User talk:Gitz6666

Archives

2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

.

Yasuke has an RfC

Yasuke has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. It can be found under the heading RfC on Infobox Image Relm (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Santi Romano

The article Santi Romano you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Santi Romano for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pbritti -- Pbritti (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Over a year ago (April 17, 2024) you requested a review on Santi Romano. You waited six months for one to start. You then had to wait six more months for it to end. I am sorry the outcome wasn't promotion, but you have an article to be proud of nevertheless. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Great work. I tried. At least I jump-started the dead review process, and we greatly improved the article. Diligent effort. IMHO, Santi Romano should be a WP:GA because of our work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Hi, just to let you know that I've reverted your most recent edits at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations because they removed comments from another editor as well. Please feel free to re-add your own responses, but be careful not to delete the words of others. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ops, I'm so sorry about this. Obviously it was not intended, and I did not receive any edit conflict notice. Thanks for reverting my edit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic idealism

Hi, are you sure it should be redirected to A.C. Ewing? Looks like Bernardo Kastrup doubts it. Apokrif (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Apokrif. I can see that Bernardo Kastrup is an independent researcher who recently published a book Analytic Idealism in a Nutshell: A straightforward summary with Iff Books (an imprint of Collective Ink) [1]. I wasn't able to find any academic reviews of the book, and I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

I did find at least one source [2] that refers to "analytic idealism" as Kastrup's own theory, a good-quality source that uses the term in reference to Max Weber's sociology [3], another that uses it in reference to Shelley's poetry [4], and one that links it to George Berkeley's philosophy. The Oxford Hanbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy says that "analytic idealism" has been used to describe e.g. Ewing's work [5].

Common sense suggests that "analytic idealism" is a retake on idealism from the perspective of analytic philosophy. This could reasonably include renowned philosophers such as Wilfrid Sellars, Donald Davidson, Michael Dummett, Robert Brandom and John McDowell. Writing a self-standing article on analytic idealism, however, would be difficult and close to WP:OR because the expression is not widely used in academic literature.

I'm fine with deleting the redirect to A. C. Ewing, but I would strongly oppose redirecting it to Bernardo Kastrup. That would risk violating WP:PROMO. I'm considering submitting the article on Kastrup to AfD as it may fall short of WP:NACADEMIC. I'll review the sources in that article more carefully later.

Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Santi Romano

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Santi Romano you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@It is a wonderful world, thank you for your willingness to undertake this review. Please note that I'm happy to provide extracts with English translations from the Italian sources cited. I can also provide the PDF files of non-open access sources (e.g. by email). Best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gitz6666, no worries, thanks for this. Translations normally work well enough for spot checks, so I may request these. I collaborated with an Italian speaking reviewer because too close paraphrasing was a concern of the previous reviewer, and this can't really be checked using English translations. I also need them for evaluating broadness since I am unequipped to search for Italian sourcing. IAWW (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Santi Romano

The article Santi Romano you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Santi Romano for comments about the article, and Talk:Santi Romano/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello! I am reaching out because I was thinking of committing myself to trying to round out the Yasuke article with a culture section (it was tacitly assented to on talk but no one wrote it. I'd have to dig it out.) and a source review for any new publications since the page died down in february/march - with the eventual goal of nominating it for a good article review. My experience with mainspace and GAN are extremely limited however, so I wanted to ask if you'd be interested in looking over a draft version I'll cobble together and round out sometime this week? If you've put the topic behind you completely I understand, just figured I'd ask since you had more experience with that process. Relm (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the proposal, @RelmC. I've been a bit busy lately, but I'm happy to help with the GAN. I wouldn't dare to review the article myself, but I'm more than willing to assist with editing, formatting, and so on, if needed. The article might be a bit too controversial or unstable for a GAN, but I could be wrong - I've only submitted three articles myself and wouldn't call myself an expert.

I don't recall your proposal or discussion regarding a "culture section" and I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I am working on Draft:Wu Zhiying, once I finish that I intend to shift to Yasuke. The article has been stable for 3 months now since the RFC, with no new topics having been made in quite some time on the talk page.

As for the cultural addition, I noted many many months ago during a longer discussion about how the article could be improved zoomed out from the samurai controversy and suggested using some of the sources on the page which discuss Yasuke from the lens of African American and Black studies - which has been done in several high quality sources, just has never been touched on in the article. There are several sources not used by the page as well. A sampling:

[6] The Yoshiko Okuyama interview from the smithsonian article

[7] (aaihs is cited on many articles for this type of analysis)

There is also this book [Russell, John G. “Excluded Presence: Shoguns, Minstrels, Bodyguards, and Japan's Encounters with the Black Other.” Kyoto University (2007)] which I believe at one time was cited on the page and then removed, as well as another work I'll dig for which tackle Yasuke from this same angle.

Other than that section I am going to review anything published that is germain to yasuke the individual rather than the game character since the start of the year and then make additions as needed where uncontroversial, and then if there is sufficient sourcing or new sources to add something previously dissented to then I'll cobble the information together for a single talk page post with all of that information up front. I think the more work done *before* making the talk post, the easier it will be to avoid a stagnant non-consensus. (e.g. We cite a SPS in the article towards a view but reject a Wired video where an expert states an opposing view - having all of those cases ahead of time and an itemized list of what experts have said what, when, and published where - can allow for the discussion to be more about where we draw the line on sources for this subject rather than pick at each source individually in a different talk thread.)

