Undid revision 705219891 by Jytdog (talk) waste of time |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:David Tornheim/Archive 10) (bot |
||
(829 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
== Welcome! == |
|||
| algo=old(15d) |
|||
<!-- Template from Template:Welcomeg --> |
|||
| archive=User talk:David Tornheim/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
{| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" cellpadding="0" |
|||
| counter=10 |
|||
|style="border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top; color:#000000;"| |
|||
| maxarchivesize=75K |
|||
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" |
|||
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|||
| <div style="margin:0; background-color:#CEF2E0; font-family:sans-serif; border:1px solid #084080; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top:0.2em; padding-bottom:0.2em;">Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}! [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|Welcome]] to Wikipedia! Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|your contributions]] to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out ''Getting Help'' below, ask me on {{#if: {{#if: Levine2112|Levine2112}}|[[User talk:{{#if: Levine2112|Levine2112}}|my talk page]]|my talk page}}, or place '''{{tl|helpme}}''' on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on talk pages by clicking [[Image:Signature icon.png]] or using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">[[User:Levine2112|Levine2112]]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">[[User talk:Levine2112|discuss]]</font></sup> 02:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
| minthreadsleft=40 |
|||
|} |
|||
| minthreadstoarchive=2 |
|||
{| width="100%" style="background-color:#F5FFFA;" |
|||
}} |
|||
|style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"| |
|||
{{Archive box}} |
|||
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA" |
|||
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting started</div> |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="color:#000"| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Tutorial|A tutorial]] • [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|Our five pillars]] • [[Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User|Getting mentored]] |
|||
* How to: [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|edit a page]] • [[Wikipedia:Images|upload and use images]] |
|||
|- |
|||
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting help</div> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="color:#000"| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:FAQ|Frequently asked questions]] • [[Wikipedia:Tips|Tips]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Questions|Where to ask questions or make comments]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention|Request administrator attention]] |
|||
|- |
|||
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Policies and guidelines</div> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="color:#000"| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] • [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] • [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|Reliable sources]] • [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|Citing sources]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]] • [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]] |
|||
<hr /> |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] • [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] • [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sock puppetry]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Copyrights]] • [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|Policy for non-free content]] • [[Wikipedia:Image use policy|Image use policy]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:External links|External links]] • [[Wikipedia:Spam|Spam]] • [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|Vandalism]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|Deletion policy]] • [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|Conflict of interest]] • [[Wikipedia:Notability|Notability]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"| |
|||
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA" |
|||
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">The community</div> |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="color:#000"| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Consensus|Build consensus]] • [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|Resolve disputes]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|Assume good faith]] • [[Wikipedia:Civility|Civility]] • [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|Etiquette]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|No personal attacks]] • [[Wikipedia:No legal threats|No legal threats]] |
|||
<hr /> |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]] • [[Wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Signpost]] • [[Wikipedia:IRC channels|IRC channels]] • [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists|Mailing lists]] |
|||
|- |
|||
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Writing articles</div> |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="color:#000"| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Be bold|Be bold in editing]] • [[Wikipedia:Article development|Develop an article]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:The perfect article|The perfect article]] • [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of style]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]] • [[Wikipedia:Categorization|Categories]] • [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|Disambiguation]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Pages needing attention|Pages needing attention]] • [[Wikipedia:Peer review|Peer review]] |
|||
|- |
|||
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Miscellaneous</div> |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="color:#000"| |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Username policy|User name]] • [[Wikipedia:User page|User pages]] • [[Wikipedia:Talk page|Talk pages]] |
|||
* Clean up: [[Wikipedia:Cleanup|General]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|Spam]] - [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism|Vandalism]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|Join a WikiProject]] • [[Wikipedia:Translation|Translation]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Template messages|Useful templates]] • [[Wikipedia:Tools|Tools]] • [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts|User scripts]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
|} |
|||
|}<!--Template:Welcomeg--> |
|||
== Lurking Stats == |
|||
from Piotrus. |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC) --> |
|||
{| class=wikitable style="background-color:rgba(0,0,255,0.1); margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" |
|||
! Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{ PageViews graph | 90 | User talk:David_Tornheim | en.wikipedia.org }} <BR> [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=User_talk:David_Tornheim Detailed traffic statistics] |
|||
|} |
|||
== Lurking Stats == |
|||
from Piotrus. |
|||
==[[Lennar Corporation]]== |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 03:14, 19 January 2038 (UTC) --> |
|||
{| class=wikitable style="background-color:rgba(0,0,255,0.1); margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" |
|||
Hi there, I have warned the user regarding this, if he/she continues I will report them to [[WP:AIV]]. Unexplained blanking of article content, '''especially''' entire sections constitutes vandalism. You did fine on my talk page, the only thing you didn't do was create a header for the subject. You do this by clicking the 'new section' tab (up at the top) and entering a subject, or you can put two equal signs on either side of the discussion topic and it will generate a header for you. The archive box on [[User talk:Landon1980|my talk page]] is for archiving outdated discussions that are no longer relevant. Rather than deleting the discussions most editors archive them for easy access, and so other editors can view old discussions without having to dig through the page history. I'll keep an eye out for the editor removing the controversy section, he gets one more warning then he can be reported. If you see them delete the section again feel free to revert, the [[WP:3RR]] rule does not apply to vandalism. Is there anything else I can help you with? Cheers, [[User:Landon1980|Landon1980]] ([[User talk:Landon1980|talk]]) 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
! Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days |
|||
|- |
|||
| {{ PageViews graph | 90 | User talk:David_Tornheim | en.wikipedia.org }} <BR> [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=User_talk:David_Tornheim Detailed traffic statistics] |
|||
|} |
|||
==Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!== |
|||
:Thanks for the help. I see they did it again, but maybe a separate person. Should we do Wikiscan? I haven't tried that yet. This is correct to reply here instead of your talk page?--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:TWA guide left bottom.png |left|link=]] |
|||
:::::'''Hi David Tornheim!''' We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started. |
|||
::::::* [[WP:TWA/Portal|The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page]] |
|||
::::::* [[WP:TWA/Lounge|The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge]] |
|||
::::::* [[WP:Teahouse|The Teahouse new editor help space]] |
|||
::::::* [[WP:Help|Wikipedia Help pages]] |
|||
-- 06:26, Sunday, July 12, 2020 ([[UTC]]) |
|||
{{Wikipedia:TWA/Navigation2}} |
|||
== [[Operation Gideon (2020)]] == |
|||
::It dosen't matter where you reply, but just make sure that the user knows that you replied to them on your talk page--leave a message on ''their'' talk page saying something like "I replied to your message on my talk page". Good day! <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 01:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Hello! After reviewing previous discussions, I saw that you were previously involved in [[Operation Gideon (2020)]] and don't think you have been notified of any of the recent discussions. If you are interested, feel free to [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)|take a look talk page]] to see how we have been improving the article and working on a new title. Any input would be greatly appreciated! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's usual to reply on the poster's talk, unless you want to limit it to your own talk; if so, custom (as I've seen it) is to place a notice prominently on your talk saying "I'll reply here" & advise 'em to watch your talk. (Don't sweat how, unless you want an explanation....) Personally, I prefer to reply on usertalk so they'll know I've added, but it's your call. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|WMrapids}} Thanks for the ping. Sorry I have not gotten back to you sooner. I don't have much time for Wikipedia editing right now, and no way I can jump into the hornets' nest of those articles right now. I appreciate the work you are doing and wish you luck in making them NPOV and keeping in the sourced material that is being inappropriately deleted. I did see the recent AN/I that got closed without action. Nice effort. Please don't get discouraged. If I had to give one piece of advice for all the time I have spent on articles like that: Always focus most on RS both in supplying it and insisting on it. No one can ever attack you for that. I think you are doing that. So much discussion I have seen on Wikipedia on talk pages tend to end up with editors saying that other editors did something wrong. Such accusations often just escalate rather than being resolved. when it comes to AN/I, simple diffs are best. Long paragraphs will tend to be ignored. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks for all the help!!--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
::Thank you for your advice and your reply. As I said in the ANI, it was clear civil POV pushing. With such subtle edits, I felt like all of the context had to be provided since the numerous problems being observed and addressed were more important than a successful sanction. Hopefully things are more calm moving forward, but if there are future issues with other users or myself, a history of such behavior has now been documented in that report. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 05:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::{{u|WMrapids}} If you or {{u|Ultranuevo}} do feel the need to go to AN/I again, I suggest you spend some time looking at successful and unsuccessful posts there. It is always the diffs that make the case. I believe the senior editors who read the narratives at AN/I know there are two sides to every story, so they will assume the narrative posted is probably one-sided. The diffs, on the other-hand, are indisputable and are easy to identify and look at. If the diffs look bad, you have a case. Also, always make sure to provide simple diffs showing the editor was warned. Make multiple strong warnings before bringing someone to AN/I, and if you do go, show diffs for each of the warnings. This is one example of my successful AN/I in that area: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions]. I have plenty of experience with posting unsuccessful AN/I's. :) |
|||
:::Also, establishing another editor is POV-pushing is difficult. Editors at AN/I are unlikely to know the subject articles and its RS. It is unreasonable (or at minimum unrealistic) to expect editors who have not participated in the subject to read all the RS to understand if there is bias. Edit-warring, acting against consensus, or name-calling are accusations that are more easily proven. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 13:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
== Indenting == |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Starbucks unions#rfc_3C1EFDD|'''Talk:Starbucks unions'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''To indent something, just put it like this:''' |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
<nowiki>:</nowiki>blah, blah, blah |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Shambuka#rfc_F3DD99F|'''Talk:Shambuka'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 15:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''It will appear as so:''' |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
:blah, blah, blah |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#rfc_485AACA|'''Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 09:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''To bullet/number something, it goes like this:''' |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The ''Shannara'' series is written by Terry Brooks. |
|||
#</nowiki>The ''Shannara'' series is written by Terry Brooks. </nowiki> |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Palestinian political violence#rfc_1D45E26|'''Talk:Palestinian political violence'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 11:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''It will appear like this:''' |
|||
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == |
|||
*The ''[[Shannara]]'' series is written by [[Terry Brooks]]. |
|||
#The ''Shannara'' series is written by Terry Brooks. |
|||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> |
|||
(The bolding was for emphasis, by the way. =]) Hope that helped some! If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_ed17&action=edit§ion=new ask.] Cheers! <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]</div> |
|||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> |
|||
Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. |
|||
The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|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 [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|||
:Thanks for all the help!!--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|||
::Anytime...and here's another thing. =) When you reply to someone else's comment, indent your reply, like I did just now to your comment--it just makes conversations a ''lot'' easier to follow. Two more quick thoughts: don't get frustrated if you are not doing stuff right...Rome wasn't built in a day, and you won't learn everything about Wikipedia anytime soon, if you even could. I've been here since March of 2006, ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akin_Ayodele&diff=prev&oldid=44259804 my first edit!]) and I'm still learning a lot every day I am on here. Good day! <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
:::Also, here's something that isn't required, but can help other users out: |
|||
</div> |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1187132125 --> |
|||
== CS1 error on [[Tim Simonec]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Hello, I'm [[User:Qwerfjkl (bot)|Qwerfjkl (bot)]]. I have '''automatically detected''' that [[Special:Diff/1204311446|this edit]] performed by you, on the page [[:Tim Simonec]], may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: |
|||
* A "[[:Category:CS1 errors: bare URL|bare URL]] and [[:Category:CS1 errors: missing title|missing title]]" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Simonec&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1204311446%7CTim%20Simonec%5D%5D Ask for help]) |
|||
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a [[false positive]], you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20David_Tornheim§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Tim Simonec}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1204311446 report it to my operator]. |
|||
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->[[User:Qwerfjkl (bot)|Qwerfjkl (bot)]] ([[User talk:Qwerfjkl (bot)|talk]]) 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Recent canvassing == |
|||
When [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|editing an article on Wikipedia]] there is a small field labeled "[[Help:Edit summary|Edit summary]]" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:</p> [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]]<!-- |
|||
Hi. I could not help but notice that in the recent [[President of Venezuela]] article dispute, and others, you have notified several editors that have not edited the article or the talk page in a long time, without including all of the sides involved. Here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:C.J._Griffin&diff=prev&oldid=1204760643], you wrote to {{noping|C.J. Griffin}} in their talk page, claiming to ask about a problem restoring their edit. In this edit([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&diff=prev&oldid=1205070012]) you pinged {{noping|25stargeneral}}. If that wasn't enough, in a message in '''my''' talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&diff=prev&oldid=1205308141] you pinged {{noping|WMrapids}}, {{noping|Ultranuevo}}, {{noping|Chipmunkdavis}}, {{noping|Blindlynx}} and {{noping|SOUTHCOM}}, essentially all editors I have had content dispute with in the last months but totally unrelated to the article in question, in most cases, all of this after WMrapids left you a message above just a few weeks ago. |
|||
--><p>The text written here will appear on the [[Special:Recentchanges|Recent changes]] page, in the [[Help:Page history|page revision history]], on the [[m:Help:Diff|diff page]], and in the [[meta:Help:Watching pages|watchlists]] of users who are watching that article. See [[m:Help:Edit summary]] for full information on this feature.</p><!-- |
|||
This is not the first time that this has happened, and you have been warned several times that further [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassing]] may lead to a block ([[#Formal warning for canvassing]]), so I kindly ask you to beware of this pattern in the future. Best wishes, [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 13:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
--> |
|||
== Archiving == |
|||
<p>Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. <!-- This message is part of the Template:Summary ({{Summary}})--> |
|||
Hello friend. Would you like some help setting up auto archiving for your 382 user talk page sections? I'm happy to help. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 18:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
For the record, though, you are one of the most amicable newcomers I have ever met! Thanks you for that! <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Novem Linguae}} Yes, please. Thank you for offering! I have been meaning to ask others for the last couple of years! --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 19:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I added some code that should summon a bot within 24 hours, and will keep the most recent 40 sections on the page indefinitely. Hope that helps. Happy editing. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 19:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{re|Novem Linguae}} Thank you. Where did you add the code? I looked in your contribs and don't see it there. Can you send me a link to the archiver that will be used, where I might be able to adjust the settings? |
|||
:::I had planned to use one of the typical archivers used by most editors on their talk pages and on the article talk pages. I believe it is the {{u|lowercase sigmabot III}}. I probably started reading the documentation and my eyes glazed over. There is also a "one-click archiver." I would like to be able to use that one too. |
|||
:::The reason I waited so long for archiving is for full transparency. I want others to know that I don't delete and hide warnings. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I added the code at the top of this user talk page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Tornheim&diff=prev&oldid=1205490501 Here's] the config diff you're looking for. It's a variation of the code found at [[Help:Archiving a talk page#Sequentially numbered archives]]. I set you up to use Lowercase sigmabot III. One Click Archiver will also work with this setup, although I'd recommend letting the bot do its first run before using One Click Archiver. I like transparency on user talk pages, so that's a good thing to strive for :) –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 00:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Archiving complete. Ah, more breathing room already. |
|||
:::::If you no longer use the feedback request service, that might be good to turn off, to reduce talk page spam. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 00:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{re|Novem Linguae}} Yes. Much better. Thanks. I have thought about reducing the feedback service. Mostly I just didn't have time for Wikipedia for last year or so, but now I will probably start looking at those posts. |
|||
::::::And FYI. I think there is a problem with the way the code is written for the service. I believe I looked carefully at it and discussed with the author, who was indignant about changing it. |
|||
::::::The problem--as I remember it--is that it is not even close to random: The likelihood of getting a notice has much to do with what day of the month the RfC is filed. I think the later in the month you file, the less likely random editors will get notice. To me that's just a bug. I don't know if you are a coder or not. I could try and dig it up. I really would like it to be changed, but doubt I have the time to make a change and support it. That's why I just left the code as is "under protest." --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I am a coder, but bots tend to have one owner/maintainer, so if they said no, the decision is probably final. I agree that that sounds like a bug though. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 01:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== RSN == |
|||
::Thanks for the further tips. Yeah, I knew about indenting, not immediately, but caught on--forgot about it for the outline. Sometimes it's unclear when it is best to indent. For example, on the "conspiracy thing", I was really really responding to just the most recent jab back & forth, I was responding to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION (that to me seemed to be leading nowhere in a hurry) and I was hoping to draw attention to the bigger picture--that's why I didn't indent there and at another place. |
|||
See [[WP:RSN#Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 06:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I was also aware of the revision comments section. Except in my first edit, I pretty much always use it when revising an ARTICLE, except for reverts of deleted sourced material (on Lennar). I haven't been doing it for the discussion page, since I'm just adding to an existing conversation, and it seems redundant--what else are people doing other than continuing the discussion. What's the protocol on that? Any guidelines on comments in the discussion section. I have experience with revisions from programming & understand the concept for being able to see the history of changes to a product or program, etc., but it doesn't exactly make sense to have a revision history of a conversation--instead, I would think you just watch the conversation which is basically sequential anyway, right?--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC) [Actually I submitted this an hour or so ago, along with the continuation of the next topic...] |
|||
:I saw it. Thanks. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Disambiguation link notification for February 20 == |
|||
:::Just put 'reply' or 'reply to ____' in the edit summary box...it helps others who happen to wonder what x person did...I dunno, its not a ''huge'' deal when on discussion pages. <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited [[Hyperinflation in Venezuela]], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages [[Bloomberg]] and [[Chevron]]. |
|||
::::It's useful for those watching an article talkpage to know what you're commenting about, tho "reply" or "cmt" are often enough; I prefer to clip a bit of my comment & quote it in the summary, so if you're looking for a particular comment, you can search the page without having to read it all. It's a matter of choice (like so much on WP). Only thing '''not''' to do is leave it blank. |
|||
::::And I don't know if there's a guideline on it, but when you start a new section, ideally, edit summary like this: <nowiki>"/* Indenting */ new section"</nowiki> (just leave off " & "). I think the system will do it for you (I've never opened a blank page & tried it), but in case it doesn't... [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 05:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
([[User:DPL bot|Opt-out instructions]].) --[[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 06:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Respect == |
|||
== Toolforge account == |
|||
{{ping|Novem Linguae}} You had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYapperbot&diff=1208825234&oldid=1208820961 asked] me to create a Toolforge account. I went to the [https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Tool_Accounts#Create_a_new_tool_account_/_tool link] you provided. Is [https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/register/ this] the correct place to apply? They mention [https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Quickstart#Request_Toolforge_membership "member"], |
|||
For the record, though, you are one of the most amicable newcomers I have ever met! Thanks you for that! <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Tool_Accounts#Maintainers "maintainer"], [https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/auth/login/?next=/tools/membership/apply "admin"] and [https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/register/ "developer"]. It's not clear to me if these terms are all equivalent or whether there are different levels of access and different ways to apply to each. I want to be sure I apply to the correct level of access. |
|||
<br> |
|||
If you would like me to spend more time reading the documentation before asking questions like this, please let me know which pages to focus on first. I will read up on [https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Jobs_framework jobs framework] as you requested. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I think you'll probably want to [[wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Quickstart#If you already have a Wikimedia account but no developer account|create an LDAP account]], then [[wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Quickstart#Request Toolforge membership|request Toolforge membership]]. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 01:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for the compliment. I've been doing political stuff for years and used to be as argumentative as so many people here and on newsgroups are and have been. I have learned how futile it is to argue like this (although it can be fun, I guess)--when someone is invested in another side emotionally, which is often the case in these heated discussions, bashing your opponent over the head with your superior facts is generally not going to work: they will not want to feel beaten & humiliated, so they will simply do the same back, even if they have inferior facts. It's a matter of pride. The more aggressive or condescending you are, the more they will dig in their heals and fight fire with fire. |
