User talk:Monkeywire

Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Pygmy marmoset—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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. AgisdeSparte (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm a noob and need to learn more about editing protocol.

I understand that all of the changes may not be accepted but the entry under "As Pets" currently reads that "...these primates are not in danger of extinction" -- contradicting the fact that this species is listed on the IUCN list as Vulnerable, defined "as being threatened with extinction unless the circumstances that are threatening its survival and reproduction improve." Perhaps that at least could be changed? It directly contradicts the earlier sections of the pygmy marmoset entry. Monkeywire (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, I will make sure to use the sandbox going forward! Monkeywire (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clear you and I are going to be interacting a bit on this, so we should probably try to get a little bit into the same page rather than risk an edit war (though so far we seem to be doing quite fine).

Wikipedia has a problem with the ape communication articles being written with a pop sci understanding. It’s pretty much impossible to deny that not a single one of these experiments has demonstrated linguistic ability per actual experts on that exact topic, which the involved primatologists are typically not. Given the sheer uniformity of the stance against the notion that nonhuman great apes are using language, the large paragraphs explaining that the teams involved don’t agree are WP:UNDUE. They’re not owed a detailed response to the consensus on Wikipedia, and there’s a lot of interlinked articles that need to be cleaned up on this perspective.

Going by your username here, I assume you’re a bit more on the ape side of things? My understanding is that some primatologists who don’t work with animal communication explicitly aren’t aware that these results have been pretty widely rejected by subject matter experts. That doesn’t mean we need to deride them. Take a look at Kanzi, which does a much better job of extolling her communication without presenting long lists of researcher-hallucinated sentences, I think that’s probably a better example of the tone to reach for, and that’s mostly nothing to do with my edits but whoever was working on that page prior. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: You won't find me anywhere writing that apes can speak a human language, but you also won't see me saying "apes have no linguistic skills". Perhaps, technically that is true for a linguist -- I don't know how a linguist defines "linguistic skills" -- but a linguist's understanding of language is not the same as a lay reader's (who we're supposed to be writing for). People speak of body language, etc. If a chimp uses a sign for apple when he wants an apple, lay readers will see that as a "linguistic skill." The fact that apes can do that for a number of signs was fairly well established. (Even Terrace acknowledged this.)

The Clever Hans conference was not a one-sided debate and to simply erase the criticism of the Nim study is to leave that piece unbalanced. I agree that the page probably needs a ton of editing, including the Nim bit. But you just wiped the whole bit, citations and all. Monkeywire (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a chimp uses a sign for apple when he wants an apple, lay readers will see that as a "linguistic skill."

If we attempt to use a lay understanding of a technical topic it’s going to fail WP:VERIFY, though; linguistic sources are clear on the topic of great apes and language. We can’t write using misleading terminology just because of a prevalent and incorrect lay understanding. Animal communication and language are distinct topics, and the question of great ape linguistics is a fairly settled one at present. Some primatologists/lay people wanting to term animal communication as a linguistic capacity doesn’t make it so.

When writing for lay readers we shouldn’t just mislead them because accuracy requires a bit further understanding. One of the reasons I’ve been all over these articles for the last few months is they objectively misread readers, and that’s resulting in the need for some pretty heavy rewrites and unfortunately that means we can’t treat multi-word utterances reported by primatologists as something to take at face value, because the people who are subject matter experts in those utterances are in lockstep in their disagreement with a subset of primatologists.

to simply erase the criticism of the Nim study is to leave that piece unbalanced.

