikiProject Color pages has been nominated for deletion

Category:All WikiProject Color pages has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curran919&oldid=1230469156"