|||
::After that, let's do the abandoned tool procedure by filing [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/1/?projects=toolforge-standards-committee&title=Adoption%20request%20for%20TOOLNAME&description=I+request+being+added+as+a+co-maintainer+of+TOOLNAME.+The+tools+admin+link+is+https%3A%2F%2Fadmin.toolforge.org%2Ftool%2FLINK+%0D%0AFollowing+the+%5B%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwikitech.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHelp%3AToolforge%2FAbandoned_tool_policy%23Adoption+%7CAdoption+policy%5D%5D%2C+Either%3A%0D%0A%2A+The+tool+has+been+non-functional+for+14+days%2C+per+LINK%0D%0A%2A+Or%2C+The+current+maintainer%28s%29+have+been+inactive+for+28+days%2C+per+LINK%28s%29%0D%0AThe+current+maintainer%28s%29+have+been+notified+on+all+of+their%3A%0D%0A%2A+wikitech+usertalk+pages%2C+per+LINK%28s%29%0D%0A%2A+homewiki+usertalk+pages%2C+per+LINK%28s%29%0D%0A%2A+I+confirm+that+I+have+notified+them+all+via+email+%28if+available%29%0D%0A%2A+All+of+this+was+done+14+%28or+more%29+days+ago+and+there+have+been+no+objections%0D%0APlease+could+the+TFSC+%3A%0D%0A%5B%5D+check+the+tool%27s+home+directory+for+obvious+secret+information%2C+following+the+Adoption+policy+instructions this ticket on Phab]. I'd suggest that you file it and put both our usernames so we both get access. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 01:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{re|Novem Linguae}} As you can see in the next section below, that Yapperbot is running again. It started with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_v._Anderson&diff=prev&oldid=1209295596 this activity] at 6:00, 21 February 2024. Is that your doing? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nope. And Naypta hasn't edited recently. It must be the toolforge people undisabling the bot for some reason? –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 15:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{re|Novem Linguae}} I will continue with our plan. It sounds like the urgency is less now. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{done}} LDAP account created. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{done}} Toolforge membership request submitted. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
::Instead, if you really want the other side to listen, you have to start with respect, listening, and striving for common ground, and seeing the other side as an equal. In fact, if you see them as not the ENEMY, but a potential supporter of your viewpoint, you'll have a much better chance of convincing them. If you think they are an idiot and other condescending things about them, they'll pick up on that FIRST and FOREMOST and instinctively want to fight and disagree with you, even when they know you are right and no matter how solid your position. (As a good example, I met this one guy and he would come at people like a steamroller or tank, aggressively arguing his position. When I first met him, he did the same for me, implying I was totally wrong to think certain things. Unfortunately, he didn't know that either I didn't know or didn't think any of those things he seemed to be attributing to me, and I ALREADY agreed with his position before I met him. But because he was so nasty in his style of argumentation and towards me and those the disagreed with, I instinctively felt the need to defend the people I disagreed with and then disagree with the position he was taking, despite the fact that I originally agreed with it before he opened his mouth. What he really wanted was to argue, not to convince me. He had a chip on his shoulder. Fortunately, I didn't take the bait. I steered clear of his negative energy.) |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Anatolia#rfc_C5F2CA7|'''Talk:Anatolia'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 07:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Back to the people being attacked--they'll simply hear the negativity you feel about them and vigorously insist you have no right to say such negative things, or think so badly of them and they'll throw in everything but the kitchen sink to protect their dignity and defend facts they know are sketchy--the argument on the surface appears to be about facts, but in reality, the desire to have one's opinions and viewpoints respected and heard is really what's going on. And both sides vigorously insist their viewpoint is not being heard for any number of reasons. |
|||
== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment == |
|||
::On the other hand, when the person you disagree with has room to be mistaken gracefully, and the person doing the convincing does not thereby claim victory and say "See I was right; he's an idiot", if their acceptance of the contrary view is safe and they will not lose face by agreeing, then you will have a chance to bring them to your point of view. If agreeing with your opponent invites further ridicule and harsh treatment, they simply are probably not going to concede if they have any pride. It becomes more a game than an investigation into the truth. |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Foreign Secretary#rfc_C181AC4|'''Talk:Foreign Secretary'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 13:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::And last, and most important: My experience with politics is that you really waste your time, if you expend all your energy arguing with those who disagree with you, because as I said before, those who strongly disagree are unlikely to change their position, no matter what the issue and no matter how much energy you put into trying to convince them. Probably the best you'll get is that they will understand WHY you think what you think, may even be able to cogently make your argument to someone else, but will continue to disagree with you, but hopefully will leave with more respect for you than you started--that's probably your best case. |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
::It is also as big a waste of time to try to convince those who don't care about the subject at all. When you say to them, "You SHOULD CARE MORE about the environment", (or, say, Pearl Harbor), for example, they will immediately get defensive, just like the person who disagrees with you about whether drilling for oil in Alaska will have a negative impact on the environment. The person who does not care will resent your trying to drag them into a discussion about something they are not interested in, and will shut down, disagree to be annoying, pretend to be listening, nod their head in agreement when they actually disagree, etc. Either way, you are wasting your time and theirs, they are not listening and likely no substance is going to get in, they don't care. If they had any viewpoint on the subject before, it will be unchanged by whatever you said, which will be like the noise of a fly they would prefer to swat. If anything they will think, "People arguing for X are really annoying and pushy--I'm not sure I want to be associated with people arguing for X; they're jerks." Basically, they too feel disrespected for your trying to convince them of something they don't want to be convinced about; so you lose their respect as well. If you want their respect, which again is the most important, you let them continue not to care, go on their merry way and worry about whatever they do care about. If they later start listening, and this often happens when they get bored with whatever stuff is happening their lives and they see how excited you get about what you are doing, they start showing interest and asking questions, THEN you talk about that subject, but until then, you let them not care, and accept that, just like accepting those who disagree. It can be hard to bite your tongue when that's what you really want to talk about. In the meantime, maybe you can find another subject that both you and he or she DO want to talk about. You'll have a much better chance on the subject that does interest them. |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Shefali Shah#rfc_E73C2D6|'''Talk:Shefali Shah'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 09:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::So in politics, to make something happen, instead of arguing ad nauseum with those who vehemently disagree or don't care, you first energize those who DO agree with you and support you. They are easy to convince--they are instinctively on your side anyway. Next, you convince those who are on the fence and have not made a decision, but are open to listening (unlike the people who don't care). They are going to listen to you AND to the other side, then come to a decision. If you're being mean to those who disagree, you're going to lose respect in their eyes and they may listen more attentively to the other side. If you are respectful, then they are more likely to think you are confident enough in your position to not get so defensive. And if you can accept that other people have different opinions (and even argue them WITHOUT resentment), they're also more likely to listen to you: They'll think, hey that person is reasonable and level-headed, not narrow-minded with an inflexible and emotionally invested based agenda; that person looked at ALL THE EVIDENCE and then came to a conclusion--they are not biased and have blinders on. That's my 2 cents... |
|||
== [[Che Guevara]] == |
|||
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 04:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Just as an FYI, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hanoi_Road This] is the blocked user in question. I try to keep an eye out for logged-out editing (which he is known to do), but I was less active until the last quarter of last year, and missed the spurt of activity under this and some related IPs. If the activity were more recent, I'd have filed at SPI and sought a rangeblock, if feasible. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 18:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Nice novel! Fun to read. I'll try to reply in depth later, I have to go for now. <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Grandpallama}} Thanks, when I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChe_Guevara&diff=1214916651&oldid=1214914836 asked] about this, I wasn't questioning your judgment--I assumed you were an admin who knew what was up with the editor. But I was trying to figure out how an editor like me could find out that this came from an editor with a "bad" reputation. I looked in the usual places: (1) talk page (2) block logs. Nothing there. As a usual practice for me, when I see a new IP with no talk page, I try to have a welcome for multiple reasons: (1) To, of course, welcome them (2) Urge them to create an account, as it is so hard to track IP behavior (3) Encourage good editing and discourage bad editing (4) Provide a first warning for problematic edits (5) Keep a record for future editors as to whether the IP started off on the right or wrong foot. So, when I asked about putting a note there on the IP's talk page, it was mostly for (5). Make sense? |
|||
:As a side note, how did you know it was the same editor--because it was in the same blockrange? I didn't look at any of the edits, so maybe it is obvious from the editing record. How do you know the editor won't use the IP again? Is that their [[modus operandi|M.O.]]? [Not asking to divulge the secrets of [[WP:checkuser]] if that was used.] --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not an admin--I'm sure I'd never pass any RFA! :) |
|||
::Everything you say makes sense. ''I'' realized I hadn't named the editor on the talkpage, and I didn't want to seem like I was being coy, or that I'd lied and the situation wasn't as I'd described. My strikethrough had puzzled an admin, who also isn't familiar with the editor, which made me realize I should just go back and remove them altogether. |
|||
::I recognize the IP as a result of previous interactions with him before his indef, when he was causing trouble by IP editing while blocked; there are also a ''number'' of behavioral and language tells to combine with the IP recognition. None of the edits I've seen are recent enough to justify taking it to SPI. Without giving too much away, I'll say he tends to post on talkpages to provoke a response, watch for someone to engage, then stir the pot; that was behind my initial inclination to strike out talkpage discussion that had served no purpose other than to create drama. |
|||
::I don't know for ''certain'' that he won't have that same IP again, but it seems like they get randomly assigned to him within a small range, and I haven't yet seen it repeat. If you want more details to keep your own eye out, I'm happy to send you an e-mail through WP, but he avidly reads talkpages, so I'm loath [[WP:BEANS|to put too many tells]] on one. His usual pattern means that even if he gets that IP assigned again, and even though he might read the discussion at [[Che Guevara]], he's unlikely to ever actually edit there again. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{re|Grandpallama}} Thanks for the explanation. No need for an email. {{tq|I'll say he tends to post on talkpages to provoke a response, watch for someone to engage, then stir the pot;}} That's terrible. Now I understand why you struck-out the language, which I support after your explanation, especially if the goal is to protect other editors from falling into the trap of responding to the bait. If that's the case, rather than strike out the text--which, as you can see, calls more attention to it--I would be inclined to delete it or, even better, archive it. After all, experienced editors know that reporting first hand experience can be disregarded and no one but the editor who posted it is going to care if such irrelevant text is thrown in the dust bin of the talk page. |
|||
:::I do still think it is better to address the behavior issues on the editor's talk page, rather than on the article talk page. That's where I always look and probably that admin did too. I know how hard that is with IP jumpers, but I still think it is better, so that other editors know what is going on. At least that's what I prefer and try to do. |
|||
:::Do you think there is a chance that anyone else might ever use that same IP address? I don't know much about how people are able to use different IP's--I was thinking they might be at a school, university or library, and just use different computers or their friends' or family's computers. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Now that I think of it, [[Wikipedia:HATTING|hatting]] would probably be the best solution--avoids the bother of trying to archive it. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== A [[Dobos torte]] for you! == |
|||
:::Ever think of being a crisis negotiator? (That's my in-depth reply =]) Wow. <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
::::Glad you liked it. I put a lot of work into revising it, probably spent 2 hours on that. But I think it was worth it, even if you are the only one read it. I wrote something similar to an activist a few weeks ago, having put just as much work into it (don't know how much she actually read). I probably should have just cut and pasted that and revised accordingly. Of course, when I started, I had no idea I was going to say so much. Happens a lot to me. Sometimes drives me crazy... I'm saving this one, maybe I'll make a book out of essays like this... --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg|120px]] |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> has given you a [[Dobos torte]] to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. |
|||
That would be a good idea...I think that many people would buy something like that! (like, um, ''crisis negotiators''.... =]) <small>Don't forget the section above too.</small><font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:After reading your [User:David Tornheim|user page]], I agree that, no, you are not neutral on some subjects. On the flip side, who is? People can be completely biased and still want a neutral article, right? Ugh. Disgusting, how people can just attack someone else because they ''think'' that they know them, and "know" what they are going to do. <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 23:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
To give a Dobos torte and spread the [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]], just place {{tls|Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
|||
==Outlining== |
|||
|} <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Two minor things. New topics start at the bottom, & use a new header, like so: |
|||
<nowiki>==Outlining==</nowiki> |
|||
which gives you the effect you see, & the "edit" link for the section. You missed the bottom of the page [[Talk:Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate|here]] & left off the header, so I moved & added (which is within guidelines if somebody goofs; just be sure you put it back in...) |
|||
:@[[User:7&6=thirteen]]: Yum! Never heard of that. Looks delicious, like [[Tiramisu]]--the best I have ever had was at [https://worldtravelshop.com/northbeach/pages/stepsofrome.html Steps of Rome] in |
|||
If you want to get tricky you can add * to get more indent, |
|||
:[[North Beach, San Francisco]], run entirely by vivacious Italians, who would often sing loudly to the Italian music and banter back and forth as the night wore on. The place was often out of control with noise and exciting energy. So sad to learn that it closed. Nothing like it anywhere I have been. :( |
|||
*indent |
|||
:And thanks for working on and calling attention to [[M. Emmet Walsh]]. I was disappointed that it was considered to be in a sad state at the time of his death. When I first saw him in [[Blood Simple]], I was so impressed, and I'm almost certain I looked at the article. I didn't remember it being too bad at the time--it's not that much worse than a number of actors--and now I regret I didn't work on it then! I'd probably jump in the fray to help out, but it looks like there are already enough eyes on it. Hope it is finished in time to get in the news. You can keep me posted if you think more eyes are need, ''only if'' you think that would make it more likely to get "in the news". --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
**indent |
|||
::I just watched ''[[Blood Simple]]'' That was a film that presaged later [[Coen Brothers]]. All the characters were grifters and worse. I tought [[Frances McDormand]] was under used, but Walsh was especially slimey and menacing. I've tried to update the article, and hope it will find its way to being approved. Hell, we had 300,000 views! <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
***indent |
|||
::::I thought [[Frances McDormand]] did pretty well. I don't know of any other films she was in before that (without looking at her entry). So I think she was new. |
|||
or use # |
|||
::::As for Walsh, I thought he did such a great job creating that bizarre character--so characteristic of Coen Brothers' films. Those initial scenes really impressed me. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#indent |
|||
:::[[WP:ITN]] has its own standards, and that's just what they do. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:7&6=thirteen]]: Thanks. I'll take a look. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Pronouns == |
|||
If you want to get really fancy, you can <nowiki>[[User talk:Trekphiler|hide out]]</nowiki>... Cheers. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 08:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Hi. For the sake of simplicity and for everyone else, feel free to use he/him pronouns when referring to me. Regards, [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks. I'm a he/him. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment == |
|||
== Misusing Vandalism Warnings == |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#rfc_DDBAEDC|'''Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, I am an administrator. You just left me a vandalism warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJehochman&diff=227567048&oldid=227541967] for an edit I made to [[Lennar Corporation]] in a good faith effort to improve the article. Wikipedia has an [[WP:AGF|assume good faith policy]]. Attempts to improve an article, even if misguided, are not vandalism. You need to immediately stop misusing vandalism warnings in editorial disputes. Instead, discuss concerns with other editors and then go to [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], if needed. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment == |
|||
==Conspiracy?== |
|||
I've no problem with it, but it will need sourcing (& I don't have access to paper copies of the said reports, or I'd do it), so it's '''going''' to get promptly taken out again. I can only suggest, if it bugs you a lot, post a complaint on the PHAND talk page. Trust me, there are people with access to the docs who '''will''' address the issue. If not, try [[ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history|here]]; you might be surprised, & I know there are serious, interested people that will see it there, & act on it, if they realize there are uninformed people getting lost in the crossfire of esoterica. Hope that helps. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#rfc_0887A1B|'''Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==TIND== |
|||
See this [[WP:TIND|essay on deadlines]]. If you have a concern about the article, you can start a [[WP:RFC|request for comments]] on the get more editors involved, or you could try [[WP:3O|third opinion]]. Happy editing. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I can't disagree with that. It takes as long as it takes. Best you can do is watch the page, hope there are people as interested as you (& there probably are, check the talk page), & if it doesn't move at all, message the talk of somebody who's posted to the talk often. Or who created the page (click "page history" on the article page) & ask for comment. Give it at least a couple of weeks on a contentious issue with lo traffic on the talk page. (Something like PHAND, you'll tend to see it in a couple of days, 'cause it attracts a lot of attention; [[Ilario Bandini|this]] has gone weeks with only 3 of us seeming to notice it, & that was after a msg to the WP Autos talk page.) You could also try a msg to the project talk page. (The article will fall under a project; follow the link, & beware posting on the project page instead of the project talk, 'cause it's all to easy to do. I learned the hard way. ;) ) And yeah, sometimes the application seems a little capricious. All I can say is, don't let it bug you too much, 'cause there really isn't much you can do about it. Post the messages, prod people if you can, & above all, keep your temper, 'cause frustration will only bite you when it comes to getting results. (That's the hardest thing for me.) Hope it's some help. I'll have a look at the page, too. |
|||
:I gotta tell you, I don't see the beef, either. I'd say both sites are outside NPOV (neither is neutral on it), but beyond that, you got me beat. Might ask [[User talk:EyeSerene|here]] for more info. Calling it vandalism was over the top; bad call, maybe, but clearly not bad faith. And you overreacted in the tone of your edit summary; all caps is SHOUTING. (Yeh, there's all kinds of [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|wikiquette]] to learn...) Better to post a comment to the talk page with '''detailed''' concerns or questions, & your reasons for including, reverting, re-adding, whatever, after it's taken out, especially when you're getting somebody citing guidelines. That's obviously somebody who knows his way around. |
|||
:And when it comes to what's OK for EL sources, I'm not the best one to ask, 'cause I took out ELs & had the original poster complain about it & win. I thought I understood the standards... [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 20:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I moved our discussion to the talk page of the Lennar article, and replied to your last post there. [[User:Landon1980|Landon1980]] ([[User talk:Landon1980|talk]]) 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== ''Venezuelan politics'' opened == |
|||
==[[Wiseguy|Day code]]: style section== |
|||
"what's the best way to add emphasis?" Not having read it, I can't say if [[WP:MOS|this]] addresses it. I find it's more a matter of personal taste. I prefer bolding ('cause I find ital doesn't show up well on my monitor), but I've gotten ragged a bit for it; some wikipeople consider it shouting. It's really your call; you're not gonna get warned off for much past a lot of ALL CAPS, which is over the top, especially in edit summaries. (Why that's treated diff, I'm not really sure, but it is; deal with it. ;) ) Oh, & style questions like that, really, are better posted to a usertalk page, rather than an article page, since they don't deal with the article content/format. (Unless you mean emphasis '''within''' the article...) No, that's not a rule, just a convention, a bit like the diff between a party line & a private one. Hope this helps. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 04:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics]]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence]]. '''Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop]]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration]]. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== SF Emergency Drill Simulates WMD Attack == |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan_politics/Update_list&oldid=1217628688 --> |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
Check it out! I was on TV! [[image:Emblem-cool.svg|20px]] |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Israel–Hamas war#rfc_2D3F0FE|'''Talk:Israel–Hamas war'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
http://cbs5.com/video/?id=37954@kpix.dayport.com |
|||
== Tupac == |
|||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN-HlDoUMyY |
|||
In the lead of Tupac's page I had made some changes using professional sources that report the opinions of academics and experts but there is a user who always removes the content. What do I have to do? [[User:Pier1999|Pier1999]] ([[User talk:Pier1999|talk]]) 19:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:BillyTFried|BillyTFried]] ([[User talk:BillyTFried|talk]]) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Pier1999}} Discuss on article talk page. Make sure not to [[WP:Casting aspersions|cast aspersions]]. I recommend you read the section at the top of my user page ([[User:David_Tornheim]])--Advice for New Editors. A number of things written there are applicable to your situation. Sorry I did not respond earlier. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 07:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Barkley Marathons#rfc_67E48AB|'''Talk:Barkley Marathons'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
No comment? Do you think I came off like a wise ass calling them "Heros"? [[User:BillyTFried|BillyTFried]] ([[User talk:BillyTFried|talk]]) 03:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment == |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#rfc_9621CD1|'''Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 06:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Edit war == |
||
So why has the other participant not been warned of being involved in an edit war? It's not just me. We have a difference of opinion here is all. [[User:Darrencdm1988|Darrencdm1988]] ([[User talk:Darrencdm1988|talk]]) 04:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi there. You might consider keeping the title the way it is. "High Schools" are pretty much protected against deletion like garlic stops vampires, whereas "Elementary Schools" are pretty much assured of being deleted or merged pronto. Calling it "School" may well work okay now that it's through the New Articles gauntlet (I "patrolled" it through last night) as long as you emphasize that it included grade 9-12 kids at some point in its history. If you want to write about the elementary school, you'll need to either do that on the school district's page or on the regular Terrence Park School page, because, like I say, elementary school pages are slated for quick annihilation about 99% of the time... To change the name of the page, just click the MOVE THIS PAGE link and follow the easy instructions. |
|||
:Because you were he one removing content without first gaining a consensus. Please see [[WP:BRD]]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::And they kept re-adding it after others have removed it in the past as well. [[User:Darrencdm1988|Darrencdm1988]] ([[User talk:Darrencdm1988|talk]]) 04:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please show me the [[WP:DIFF]]s and I will reconsider. These issues need to be discussed on the article page, ''not'' on the talk pages of users. You go to the talk page to discuss improper editing behavior, but generally after discussing content concerns.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed decision in the ''Venezuelan politics'' case posted == |
|||
Thanks for adding the stuff and welcome to Wikipedia! Don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page if you ever have any questions about this or that. The page [[WP:OUTCOMES]] might be useful reading helping to get you up to speed. |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Proposed decision|proposed decision]] in the open [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics|''Venezuelan politics'']] arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
