Renamed user b9gv3t7jw0

May 2022

Hello, I'm Glane23. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Itch.io—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anjeza Branka (July 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anjeza Branka and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Anjeza Branka, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, HaiFire3344! 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! MurielMary (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Anjeza Branka

Hello, HaiFire3344. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anjeza Branka, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

“Mainly” in ABA lead

Hello! I wanted to discuss the use of the word “mainly” for the ABA article. I feel that if “mainly” means “more than anything else,” then I feel that perfectly applies to ABA controversies as it is clear that the vast majority of sources indicate that manor controversy is reserved for the autism rights movement, and nearly every major organization that has opined on the topic deals with autism. The article does not, outside of research done by non-autistic researchers, mention at any notable length, figures, governments, and organizations outside the Austism Rights Movement on this controversy. Some organizations have opined on things like shock collars, but these are not uses exclusively in ABA practices and opposition to them is universal with regards to their application. So that is my rationale for “mainly.” To be honest, I have been looking to disengage with this article for some time but cannot seem to find an easy way out. I suggested a DRN but if one is made I do not think I would be apt to engage in it simply due to my desire for some peace of mind. I would hope more users can provide alternative perspective. Barbarbarty (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of preserving some senae of order I reverted it as I feel “especially” can be seen as adequate, though I would like your perspective on this matter still. Sorry again if things have been getting testy, had I known this discourse would go on for so long perhaps I might have kept my nose out of it! No worries! Barbarbarty (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That's all right! I feel that "especially" is better because sources should probably actually say or show that the majority of the controversy itself is among autism rights movement members, not just originating from within said movement, if we're to use the word "mainly". Unless I'm mistaken and the sources do mention such a majority, I think the word "especially" is best, as it isn't arguable, and it doesn't imply anything about being the "most important" or "majority" that sources don't support. Then again I may be confused so feel free to change it back if you disagree, but yeah that's just what I think. HaiFire3344 (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I decided to revert it. While I think “mainly” is a fine word to use in the context, it is kind of a finicky critique regardless and the word “especially” is also adequate. Mainly (look!) I do not want to be the cause of yet another series of discourses surrounding this article, so “let it be” is the approach I am taking. Barbarbarty (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Also I feel that it is wrong to state that a list of applications of ABA should not belong in the lead simply because not every single application is discussed in detail. Leads should provide context and it is important to note to people that ABA is used in other areas outside of autism. If we are to remove it, then the idea that ABA is controversial “outside the autistic rights movement” should definitely not belong, as not only os the original sources pretty weak (compared to the myriad of sources for something universally controversial like Conversion Therapy), but also due to the fact that controversies with ABA in the article outside of journal articles are almost exclusively written by autism advocacy groups in the body. This is my view. I would feel for ABA applications if we can find a better source such as a textbook or something similar that would do much to alleviate the situation. I have been told that Wikipedia provides free access but I am kind of a geezer trying to navigate this so hopefully the DRN will bring a more technologically competent user :O Barbarbarty (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents", not merely a place to collect aspects of the subject that are barely covered further in the body. There are in fact numerous sources supporting the fact that ABA is controversial outside the autistic rights movement, which Oolong has already shown on the ABA talk page. It appears that ATC has added additional sources regarding the applications of ABA. These matters may be something to discuss at WikiProject Psychology. HaiFire3344 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The evidence for ABA being controversial outside the autistic rights movement is very weak in my view, and I feel that because of that it would be somewhat problematic to pht in a place like the lead. From my reading of those sources, they discuss something along the lines of listening to the concerns of the autistic community rather than mass movements against ABA outside the autistic community. I pointed this out numerous times in the talk page, it was not my intention to come across like I was disregarding them, but I felt that the articles did not really document substantial controversy outside the autism rights movement. For instance, Conversion therapy is a widely known controversial issue that has had numerous NGOs, governments, and prominent notable figures speak out against it, while ABA has not had any of that, especially to that extent. Saying that it is controversial outside the autistic rights movement would simply mislead the reader into thinking that such an opinion on ABA is more universal than it actually is, in my view. Regardless, stating that it is controversial outside the autistic rights movement, on top of being largely unsubstantiated, is unacceptable to be in the lead simply for the fact that it is not something discussed further in the body. Also, I have also states how the lead is also used to establish context, not just summarize points, and I feel there should be some elaboration upon the idea that ABA has been used in some instances in areas outside of autism. ABA is a psychological intervention, as stated by the article, so it would definitely serve a purpose to have a sourced list of applications in the lead. I am not sure where this objection is coming from. Also, applications outside are discussed at a certain place in the body, in the same spot where ATC added new sources, and in fact it was Oolong who attempted to remove that passage as well. This was one of my points of contention, in the idea that the article was becoming too slanted. Now as you pointed out, the list as it had been in the article was unacceptable due to the source ir relied on, but I feel that if we can find another source perhaps it can be included again in some form. This is just my proposal. Again I hope to not come across as obstinate! But I feel I owe you at least some of my perspective, especially going into DRN considering my lack of experience with that area of Wikipedia. Barbarbarty (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that the evidence for ABA being controversial outside of the autistic rights movement is weak, considering the numerous sources Oolong provided in this reply on the talk page, this History of the Human Sciences article that discusses the controversies, and literally everything that Applied behavior analysis#Criticism discusses. From skimming through the articles, I think there is reason to believe that controversy also exists among researchers, family members, and others. Considering these things, I don't think ABA being controversial outside the autistic rights movement, or even outside the autistic community in general, is unsubstantiated at all, so discussion of this controversy seems to belong in the lead to me. For applications of ABA, perhaps another source could be found and the different applications could be elaborated on further in the body, and then sourced applications could be mentioned in the lead, but this remains to be seen for now. HaiFire3344 (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a notice that I am not arguing to remove the fact that it is controversial in certain spheres from the lead entirely, I just think that there is an incredibly weak foundation to say “outside the autistic community,” when the lead as it currently states, has it as “controversial, especially among autism rights advocates,” which is clearly true and backed up by reliable sources. I feel that this is a much more solid and consistent framing of controversies surrounding ABA. As for why I have not been swayed by the messages on the talk page, A number of their sources talk about private equity firms, which is less a controversy about ABA itself and more involving coverage of mental health issues in general. Also I would hesitate to state that researchers raising issues with ABA as “controversy” in the sense that disputes in academia happen all the time on nearly every subject. Scholarly debate is natural for almost any subject so insisting that it be included in the lead seems pedantic and a bit misleading. In fact, some of the research articles appear to be in response to other scholars arguing in favor of ABA, such as the Sandoval-Norton piece, so there is clearly a back-and-forth debate in this sphere rather than universal repudiation, at this point. Something “controversial” would usually extend outside scholarly articles which the average person does not have access or would be privy to. I don’t see how the article is done a disservice by stating that ABA is controversial among autistic rights advocates. Not only is it a fact, but it also describes the source of the overwhelming majority of controversies and dialogue surrounding ABA. There are one or two opinion articles cited that include usually one or two non-autistic individuals, but they mainly resort to covering the concerns of autistic individuals and their concerns. The Controversies section does not cover any group that ABA is controversial with outside of autistic rights advocates and a few select researchers. If I recall I was not the only one who took the position that evidence for controversy “outside” the autism rights movement was weak, but even if there were sources that talked at length about non-autistic opposition movements against ABA, the fact remains that it would probably be undue in several aspects to mention it in the lead. One of the tenets that WP:UNDUE states is that the “prominence of placement” of something in an article can make it a violation of the undue weight, and I simply cannot say that the lead should state that controversy “outside” the autistic community exists in a notable fashion when it seems to be a very small proportion compared to ABA detractors who are within the autistic community. If we can find a number of outside groups, NGOs, governments, prominent non-autistic figures taking positions on ABA, then perhaps I can see the view that would indicate that there is mass controversy outside the autistic rights movement. I think as it stands, simply stating “especially the autistic rights movement” should be the way forward, as it is clearly backed up by most reliable sources and it is the best summary of the contents of the article currently. Also, one user on Project Med brought up the point that attempting to mention that it is even controversial among the autistic “community” would probably violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language, which is why the blogs Oolong wanted to cite were opposed by a number of users. In my queries at Project Med, I found a user who put it like this: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1140346667. My main concern is that with such a tense topic that draws a lot of interest among certain parties, I am cautious against such sweeping language that may slant the article towards giving the wrong impression around the debate of this subject. I agree that extra information could be added to the article regarding applications in a way that would be satisfactory to most editors.Barbarbarty (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I should state that the above is not am attempt to be antagonistic! Please do not get me wrong! I just feel it would be useful to explain my perspective a bit more clearly. The talk page devolved in a direction that was obviously unhelpful so I feel that I warrant an explanation on my positions to other users involved. Frankly the idea of this going on is very tense to me! I hope I did not contribute to any stress on your part. Barbarbarty (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