Hopefully that is coherent. Thanks for your support ! Relm (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, @RelmC! Any change to that article is bound to stir up controversy, but I appreciate your efforts to broaden its coverage. Having some content on Yasuke from the perspective of Black studies would defintely be an improvement if the sources are strong enough. Obviously we shouldn't lower the standard, otherwise much garbage is going to be thrown against poor Yasuke. I' m looking forward to reading the results of your work. Thank you and best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yotobi

Grazie mille, era anche una mia intenzione tradurla visto che la cancellazione su it.wiki mi pare inevitabile ma mi hai evitato il lavoro. Spero che per avere la voce in italiano non bisognerá aspettare 8 anni come per Aranzulla, ma tutto dipenderá da come e se si riuscirá a normalizzare la percezione degli youtuber e dei content creator su wikipedia che al momento soffre di un bias negativo abbastanza pronunciato. Paul Gascoigne (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Gascoigne Vedo che la voce italiana dice "Quell'anno [2015] il suo canale principale supera il traguardo del milione d'iscritti" e cita questa fonte che però parla di 1.063.000 iscritti nel maggio 2016. Pensi che debba correggere la voce di en.wiki inserendo "2016"? A parte questo, sto compilando l'infobox inserendo le informazioni che ho a porta di mano; se, rispetto a quelle indicate in questo template, tu ne hai altre, per favore integra. Sulla PdC di it.wiki, no comment (a parte quello che trovi sul forum). Ciao, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot some link in the message you left on my discussion page. I cannot figure out what's catastrohic...-Paul Gascoigne (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Gascoigne: Sorry, my fault. The first link leads to a page where you have to click on "Changes from before your most recent comment are hidden. Show Older Changes". There you find Niharika (WMF)'s comment on the "catastrophic" consequences for the future of pt.wiki of a sustained drop in productive, non-reverted content contributions following the decision to disable contributions from unregistered editors. Apparently, this has led to a net reduction of 24% per year in "good" (non-reverted) content edits. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now I can read it. Well, let's see if she's going to make a comment in the italian discussion otherwise I will post it as a reference. Paul Gascoigne (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apart from that exchange with me (which can be omitted), this report is quite informative: the long-term impact on the number of net non-reverted content edits by December 2023 was -22.1%. Niharika says that this negative trend continued in 2024. Apparently, Friniate's data is too old and unreliable because in 2020 the pandemic-driven surge in editing created an artificial boost in contributions, almost completely cancelling out the drop caused by the block: there was a negligible decrease in valid contributions on pt.wiki (-2.6%), while the Spanish, Italian, German and French Wikipedias experienced an average growth of 14.3% during the same period. Thus, "long-term impact" is a more indicative figure. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ostjuden

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ostjuden you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Borsoka. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Heads Up

Having experienced most of the Yasuke CTOP process with you, I truly believe your talk page post on Conversion Therapy was in good faith. GENSEX, and specifically the transgender portion of what it covers, has been a significantly more difficult sphere to edit within over the last couple years relative to what was experienced at Yasuke. It is to the point where an ARBCOM case is in the proposed decision stage right now. Reliable Source discussions are critical, and have happened many times - often re-litigating the conclusions of them over and over again every few months. It is a subject where I would heavily encourage you to read RSN, FTN, and relevant talk page archives for RFCs/prior consensus before making the suggestion you made.

If this topic area becomes of interest for you, I do not mind trying to go and find some of the more important prior discussions to make that easier for you. I originally came to give you the ctop notice but saw you already marked yourself as aware. Relm (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Relm, thank you for your message - it's much appreciated. Unfortunately I'm busy right now in real life, but as soon as possible I'll read the RSN/FTN discussions you mentioned, plus evidence submissions at ArbCom, although I'm not particularly interested in the topic and I'm hesitant to delve into it. But aside from all this, the point I made seems quite trivial to me and I'm astounded by the reactions it provoked. NPOV compliance should result from the article text and sources, and currently the article either misrepresents the sources (WPATH did not say that GET = CT) or cites low-quality sources, opinion pieces and the like. Anyway, since no one on that talk page thinks I'm right and very few engage with my argument and try to provide MEDRS-level sources for a dubious biomedical claim, I'll make a few more comments and then leave, as the topic area seems inhospitable. Thanks again for the heads-up. Best, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just be patient, the wind has changed on this in real life. I think the 'reactions' are the last gasps of that.Halbared (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from Gender exploratory therapy and Conversion therapy, broadly construed, until the close of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people.

You have been sanctioned because you know that gender and sexuality topics are currently designated as contentious and that there is an arbitration case running regarding transgender healthcare, and you have nevertheless declared an intent to start a full RFC on whether gender exploratory therapy is a form of conversion therapy when your initial proposal failed to gain traction.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Bizarre TBAN

the block you received is completely out of line. I wonder why “everyone” on that talk page disagreed with you? Maybe because no one who actually cares about trying to uphold wikipedias policies wants to touch the topic with a 10 foot pole, lest they end up in the same position as you.

Im honestly baffled at the audacity of the banning admin. It’s absolutely a dodgy ban, on all fronts.

Regardless, Good job on dealing with situation gracefully. The topic area is clearly all but lost at this point, and it’s not worth letting it get in the way of all the hard work you do as a volunteer on the project. 49.184.145.78 (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Ostjuden has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Ostjuden has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]