It looks like you had problems with a photograph on that page also. Can I help with that? [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan_politics/Update_list&oldid=1223370236 --> |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
: Oh, crap, I see you've been here since 2008. My bad. Nevertheless, my mailbox is open if you ever have a question or a problem. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 15:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Vaush#rfc_905A0BA|'''Talk:Vaush'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 05:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Thanks for your response. Yeah, I've been on Wikipedia since 2008, but I have done almost no editing for 2-3 years. So I've forgotten some of the key things I learned when I was active. I'm a pretty focused person and very interested in specific topics, like that school (and now as an extension Terrace Park history, partly because I lived there), so many of the specific things that are common on Wikipedia I might not know. As I state in my main page, I never claim to be 100% objective, try to be fair and balanced. I only recently found out about the demolition plans, and that's why I thought it valuable for people to know about the school and what has and is happening to it. I have always considered it a historically significant building worthy of a wiki page, but had not until now been interested enough to actually put up a page on it. Now that it is about to be lost, the Wiki page will be one of the few things that explains it as it was before it was partially destroyed. |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
:: I'll keep in mind your suggestions about the name. |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:AT&T Corporation#rfc_6E814DA|'''Talk:AT&T Corporation'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 23:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: As to the picture, I would indeed like help with that. My friend took the pictures so that we could show what the building looks like for educational purposes and sent the authorization for that, but the bot killed it and I didn't understand what I need to do to keep the bot from killing it. I have asked him to give me the GPLv3 or Wiki Commons authorization, but he has been too busy to respond and may not understand what it means to do so--it's pretty complicated even for me who now sort of understands it. I noticed user Dianna responded about the picture. I'll look into that and see if that helps. |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
:: Also, I had some problems with material I added on the Terrace Park, Ohio page. Some user Nyquist deleted the information I added about Native Americans, saying it had no reliable sources while retaining material about Europeans based on the same sources! In fact the Native American stuff was better documented. I think that shows bias, and I undid it, but Nyquist went and deleted it again. I just put up a post explaining my thoughts on what has been done. If you know how best to deal with this, I welcome your advise. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Israel–Hamas war#rfc_0E3A433|'''Talk:Israel–Hamas war'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 13:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment == |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know#rfc_A7A7900|'''Wikipedia talk:Did you know'''  on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 15:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Terrace Park == |
|||
== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment == |
|||
I don't know why Nyttend is acting this way, frankly they seem to have decided they own the article. It's a disgrace and I have warned them to stop, however I must warn you as well that [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] is not tolerated on Wikipedia and could lead to this account being [[WP:BLOCK|blocked]]. Nyttend has become a somewhat problematic administrator and as you know has been extremely pushy before at this same article, but edit warring is not going to change any of that. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war#rfc_F6B0D4E|'''Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
How long to wait before calling in other admins to do dispute resolution? [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 02:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, despite what dealing with a user like Nyttend might lead you to believe, admins have no special authority in a content dispute. Since he is apparently unwilling to discuss these matters I would suggest that now is as good a time as any to seek [[WP:DR]]. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 03:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
::Thanks for the advise and the assistance in this. I'm about to take a break today on the Nytend issue--maybe tomorrow. I left you a long note about the images regarding the school. Since writing it, I found more images on Flickr and am soliciting permission from those people too. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 04:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== GMO stuff == |
|||
<s>Hi David. I watch Groupuscule's Talk page, and I have seen what you are writing there. What they haven't told you, is that after she challenged the language about the scientific consensus on GMOs, we held what is called a "request for comment" (RfC) to get the community to weigh in, on whether the language was appropriate or not. The community did weigh in, and the clear consensus was that the language and sourcing is good. |
|||
Before you go much further, I recommend that you read about RfCs here: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]] so that you understand what they are, and how they are used. |
|||
Please also see the RfC on this question, which you can read here: [[Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_6#Request_for_comment_on_.22broad_scientific_consensus.22]]. |
|||
The thing you are questioning has been discussed many, many, many times on the Talk pages of the relevant articles. No new science has been published since the RfC that would provide any basis for overturning the RfC. The scientific consensus remains the same. (please note that [[scientific consensus]] is not the same as unanimity. And please also note that the <u>statement of the</u> scientific consensus <u>in the article is</u> <s>if</s> written carefully and precisely. Some people don't read it carefully, and think it is saying more than it is. |
|||
<s>Happy to discuss further, if you like. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (note - corrections made per markup [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC))</s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:Hi Jytdog: Thanks for your response. I have looked at the RfC and will continue to look at other Wikipedia articles, cited articles, research and sources. I disagree with the claim "No new science has been published since the RfC that would provide any basis for overturning the RfC." Firstly, there was and is no scientific consensus as is claimed. There may have been a majority of respondents to the RfC that believed that was the case, especially given the widespread dissemination by pro-GMO advocates starting with quotes by Pamela Ronald and promulgated by groups with ties to industry like the Genetic Literacy Project, which have carefully cherry-picked quotes to make it look like there is a consensus when there is not. (I don't deny cherry-picking by those with concerns about GMO's, and I have seen widespread distribution of at least one study on rats getting cancer, which was not good science.) I have 2-3 articles, published a year AFTER the RfC was closed that carefully examine the quotes of leading science organizations and regulatory agencies provided by the GMO proponents. Those articles show how misleading and unrepresentative many of these quotes are and all of the qualifications that come with them. I looked for the quotes myself in the source documents provided by the GMO proponents and found the exact same misrepresentations and cherry-picking described. Secondly, because the GMO products are heavily studied and published, how can you be sure nothing published lately could possibly be relevant to any claims of a consensus? Are you an expert in the field and paid to keep up on all the journals? The three articles I am referring to that dispute the "scientific consensus" claim are here: |
|||
:*[http://gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15679-the-so-called-scientific-consensus-why-the-debate-on-gmo-safety-is-not-over Short Summary article] |
|||
:*[http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/gmo_consensus.pdf Full Article mentioned above in PDF] |
|||
:*[http://beyond-gm.org/who-says-gmos-are-safe-and-who-says-theyre-not/ Another short article] |
|||
: That is all for now. I am considering moving this discussion to the talk page and/or pointing to it from there. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::<s>Thanks for talking with me. I'll respond in points: |
|||
:* Your first two sources are the same; the first is just an excerpt of the second. That you refer to the set as "three" articles is a bad sign. If you intend to go forward with this, and you continue to say things that are as blatantly untrue as that, your efforts are going to go no where. (I am not accusing you of lying or anything - my guess is that you don't understand how Wikipedia works nor how we handle evidence here). |
|||
:* Moving to the two sources themselves - the first is an advocacy piece, published in an advocacy journal; the second is by the very well known anti-GMO advocate Claire Robinson, again published on an advocacy website. Neither of those are the kind of [[WP:INDY|independent]], reliable sources that we look for, especially in controversial articles. (You will find tons and tons of writings by Robinson and her colleague Jeremy Lantham on anti-GMO websites. The two of them work out of a small nonprofit in Ithaca NY and they have launched many small organizations and publications to put their views out there - they are very clear dissenters from the scientific consensus) |
|||
:* You ask me how I know that no science has been published since then that overturns the scientific consensus. Answers: |
|||
:** If new studies had been done that actually overturn the scientific consensus, this would be HUGE news - there would be reports about them on the front page of the New York Times and every major media outlet. |
|||
:** I watch the GM articles in WP, and nobody has brought any sources describing new science that even pretends to overturn the consensus |
|||
:** i read some of the scientific literature (including general ones like Science and Nature, which report on major findings in all fields), and have seen nothing myself. |
|||
:* Moving to higher level stuff. You write: "there was and is no scientific consensus as is claimed." I understand that you ''believe'' that to be true. However, the description of the scientific consensus in our articles is supported by an enormous pile of sources that are very, very solid. The sources and statement went through an RfC and withstood it. You will see that Groupuscule presented their list of objections during that RfC and others did not find groupuscule's arguments to be persuasive. If you are going to challenge the content and sourcing, you are going to have bring ''new and very strong sources''. As I said, such sources don't exist as far as i know, and you have not brought any in this discussion. |
|||
:* Lastly, and this may be the most important thing. You start out writing "I disagree with the claim "No new science has been published since the RfC that would provide any basis for overturning the RfC." and you appear to begin making arguments to support that claim (the next sentence starts. "Firstly....") Please review what you wrote above. In all that text, you did not present a single - not one - piece of evidence that new science ''has'' been published since the RfC that overturns the scientific consensus. If you disagree with a statement of fact, you need to actually bring evidence. Again, if you decide to actually start trying to change the content of WP articles you are going to need actual evidence presented in very very good sources. |
|||
:* Let me say finally, that the scientific consensus on this issue may one day change. Science is continually moving forward, and new things are figured out that change how we view things. It happens. Someone, or some agency, may do the kind of very good experimentation that shows |
|||
:** a) some previously unknown mechanism by which currently marketed GM food could harm some people (right now, the biggest hole in the arguments of people opposed to, or concerned about, GM food, is that there is no known mechanism by which currently marketed GM food could be harming people due to the genetic modification); |
|||
:** b) that exposure to currently marketed GM food is actually harmful over the long term. For example, there is a group in Europe that is basically doing the long-term Seralini experiments again, but trying to do them right this time so that valid conclusions can be drawn from them. The group is called "Grace" and here is their website: http://www.grace-fp7.eu/ I'm interested to see what they produce. |
|||
:** and in both cases, (a or b), the work is described in reliable, relevant, secondary sources as being valid science that changes the consensus. |
|||
: Looking forward to your response. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 12:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::oh, by the way, the actual source for your first reference is [http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/briefs/the-so-called-scientific-consensus-why-the-debate-on-gmo-safety-is-not-over/ here]. The brief text there makes reference to "portraying GMO critics as akin to climate change deniers, out of step with science." I don't know if you have read the Keith Kloor article that is being referred to there, but I encourage you to read it. It is [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html here]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::Jytdog: You start out by saying, "Your first two sources are the same; the first is just an excerpt of the second. That you refer to the set as 'three' articles is a bad sign." I am well aware they are the same. If you look more closely at what I wrote, I said "2-3" articles! And in my list I clearly show that one was just a summary of the other--I provide both to give the reader the option of reading something short or something longer. Honestly, I am not that stupid and am not playing any games as you accuse me of here. Your accusation is a bad sign. LOL. |
|||
::I looked at the [[Keith Kloor]] article you mentioned. I'm not sure why you wanted me to read it. It has many of the oft-repeated arguments the pro-GMO people typically make, including a claim that is untrue: "people should know that GMOs are tightly regulated." That of course, is not the case in the U.S., where unlike many counties (such as the EU and I believe China, Japan and Australia), no additional testing of GMO's was ever required, because of the policy of "substantial equivalence" (I believe Canada uses a similar standard), despite objections by scientists within the FDA that GMO products should require additional study and testing. Kloor ridicules the rat study for good reason--it was a bad study. That's one study. That doesn't invalidate every study that was every done that has demonstrated unique problems and concerns with *particular* GMO products. The Monarch Butterfly study published in Nature talking about the negative impact of GMO Bt-corn was good science, despite claims I have read that it was not. Further study was made of the negative effects of Bt-corn on caterpillars and toxicity issues were duplicated in the further study as you can read on the [http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/ USDA Q&A about this]. The USDA Q&A starts out by saying it is not a *current* problem, but from reading other answers that it *was* a problem that was unique to this GMO product discovered *after* release and hence that variety of Bt-corn has been phased out...I will continue comment on the article later...[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 14:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::<s>I really mean what I wrote about "three sources" thing. If you come to the actual Talk page talking about "three" (and you say "three" at times) you will be treated as either ignorant or someone who lies. I wrote that, trying to help you. You can do with that, as you will. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:::<s>You say that GMOs are not tightly regulated in the US. That is not true and you have presented no basis for saying that. Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted ''with regard to the effect of '''GM food on health''''' as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true. What is true, is that the EU has been much more cautious ''with regard to '''environmental consequences of GM crops'''''. See [http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688 here] for one explanation of that. The butterfly matter you write about is also ''about the environment.'' '''The scientific consensus statement you have an issue with, is limited to health'''. |
|||
:::There are a lot of strong emotions about GMOs; one of the things we run into frequently is that people don't read carefully. If you decide to come to the Talk page to challenge the scientific consensus statement, I would appreciate it if you be very clear about what exactly you are seeking to change, and to be very clear about the grounds on which you are seeking to change it. Doing so, would save a lot of drama. So far it looks like you are misreading our article, as you are talking about this environmental stuff which has nothing to do with the scientific consensus statement. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::::<u>2, not 3</u>: Ok, thanks for the warning that I should be careful not to say "3" even if I list the other summary link (perhaps putting it on the same line would be the better way to go). |
|||
::::<u>Kloor article</u>: Yes, I am well aware the RfC statement does not talk about affects on animals or the environment, and I never intended the Monarch Butterfly studies to be a challenge to that. I was responding to the Kloor article you asked me to read. I mentioned the Monarch Butterfly study for two reasons: (1) I saw it wrongly dismissed by a GMO proponent as "bad science" [http://parrottlab.uga.edu/ProfParrott/monarch1999.html here], when it should not have been dismissed, even though I agree with Parrott [http://parrottlab.uga.edu/ProfParrott/rats2012.html here] and Kloor the rat study was "bad science" and "bad statistics". (2) Although it is true, the RfC statement does not talk about animals or the environment, GMO proponents, including the author of the article you asked me to read, often quote Pamela Ronald to justify a consensus statement, using this quote that is in the article: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops." Obviously untrue. Since her position and quote *does* make the claim to extend to the environment, I'm showing you the flaws in this article and similar incorrect claims made by GMO proponents distorting the science and the facts. I had the impression you asked me to read it because you thought it was a sound article. Do we can agree it is biased and inaccurate for numerous reasons? I have two more things to say about it later. Incidentally, it sounds like the reputation of Ms. Ronald has been challenged and I believe 1 or 2 of her published works have been retracted: [http://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/can-the-scientific-reputation-of-pamela-ronald-public-face-of-gmos-be-salvaged/ See this article that came up when I Googled her.] |
|||
::::<u>On US vs. EU regulation</u>: "You say that GMOs are not tightly regulated in the US. That is not true and you have presented no basis for saying that. Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted ''with regard to the effect of '''GM food on health''''' as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true." Huh? The article you provided me to prove your point says exactly the opposite of what you said, that the two are indeed quite different. It begins by saying the US has cozzied up with industry and loosened its regulations and the EU has done the opposite! Please give me a quote from the article confirming your claims.[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::<s>Glad we are on the same page with regard to "three". There is no need to bring both - people who work on the GM articles are scientifically literate. |
|||
::::: With regard to the rest... I am starting to think that you don't understand how WP works. We read the relevant literature and summarize it. That is how we generate content here. The overwhelming consensus expressed in the literature is that currently marketed foods from GM sources are as safe as food from conventional sources. We don't cite the Kloor article as a source for the consensus statement - I pointed you to it only because that article was specifically cited as a motivation by the people who produced one of the sources you brought, so you would have that context in case you didn't. |
|||
::::: <s>I am ''''disgusted''' that you bring up</s><u>I object to your bringing up</u> Ronald's retraction as though that says something about her scientific reputation. '''She''' discovered that her lab had used bad reagents; '''she''' disclosed that, and '''she''' retracted her paper. That is how science is supposed to work when things go wrong. See [http://retractionwatch.com/2013/09/11/doing-the-right-thing-researchers-retract-quorum-sensing-paper-after-public-process/ here] and [http://retractionwatch.com/2013/10/10/ronald-science/ here] and [http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/14/following-up-pamela-ronald-publishes-updated-data-following-two-retractions/ here]. I am done talking with you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 16:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking "disgusting" comment. Not helpful. My apologies. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::::<s>If you strike the statements about Ronald I will be happy to continue to talk to you further. (and by the way, "Independent Science News" is a product of Claire Robinson and Jeremy Lantham, whom I mentioned above. It is not "independent", it is a vehicle for their anti-GMO views and they hit below the belt, ''all the time''.) You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be - it doesn't have to be ugly at all. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::::::::To be fair, he may not have known that retractions in science are not admissions or implications of foul play, and (given how many papers are never retracted despite being known to be wrong) are often interpreted as a sign of integrity. |
|||
::::::::David: FWIW, I also think the final sentence of the above comment here could be interpreted poorly. The idea, I think, is that repeating the same path that was followed before will probably lead to either a large amount of stressful argumentation that goes nowhere, or editors considering your comments unproductive and ceasing to respond as a result. '''''[[User:Sunrise|<font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise</font></font>]]''''' ''<font size="1.8">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</font>'' 22:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Hi Sunrise. Yes, I am well aware that retractions of science papers are rare. And I agree that it is more honorable to admit and take responsibility for one's mistake and to retract a paper that has serious problems than to leave it up to others to fight a difficult battle to force it. It's very similar to people who resign under pressure from political office (or have big press conferences for damage control when they have been caught doing something the public would not approve of) and agreements in lawsuits both civil and criminal where an admission of a mistake, wrongdoing or apology is part of the agreement and demanded by the other side to avoid further litigation. Even if it is the honorable thing to do and shows integrity, it does look to me like an admission that one has produced and/or engaged in shoddy work that should have been caught <i>before</i> publication. As was the case with the rat study, except that author did not retract the article--the journal did. I see no reason I should take the reference down to a well written article. Jytdog gives the unsupported allegation (just as much of an "ad hominem" I would say) that the authors of the article have an agenda, as if Ronald does not. I agree Jydog's last statement has the sound of a veiled threat and intimidation. My interpretation in this context was that the evil monsters who wrote that article blemishing pro-GMO "hero" Ronald will be viciously attacked, showed to be the evil charlatans that they must be, and rid from the face of the earth for questioning Ronald's integrity. How dare they! LOL. Obviously, I couldn't possibly know what I am talking about if I share their dastardly work and I too should see a similar fate of infinite obscurity for taking anything they say seriously or worse letting others know about it. Anyway, if Jytdog wants to impugn the integrity of the authors of that article, that's fine by me. I'm all ears to valid criticism. I'm not affiliated to them and won't feel any "ugly" sting from finding out how absolutely horrible these seemingly innocent and "nice" people really are. LOL. To be honest, I noticed Jytdog's ire concurrently to my response: |
|||
::::::::::<u>On US vs. EU regulation</u>: "You say that GMOs are not tightly regulated in the US. That is not true and you have presented no basis for saying that. Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted ''with regard to the effect of '''GM food on health''''' as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true." Huh? The article you provided me to prove your point says exactly the opposite of what you said, that the two are indeed quite different. It begins by saying the US has cozzied up with industry and loosened its regulations and the EU has done the opposite! Please give me a quote from the article confirming your claims. |
|||
:::::::::I am thinking Jytdog saw that I called the bluff, that the article did not support the claim that the US and EU have similar GMO standards. Rather than admitting error (as noble GMO-"hero" Ronald did), Jtydog created a distraction, and used that as an excuse to dodge it, to use ad hominems on me "you don't know what you are talking about" (obviously I do, or Jytdog would not be so upset!), and throw in a little intimidation of things getting "ugly" to try and scare me off. Unfortunately, I don't fall for those tactics. Took too much Philosophy not to notice them immediately. Sorry :-) Now let's carry on with civil discussion of the facts! Okay?[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 00:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::<s>we assume good faith here. Your post drips with sarcasm, and that is not what we do here. I came here originally to try to help you - to save you time. I have zero interest in "jousting" with you or anybody. I don't "bluff". I'll see you on the article Talk page. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::::::::::::Sarcasm, really? Unbelievable! Sorry y'all lack humor. Humor is good for the soul. LOL. Yes, I assumed good faith until your statements started to go down hill as Sunrise also noticed. Hopefully, you will be more civil and avoid these tactics on the talk page.[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 01:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Sorry, but I'd rather not go through the rhetoric/social positioning process right now. :-) I'll just comment in response to the issue at hand that it's not at all similar to people who resign under pressure from political office - that is in fact the point I was making. '''''[[User:Sunrise|<font color="FF6600"><font face="Times New Roman">Sunrise</font></font>]]''''' ''<font size="1.8">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</font>'' 02:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::<s>quick note. Sunrise, thanks for pointing out that my comment about things getting uglier than they need to be, being misconstrued. Your interpretation is along the lines of what I meant. It can be difficult to work on controversial content and we need high quality discussion based on good sources; ad hominem arguments based on poor sources are not productive, per the of-cited [[Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Graham.27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement|Graham's hierarchy]]. I also note that [[WP:BLP]] applies everywhere, including Talk pages. Its better on many levels just to not go there. David I did not mean that as any kind of threat and I am sorry if you took it that way. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
== Warning == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]]It appears that you have been '''[[WP:Canvassing|canvassing]]'''—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence [[:Genetically modified food controversies]]. While [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices|friendly notices]] are allowed, they should be '''limited''' and '''nonpartisan''' in distribution and should reflect a '''neutral''' point of view. Please do not post notices which are [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Excessive cross-posting|indiscriminately cross-posted]], which espouse a certain [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning|point of view]] or side of a debate, or which are [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking|selectively sent]] only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-canvass --> |