WP:NPOV doesn’t call on us to present all sides equally. The “debate” isn’t between two subject matter experts disagreeing on a nuance, it’s one group publishing outside their field (“Behold, an ape with language!”) and the entirety of said field rejecting the findings (“Nope, thats not language.”). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially: just because the research group disagrees doesn’t mean we owe them space to make their case when it’s already clear that the community of experts have rejected their arguments whole-cloth. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monkeywire! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I can use minor edit less going forward. I don't agree with your edit in this instance (Hoffman Construction), however. To say that a Portland city subtractor "obtained women-owned status fraudulently" is a succinct way of stating what happened. Your preferred addition --- "so they can be awarded jobs as a subcontractor on Portland city government projects under a program designed to help disadvantaged business" -- reads as redundant, in my view. Monkeywire (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's redundant? In the cited reference, Portland's Office of Management and Finance said its investigation revealed Portland Coatings fraudulently obtained a certification as a woman-owned business in order to win city construction subcontracts worth more than $1 million.. Since this explanation did not come from someone editing the page, and it comes from a reliable source, this is due. It's not self-explanatory what the certification does and why a company might want to obtain it. Without the part you are wanting to omit, reader think it's just decorative plaque. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original source is not written in a redundant manner. Your edit, however, reads as a run-on with a lot of repeated words: "Hoffman Construction was issued a warning by the City of Portland in September 2020 for having utilized a subcontractor that obtained women-owned status fraudulently so they can be awarded jobs as a subcontractor on Portland city government projects under a program designed to help disadvantaged business." Monkeywire (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can reword it, but it's absolutely imperative that the motivation they've done so is clearly shown as communicated in the cited source. Graywalls (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the tag should remain no matter how the page is edited/improved? Monkeywire (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about articles should primarily take place in the article's talk page though. Suggestion has been made to the article talk page. Graywalls (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pickathon, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Second time around. Not adhering to WP:RS and using unacceptable self published sources like https://gemmadeealexander.com/a-14-year-old-view-of-pickathon/ despite discussion Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Monkeywire. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. I am seeing that you've been in communication with various organizations and people outside of Wikipedia about images for use on Wikipedia, per commentary at

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Monkeywire

Please clarify your nature personal and/or professional relationship with the subject you're communicating with and writing about. Graywalls (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a huge fan of Pickathon and have attended 3x as a music fan but have no commercial connection relationship to it whatsoever. I suppose I am biased in that I like it and pay to attend. But did you even bother to distinguish my edits of the page? I edited out a lot of promo language before adding more detail, as I do not think the current Wiki page illustrates what makes this festival different than others. I was in the process of revising language I had just added (some of which I agree sounds too promotional and was in the process of tweaking) but stopped.

Your tag and suggestion that I edit for pay is ridiculous (look at my edit history!) and strikes me as being retaliation for a critical comment I made of your work on the Hoffman page above. Monkeywire (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read the talk page of the article? That tag wasn't for you. It specifically identified the throw-away account. That said, it's not just Pickathon in which you were in communication with someone off wiki about photos, which isn't exactly usual for ordinary editors. Graywalls (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed them because I was lifting something off of the website and needed permission. If you'll look at my other WikiCommons additions, you'll see I do that, though generally I seek out historic imagery Monkeywire (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd like to address how you feel it was "retaliatory". While it's understandable, the edits at Hoffman seemed a bit odd to me, which prompted me to check here. I'm always skeptical whenever someone comes out of the blue and removes COI tag under suspicious circumstances like this, tag removal and would generally result in some investigation. This article and Hoffman have quite a few things in common even though those actions may not be confined to a specific user account. One of those being quietly removing tags, and contents manipulation such as removal of properly sourced unflattering info and flooding with flattering contents.

Both Hoffman and this article have experienced interference by obvious reputation management attempts by the company, such as properly referenced contents with whitewashing intentions. This very recent edit of yours clearly don't fit within WP:NPOV and WP:V standards. @CNMall41:, just FYI. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand being questioned about COI can be frustrating. I dealt with the same when I first started editing. I would say not to take it personal as over the years I now understand why. While your intentions may be good, the behavior mirrors that of editors who have previously edited with a conflict of interest. Being asked about a conflict is not uncommon. As far as the content changes, they are problematic with both pages. If there is a dispute with content, it is always best to discuss things on the talk pages, especially until you fully understand how the various guidelines and policies are applied. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Pickathon) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about your edits to this page and have now lost access to edit it directly. You're welcome to use the Talk page and make edit requests, but if you disrupt the process there, you will be blocked more broadly. Star Mississippi 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please state why? Monkeywire (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring, which is disruptive. While you may not be a paid editor, your edits give the feel of someone who is here to promote the event rather than edit it neutrally. This is discouraged especially when it interferes with editors working on addressing issues with the article. Star Mississippi 20:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]