User talk:KoA

I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit.

On a wiki-break for awhile

This slowdown has already been in the works for a bit already, but just a heads up for my talk page watchers that I probably won't be available much for proactive editing or checking up on related science topics in the coming months. With the repercussions from the US federal government impacting science and scientific integrity, it's taking up so much energy to deal with the first-hand impacts of that in real life that there really isn't anything left in the tank when it comes to getting work done here.

It's especially tough for us university critters that are supposed to be helping farmers or the general public with serious issues only to have so much federal infrastructure that was meant to address those things being hobbled. That's while still being tasked with trying to address those problems with even fewer resources while even being attacked because a grant includes the word biological "diversity". There's a lag effect really priming up where those of us who work with the feds a lot are dealing with the problems arising first-hand, but others like farmers or especially the general public may not notice the full impacts of that right away until it starts compounding. I can't say much more except that there is a serious crisis brewing now even with the agencies I've worked with over the years (without even getting into agencies related to broader areas like health). Those of us who remain in that public sphere are already having to deal a lot behind the scenes that really doesn't make the news or social media. During COVID in 2020 was the time to really look out for those in healthcare. If you know of anyone who works as a scientist in the public sector online or IRL, now is a time to look out for them as well.

I'll still be glancing at my watchlist on occasion, but if anything comes up that would be worthwhile to focus on a bit in the science realm, feel free to ping me. I imagine the need for that here, especially in fringe areas, is only going to increase, but I hope we don't lose to many other editors to dealing with that in real life. KoA (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear that this is affecting you. Jeez, biological diversity as DEI. I'm glad that I'm retired. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, KoA. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, KoA. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! RPE ✍️ 📚 01:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Gamergate

I think that you understood that my question about the intensity of Move Reviews was about Move Reviews in general and not just the Move Review of Gamergate. It occurs to me that the reason why the video game harassment campaign is being selected in preference to the ant caste is that Wikipedia editors do not always have the same demographics as Wikipedia readers. In particular, video game players are more likely to be Wikipedia editors than entomologists and amateur insect collectors. So, because the choice of primary title is made by a consensus of Wikipedia editors, Wikipedia readers who are butterfly collectors with some interest in other orders have to take an extra step to read about the ants.

I don't understand the stubbornness of the battleground editing at Move Reviews. Maybe ArbCom can say something to that effect in the capitalization case, which is largely about Move Reviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon thanks and yeah, that is my general assumption too, though I try not to read that into any particular editor or focus on that too much in the move discussions. Then it just looks more like a tit-for-tat. The irony is I grew up both with video games and entomology while knowing they were both pretty niche, so getting painted as an "ant partisan" is really strange.

When it comes to battleground behavior, the video game topic is under discretionary sanctions or the new CT designation, so technically it could be brought to AE (or ArbCom). I feel like the optics look bad if I bring it up as someone previously involved though because the battleground tone is to the point where editors would be pointing the blame at whoever brings it up as trying to "win" content dispute. That's one of those harder problems to solve when battleground editing ramps up that much in a topic. KoA (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

getting painted as an "ant partisan" is really strange Is it, though? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean when you put it that way, I might like that kind of painting. KoA (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)