|||
difs: |
|||
* 08:51, 13 February 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petrarchan47&diff=prev&oldid=646925812 dif] |
|||
* 08:54, 13 February 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Groupuscule&diff=prev&oldid=646926074 dif] |
|||
* 09:02, 13 February 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViriditas&diff=646926724&oldid=646683453 dif] |
|||
* 09:08, 13 February 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gandydancer&diff=prev&oldid=646927239 dif] |
|||
Please stop canvassing. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*As a canvassed party, whose response thus far has been only to supply information, and who furthermore watches the pages in question anyway, groupuscule must suggest that this "Warning" comes across as unnecessary and unduly threatening. David Tornheim posted on the pages of four users, all of whom are already deeply involved in the exact discussion at hand. On a related note: If the talk pages for articles about genetically engineered food weren't Archived so often, there might be better continuity of discussion on those pages, themselves, and the decentralized communication on people's talk pages might not seem as necessary. ☮ [[User:Groupuscule|groupuscule]] ([[User talk:Groupuscule|talk]]) 15:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I would be happy to discuss archiving on any of the relevant aticle's Talk pages. With regard to canvassing, it is a breach of WP's norms. None of the users who were canvassed have been involved in the articles for quite some time now; groupuscule's (you are really going third person now! :)) description of them as "deeply involved in the exact discussion at hand" has not been true for a long time now, and the canvassing is a clear effort to revive old disputes that were settled a long time ago by contacting people who argued for the kinds of changes that David wants to make now. My response carefully follows t[[Wikipedia:Canvassing#How_to_respond_to_inappropriate_canvassing|he recommendations in the guideline]]: <blockquote>"The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:[[Template:Uw-canvass|Uw-canvass]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the [[WP:ANI|administrators' noticeboard]], which may result in their being [[WP:BLOCK|blocked]] from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary."</blockquote> That is what I have done. And if David continues, I will take the next steps, as described in the guideline. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 16:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxwellBarr&diff=next&oldid=650063581 This dif] is further canvassing, in my eyes. I am bringing you to ANI. You will receive a notice when I am done writing it up. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Reminder == |
|||
There's a certain unnamed bully who tends to be very uncivil and drives editors away from topics. You may or may not have run into him. Strangely, he's never been blocked, which shows that some editors are very good at manipulating and gaming the Wikipedia system to get what they want, mostly by kissing up to the right people and spreading false rumours about others they dislike. Unfortunately, you may have become the latest target of this bully. If this is true, then you must be very careful to be calm and civil in your replies, because this bully will attempt to game the system to get you blocked. Take care. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFRGbdHCFA0 hmmm]] [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::although with the spooky conspiratorial tone, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPCkcKNUVoo this] is more appropriate. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== about your note on gandy's page == |
|||
<s>It is strange that you are disappointed that no one walked you through the history. Nobody gets a personal escort through WP. |
|||
I read the rest of what you wrote, and again, it was strange. I have no idea who you are and it is none of my business - thinking about who you are is '''profoundly against the spirt of Wikipedia''' - we [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] about one another ''as a baseline'' and ''we focus on the work we do together''. And I don't care what you think of me. Please stop thinking about me. I don't want to read about your speculations about what motivates me or doesn't motivate me, and you shouldn't write it Really. We don't go there in WP. If you haven't actually read [[WP:AGF]] please do. |
|||
Think about all the drama on the GMOC talk page about substantial equivalence - as you wrote on Gandy's page, that was driven by your distrust of me (which has no place here). I will also add, that the drama was driven by your ignorance with regard to the subject matter. (ignorance is not bad - i have oceans of it, and try to learn more every day) Making strong statements based on ignorance is kind of bad, however. Anyway, once you finally read the sources and let them speak to you, the issue went away. Which is great, and was a relief to me. And the article ended up with better sourcing. We could have gotten there much quicker and more pleasantly had you not wasted time being suspicious of me, and had just thought about the content, and what reliable sources say about it, ''before'' you started making strong claims. But we got there. |
|||
I am happy to reboot our working relationship. Please just deal with the content and the sources. Once you do, you will find that the articles '''are''' mostly accurate and NPOV, per reliable sources. They have been tested by fire, many many times. (they are not perfect and they can never be finished; nothing in WP ever is) But there is a '''lot''' of misinformation out there about GMOs and a lot of <u>un</u>reliable sources; please think carefully about the sources you bring. |
|||
Best regards [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::<s>Additional note - about BP. Your effort to throw my own words at me is really glib and ugly - you don't know the story. if you had read the history of the BP article (which would take you another week at least), you would have seen that once I was able to push back the real ick that was going on there (and it was icky and is '''not what I do''') you would have seen that Petra in particular started to push way way too far the other way and as I tried to hold the middle, she started to demonize me so much, that it got so ugly that I just walked away. That all happened before the March against Monsanto article, where she tried to do the same thing, in the same way, and then came after me again on the GMO stuff. It was really dark and ugly. I believe she has burned out and mostly left the project now. I feel bad for her; carrying that kind of hateful poison around, hurts you. As for me, I aim for the reasonable, messy middle, always. I just try to make the articles I work on, as well sourced and NPOV as I can. But that is all a big fucking waste of time; I just responded because your effort to throw my words at me - done in ignorance of the whole story - was icky. |
|||
::Please just concentrate on the work. And please work carefully; be on reasonably firm ground when you make claims, and be ready to hear that you are missing information. You will find that is how i behave here. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:::Thank you for your response. I have many thoughts on all of the things you wrote above and spent two hours working on this response. However, I don't want to spend a lot of text explaining myself and where I feel misunderstood, so I cut much of it down. I want to focus on some points of agreement, forward movement and explain one place where we disagree. |
|||
::::(1) "I am happy to reboot our working relationship." Good! Let's keep it positive! |
|||
::::(2) I read the [[WP:AGF]. It's good policy. It seems to me you were the first to start accusing me of not having "good faith". You snapped at me first, using harsh language and ad hominems. It was clear to me at that point you did not think I had "good faith". Let's please go back to (1) and not start accusing either of the "good faith" thing unless it is truly warranted. Accusations tend to cause distrust, lack of harmony. It is mentioned in [[WP:AGF]] and I agree. |
|||
::::(3) I did not expect an escort. I wanted to avoid stepping on well-known landmines and reigniting old disputes and people forming battle lines and get caught in the cross-fire or relegated to one side. This is a constant problem on Wikipedia. I have seen in on many pages. I don't know how to fix it--but I am aware of it. |
|||
::::(4) "Please just concentrate on the work." Yes, let's do that. However, if there is corporate malfeasance going on in regards to Wikipedia on ANY article, it should be addressed. If you can point me to a place where these problems are addressed, it would be much appreciated. |
|||
::::(5) I did not "use your words against you". Please assume the "good faith" you say I lack. Your words prove you are a stand up person and are interested in Wikipedia not being subverted by corporate malfeasance. That is good! That is why my distrust from the list I wrote was changed into trust. Trust is good. Let's build trust. Now we may agree there is a problem with corporate PR people, but it appears you strongly disagree with Gandydancer and others about HOW to address it. I honestly don't know what is best--I'm all ears on that subject. It is a somewhat tangential issue from the NPOV but may be a problem and a number of people have said they think it is a problem. Wikipedia's policies of anonymity make it quite difficult to ascertain, unfortunately. Doc James noted that. And I saw that you helped him identify "sock-puppets". Again good work. This builds more trust. |
|||
::::(6) I can see you have strong emotions about this, especially the sentence where you said, "fucking waste of time". I know you don't believe that or you would have left just as Petra did. I think you have a short fuse now and that's something you'll have to work on. I can see there are relationships that have developed and many strong unhealthy negative distrustful emotions have come into this. I hope we can repair the burned bridges. I don't want you to project these problems on to me and assume I am going to behave similarly as those who you have had problems with you in the past on GMO's or MAM. My goal again is to <i>avoid</i> repeating past mistakes. |
|||
::::(7) "Think about all the drama on the GMOC talk page about substantial equivalence - as you wrote on Gandy's page, that was driven by your distrust of me (which has no place here)." |
|||
:::::No. No. No. That was not because of distrust. You are not assuming "good faith" by saying that. Please look again at the talk page of GMOC. Both of us focused on content, not trust. There was no "drama" there that I detected. The drama was on my talk page and you started it, when you got all pissy that I posted the article that was negative on Pamela Ronald (whose page is anything but "objective" and I believe the sources violate numerous RS rules. Of course, the Pro-GMO would never care about that, right?). I honestly was quite shocked at how upset you got and that certainly damaged the "good faith" assumption. Anyway, I made the edit on the "Substantial Evidence" to see what would happen. Because I truly believed that statement was incorrect. I would not have done that if you had been better at explaining it on my talk page and had not stormed off, saying, "I'm done talking to you." That would have looked terrible if you did that on the talk page, right?! If you look at where I challenged your claims about the "substantial equivalence" ON MY TALK PAGE, you didn't response about where in the article it said it was UNIVERSAL. I noted that the article clearly said the US has been shifted by corporate lobbying more so that the EU, and it was at that time you had gotten mad and stopped talking, instead of just showing me the content that proved your point as you did on the GMOC talk page in a mature way. I hope our work on the GMOC talk pages is *that* productive in the future! |
|||
::::(8) I would appreciate it if you read the first section of my user page written (it's shorter than this response) when I first joined Wikipedia about NPOV, bias, objectivity, etc. I think it applies as much today about my concerns on the GMO pages as it did about other subjects I had seen with controversy. |
|||
::::Maybe that wasn't so abbreviated. LOL!! :-) Yours truly,[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 06:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::<s>Thanks for your remarks. I will see you on the Talk page. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 08:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)</s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
== Conflict of interest in WP == |
|||
<s>OK, you keep referring to corporate interests working to pervert WP and the like, and above you asked me to tell you about how "corporate malfeasance" is addressed here. |
|||
I work a lot in this area - this is something that is very important to me and I spent a significant chunk of my time on Wikipedia dealing with it. So I can tell you about it. This is quite long, for which I apologize, but I want to give you an intro and then a careful description. |
|||
pre-intro... before I do, I want to say something again. While I understand your concern about corporate corruption of WP and share it, your approach to this issue is wrong. We do not begin by distrusting anybody, and we do not write boatloads about how we feel about other editors in Wikipedia. You will understand that better ( I hope) after reading the following. |
|||
Intro: The whole complex of policies and ideas about anonymity and outing is '''very''' important to this project. <u>We assume good faith and we do not try to [[WP:OUT]] anybody.</u> Let me put this in bold - '''if you try to out another editor, you will be banned.''' Wikipedia takes anonymity very very seriously. Editors who have been publicly identified have been threatened with physical violence, hounded, and otherwise fucked with both professionally and personally, by crazy and bad people. I know editors to whom this happened. The Outing policy is strictly enforced, and very important to how this place operates. |
|||
Related to that -- deep in the guts of Wikipedia - part of the beautiful and well-thought-out heart of this place - is the notion that we are all equals, working respectfully side by side, looking at and focused on creating and improving article content according to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, and behaving according to WP's behavioral policies, guidelines, and norms. '''WP is all about content, not contributors; it doesn't matter who you are in the real world - [[WP:RANDY|Randy from Boise]] or a nobel laureate. We don't know who you are in the real world, <u>and we don't care.</u>''' What matters is the content you create and how you conduct yourself. It is beautiful. |
|||
If we have problems with ''the behavior of another editor'' - if another editor's behavior leads us to pull our eyes from content and direct them at another editor - we address that directly and respectfully with the other editor on his or her Talk page, and if that fails, we take it to one of the boards and let the community handle the matter. It should never get personal here. This place falls away from its ideal and becomes really ugly when editors turn their eyes from article content and start looking at and discussing one another's good or bad intentions, or start talking about how qualified they are and how we should accept their contributions based on their authority instead of what reliable sources say. These are all typical newbie mistakes. When you combine those newbie mistake with some passion... you can see that things get even uglier, faster. |
|||
I hope you reflect on that, and incorporate that into the way you operate here. |
|||
OK, intro is over. |
|||
The key documents regarding "corporate malfeasance" are [[WP:NOT]] (specifically [[WP:PROMO]]), [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:COI]], and [[WP:ADVOCACY]]. You should notice right away, that NOT is pillar and policy, NPOV is policy, COI is a guideline, not a policy, and ADVOCACY is just an essay, not a guideline and not a policy. ("policy", "guideline", and "essay" are technical terms in WP) I'll discuss these in there order of centrality to the heart of WP and community consensus about them. |
|||
* [[WP:NOT]] is a pillar and a policy. This is all about the mission - what we are doing here, defined largely by what we are not. This document is really important to orient editors to our mission, which is to crowdsource a free and reliable source of information that captures the sum of human knowledge. Beautiful. But people arrive here who don't get that, and try to make WP into all kinds of things it is not, and some abuse it (sometimes not understanding that what they are doing wrong, sometimes knowingly). One of the most common abuses, is using wikipedia to promote some thing, organization, person, cause, or idea. Promotional editing is profoundly un-Wikipedian (pillar) and is against policy, be it done by a company or someone committed to opposing a company's activities. |
|||
* NPOV is policy, because everybody agrees that NPOV '''content''' is absolutely central to Wikipedia's mission. Everybody agrees on that. Also, NPOV is something that you can discuss objectively - editors can find sources, discuss them and (try to) come to agreement on what they say, and what ideas in them are central and should get the most WEIGHT, and which are more peripheral and should get less WEIGHT. It is about content, and is based on publicly available information. I want to note here, that there is a noticeboard for NPOV issues, [[WP:NPOVN]]. That board is pretty much defunct, which is unfortunate. We can have a separate discussion about why that is, but issues about POV are most often addressed at ANI. |
|||
* COI is only a guideline. There have been many many MANY efforts to raise COI to policy but those efforts have never succeeded, primarily because any given editor's conflict of interest is ''personal'' - it is about contributor, not content. Do you see how issues about COI immediately come into conflict with our policies about anonymity and outing, that I described above? (that is a real question - if you don't understand that, the rest of this will make no sense to you). |
|||
**Those who oppose raising it to policy, make the very good points that: |
|||
*** a) it is about contributor, not content; |
|||
*** b) the information that would make it clear if someone has a COI is private, and getting it would involve violating OUTING; |
|||
*** c) what matters at the end of the day is whether the content is NPOV and well sourced - if someone adds that for pay or as a volunteer, '''doesn't matter'''; |
|||
*** d) we already have the NPOV policy and if editors add biased content, we already deal with them under that policy. we don't '''need''' a COI policy |
|||
*** e) ADVOCACY is as big, if not a much bigger, problem (but see note below) and all this fuss about COI does nothing to deal with advocacy; |
|||
*** f) (less good point) those who are obsessed with COI are most often anti-corporate advocates themselves, trying to shove their bias down everyone else's throats. |
|||
**Those who want to elevate COI to policy, make the very good points that: |
|||
*** a) every responsible organization has a COI policy, and WP as a widely used repository of information, has a special responsibility to manage COI of our editors, to earn and retain the public's trust; |
|||
*** b) editors with a COI cannot help but be biased - it takes superhumans to write truly NPOV content with a COI, and we cannot give them free rein: |
|||
*** c) WP is a volunteer project and everybody has limited real time and real jobs, and there is an endless supply of COI editors and we cannot keep up with them: |
|||
**** (i) companies have money to pay people to push biased content into WP: |
|||
**** (ii) there are tons of freelancers looking to get paid for editing WP; |
|||
**** (iii) there are companies that exist as brokers between companies and freelancers - their whole business model is pushing biased content into WP; |
|||
***d) (weak argument) Wikipedia has legal liability under advertising laws to disclose any content that is actually a paid advertisement, and if we cannot get COI disclosed we cannot comply. |
|||
***e) (weak argument) it is actually in the interest of conflicted editors to have controls; most often they end up embarrassing themselves and their clients or employers |
|||
* ADVOCACY is just an essay and is really an adjunct to [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOT]]. Advocacy is more focused on the editor's behavior (and passion underlying biased editing, rather than financial interests underlying biased editing), while NPOV focuses on content, and COI is about the editor him- or-herself. Looking at someone's behavior, it is often hard to sort out if the bias they are adding is due to COI or passion. The result is the same, though - biased content. It is important to know that the community distinguishes between COI (something essential to the editor) and Advocacy (behavior of the editor generally, but especially concerned with passion-driven bias), and NPOV (content). The essay [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] is useful for identifying editors who have a pattern of advocacy behavior. (It really is useful - you should check it out. And I invite you to apply that checklist to me. I check myself against it.) |
|||
I have argued for raising COI to policy. I also want to note, that with regard to the interesting question of what perverts WP ''more'' - bias due to financial or other conflict of interest, or bias due to passion (say someone who is ardent practictioner of yoga wants to add glow-y content to an article about the health-benefits of yoga; or a fan of a football team adding glowy content about that team and adding negative content to other teams; or a vegetarian adding loads of content to the [[Meat]] article about how evil meat and the livestock industry are... etc etc you see what I mean)... with regard to which damages Wikipedia more - there is actually no data on that. Nobody knows. It is clear to me, that both are big problems. |
|||
Anyway, within the realm of COI, there are 2 broad classes of "conflict", in the way Wikipedia considers the issues: |
|||
* What we call "paid editing", which is (as it sounds) editing for pay. You might be freelancer, or a PR agent, or an employee of a company or a university... but if you are getting paid to edit WP to promote something, you are a "paid editor" (I note that there is a class of paid editors that are different and are not considered to have a conflict of interest- see [[WP:GLAM]] for example) |
|||
* Other COI editing - maybe you are suing someone and want to add negative content about them, or maybe you are an academic who thinks you are great and wants the world to know that through WP, etc etc. (as I mentioned above and as [[WP:ADVOCACY]] explicitly discussed, it is often impossible to figure out if someone has this second kind of COI especially, or is editing from passion - they are closely related) |
|||
There are lots of famous examples of [[Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia]] - there is even an article about it. One of the most recent and painful examples, was a nest of sockpuppets that was uncovered in 2012 - see [[Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia]]. This was driven by one of the "broker" companies I mentioned above, so the issue was paid editing. Literally hundreds of sock accounts; huge huge effort by volunteers to uncover them all, close them down, and reverse the damage they did. This led to another massive effort to get a policy to explicitly ban "paid editing" in Wikipedia - there were no less than 5 competing proposals running at the same time. Huge turmoil. None of them succeeded. After the WP-en community failed to come to agreement on how to manage this problem, the WMF (our parent) took over and did two things. It sent Wiki-PR a cease-and-desist letter regarding use of the WP name, and claimed (very weakly) that Wiki-PR itself violated our Terms of Use. They subsequently amended the Terms of Use (which it, as the owner of this site, issues) to make it obligatory for paid editors to clearly disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" and to follow project policies and guidelines with regard to conflict of interest. You will see the results of their actions in the [[WP:COI]] guideline, in the first section. |
|||
It is important to note that the WMF did '''not'' ban paid editing. This made the wing of the community that wanted to ban it, very unhappy. But per the WMF, paid editors can be part of the community, if they disclose their COI and follow the COI guideline (namely, if they don't directly articles (outside of making purely factual, uncontroversial (broadly defined) changes) and instead suggest content on the relevant Talk page). It is also important to note that the WMF left the anonymity and outing policies of WP intact. The change to the Terms of Use is not a license to hound or OUT anyone. |
|||
Anyway, [[WP:COI]] describes very clearly, what a COI is, what someone with a COI should do, and how to handle concerns any editor may have, with another editor's possible COI - for the latter, see [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest]]. It follows the general principles I mentioned above about how we handle it, if we ever have a concern with another editor's behavior. Raise the issue directly and politely with the editor-of-concern on their Talk page, and if you are not able to resolve your concerns, take it to the relevant noticeboard, which in this case is [[WP:COIN]]. Do not hound, do not pound it on it relentlessly on the talk page, do not make it personal, and do '''not''' attempt to OUT the person. Let the community handle it. I do a lot of work responding to notices posted at COIN. I think it is an important issue. |
|||
You can learn more on your own about all this and the various perspectives voiced by the community, by carefully reading [[WP:COI]] and its talk page and their archives, as well as the archived failed discussions about creating a policy banning paid editing, that are linked in the "further reading" section at the bottom of the [[Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia]] article (which I put there) |
|||
there you go. Happy to discuss any part of that or answer any questions you may have. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::Wow!! Thank you so much for a very interesting read and much good information! I had no idea! I will do the reading you recommended. I started working on response last night, but the power went out, so I might get back to you later on some of my initial reaction, and also some of the confusion I have long had, which I think is a problem for other new and even experienced users as well. I'm really happy you have such strong feelings on this matter and you have such a strong commitment to addressing these problems. I agree with nearly every thing you say in one way or another, and understand the potential corruption from "passion" or Ideology or Cultural myopia (such as Patriotism or Nationalist views), where one particular POV is so strongly held that there is simply no room for any other view, no matter how reasonable. And honestly, when I first heard about Wikipedia, I thought Ideology and cultural myopia would ruin all the articles, since ANYONE could edit and had an equal voice in what looked like "democracy-knowledge." I saw almost immediately that I was wrong about that, and that exceptionally well written articles started popping up and often included positions that the average American might cringe at, but which were in fact true. |
|||
And I was even more impressed how many article were far more NPOV than the mainstream media's incredible superficial treatment of nearly every subject they address. Nonetheless, I can't say I totally understand WHY it works. I'm glad it does and glad to be a part of it. But obviously it doesn't always work and I do tend to jump in when I see an article that lacks NPOV and try to balance the one-sided voices. I typical example is when I looked at the page for my hometown [[Terrace_Park,_Ohio]]. The page had a very Euro-centric view and I tried to fix it but was met with heavy opposition from an admin. who I believe threatened to use his/her admin. powers to block me if I put in the Native American portion. The editor just reverted everything I did and another admin. Beeblebrox saw the problem and definitely agreed that the other admin. was out of line. But I didn't feel like going into contentious Wiki-litigation with DR, so instead, I just waited until the other editor who had been a problem stopped watching and corrected the content, and fortunately it stuck! I have considered trying DR, in cases like that but was afraid to. I don't understand the Wiki-court proceedings, and do not want to make a fool of myself in front of a large number of established users, and I don't want to be perceived as a "vexation litigant". Unfortunately, there is no free Wiki-legal advice for this unusual pseudo-judicial system of DR, ArbCon, etc. LOL. I actually did a search on that on-line and might have paid someone to give me Wiki-legal advice before I started trying to edit on the page! LOL. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 03:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::<s>glad you found this useful. "why" it works, is people. there are enough people who are committed to the ideals of WP and who have really digested not only the letter but the spirit of PAG, that they are able to keep the ship on even-enough keel. i spend another chunk of my time here trying to teach newish editors how this place works and what those ideals are. some get it, some don't. some get it, with time. people have built some structures to help improve and maintain quality. I do a lot of work in heath-related articles and follow/participate in the [[WT:WikiProject Medicine]] and together that group minds many important articles here. It is super helpful to have a community [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
