User talk:Patrick Welsh

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Patrick Welsh, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick Welsh,

After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
• Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
• Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
• Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
• If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.

To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on receiving Rollback @Patrick Welsh! / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 21:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, an interesting Postmodernism article useful to the general reader actual creates new connections. I've been trying to do that with my edits (as I outlined on the Talk page). For example:

• Music: Comparing the pomo perspectives of a music critic, a media theorist, and a band member (Talking Heads.
• Psychology: Presenting a popularized view in the 1990s as it appeared in a major American newspaper, alongside theory.
• Marketing: Offering a glimpse into the (somewhat bizarre to me) details of actual and current (2020) application, what this stuff actually means in practice (including a theoretical-practical comparison of postmodernism/post-postmodernism).
• Urban planning: Noting the theory-practice gap, "little real world professional use" (I have a sentence to expand that, listing some of the practical challenges from various stakeholders, etc).
• Sculpture: Leaving the description to an artist, with no reference to the theoretical analysis in the field.
• Film: Showing how many different perspectives could be applied, with different outcomes, to a widely cited example (Blade Runner).
• Graphic design: Again, the theory-practice gap, and how academic theoretical approaches to practice can occur due to institutional directions.

I'm now not sure if you find that useful, or if you're just tolerating it. I (like to) think it allows the committed reader to connect their own dots, rather than repeating variations of the same basic skeptical themes in every subsection.

Perhaps I'm overreacting to the removal of "In society", still, postmodernism as I thought it was being approached here is a pretty unique topic in the world, one where a more creative, inclusive editorial approach could produce an article with some unique value in the world. :) Tsavage (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out. I think that the issue here might be cultural differences in the various parts of Wikipedia. Stuff covered by WikiProject Philosophy, where I do most of my editing, is generally cordial. Nevertheless, philosophy is a discipline characterize by often intense disagreements among experts. So editorial disputes and nitpicking over sources is fairly normal. Newimpartial and a few of the other editors who occasionally swing by edit mostly in areas officially designated as contentious, where open conflict is the norm, rather than the exception. For instance, reverting your paragraph yesterday with a descriptive edit summary looked to me like entirely appropriate conduct. I was not at all upset with you, and doubt Newimpartial was either, but it was restoring disputed content without talk page consensus that was in violation of a standard (though non-binding) operating procedure.

I have not closely reviewed or commented upon much of your work only because you still seem to be actively improving it. Be assured that I am quite happy for the article to be built out as you are doing.

We do, however, need to exercise care not to overstate the influence of postmodernism in general or in any specific field or area of culture. For instance, I'm withholding judgment until I can review the sources, but I remain skeptical of its influence in psychology. And while religion is a major part of many people's lives, theology is not. I mean, possibly the most famous postmodern theologian is John D. Caputo, and how many non-specialists have even heard of him, much less read his work?

I'm happy to break with guidelines (per WP:IAR), but we need to be careful not to make postmodernism appear any more influential or any less academic than it actually is.

With respect to the section header in question, I still don't quite understand your objection. We should aim for the most descriptive header that is still short and broadly accessible. "In society" could mean all kinds of different things, whereas "In other disciplines" or "In other fields" provides the reader with a somewhat better idea of the contents of the section.

If reverts and talk disagreements are ruining your experience here, by all means consider taking a break from the article. But please don't do so on my behalf. I hope you stick around!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I slightly modified my previous comment; nothing that will change your understandinig of it. :)

Generally, I doubt we're in disagreement, we're just in a bit of Wikipedia disagreement or ineffective communication, which I think is a subset. I'll wait for your response for my restructuring proposal in the article Talk, before adding anything here. Your concern witih not making postmodernism appear any more influential or any less academic than it actually is, is hopefully addressed there by creating clear categories.

I would add that you (and NewImpartial) seem to readily refer to the article as a whole as far as the broad, common sense idea of DUE, where I see it in terms of editorial criteria adjusted for different sections and subsections. This (very much in terms of this particular subject, with its fragmentation and divisions) I don't understand. Tsavage (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, go ahead and review my edits, as I've paused my editing. Nothing to do with ruining my experience, I'm assessing the direction it may be going in. Tsavage (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]