User talk:Swood100

Bludgeoning the process at ROGD controversy

Hi, Swood100. While I don't for a second doubt your bona fides and your wish to improve the Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy article, it's starting to feel like WP:BLUDGEONing is going on at the Talk page, most recently in section § Latest edit to history section. When there is a content dispute where one editor holds a minority view in discussion with several others, and the discussion begins to become circular and ongoing discussion doesn't appear likely to change anyone's opinion, then there comes a point where if it's not working, one should either try a completely novel approach, or just resign oneself that consensus doesn't appear go the way one would wish on this point, and move on to something else.

That's why I quoted WP:SATISFY in that discussion, and while I do understand all the points you made in your most recent comments, and if that had been your first comment I would have responded point by point, however at this point, I feel that they are all just variations on themes that have been addressed before by one or another of the editors who for the most part don't agree with your views. Perhaps one of the other editors will engage with you on your latest, but to me, it seems like repetition, and I don't want to just have a tit-for-tat discussion on points that I'm pretty sure aren't going to change anything. As I mentioned there, you can try WP:3O or WP:Mediation if you're not satisfied with the current state of affairs. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith

A core behavioral principle of Wikipedia is the assumption of good faith on the part of other editors. That is to say, that the assumption is that other editors are interested in improving the encyclopedia, just as you are. This comes up most frequently when editors have a content disagreement with each other—something which happens all the time—and that is especially when AGF comes into play. At the discussion Talk:ROGD controversy you said (diff):

However, Mathglot responded as if I had not provided anything new. And HandThatFeeds responded as if all along the real issue has not been the objections that were presented but rather was that others don’t think that these are “worthwhile additions,” presumably because this material would add an aspect to this article that the existing editors don’t want it to have.

I read that as ascribing the motivations of other editors as possibly nefarious ones, having to do with something other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia. This demonstrates a lack of assumption of good faith. I would appreciate it if you would go back to that discussion, and strike out that comment, which you can do by adding 's' delimiters fore and aft, <s>like this</s> which will result in the comment appearing in strikeout font, like this. Going forward, please assume good faith on the part of other editors, regardless if they don't see things your way. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reading this, and striking part of that message. We're good. Happy trails! Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed you have been editing some health-related articles and adding sources. I wanted to say that a bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You're welcome to join us if that's an area of editing that interests you. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put the group's page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. There are also some smaller groups that might interest you more; you can generally find them listed on the talk pages of your favorite articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)