== GMO Controversy -- Talk discussion Jokes == |
|||
<s>fwiw, i would appreciate it, if you would not engage in sarcasm and other rhetorical flourishes in the Talk page discussion, as you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGenetically_modified_food_controversies&diff=648483081&oldid=648476539 in your 2nd paragraph here]. Let's try to have a simple, serious discussion - dealing with the actual issues is hard enough, without distractions. You are free to do as you wish; I'm just telling you what I think would be most productive. You will find that I will just not respond to stuff like that. I think other editors may do, and if they do, it will probably be something in similar vein directed at you, and soon we are in an ugly place. Best just not to go there, in my view. Thanks! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:::I was afraid you would say that. Sometimes a good laugh is good for the soul to release tension from being too serious all the time, no? Besides, humor sometimes has a truth of its own--[[A Modest Proposal]] was an outstanding example of that, I think. Nietzsche's sarcasm is amazing. I know I have been to many scientific and engineering conferences where the speaker starts off with a joke. Besides, I thought Lfstevens's joke was funny too. Did you scold him as well? [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::<i>"I think other editors may do, and if they do, it will probably be something in similar vein directed at you, and soon we are in an ugly place."</i> I don't think it would go to an "ugly" place. If they lack a sense of humor and bring it there, they look like fools in front of everyone. They are wise not to take it personally and laugh at it too, as I am sure Lfstevens will do! [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 15:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::<s>i don't know if you have worked on controversial articles before, but i have done so a lot and in my experience, sarcasm/rhetoric is really unhelpful and does lead the discussion astray when others respond without self-restraint. you will do as you will, of course. btw i am watching your talk page so no need to leave talkbacks at mine. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::::<s>this wasn't meant as a scold, but as advice. you can do with it as you will. i didn't see a joke by lfstevens. can you point me to what you are talking about? thx [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::You asked him about it [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lfstevens#strange_edit here]] Where he added the comment: |
|||
::::::When will the anti-GMO folks produce an unimpeachable study that supports their fears? Lfstevens (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Did you not see it? Please tell you understood he was joking. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::He was being serious. -[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog™]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 16:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::LOL!! [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[User:Roxy the dog]]: Welcome to the discussion. What brings you here?[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 16:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::<s>I found that comment/set of comments confusingly formatted and so i wrote him a note on his talk page about it, yes. it was so fragmented/strange that i hesitated to react to it at all and still have not. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 16:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:::::::Okay, I noticed those various fragments too, and considered replying, but I am trying to keep focus there. I think we are making progress, and I think you are beginning to see where I am coming from on the sentence in question. The jokes I just saw as light-hearted distraction before me get back to the heavy work of looking at [[WP:RS]]. I so wished you thought it was funny. Oh well. I do have another thing I wanted to say about sarcasm, but I'll get back to that later. I'm going to make a new section for discussion, because of your question asking me if I had been to or worked on a controversial page. Yes, absolutely. And I want to share my experience and the confusion I had about how Wikipedia there, and my concerns that other users get confused in the same way I did. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 16:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC |
|||
{{od}} <s>this is more elaborate than i what to get into. i've told you that i think it is unwise to add rhetorical flourishes and sarcasm to discussion of controversial topics, and i believe you have heard that. you asked whether i was being unfair, and I responded to that. you will do as you see fit. good luck! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:Perhaps you are right. The man could tell a joke, but not take one of the same nature. I do think you should have scolded him too, if you knew this was his personality. It does seem like a double-standard, otherwise. I indeed found his response to my joke both annoying and needlessly distracting from what we were talking about. I think I am also annoyed at how much time you and I had to waste talking about it on top of it. If all of us just laughed there wouldn't have been a problem. Oh well--advice noted. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::<s>as i told you above, i did not take it as a joke. i took it as too fragmentary to interpret. hence there was no double standard; i experienced only one "joke". also you have said that I "scolded" you. Parents scold their children. teachers scold their students. I have no authority over you. I told you I would prefer you not be sarcastic, and explained why. You will do as you wish. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
== [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] article experience == |
|||
Jytdog: In answer to your question about whether I have been on contentious pages. Yes, definitely. As I may have told you already, I was very impressed early on with the quality of Wikipedia articles, but I didn't understand how differing perspectives were handled and settled, and why the content didn't just change every day if people disagreed. Around the time I created an account, I picked a topic I knew something about that I knew would definitely be contentious and controversial to the average Patriotic, nationalist American: I knew from college level history studies the very un-Patrioriotic facts that about [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]]: FDR and the military were aware the Japanese Navy was out and was likely to strike--they just didn't know where--and, in fact, Pearl Harbor was on alert at the time of the attack. Also, the U.S. had backed Japan into a corner with foreign policy having to do with I believe trade barriers and naval power. so, it wasn't entirely a surprise Japan was going to do something about it. The only surprise was that it was not the Philippines. And, worse, FDR was itching to get into WWII, but popular sentiment was against it, so this was a convenient way to get in the war, a bit like [[Remember the Maine]]. These are all well established and documented facts (and I believe you can find them all cited in Wikipedia, but not in that article where they belong!). So, to some degree the "unprovoked" "surprise" attack wasn't quite as big of a suprise as the average Patriotic American believes it is, and I think it is easy to argue that FDR used it to get into the war--something President are quite adept at doing (I can name a few if you don't know of any. :-)). |
|||
Anyway, I went to the page to see how these controversial facts were handled: Not very well at ALL. Any attempt to put any of that on the page was absolute heresy to the people who controlled the article at the time, and probably still is to this day. (Incidentally, despite the absence of this material, the page is a work of art otherwise--lots of good pics, and narrative, etc.) Anything negative like this--even if it was factual--was just a "conspiracy theory" and had to go on this page [[Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory]], which was NOWHERE referenced on the pristine [[attack on pearl harbor]] article, because after all since it is a "conspiracy theory", it's not true, it's just b.s. in their minds, and held by lunatics. (I see that it is mentioned fairly early in the article now, but is still a "conspiracy theory"). |
|||
I quickly saw it was hopeless to get anything like that in because I didn't understand the system. The take home message for me then (I view it differently now, especially after discussion with you) was this: if those with your perspective don't have a majority of the editors on your side (especially admins who can threaten to block you -or- experienced users who can twist the meaning of [[WP:RS]] to get their source in and yours rejected, and who know all the horrors of DR and the other threatened administrative actions and are probably friends with the decision makers who would be the judges and rule on their side even when any neutral observer would surely disagree), you will be bullied and you are sure to lose and they know it and are happy to flaunt it. It was pretty humbling--a bunch of thugs running the page making up and bending the rules to suit their agenda. (I suspected then this was not the plan, but I hadn't a clue what was to be done about.) |
|||
Shortly after that experience, I ran into one of the few people who had a paid position at Wikipedia Foundation at Cafe Abir in San Francisco and told him about this experience. He said he was pretty disappointed to hear about it, and that that was not supposed to happen. I don't know if I got his contact info. and if I did I doubt I could find it. He was a great guy regardless and I really enjoyed conversing with him. |
|||
I share this experience with you, because I know this is *not* how Wikipedia is supposed to work, but I think many new users get the feeling that this is how it works, and even long time editors seem to hold this opinion too, and that is a problem. Speaking with you--and again thank you for the long COI--I feel a little more optimistic that the system is designed to address these problem and with the right amount of patience perseverance, and attention to proper procedure, the kind of thing that I saw on the Attack on Pearl Harbor page will be rectified. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:thanks for sharing that. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::You are welcome. The page is vastly improved on this issue as some of this is right in the lede, and it looks like its first appearance was only a few months after the time I was watching it. I would love to find out how the "conspiracy theorists" were able to get it in. (Possibly the process really did work. I really thought it was hopeless. Maybe I will put some time into researching that. I wish it didn't take so much work to figure out how something got in--although WikiBlame helps.) Nonetheless, the language there is still a little slanted. I doubt FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese to attack or even let it happen in order to get the U.S. into the war (I don't the evidence supports this theory), just as I doubt GW Bush tried to make 9/11 happen or let it happen (same). But both presidents unquestionably used the attacks to justify getting the U.S. into wars they wanted to get in to that the U.S. was opposed to with propaganda that played fast and loose with the facts. The [[Remember the Maine]] article is much more honest about how the propaganda works. I hope you can see how this is relevant to the issues I am raising on GMO's. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 04:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::<s>You are comparing the anti-GMO stance with a conspiracy theory rejected by the mainstream, Are you saying they are parallel? That is a real question, not sarcastic. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 10:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::::No, I wasn't comparing them directly--obviously the mainstream is concerned about GMO's!---but please hear me out. When you had asked if I had experience with controversial issues in Wikipedia, I wanted to share that particular experience and how it <i>shaped</i> my feelings about how Wikipedia functions in practice (far different than the ideals stated in all the policies, guidelines, etc.), and what seemed to be the typical way contested decisions are handled. My belief at that time, and for a long time after that, was this state of affairs was the result of a combination of vague, confusing, overwhelmingly complicated and seemingly contradictory rules, many of which were more like suggestions, all of which could be arbitrarily broken ("ignore the rules" [[WP:ignore]]), that could and were interpreted to suit a POV-pusher's agenda. Also included was my impression of a bizarre pseudo-judicial system of dispute resolution that appeared to be based more on friendships and loyalties than an objective and somewhat predicable decision-making system overseen by vetted judges who fully understood the rules, had pledged to obey them objectively, and had to put aside their personal opinions of the dispute's subject matter and any feelings about the parties (which is how law is at least supposed to be practiced in the United States). Instead, it seemed those particularly versed in all the confusion and ambiguity of the rules were at a huge advantage to get their way, even when it was transparent to the new user they were playing fast and loose with the rules to get what they wanted in the article. And lastly, that people with admin. power were especially to be feared, because they would not hesitate to use it to get their way, and if you challenged them, they would retaliate and get you blocked or banned. |
|||
::::It wasn't until you sent me that wonderful long essay about COI, "passion", anonymity, [WP:Policy], etc., that I began to understand how things are supposed to work, which was inspiring. I want to believe it can work and that a reasonable NPOV will result, instead of the horrible things that at least <i>seemed</i> to be happening with [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]]. |
|||
::::(Sorry if I am repeating myself. My reason for repeating it is, that I want to articulate concisely that experience, which I think may be typical for new users (and even experienced or long term users like myself who still feel overwhelmed and confused by the rules), and bring it to the attention of a bigger audience of more experience users (in some noticeboard) who may have forgotten that feeling but may have the power and wisdom of the process to address it, with hopes of both rectifying new user confusion like this, but also with aims to find ways that new users and users like me can find ways of obtaining, what I would call Wiki-Legal advice on: (1) if rule abuse really is going on, or it is just a misunderstanding of how the rules work -and- (2) how to challenge abuse if it is truly going on without how having to fear retaliation by advanced users and admins. Even better would be to have experienced users who act like attorneys assisting client users, who clearly have been wronged by users who have gamed the system, and who will stand by their client until the issue is resolved. (I work in law, so it's easy for me to see it this way)). |
|||
::::That said, I have seen on the talk pages, comments that GMO critics are [[WP:Fringe]] and that part does indeed remind me of my experience of [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]], where legitimate verifiable perspectives are scrubbed from the page like a nasty blemish to the "truth" that concerns raised by GMO critics are just paranoid fantasies of people who "don't know what they are talking about". The discussion about the "contamination" vs. "mixed" is a good example. I really feel the people who changed "contamination" to "mixed" in that discussion are not playing by the rules. Is it deliberate? I hope not. Perhaps, they are blind to the obvious violation of the rules, because they are surrounded by a number of people who back them up and can't see the violation either? And perhaps, deliberate or not, they feel emboldened to continue scrubbing GMO critics' concerns, because they have gotten away with it before, many times over, and it feels like the natural order of things, because after all, GMO critics are nothing but a bunch of fools (like people who believe in space aliens) and everyone with any common sense knows this, except the GMO critics. It's this patronizing attitude towards GMO critics that is a big problem. That part to me is indeed just as unfair as what happened with the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] article. |
|||
::::Does that answer your question? I tried not to exaggerate too much--the first draft I'm sure you would have disapproved of! :-) [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::<s>I wanted to know what you meant - if you meant that the anti-GMO position itself, is like some aspects of the pearl harbor conspiracy theories themselves. I get it, that you described your experience at the Pearl Harbor article so I could see what it was like for you and what issues you saw there. I am asking a different question, to understand you better. I took a quick look (not complete, and somewhat cursory!) of some of the history of the pearl harbor article and I see that you argued to give more weight and credence to some of the ideas held by conspiracy theories about pearl harbor and that others opposed you on the grounds of NPOV, specifically UNDUE. In your view, is that provisional description, a somewhat accurate description of what you were doing and the opposition you encountered? You are free to not continue this conversation, if you like. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::::::No, I did not give any support for any conspiracy theory or [[WP:Fringe]] theory. I supported having an article that reflected the current scholarship on the subject by expert historians using Wikipedia's standards for RS and NPOV and any other RS that was appropriate as I still would now. I looked again at the talk pages of that time, and am reminded how uncivil and rude those who controlled the page were, using ad hominems like "loon" and "stupid" to people they disagreed with. I was saddened to see Wikipedia discussion was not at a higher level of civility. I did stand up for those who were being mistreated by those who were all bluster and no substance. I think I was more interested in trying to get the two sides to be civil and reasonable to each other and see eye-to-eye than anything else. (Not likely, right?) I see that I put a lot of time creating an outline so both sides could insert their claims and evidence to back up their claims. When I saw it again today, I had to laugh that I actually thought either side would cooperate! They were more interested in arguing with each other, for sure. Thanks for having me take a look at it again. From rereading it now, I do see that most of the discussion on those talk pages did not sufficiently focus on RS and a bunch of it was speculation and personal opinions rather than direct references to material in RS. I would definitely approach all of it quite differently now if I saw that discussion. But I was just learning back then, observing, and it was fun to see how it worked about be part of it. I was basically "getting my feet wet" and watching what was going on more than anything else and some times jumping in. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} <s> yes it is really important to remain focused on sources and proposed content, and how to use them per PAG, and to discuss things as simply and directly - there are many strong temptations to go wrong, in many ways. takes a lot of self-restraint. anyway, thanks for talking! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:Thank you for talking too! Last questions on this topic: In regard to my paragraph above starting with "(Sorry if I am repeating myself..." and explanations for the purpose : (1) Do you think the most experienced users are well aware that new users may often think this is how Wikipedia actually works and why they might lose confidence in it? (2) What forum is appropriate for discussion this general Wikipedia issue? (3) Are you aware that it has already been thoroughly discussed and efforts are in process to address it, and if so where I might look at those discussions? I wouldn't know where to begin searching for any of that. As a very involved and invested Wikipedian, I would think you might know. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::<s>when i witness new users getting all involved in hot conflicts (especially if i am not involved too) i try to jump into the new user's talk page and try to calm them down, and get them to understand that a) this place actually has a "rule of law" and is not a wild west, mad max place where people can just do whatever they want' b) they don't know anything about those "rules"; c) it is really unwise to get offended and even get in arguments when you don't understand what is going on... and I try to get them to let go of the argument and go edit elsewhere, on stuff they don't care so much about, while they learn what is going on. it works sometimes. |
|||
::but there is very little one can do, when a new editor comes here with an ax to grind, and will not listen, and will not compromise, and will not learn. |
|||
::Wikipedia, through the operations of NPOV, is very committed to being mainstream, to showing the world as it is, not as activists on any side of any issue wish it to be. In articles where there are very strong .... counter-currents to the mainstream, and activists/advocates of various stripes are constantly trying to drive fringe-y perspectives in, you will generally find a cadre of committed editors holding down the fort. (above, i told you it comes down to people. it really does). |
|||
::In the field of health, I call these editors "quack fighters". We get all kinds of alt med POV-pushers, big fans of this or that fad diet, people convinced that some drug harmed them (lots of those), and less often, company/PR people, all trying to push bullshit into WP. The quack fighters do really important (and difficult work) every day. Some of them are a bit too battle hardened, but you have to respect them for hanging in there and not quitting, especially with all the abuse that gets heaped on them by the tinfoil hat crowd that keeps flowing through WP (some of whom stick around and become like zits on your butt that just will not go away and keep hurting and making things ugly). I respect the quack fighters and their commitment to WP's ideals, a great deal. |
|||
:: if you are a newish editor, and come to one of those articles wanting more representation of a minority or fringe view, you are going to have a very, very hard time getting your content to "stick". And probably an emotionally hard time as well; especially if you make typical newbie mistakes of personalizing things, instead of dealing with sources and PAG. Especially if you don't come in ready to do (ideally already having done) a lot of work to actually understand the mainstream view. I've gotten alternative views added to highly contested articles, but it was only by being very respectful of, and knowledgeable about, the mainstream position and showing, with really unimpeachable, nonpartisan sources, that the ideas I wanted to get into articles were very solidly part of the mainstream - just not in the center of it. And by being respectful and focused on content, not contributors. |
|||
::so... that is about the best answer i can give you. |
|||
:: i think a lot of malarky (cliques and bad power game behavior) happens at lot here in "fuzzy" topics like video games, software... other stuff where there are not serious, scholarly/scientific institutions that produce a serious body of literature that in turn provides a great foundation of reliable sources to work with. I avoid those topics in WP (I actually don't care about them much); but i see really ugly battles about them at various drama boards - and it usually comes down to shitty source A says X and shitty source B says Y... nightmare stuff for me. It doesn't happen so much in topics I work in (mostly ag and health) because there is a great body of solid scientific literature to work with. |
|||
:: don't know if that is helpful or not. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::I didn't answer your question fully, about helping new editors. I know there are all kinds of tools to help new editors - the various welcome templates, everything in the [[Template:Help_navigation]] help navigation template, the invitations to the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse]] (meant to be a welcoming place to help new editors get adjusted), the WIkipedia Adventure training modules.. there is also a community working on this, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention]]. I don't know if, or if so how, they try to help new editors who really want to work on contentious articles. Like I said, i do my best to advise new editors not to try - its like trying to climb mount everest when you have just started learning how to climb; or skiing a black diamond trail when you are just starting to ski. [[WP:COMPETENCE]] really is required sometimes here, as it is in real life. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
== science == |
|||
<s>hi david. you seem pretty committed to working on the GMO stuff, so I want to ask you... how much of the underlying science do you understand? if you don't understand it much, that is fine, but i would appreciate the opportunity to tell you about it. i find that the work goes much better when everybody is starting with a baseline understanding. thx [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:Far more than the average U.S. citizen and many of the reporters who write articles about it for the mainstream and just repeat stuff from press releases they got from one side or the other and couple of short interviews with the originators of the press release. I know a little bit about how journalists work on "breaking stories". But I know far less than GMO critics like Jeffrey Smith, Michael Pollun or advocates like Pamela Ronald or John Entine, and far far less than scientists who are experts who work in toxicology like Seralini and specialize in the science of food safety (I'm not talking about the regulation which is a very different matter). I also understand the politicization of science within scientific institutions and at universities. My parents are both professors emeritus from a major University and one actually did studies in drug testing and is familiar from first hand experience with the heavy handed ways drug companies will manipulate studies to try to make it so they can sell their drug, and how using the wrong statistics is part of it. I could tell you more about one particular story on that, but I would need to make sure it doesn't violate and ethical issues to talk about it. I have a B.S. Electrical Engineering and a Masters in E.E. as well, but I don't consider myself a scientist, but I know quite a lot about physics and chemistry, but took no additional courses in biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry. My science study in college was all with dead stuff! :-) Thanks for the response on your page--I'll get back to that. I thought I would give you this report. One reason that I more than the average American besides my knowledge of science and info. from my parents is that I have spent a fair amount of time reading about food and watching documentaries like Jeffrey Smith's GMO Roulette--which exaggerates about the actual impact on health (I know that from reading some studies)--many things he does say I have checked out and have found nothing that refutes them at all. I did see a John Entine article (or maybe it was someone else) going point by point trying to discredit everything thing in the film--and some of the things they did question like cause-effect of leaky gut (which MAY be related to GMO's or equally well might not) I thought were fair criticisms. But the existence of something like Bt corn is pretty horrifying to me to be honest, and I think that most Americans feel the same way--regardless of how many studies so far have not observed any effect at all on human health, and this is the big value of the film--to tell people things that they don't know and have good reason to be concerned about (IMHO). I hope that answers your question. I have tried reading the various studies and because I am not an expert it in toxicology it can be challenging to know if many of the things Seralini said defending his behavior are reasonable or not, especially for example, his claim that Monsanto used the same # and kind of rats in their 90 day feeding trials, but then critics said that he needed to use more because of the mortality of the rats--I don't know if that is a fair criticism of his work or not. And if it is, I want to understand why he would use the wrong # of rats for a 2 YEAR STUDY if he knew in advance the # of rats was too few. It could be because of pressure from Greenpeace. I really don't know. So something like that, I wish I could talk to a specialist in toxicology who does studies like that but has not done them on GMO's to see what makes the most sense. Again I hope that answers your question. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 04:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:One thing I meant to point out that I should point out, which I have been holding off on saying, is that the relevant fields, I believe for questions about the safety of GMO foods are: [[Food Safety]], [[Toxicology]] and [[Epidemiology]], possibly a couple of others <b>not</b> [[Biogenetics]]. One of the big problems with the "scientific consensus" statement I have been challenging is that it originates with biogeneticist scientists who can make enormous profits from minimum regulation and study and findings of potential or actual negative health impacts. Being out of their specialty, I do not believe they are qualified to make such wide sweeping claims about the safety of the applications they create (any more than you and me are), or any more than engineers who design integrated circuits are qualified to make consumer safety claims about their designs, unless they have special training in the correct field and are not tied financially to selling their products.) I have not raised this issue yet in that subject and maybe I should just copy and paste this portion or rewrite something similar. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 05:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:: <s>thanks for answering. what you write opens more questions for me, but i will just ask a few. |