ABA dispute

Hi, thanks for your input on the ABA page, it's been really helpful.

Perhaps inevitably, I have now initiated formal Wikipedian dispute resolution. I've named you in it as a participant; I hope this doesn't cause you any trouble. Let's hope this brings us somewhere closer to achieving consensus on this perennially contentious topic! Oolong (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all! I have decided to participate and posted a summary to the best of my ability, I hope I got everything right; it is my first time doing this. HaiFire3344 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! Mine too. It looks accurate enough to me. :) Oolong (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2023 (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. 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!

Oolong (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Anjeza Branka

Hello, HaiFire3344. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anjeza Branka".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Non-binary sex and gender conflation

Hi @HaiFire3344, your claim that sex is the same as gender is incorrect. In the academic discourse these are not the same, and it continues to cause issues when people use these terms to mean the same thing.

Sex is a biological trait, that can be somewhat modified by taking hormones. Gender is a social construct and a role assignment. Gender is often assigned based on sex, but gender is not the same thing as sex.

https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html

https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matters/sex-and-gender

https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/gender-and-health 1.144.111.181 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not claim that sex is the same as gender, or at least that's not what I meant. I am non-binary myself and I realize that they are different things. I meant that the terms "female" and "male" can refer to gender identities, as well as being used for the dyadic sexes, though those sexes are more properly known as müllerian and wolffian, respectively. See the articles about the female and male genders on the LGBTQIA+ Wiki, a trusted source in the community; the terms "female" and "male" are used to refer to the binary genders, even within the non-binary community. HaiFire3344 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)