|||
::when i asked you if you understand the science, i wanted to know if you understand genetic engineering. sorry for not being more precise. i am not asking if you could do it if you standing in a lab - i am asking if you understand what goes on, in making a genetically engineered bacteria, plant or mouse (or gene therapy, for that matter). I din't ask what you understand about subsequent steps in bringing a GM crop to market and am considering how and whether to address that with you off the article talk page (we already started addressing this with the "substantial equivalence" discussion at the article Talk page) |
|||
:: i can explain to you what is wrong with Seralini's reasoning defending his study design (and more importantly, his rhetoric) if you like. i can give you my best guess as to why the study design was set up the way it was, if you like. |
|||
::please tell me if you like, why the existence of something like Bt corn is pretty horrifying to you. i would be interested to hear. thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:::No, I don't know much about how biogenetics is done. I understand from [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/business/energy-environment/cries-of-lax-regulation-after-usda-ruling-on-bluegrass.html?_r=3& this article] that there are at least two major ways of doing it: (1) gene gun (which is mentioned in "Genetic Roulette" documentary (2) using bacteria to replicate either DNA or proteins or something like that. Observing the DNA I understand can be done with electron scanning microscopes. How one is able to take a strand from one gene (these are pretty small, right?) and force that small strand into another organism's gene--that a bit harder for me to envision. Like a operation to try to take a collection of molecules from someone's brain--what tools are able to cut and dice at submicroscopic levels? Despite how impossible it seems to be able to drill around and do construction at these submicroscopic levels, I know some sleep study experiments involved putting probes into INDIVIDUAL neurons. Those I would think are about as small as a DNA strand--so that's hard for me to believe too, but I know that can be done--I just can't imagine HOW that is possible. Having worked in VLSI design, I do understand how chips are created at these levels--they use a very finely calibrated laser, masks are photographically reduced to do [[Etching (microfabrication)|etching]]. |
|||
:::Seralini: I am creating a new topic for that. |
|||
:::<u>Bt Corn</u> "please tell me if you like, why the existence of something like Bt corn is pretty horrifying to you." I don't think food (even if it is just for animals) should have pesticide (or herbicide) <i>added</i> to it. We was are instructed to wash off our conventional fresh fruits, for example, to rid of pesticide residues, because of undesirable toxic effects of pesticides and herbicides to humans (even though clearly not <i>all</i> pesticides have negative human health impacts). Pesticides and herbicides (the suffix gives the indication) are designed to kill living beings, so adding them to the various parts of the food supply, especially in widespread quantities with very little long-term study, to me is very risky. Unintended consequences could be pretty bad--consider DDT. |
|||
:::One might say that pesticides and herbicides exist in nature. I do know that honey, for example, doesn't spoil because it has an anti-bacterial layer or emulsion, which is probably not unlike a pesticide. That is not so troubling to me because it has developed from evolution and has been around for many centuries (or probably far far longer), and there is no evidence I know of even from paranoid and delusion people much less highly trained scientists that eating honey in ordinary quantities has negative health impacts, except for those who might be allergic to it. Evolution is a very slow process, but biogenetics is not. |
|||
:::Question back for you: Do you understand toxicology (and epidemiology) and if so, on what level of expertise do you have and how did you obtain that knowledge?[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 15:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::: <s>Thanks for answering. |
|||
:::::I understand toxicology and epidemiology enough to discuss them soundly and confidently. I have a high level understanding of statistics. I am not discussing personal details. |
|||
::::: if you want me to explain genetic engineering to you, let me know. if you want me to explain Bt to you, let me know (the comparison with DDT or any other small molecule is not apt). Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:"[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/ The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation]" by Jonathan R. Latham, Allison K. Wilson, and Ricarda A. Steinbrecher (''J Biomed Biotechnol.'' 2006) is informative and concise. It complements an aforecited [http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume152/documents/VanTassel_WEB.pdf law review] in showing that the consequences of [[Genetic engineering techniques|genetic engineering procedures]] are, in fact, unpredictable and ''not well understood''. Also see: [[User:Groupuscule/GMO#Engineering Creates Unpredictable Changes to DNA]]. "Explanations" of genetic engineering, propounded by the likes of [[Henry I. Miller]], oversimplified the process in a way which no longer stands up to scientific scrutiny (if indeed it ever did). [[User:Groupuscule|groupuscule]] ([[User talk:Groupuscule|talk]]) 16:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Séralini == |
|||
Jtydog said "i can explain to you what is wrong with Séralini's reasoning defending his study design (and more importantly, his rhetoric) if you like." Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, I would like to hear that. FYI, when I first talked with you I had zero respect for the study, and thought Séralini did not apply statistics correctly either out of intention or ignorance. That conclusion came shortly after the prodding one of my parents (who is very Pro-GMO) for A SINGLE study like the one Lfstevens was asking for. When I saw the various memes about the Séralini study, I briefly looked at the study, which I didn't really spend enough time to fully understand and showed it to my Pro-GMO parent. My Pro-GMO parent attacked the study, criticizing it for statistical insignificance and use of the Sprague-Dawley rat designed to get cancer. I trust that parent's judgement about reading a study, but now I wonder if that parent, instead of reading it just Googled it to find the criticisms. I see that parent often uses all the Pro-GMO rhetoric like "feeding the world" or "GM has been going on for centuries with traditional breeding", rather than coming to that conclusion independently as I had formerly believed. |
|||
:The criticism of too few rats (I was told 10 in the control and 10 in the study group, but I see it was 10 per group, with maybe 10 gruops) were too few to obtain significantly different results. From my knowledge of statistics, I agree, and wondered my anyone would use so few rats. But then later I discovered that Monsanto used the SAME # of rats and no one was criticizing them for doing inadequate study of statistical significance! When I heard that, I knew there was far more to the story and so I read up a bunch more on Séralini and think he is probably an upstanding guy and was unfairly attacked--except I think the PR methods to announce the study are a bit questionable and I don't approve from what I have read (and if Greenpeace was the major funder of the study that I can see how that compromises the communication at a minimum, and <i>possibly</i> also the choice of methods an # of rats). But Pamela Ronald I think does the same kind of things on the other side and has COI herself, so it not just one side's PR voice that is a problem. |
|||
:The fact that the study was done with Sprague-Dawley rats made the finding of tumors not as remarkable as I originally thought when I showed the Pro-GMO parent--and hence the pictures in the memes of rats with tumors was DELIBERATELY misleading and designed to scare. But I suspect that miscommunication is not necessarily Séralini's fault, and may be the media--which loves sensationalism--and very likely also Greenpeace's PR communication strategies. And since he was taking money from Greenpeace, he might have been compromised in giving them the pictures or letting them take the pictures, possibly not realizing that those pics were going to be used to send a misleading message to the public (but I have trouble believing he could be so easily mislead by Greenpeace!). I suspect something like that was going on so Séralini may have been compromised by the funders--which happens all the time with drug companies on the industry side as I had mentioned before. |
|||
:I did understand that the Sprague-Dawley rat was standard in toxicology so one can't fault the study or experimenter for using them. From everything I have been reading more recently, I think Séralini is probably not any worse of a scientist than say Pamela Ronald. And both that both have some COI issues that have compromised their messages to the public. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 16:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::<s>The problem with the study design was the whole thing - the choice of rat, the numbers of rats, and the length of time (lifetime of the rat). That rat develops high numbers of tumors over its lifetime, all by itself. Same rat, way more rats (60 per arm per OECD), same length of time, the results would have been interpretable. (this what the Grace Project says they are doing) Same rat, same number of rats, less time (which is the current standard tox study design), the results are interpretable. Seralini's design - not interpretable. Just noise. I don't speculate about motives. I just know what Seralini did and said. And I know what Ronald did - when her lab discovered the contaminated reagents, she self-retracted. That is what good scientists do. |
|||
::I just wrote a long response to your bringing Ronald into this again, and deleted it. If you think what happened with Ronald and what happened with Seralini are in any way parallel, I don't know what to say to you. I really don't. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
::Hi David, just as an FYI your comment caught my eye: "But then later I discovered that Monsanto used the SAME # of rats and no one was criticizing them . . ." That's actually a common half truth in this topic that comes up often and part of the reason why the nuance and understanding needed on the controversies for GMOs (or any science topic) makes editing the articles so difficult. Monsanto did a very different study than Seralini in that it was for a shorter period of time (90 days I believe). The number of rats in the Monsanto study was actually appropriate for the length of the study, but Seralini's went way beyond that length and would require more rats because of it. That detail often gets glossed over whenever the "Monsanto used the same number of rats" comments pop up. Just curious if you were aware of that. It actually could be something worth mentioning in the article, but I'd have to go back and find the sources that briefly mention that if it's even worth including at all. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::<s>yep - sprague rat, 10 rats per arm, 90 days, is the current standard tox test. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC) </s>(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
:::Yes, I knew about the 90 day vs. 2 years was mentioned in some of the criticisms. I am not sufficiently an expert to know the basis of the conclusion that he should have used 65 rats. Is there an international standard in toxicology that 10 rats is fine for 90 days and 65 rats are required for 2 years. That would be more compelling that he was not doing "good science." [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 21:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::Bingo. The OECD puts out guidelines exactly for this (one example [http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/41362977.pdf]). [[http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/food-and-chemical-toxicology-editor-in-chief,-a.-wallace-hayes,-publishes-response-to-letters-to-the-editors This source]] that we also currently cite explains the difference between the two studies pretty well in the last few paragraphs. We don't flesh that out too much right now in the article, but that's a conversation for the talk page there if anyone wants to start looking into that. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 21:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks. I'll take a look at the standards. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 05:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I looked at the standard. The one you gave me is the wrong standard. Séralini used OECD No. 408, just like Monsanto did. Séralini was not testing for carcinogenesis; he was testing for toxicity. He specifically says in the study's introduction "Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study." For some reason the editor appears confused and says Séralini was looking for carcinogenicity, when it is clear he was not. So this doesn't really provide any evidence that Séralini used the wrong # of rats, any more than it does for Monsanto. In fact, it appears to confirm that he <i>did</i> use the correct number of rats to test toxicity. Here is a quote from the editor from the link you gave me: |
|||
::::::In accordance with OECD Guideline No. 408 (OECD, 2009a), the Hammond et al. study was limited to 90 days following and used 20 rats/sex/group, and was conducted in general compliance with OECD Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines, as previously stated. The Séralini et al. study ran for two (2) years with only 10 rats/sex/group and was reported to be done in a GLP environment according to OECD guidelines (which guideline is not explicitly stated in the paper). Séralini et al. state that they had “had no reason to settle at first for a carcinogenesis protocol using 50 rats per group,” as recommended in OECD Nos. 451 and 453 (guidelines for Carcinogenicity Studies and Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Studies, respectively)(OECD, 2009a; OECD, 2009b), and instead seem to have opted for 10 rats/sex/group as recommended by OECD No. 408 (guidelines for Repeated Dose 90-day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents). <i><u>While the number of animals used may have been sufficient to reach conclusions regarding oral toxicity, it proved insufficient for conclusions related to the carcinogenicity of the test substances.</u></i> |
|||
::::::[Emphasis added.] [http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/food-and-chemical-toxicology-editor-in-chief,-a.-wallace-hayes,-publishes-response-to-letters-to-the-editors#sthash.BKn2610p.dpuf source] |
|||
:::::So the editor appears to agree that the # of rats <i>were</i> sufficient to test toxicity, which is exactly what he said he was testing in the study.[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 10:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::One of the criticisms of Seralini is that he calls it a toxicity study, but the results he emphasizes in the study are indeed carcinogenic in nature. The main problem though was that Seralini went out 2 years instead of 90-days. That causes multiple confounding factors related to rat longevity that makes the two studies very different and also makes Seralini's a more poorly designed study for toxicological findings. More rats are needed for longer studies not just because they're testing for carcinogenicity, but because of the underlying biology of the rats when a study lasts longer. That's the basic gist of some of the underlying science just for reference. Since we're not actually generating content right now from this conversation though, I'll be letting this conversation be. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Done == |
|||
In light of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJytdog&diff=648991797&oldid=648988824 your comment] on my Talk page, I believe it is best if we stop talking off the article Talk page. I am unwilling to risk being perceived as canvassing (no canvassing is an important WP policy, and important to me) and you are clearly taking it that way, and I also don't want you to feel intimidated. See you on the article talk page. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Jytdog: I'm sorry if my allegations about your PAST behavior are upsetting. I knew they would be, but it needed to be said. Now think about how it might have made me feel when you made canvassing allegations against me and they still are on the talk page even though we have been gaining rapport and trust. I could have done the same, but I did not. I honestly think it is pretty childish to strikeout all our discussion like that and I expect more from an adult. Please, take a deep breath, take some time out, and think about what I said that was so upsetting. I was not talking about our most RECENT discussion, which is very productive. I was talking about WHEN I FIRST SPOKE TO YOU and you said THINGS WOULD GET UGLY and the way you treated Alexlikescats. This recent discussion is quite productive and I think you know that. I would really appreciate if once you cool off, you undid the strikeouts of the recent discussion so we can continue and talk like two adults. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not upset. You are continuing to write all this stuff about contributors and not content, and you are continuing to make very strong statements about what motivates other editors; as I've said to you before, this is both unwise and not what we do here. You don't know what motivated my actions today, and you haven't asked. From my behavior, I think it is very clear that I am backing out of the kind of engagement I have had with you. Striking, is what we do here, when we disclaim what we said and apologize. That is what I have done. I do regret having engaged with you as I did, and I am sorry for having taken up your time and for the upset I have caused you. I will see you on the article talk pages. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Note == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]], so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:Jytdog|my talk page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) |
|||
:Per [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:TPG]]. please use article Talk pages to discuss content, not contributors. Thanks. If you have a concern with the behavior of other editors, please politely bring that up with them on their Talk pages, and if you don't see a change in the behavior you see as problematic, you can take that issue to the relevant noticeboard. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 09:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGenetically_modified_food_controversies&diff=649074142&oldid=649068931 have continued] and i [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies&curid=8274025&diff=649087439&oldid=649074343 again have removed your comment]. On article talk pages, please discuss content, based on policies and guidelines. I am politely telling you that your behavior is problematic. Please change your behavior, or I will need to bring this to a notice board. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 11:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJytdog&diff=648861178&oldid=648848972 had suggested on my Talk page] that "It might be help if when someone comes onto any of these pages and starts making changes or recommendations to tell them up front how much time you put into the articles and the goals you have had for them, past problems and concerns and the desire not to repeat these problems, that you hope to be able to work together to achieve these goals if they are agreeable. It might still be a bit heavy handed, but I think it would help them understand your resistance to changes in the article, especially resistance when someone is trying to do a better job of presenting the GMO critics concerns.". I had responded to that quite clearly, which i subsequently struck. I will re-claim what I said there, and say it here: "the notion that i would somehow introduce myself to new editors and explain my history there to them is ... well... wrong-headed wikipedia-wise and icky, in my view. first it is way too much about contributor not content. second, i know that i don't own the articles and that i have no intrinsic authority over them. i have to justify whatever changes i make per PAG, every day, just like the next editor." That remains true. |
|||
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies&diff=prev&oldid=649049301 Your effort to do what you recommended that I do], which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies&diff=next&oldid=649049301 i removed], is as wrong-headed with regard to WP's policies and guidelines as your initial suggestion that I do it. It is not what we do here, and i take it as a personal attack; i provided notice of that to you above. You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=next&oldid=648988824 have told me on my Talk page] that you find my behavior problematic. That was the right forum in which to initially address your concern. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&diff=next&oldid=648991797 told you that i heard you]. If you see that I continue the behavior, you can bring me to a notice board if you like. Please stop discussing contributors on the article Talk page; please do not canvass about this either. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 13:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::I did not use any ad hominem attacks, foul language, sexist, racist or otherwise illegal language, etc. I simply pointed out the <i>behavior</i> of the editors, not any specific editors themselves. Those who are concerned about GMO's have often noted the problem, and as I pointed out to you, you have treated them unkindly for doing it, and ultimately they have been chased off the GMO pages. I was even more surprised you have taken the bold step of even censoring my comments and concerns which are valid and relevant to the article's lack of NPOV and bias. Such censorship seems to me unethical--it has <i>never</i> happened to me on Wikipedia: People have disagreed on talk pages, but never have I seen a user censored like that. The obvious problem with such censorship is that then only <i>your</i> opinion survives--even on the talk page. It's a kind of authoritarian rule that I think is very un-Wikipedian that silences reasonable dissent. |
|||
:::Your response above is somewhat misleading. When I pointed out your problematic behavior, you did not respond by saying "I heard you"--that language <i>preceded</i> the concerns I raised about Alexlikescats. Your response to the concerns I raised about your behavior was to strike out everything you ever said to me on my talk pages [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Tornheim&diff=649002266&oldid=648996535 here], which I said was pretty childish. You also immediately archived all your talk, so no one might inadvertently see what I said--sneaky. I do appreciate, however, this far more mature response acknowledging the concerns I raised that I do think have been a very big problem and I hope are not continued.[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 19:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::I am not going to continue this back and forth, as you are distorting what I did and said. It seems to me that the more I say, the more I give you to distort. So there is really no point in continuing, except to say that I disagree with just about everything you say above. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==On Canvassing== |
|||
Contacting another editor about a page they are already working on is hardly ever seen as canvassing, though on contentious pages, I suggest you (1)start new user page conversations with only one other editor at a time (2) avoid calls to action of the 'we should do x' variety, (3) speak about groups of editors generally and avoid specifically mentioning one editor, even by insinuation, i.e. 'lead editor'. In my experience, if you follow these points and are generally civil it would be almost impossible for anyone to bring admin action against you for user or talk page comments, either on the grounds of canvassing or 'personal attack'. As Jytdog has said above, article talk pages should be used to discuss the article. If you have advice for another editor, their user page is the place. If you feel things are getting heated or personal, taking a day away from editing to reflect can be a good thing. [[User:Dialectric|Dialectric]] ([[User talk:Dialectric|talk]]) 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for your comments. Isn't Jytdog's behavior of intimidating new people who come to the page who are not Pro-GMO problematic? It seems to me very un-Wikipedian and tantamount to canvassing, and others have complained as well, and have successfully been chased off the GMO articles. I don't know the best way to address selective bullying on pages, especially by experienced users who know the system and have loyalties with the judicial decision-makers. Those decision-makers may not be very objective in holding an abuser--who is their friend--accountable, instead blaming the abused for inviting the abuse (like when men say a woman caused the man to behave badly by wearing a sexy outfit). So when I point out the behavior, the bullying, in fact, only gets worse; the bully doesn't see the problem. I was completely shocked that my comment on the talk page was censored and Jytdog has made it clear he is committed to preventing my concern to see the light of day on the talk page (where I believe it belongs), so that now only the comments from people who share his/her POV will be visible--even on the talk page! I've never seen anything like that on Wikipedia before. Is censoring on the talk page like that even permissible? [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Wikipedia, often framed as 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', is, in certain areas, becoming the encyclopedia where only confident experts can edit. This trend extends beyond GMO articles. See the way the guideline (not policy) WP:MEDRS has been applied to a wide range of health articles. This may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on one's perspective, but it is a trend I've noticed, and one aspect of this trend is the disencouragement of some new editors. Intimidating new editors is bad regardless of who is doing it, but I am unaware of any admin actions taken against someone for aggressive but policy-based responses to new editors. |
|||
::In regard to 'judicial decision-makers', the final say comes down to admins, and there are enough admins that personal friendships will hold little sway over the outcome of a [[WP:ANI]] proceeding, for instance. The key to making use of the wiki-judicial system is a thorough knowledge of wikipedia policy and precident, again a major obstacle for new editors. While [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]] is discouraged, what that term constitutes is something of a gray area and experienced users can definitely leverage the system to their own ends. If you are willing to waste a few hours wading through archives, you can often find examples where an experienced editor violates the same policies he or she stridently enforces elsewhere. |
|||
::Removing personal attacks from a talk page is permissible, usually only done in clearcut cases - see [[WP:RPA]].[[User:Dialectric|Dialectric]] ([[User talk:Dialectric|talk]]) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks again for your response. I will look at [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]]. Where is the proper forum to raise the issue of unreasonable censorship? [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't have a clear answer to your proper forum question. You may be able to answer for yourself looking over [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. It could be that the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]] is what you are looking for, though you will have to decide that. In general if you see behavior which is contrary to policies, one approach would be to make a note of the [[Help:Diff|diff]] off-wiki for personal use, then when you have compiled several which show a pattern of behavior by a user or [[WP:GANG]], take that to [[WP:ANI]]. Administrators are more likely to respond to a pattern of behavior than a single breach of policy. [[User:Dialectric|Dialectric]] ([[User talk:Dialectric|talk]]) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::As I have said several times, the best way to deal with a behavior issue is to bring it up directly and politely with the user on their talk page, and if you don't get satisfaction, go to a noticeboard. See [[WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE]], which is indeed in [[WP:DR]]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== edit war warning == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Genetic engineering]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[Wikipedia:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> |
|||
Please be particularly aware that [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|Wikipedia's policy on edit warring]] states: |
|||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. |
|||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' |
|||
In particular, editors should be aware of the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, '''breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|block]]'''. |
|||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <!-- Template:uw-ew --> [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Behavior at Genetic Engineering == |
|||
[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive]] and have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]] or removed. |
|||
* If you are engaged in an article [[Wikipedia:Editing policy|content dispute]] with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] page, and ask for independent help at one of the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard|relevant notice boards]]. |
|||
* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. |
|||
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies and guidelines]], and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|loss of editing privileges]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> |
|||
In addition to edit warring warning above, this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_engineering&diff=649574194&oldid=649570741 diff] appears as pretty strong [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior on your part. It's generally considered very disruptive to make a new edit, have it reverted, and refuse to reach consensus on it by instead trying to edit war it back in. The onus is on you to justify the new change. In such a case when your edit is reverted, you need to go to the talk page to convince other editors it should be made if you really want to push forward with the content. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I have no attachment to the sentences and have no desire for a "battleground". I didn't restore them because I feel a strong need for them to be in the article, but only because they were deleted without a valid reason and without any mention on the talk page. It was my understanding that if you choose to revert without a valid reason in the comments, you MUST provide an explanation on the talk page, and that without it, the user can safely revert it back until a valid reason is given or the matter is discussed. Perhaps, I misunderstood the rule. And if so, I'm sorry. Now that Jytdog has followed what I understand the process to be--of bringing a valid objection for the material--I am fine with it being omitted. I think it is important that we collaborate rather than to have one side reverting without giving any Wikipedia reason for the reverts. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 21:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:: my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_engineering&diff=649569569&oldid=649568781 edit note] read "not accurate. ancient source" which is shorthand for what I wrote at length on the Talk page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGenetic_engineering&diff=649578784&oldid=649577731 here]. you continue to misrepresent me, which is yet another violation of the [[WP:TPG]], which says (bolding from the original) "'''Do not misrepresent other people:'''" [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Why the new allegations? I did not misrepresent you. I said you did not give valid reasons and I stand behind that. Saying an RS is "too old" is not a valid reason to reject an article if you do not offer to add a more recent source that is more to the point. Sometimes an old RS is the only thing available or is the best RS. Saying it is "not accurate" is not a valid reason either. That is little more that [[WP:OR]]. If you are going to say it is "not accurate", you have to back that up with a convincing argument that is supported by RS. I don't understand why you wish to continue to argue and lodge new allegations. I don't see what purpose that serves. We seem to have come to an agreement that I will be more specific about an RS I intend to add, and you will not simply revert new material without giving a valid reason for rejecting it. That is collaboration. Why don't we move forward and focus on making the article better rather than create new allegations and drama over a matter that is settled? [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 23:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::No new allegations. i consider the matter done. but i always write edit notes when i am editing articles, and i try to be communicative in them; the reason i put in my edit note is the same reason (more briefly stated) i gave on talk. '''I gave a valid reason - the reason you ultimately accepted - in my edit note.''' You have now written a number of times that I did not give a valid reason in my edit note. I chose to respond to that, and i name it for what it is - misrepresenting what I wrote and what i did. you went there, i responded. i am done. If you edit war again, that is on you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Re: Public relations == |
|||
:''I hope we can all take seriously the continuing and expanding problem of industry PR and work together to address the problem before we lose even more honest unpaid editors and the public starts to lose confidence in Wikipedia for failing to keep this COI behavior in check.'' |
|||
It's not very helpful to discuss and tackle such large problems. Stick to the small ones, and if the little problems become little success stories, then you'll get one large success, which is what you want. So start small and work on a micro level. One thing you don't want to do is start off by shooting yourself in the foot. In other words, don't cite people and things like Sharyl Attkisson (an anti-vaxxer), TEDx (zero credibility, as anyone can participate), or Michael Crichton (a climate change denier). So you guys have pretty much done more to shoot down your own argument than anyone else. Don't just vet your sources, vet your own arguments. If it doesn't pass the smell test, then discard it and start fresh. And as always, [[follow the money]]. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the advice. Did you watch the video? She really isn't an "anti-vaxer" as far as I can tell. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Look, she personally uses the tag "anti-vaccine" on her blog posts.[http://sharylattkisson.com/trending/anti-vaccine/] Let's not argue about the silly stuff. <s>She's clearly anti-vaccine</s>, whether you agree with or disagree with her position. And why the heck is she even being used here? Like I said, vet your sources and your arguments. Then, when you come to the table for an argument, you'll be prepared. Before arguing with other people, argue with yourself. Furthermore, complaining about public relations on Jimbo's page is a [[Kate_Garvey|waste of your time]]. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::some good advice, V. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::oh, i just saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=650077477 what prompted you to write that]. oh my. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks, [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]]. I looked over all the drama on her talk page accusing her of being anti-vaccine, and her responses from her agents strongly saying she is not, even calling it "libelous", which got her agents IP addresses blocked for indirectly threatening legal action. I did read someone say her blog said "anti-vaccine" but I don't think they pointed to the blog, so I thought they just made it up. Although I tend to think the benefits of vaccines generally outweigh net dangers, I don't think anyone who has concerns of possibly side effects, etc. should be immediately repudiated as a quack, [[WP:Fringe]], "loon", "conspiracy theorist", etc. Many medicines have negative side effects, and I have no reason to believe vaccines are any different, and just because the potential benefit is very high, that does not mean all risks, no matter how bad, should be completely ignored and the makers of the vaccines are able to produce them with complete impunity. So, in a sense, it's really the same problem. We need an honest assessment of the risks, not a rhetoric that "vaccines are always good" or "vaccines are always bad" kind of false-dilemma... [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 01:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I struck out that part above, as I'm not interested in whether she's anti-vaccine or simply covers anti-vaccine stories. That someone was [[Paul Offit]] and his comments on ''Democracy Now!'' several weeks ago put the issue to rest.[http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/5/inside_the_vaccine_war_measles_outbreak] We need people to get vaccinated. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== ANI notice == |
|||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. |
|||
Disussion is here: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_and_hounding_with_allegations_of_bad_faith_on_GMO]]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== the reason why == |
|||
So, I finally wrote down why I backed out of our discussion, over at ANI. You made guesses above, which you seem to believe are accurate but are simply your fantasies. You continued in that line in your response at ANI, where you mischaracterized what I wrote about why I did what I did. |
|||
* here is what I wrote: |
|||
<blockquote> I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP. I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJytdog&diff=648991797&oldid=648988824 this message] on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works ''at all'' (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do '''not''' speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV <u>about me</u>. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJytdog&diff=648995150&oldid=648991797 replied appropriately] (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJytdog&diff=649002618&oldid=648995150 struck] my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJytdog&diff=649004425&oldid=649002618 archived] my Talk page and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJytdog&diff=649709970&oldid=646288659 reduced my User page] to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Tornheim&diff=649002266&oldid=648996535 struck] my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling.</blockquote> |
|||
* you characterized this as follows: |
|||
<blockquote> Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised.</blockquote> |
|||
You are not dealing with what I wrote. Please actually read it. '''Your behavior''' freaked me out. I also acknowledged that I see your perspective on new editors (which is different from agreeing with it - I do see it) I sought the ANI to give you a warning to stop harassing/stalking me and to teach you that canvassing/campaigning is not OK in WP. I am hopeful you will get that warning and the lesson. In any case, if you continue the behavior, you will build up yet more evidence and it will end up being enough to have action taken against you. You will do as you will. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:So, i have listened to what you have had to say, and said that i see how you could be concerned with the way i interact with new editors and acknowledged your concerns about OWN, and asked for community feedback on that. At ANI you acknowledged that I posted the note above, but you haven't responded and I have no sense that you have tried to understand my objection to your behavior. Would you, please? Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Co-op mentor == |
|||
[[File:Logo-coop.png|right]] |
|||
Hi David! I'm Jethro, a coordinator at [[WP:CO-OP|The Co-op]]. Thanks for making [[Wikipedia:Co-op/David Tornheim|your profile]]. I wanted to introduce you to your mentor, {{u|EuroCarGT}}, who should be coming around shortly to get things started. I noticed you're involved in some disputes over [[GMO]]-related articles, which I know can be fairly contentious. I think one thing to help get both of you started is discussing a little about what you want to accomplish through mentorship. You wrote on your profile that you want to {{tq|deal with industry slant in Wikipedia articles}}, which seems to be focused on how the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] works in practice, but maybe you can provide a little more guidance on where we can help you best. Thanks, [[User:I JethroBT|<b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b>]][[User talk:I JethroBT| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you! Let me see where things are at the ANI discussion and I will get back to you. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 20:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, please stop contributing to the ANI thread and let us close it. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::^Yes, I would like that to happen too. Unfortunately, I had to address a reasonable request. The closing of the ANI is not within my control, and new additions by others may require my response. However, I would like a neutral 3rd party to help address conflict between two main parties.[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 00:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::David, the thread can't close if you keep contributing to it. Nothing requires your response. Sometimes the best thing to do is to let the other person have the last word. If you keep contributing to the thread, you could conceivably hang yourself with your own rope, leading to a block. It's best to say little to nothing than to indict yourself. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Regarding the mentoring, I may need to wait until the ANI closes.[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 00:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's a really bad idea. Start mentoring now and avoid ANI at all costs. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! == |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|ts=<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> [[User:Bfpage|Bfpage]] |[[User talk:Bfpage|leave a message]] </span> 23:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)}} |
|||
== Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse! == |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Question|size=|signed=<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> [[User:Bfpage|Bfpage]] |[[User talk:Bfpage|leave a message]] </span> 23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)|message=Great Question on BP!}} |
|||
<br style="clear: both"/> |
|||
== Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse! == |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Question|size=|signed=<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> [[User:Bfpage|Bfpage]] |[[User talk:Bfpage|leave a message]] </span> 23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)|message=Great Question on BP!}} |
|||
<br style="clear: both"/> |
|||
== canvassing yet more? == |
|||
we have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Tornheim&diff=653521879&oldid=651402405 this] meat-puppeting,.and now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DePiep&curid=1622901&diff=653541270&oldid=653540447 this]? what is wrong with you, man? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
: and now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&diff=prev&oldid=654935343 this]? that is not a teahouse question. you just will not refrain from campaigning, will you? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:: Why is it not a TeaHouse question? I was referred to ask questions there ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=650930348 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=650926462 here]) to deal with behavior of people like you if I wasn't sure what to do because of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive878#Canvassing_and_hounding_with_allegations_of_bad_faith_on_GMO AN/I *you* raised against me]. That's what I did both times. You recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Tornheim&diff=653600796&oldid=653541941 complained] to me that I didn't spend enough time with mentoring to your liking, which is what the TeaHouse is for. Now you complain when I do. Are you accusing {{ping|Alexbrn}} for [[WP:Canvassing]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ducking_nonsense.3F here] and {{ping|Formerly98}} for [[WP:Canvassing]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#WP:MEDRS_enforcement_a_sure_fire_sign_of_COI.3F here] and for campaigning for bringing attention to the COI Duck in new forums likely to bring votes to delete the article? Sorry you don't see the problem and double-standards with your own behavior and endless accusations and criticism. I would appreciate it if you stopped stalking and hounding me, in this section of my talk page and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=654939285&oldid=654938836 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Tornheim&diff=653600796&oldid=653541941 here]. Consider this is your first warning. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Did you read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse%2FQuestions&diff=654961956&oldid=654955316 the response] you got there from Bfpage? [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wuerzele&curid=38855206&diff=658822439&oldid=658819783 yet more]. you just will not stop, will you. You find someone opposing me, and you try to reel them in.[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 11:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm confused. How is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wuerzele&curid=38855206&diff=658822439&oldid=658819783 this] cavassing? Please stop with these frivolous accusations, harassment and assumption of "bad faith". [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 20:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::let's see, after you see someone argue with me in an ugly way ("I saw you post at COI"), you try to pull him into several conversations where other people are disagreeing with me. at some point i hope you heed the advice several people have given you, and just start working on articles. the more and more time you spend on this dramah, the more you show you are not [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia]]. I (and others) keep warning you, and you keep blowing it off. your choice. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 20:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== [[WP:ANI|ANI]] == |
|||
There is a discussion you are mentioned in at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#David Tornheim's behavior]] you'll want to know about. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 00:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:thank you for giving notice, {{u|Liz}}. I apologize to David for not having done that. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Your recent edits== |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome to Wikipedia]]. When you add content to [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]]. There are two ways to do this. Either: |
|||
# Add four [[tilde]]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or |
|||
# With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ([[File:Insert-signature.png|15px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]] or [[File:Signature icon.png|15px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]]) located above the edit window. |
|||
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. |
|||
Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --[[User:SineBot|SineBot]] ([[User talk:SineBot|talk]]) 15:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! == |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|ts=<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkgray 0px 3px 3px;"> [[User:Bfpage|Bfpage]] |[[User talk:Bfpage|leave a message]] </span> 21:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)}} |
|||
== Note about canvassing == |
|||
[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] It appears that you have been '''[[WP:Canvassing|canvassing]]'''—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence [[:Bayer]]. While [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices|friendly notices]] are allowed, they should be '''limited''' and '''nonpartisan''' in distribution and should reflect a '''neutral''' point of view. Please do not post notices which are [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Excessive cross-posting|indiscriminately cross-posted]], which espouse a certain [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning|point of view]] or side of a debate, or which are [[Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking|selectively sent]] only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-canvass --> [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 12:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Personal attacks == |
|||
David, if you have an issue with my edits, please take them up on the article talk page. If you have an issue with my behavior, ANI is the appropriate venue. If you think there is an undisclosed COI, COIN is your destination of choice. |
|||
Personal attacks have no place on Jimbos Talk page, on article Talk pages, or in other content focused venues. I'm frankly just as uncomfortable with your editing style as you are with mine. The absence of a reciprocal flow of invective should not be taken as ceding the moral high ground. It merely reflects respect for Wikipedias behavioral guidelines and good manners. Respectfully, [[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] <sup>[[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Formerly 98|contribs]]|[[User:Formerly 98#Statement of Compliance with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline|COI statement]]</sup> 03:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:No "personal attack". That was [[Witness impeachment]]. -[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 21:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::So david, let me try again to explain my concerns here. In general, "witness impeachment" really doesn't accomplish anything here. What you did was to |
|||
:::* Post a series of edits that you disagreed with and present that as evidence that I'm some sort of dishonest shill. This is ineffective because your tone makes it clear to outsiders that you would likely regard anyone who disagreed with you as a shill or otherwise dishonest. |
|||
:::* Accuse me of edit-warring for a single edit, which doesn't fit anybody's definition of that behavior here, and |
|||
:::* Attacked Jytdog for criticizing your behavior, which clearly fit the definition of canvassing that can be found [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|here]]. |
|||
::The problem with this approach is twofold. One it does not accomplish your goal of discrediting me, because people see this sort of hot-headed, accusatory and personal remark as evidence of someone who is not viewing the issues dispassionately and logically. We have lots of aggressive, insulting, partisans here, and you just make yourself look like one of them with these sorts of remarks. Secondly, it tends to piss people off, though I personally am willing to cut some slack given that you are in many ways a new editor, having not spent much time here before early this year. |
|||
::What would have worked better? |
|||
::* you could have responded directly to my rhetorical questions by providing examples of people who were the subject of reprisal even though they followed the rules |
|||
* You could have offered examples from your own experience to back up your own opinion |
|||
::What makes it a "personal attack" is that rather than addressing the issues I raised, you questioned my character. Its not just rude, its also politically ineffective here because it makes you look bad. [[WP:GF]] and [[WP:NPA]] are good rules to follow. Its not just good manners, its also effective politics. |
|||
::[[User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] <sup>[[User talk:Formerly 98|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Formerly 98|contribs]]|[[User:Formerly 98#Statement of Compliance with Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline|COI statement]]</sup> 21:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Question == |
|||
David - do you think there are any ''safe'' examples we can use to demonstrate some of the points made in the essay without including names, only passages for comparison? What I've done is much different from what it was before and I think some examples would serve a good purpose. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><font color="gold">☯</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 07:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Examples of banned and punished editors might work. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 07:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Please include your suggestions on the Talk Page of [[WP:COIducks]] and let's see how it works in. Other shortcuts to the essay are [[WP:Advocacy duck]] or [[WP:ADVODUCK]] |
|||
== Throwing the baby out with the bathwater == |
|||
I appreciate your arguments on Slim's page, but in total, I'm noticing a preference for [[Throw out the baby with the bath water|throwing the baby out with the bath water]]. Just because there are conflicts and disputes between skeptics and believers, doesn't mean we should toss out skepticism. On the other hand, if certain beliefs can't withstand scrutiny, we should toss them out. How many of us are honest enough to do just that? Not many. Most people cling to bad beliefs like a security blanket. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:There is a difference between healthy skepticism (such as "buyer beware", "don't take any wooden nickels", avoiding snake-oil salesmen, questioning politicians' vague and grandiose promises, etc.) and [[skepticism]] (sometimes called [[scientific skepticism]]), prevalent on Wikipedia, which is actually more like a [[WP:FRINGE]] religious extremism or cult ideology that too often unreasonably requires knowledge to be of a scientific nature (similar to [[Pythagoreanism]]'s math cult). Most of academia knows how ridiculous it would be to use science as the one and only metric for knowledge: consider philosophy, history, film, literature, art, ethics, etc. Science and math are very useful tools, but there are limits to such utility and [[skeptics]] have trouble looking outside of the box--they are really a lot more like the fundamentalist Christians and other religious zealots and extremists they spend so much time attacking than ordinary people who have a more balanced view of life and knowledge and various forms of [[epistemology]]. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 22:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Can you give a single, concrete example of this problem? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, please read the section where my second accuser speaks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive879#David_Tornheim.27s_behavior.2C_redux here]. The NB where I spoke was filled with it. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::There's a lot of issues at work there, but I don't see any that have to do with skepticism. Let me put it another way: if a flood destroys your house, it doesn't mean water is bad. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Did you read the accusations about Reiki and my defense, or have you seen the various discussions that go on about Eastern Healing practices? [[Skeptic]] participants often have no idea what they are talking about in these subjects when they put on their (Western) science as the only form of truth glasses. If they did that with literature or Eastern Philosophy, they would be laughed out of the room. They treat someone like [[David Gorski]] as a God or prophet who knows all and is an "expert" in things he obviously knows little about. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I predict that if you look closer at the MEDRS discussions on this and other topics related to complementary and alternative medicine you will find some disagreement. While it is certainly true the so-called "skeptics" will balk at any practice that makes medical or scientific claims when there is little evidence, I think you'll also find many medical practitioners who use them or offer them to their patients. Whether we are dealing with the placebo effect or something else, I can't really say. The best thing you can do is find the best sources and use them to write articles. At my age, I've pretty much found that ''nobody'' has any idea what they are talking about, we just go with the best information we have. And that's where the problem starts and ends. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 06:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::^Exactly!!! With one exception: I think a number of studies and reports from Western medical practitioners looking at alternative healing practices have shown more than placebo effect, many of the [[skeptics]] I have encountered here really are not okay with that and will do anything to manipulate the rules to get that possibility out of the article(s), since they are <b>certain</b> <i>a priori</i> that such "pseudo-science" can not <i>possibly</i> work. In their minds, if it is not based on science and pure [[materialism]] and materialist explanations, theory, scientific formulas, etc., it is rubbish and worthless. So much for their [[skepticism]] of their own deeply felt negative biases and narrow-mindedness! LOL. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 08:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::May I ask, why you assume that because we cannot explain something, it must not be based on science or materialism? Surely, you will admit, that the scientific framework can be used to understand reality, and that simply because we don't understand one part of that reality doesn't mean science is incapable of explaining it? In fact, there are many things science can't explain, but that doesn't mean they automatically fall under a different paradigm. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 10:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::[[Occam's razor]] comes to mind on this. Science is a terrible way to explain, answer or investigate moral questions (or the other subjects I identified above), agreed? So, then one cannot say that Science is or will be the "best" or "simplest" paradigm in the future to explain what it cannot explain today any more that any other subject will be able to do this and become more dominant: That's all pure speculation. It's possible that some day in the future scientists might be able to apply a kind of [[Reductionism]] as has been done with [[Physics]] and [[Chemistry]] to something like the [[Mind–body problem]], but I wouldn't bank on it, because of so many problems with pure materialism when you study philosophy. It is indeed possible that another field of inquiry will become the dominant method of explanation of all reality and science will be a subset of that: In fact, science of today previously was a subset of Philosophy, and it has taken on a new unjustified religious zeal and it should more properly be returned to a subset of Philosophy because its explaining power is indeed quite limited, but often scientist are not trained in Philosophy and they waste time with that ridiculous movie [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F]] that mostly interviewed scientists and no Philosophers. What they were articulating as "new" was nothing more than a re-articulation of [[German Idealism]] or the kind of material that is covered in depth in a class covering [[Continental philosophy]]. I would say [[Postmodernism]] is actually a far better way to explain all reality of human experience than pure materialist science is. In that sense, Anthropology seems to have the upper hand right now in explaining power, although this will cause a number of [[skeptics]], [[Modernist]]s, [[Analytic philosophy|British Analytic philosophers]] and [[New Criticism|New Critics]] to bristle because they do not want to admit that science (or these other related fields) are a cultural construct, just like, say, democracy, language, etc. So to conclude, I think the [[skeptics]] should spend some time studying [[philosophy]] and other liberal arts, and they might learn the limitations of their close-minded, tunnel vision, science-math color glasses approach to explaining all reality. As a trained engineer in the sciences, I know just how hard that can be for a science oriented person to do! That's why they are called science geeks by normal people! [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 19:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::We're getting seriously off track here. Reiki isn't necessarily a moral philosophy. If it is a form of medicine as its proponents claim, then it should be viewed through scientific methodology. At the end of the day, science ''is'' the simplest explanation for the world. That doesn't mean it is always correct. In any case, scientific challenges aren't threats to science, they are questions for how we ''do'' science. I'm very curious how anthropology has the "upper hand" on anything, so I find your statement most perplexing. Postmodernism is interesting when it comes to art and design, but claiming that it is a "far better way to explain all reality" is so far from the facts, I wonder if you are feeling OK. Perhaps you should lie down and think a bit more about this. Postmodernism has almost zero explanatory capability. Here's an exercise for you: please use postmodernism to explain something, anything for that matter. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Your analogy of water makes no sense to me. I don't know anyone who is saying water is categorically unsafe, because of floods or because industries dump toxic sh*t into our water supply. But most people I know think drinking clean water is a good thing and sadly many people buy bottled tap water, which they get from drought stricken California! I wish people were a little more skeptical about what the bottled water companies are telling them. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 03:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Water in the analogy is "skepticism". If skeptics destroy your article/argument/belief system, it doesn't mean that skepticism is bad. It means you need to work on your article/argument/belief system. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 06:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You mean like when a fundamentalist Christian "destroy[s] your article/argument/belief system" by saying that all Truth [capital T] is in the Bible and everything outside the Bible, including science, is not to be trusted? And when they do, does that mean one needs to "to work on your article/argument/belief system" and become a "good Christian"? I'll bet they think so. LOL. By the way, what was that quote(s) from [[Friedrich Nietzsche]] you were going to hit me up with? Nietzsche talks much about what I say here about Truth [with capital T] in [[On the Genealogy of Morality]] / [http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/genealogyofmorals/section2.rhtml spark Notes version] (full translation by Ian Johnston found [http://home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/360/genealogy1.htm here]). I know the Walter Kauffman translation titled "On the Genealogy of Morals". [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 08:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== GM Food RFC == |
|||
Note about [[Talk:Genetically_modified_food#RfC_-_.22The_scientific_consensus_holds_that_currently_marketed_GM_food_poses_no_greater_risk_than_conventional_food..22|this RfC]] where you !voted or commented. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== A note about pings == |
|||
Hi there, David. I think when you mention other editors' arguments in a thread such as the recent Epoch Times discussion, where the editors don't really need to respond to your comments, and where they are already actively engaged, pings aren't necessary. Normally when mentioning another editor in a thread where they aren't present, a ping is appreciated so that they're aware of the conversation. Best, '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">คุ</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">ก</font>]]</span>''' 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== DuBose == |
|||
Hello. I have given the IP two template warnings for disruptive editing in the past 24 hours. He is being too aggressive and not collaborating enough, and he's flirting with an edit warring complaint that could result in a block. I have asked him twice to slow down. It's not helping that you're doing much the same kind of thing, the difference being that you're reasonable in talk and don't violate [[WP:AGF]]. I don't see any reason why the article can't be left stable on these questions until we have a stronger consensus in talk. There is no urgency to make the article right, TODAY. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">☎</span>]] 11:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Mandruss}} Sorry about the two edits to the article where I deleted material that I truly believed was unsourced. I messed up there and regret I didn't just talk about it on the talk page first. I'll be more careful next time. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#AAA;">☎</span>]] 18:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Discussion == |
|||
Hi, there is currently a discussion at OR noticeboard related to a discussion you attributed to, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Editor_adds_OR_to_aprox_6_articles.2C_about_an_alleged_Scientific_consensus here]. [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Prokaryotes}}: Thanks for the notice! Keep up the good work! [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 14:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== ArbCom case == |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide|guide to arbitration]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings|Arbitration Committee's procedures]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> -[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 15:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case == |
|||
You may want to read about the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]] to see how it works. Arbcom doesn't rule on content, only on conduct. As such, you may want to consider amending your complaint, as it focuses solely on a content dispute which is outside Arbcom's remit. Thanks. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for your suggestion. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Does this require closing? == |
|||
Hi David. I am an editor closer. I see a straw poll you started here [[Talk:Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose#straw_poll--.22off_campus.22]] is listed at WP:ANRFC. Does it require closing? I am only asking as I cant find legobot removing an RFC header in the history. Thanks. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 15:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Feel free to close it. Thanks. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 19:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|AlbinoFerret}} I just looked at it again. It was a straw poll and not an [[WP:RfC]], so it does not have requirements of a formal close. However, I think having a neutral third party review the responses and making a summary would be beneficial to readers, especially if the summary is somewhere near the top and you don't mind spending the time on it. Again, thanks for your interest. [[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::Not a problem to close, just making sure it was needed. I have done polls before that didnt need closing. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 20:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms|Genetically modified organisms]]'' arbitration case opened == |
|||
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms]]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence]]. '''Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop]]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration]]. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of '''[[User:L235|L235]]''' ([[User talk:L235#top|t]] / [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]] / [[User:L235/siginfo|<small>ping in reply</small>]]) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Notification_list/Parties&oldid=683206323 --> |
|||
== Arbitration temporary injunction for the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms|''Genetically modified organisms'']] arbitration case == |
|||
''You are receiving this message because you are a party to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms|''Genetically modified organisms'']] arbitration case.'' The Arbitration Committee has [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_Sanctions_and_1RR|enacted]] the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms|''Genetically modified organisms'']] arbitration case: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|Standard discretionary sanctions]] are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including [[glyphosate]], broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|arbitration enforcement]] action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. |
|||
# Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the [[WP:NOT3RR|usual exemptions]].</blockquote> |
|||
For the Arbitration Committee, '''[[User:L235|L235]]''' ([[User talk:L235#top|t]] / [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]] / [[User:L235/siginfo|<small>ping in reply</small>]]) (via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)) |
|||
: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case]]''' |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Notification_list/Parties&oldid=683206323 --> |
|||
== Was my talk page response useful.... == |
|||
...or does it need more fleshing-out? [[User:Anmccaff|Anmccaff]] ([[User talk:Anmccaff|talk]]) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Immediate attention please == |
|||
David - you have added FOFs at ArbCom under MY section. I think we are only allowed to present FOFs in our own section. I am going to move yours as I am very concerned they will be dismissed if raised in the inappropriate place. I hope this is ok with you - it is usually very bad manners to edit another editors edits - I hope in this instance you will understand me.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 12:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Yikes - I can not find the correct section to move them to. Please move them out of my section or I fear Arbcom might simply put a red-line through all your good work!<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]</span></sup> 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I responded on your talk page. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 13:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== ''Genetically modified organisms'' arbitration proposed decision posted == |
|||
Hi David Tornheim. A [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision|proposed decision]] has been posted for the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms|''Genetically modified organisms'']] arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision|proposed decision talk page]]. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, '''[[User:L235|L235]]''' ([[User talk:L235#top|t]] / [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]] / [[User:L235/siginfo|<small>ping in reply</small>]]) via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Notification_list/Parties&oldid=683206323 --> |
|||
== [[WP:ACE2015|ArbCom elections are now open!]] == |
|||
Hi,<br> |
|||
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current [[WP:ACE2015|Arbitration Committee election]]. The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia [[WP:RFAR|arbitration process]]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[WP:ARBPOL|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to [[WP:ACE2015/C|review the candidates' statements]] and submit your choices on [[Special:SecurePoll/vote/398|the voting page]]. For the Election committee, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692210171 --> |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Final decision|Genetically modified organisms]] case closed == |
|||
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: |
|||
1) [[WP:AC/DS|Standard discretionary sanctions]] are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed. |
|||
2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions. |
|||
3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban. |
|||
7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. |
|||
8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. |
|||
9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case. |
|||
11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. |
|||
12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. |
|||
:For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:navy">Mini</span>''''']][[User_talk:Miniapolis|'''''<span style="color:#8B4513">apolis</span>''''']] 20:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
: Discuss this at: '''[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed]]''' |
|||
==Thanks== |
|||
Happy new year, and thanks for encouraging my involvement with some of the GMO articles. Time does not permit me to do much editing, but I will keep an eye on what goes on. Hope you will keep up your good work... happy editing... [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos|talk]]) 05:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:You are welcome. Happy New Year to you as well. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 05:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion== |
|||
Hello, David Tornheim. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at [[Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:NORN-notice--> Thank you. [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 23:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks. I saw it. I am disappointed that the first time you raised the issue so few took notice. I hope more people see it this time and see the problem you (and others like me) have raised about [[WP:OR]]. I will wait to comment since you have already made the case effectively. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 00:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Apology == |
|||
I went back through the edit history again and realised I made a mistake. When I went to change your edit back to scientific consensus I accidentally changed the lead sentence. I should have been more careful and apologise to you for any confusion that might have caused. [[User:Aircorn|AIR<font color="green">'''''corn'''''</font>]] [[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Aircorn}} Thanks for the apology. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:No need to strike on my behalf. I was more suggesting that it is easy to make small remarks that could be taken the wrong way. I have been editing GMOs on and off for over four years now and that is a long way down the list of offensive comments I have received. Thanks for acknowledging it though. [[User:Aircorn|AIR<font color="green">'''''corn'''''</font>]] [[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 10:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::You are welcome. You are much easier to work with than some other editors I have encountered who have a different take on some of the most contentious material. I do think things are slightly better after ArbCom. When I wrote that, I had not had as much time working with you and I was a bit frustrated. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Thank you for supporting my RfA == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
You are welcome! I also voted for you for ArbCom as one of my top choices. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== A barnstar for you! == |
|||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Team Barnstar Hires.png|100px]] |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Teamwork Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for backing up my changes on the cases! [[User:Im5yrsold|Im5yrsold]] ([[User talk:Im5yrsold|talk]]) 09:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:FCSB#rfc_7D2B97A|'''Talk:FCSB'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 19:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Hej == |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
Hi, well thanks for your input on the discussion at the other article. But i think it is better to just ignore editors who make wild claims. From past experience here, i know that accusations are hard to defend against, no matter of wrong or right. Remember, when fighting with a pig you and the pig get dirty but the pig enjoys it. Cheers :) [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 23:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Donald Trump#rfc_70AC26F|'''Talk:Donald Trump'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah. I probably shouldn't have gone there. But I felt I needed to stand up against the frivolous accusations against you. I'll try not to get too involved there. I wanted that editor to understand I do not appreciate frivolous accusations. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 23:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you. [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 23:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
You have to wait until there is clear breach of important guidelines or a pattern of abuse over longer periods. Then you can try a pitch at the noticeboards.But even then it depends on who is online at the right time, or the mood of people there, the amount of requests .... so the best way in my opinion is to make any errors clear and visible, and then move on. I only replied to the guy there a few more times, since i thought he misunderstood something. Have a nice weekend, it getting very spring like here, over 10C. [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 23:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment == |
|||
:Yeah, but even then, you saw what happened with your AN/I. I am amazed what abuse and bullying and even lying are permitted at Wikipedia. I think certain editors want it that way so they can force their POV in the articles unopposed by NPOV editors. Quite troubling. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 23:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, but unless Wikipedia changes the way how enforcement works, it will stay that way. And POV of Wikipedia is basically POV of the mainstream media. I remember i had huge issues with climate articles, editors sabotaged these pages over years. But then suddenly it stopped. Today climate articles are only edited by a tiny group of editors, and they mostly agree, since they follow the science. [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::Wow. So are saying that the Republican (American) version of climate change was presented at Wikipedia? I assume you must not be in the U.S. since you talked temps in °C. Of course Wiki does go beyond mainstream media now with use of 2ndary sources from the relevant field. I can't remember if that was the case when I joined and the guidlines were slowly being developed. Fringe hardly even existed back then if I remember correctly. Fringe has slowly expanded so that editors regularly use it to dismiss any view that is minority--very problematic. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim#top|talk]]) 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Pages in regards to the science were sabotaged, you can go back and look at many of these articles, often not famous articles, then numbers got changed, undue weight to studies, old stuff, confusing sections, long paragraphs, external link section filled with unrelated links, even confusing addition of references, to make it harder to edit the page. Basically everything one could come up to make article quality bad, or to piss off other editors. Another related topic was in regards to the scientists involved, and the controversies (Hockeystick or Email hacking), though i wasn't much involved with those edits, but if you look at those page histories you get the idea :) And today all that changed, like someone snipped a finger ... at least for climate science, at last. [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Here is such an example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instrumental_temperature_record&oldid=656396552 [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Or look at these archives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy :) Its ridiculous. [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 01:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Frederick the Great#rfc_5EF0B13|'''Talk:Frederick the Great'''  on a "All RFCs" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 02:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Google books== |
|||
When you are at the page you want, left click the link icon to the left of the "Add to my library" button and copy "Paste link in email or IM." It works best if there is no search for keywords showing, otherwise they show up in the link too. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
left |
|||
== Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment == |
|||
== Nomination of [[:Climate Action Plan]] for deletion == |
|||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article '''[[:Climate Action Plan]]''' is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to [[Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines|Wikipedia's policies and guidelines]] or whether it should be [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deleted]]. |
|||
[[File:Internet-group-chat.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]Your feedback is requested  at [[Talk:Republican Party (United States)#rfc_0B620FB|'''Talk:Republican Party (United States)'''  on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment]]. Thank you for helping out!<br/><small>You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of [[WP:FRS|Feedback Request Service]] subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by [[WP:FRS|removing your name]].</small> <!-- Template:FRS notification --><div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div> Message delivered to you with love by [[User:Yapperbot|Yapperbot]] :) | Is this wrong? Contact [[User talk:Naypta|my bot operator]]. | Sent at 16:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The article will be discussed at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. |
|||
== Hunter Biden == |
|||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> [[User:Jsharpminor|J<sup><small>♯</small></sup>m]] <small>([[User_talk:Jsharpminor|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jsharpminor|contribs]])</small> 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&diff=1228515713&oldid=1228515245 this edit] deleted two edits by other editors. I assume that was unintentional? [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 17:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
''Since you contributed to the discussion over at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate action]], I wanted to ping you and let you know that your input would be valued. I am posting this notice on the talk page for every editor who has contributed to that discussion and the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change]], regardless of their vote or apparent viewpoint.'' [[User:Jsharpminor|J<sup><small>♯</small></sup>m]] <small>([[User_talk:Jsharpminor|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jsharpminor|contribs]])</small> 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Space4Time3Continuum2x}} Ugggh. No. My mistake. Do you mind fixing it? Or do you want me to? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It would be easier if you just copied the text you added, then self-reverted your entry, and readded the copied text. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 17:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC). I can do it if you run into any problems. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Another user just readded the missing edits. They may have been lost in an edit conflict. [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I just noticed as I was trying to fix it. The self-revert didn't work. Yes, it was definitely an edit-conflict. Glad that is resolved! --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 17:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sh*t happens! [[File:Smile.png|20px]] [[User:Space4Time3Continuum2x |<span style="color: #3200CC;">'''Space4T'''ime3Continuum2x</span>]][[User_talk:Space4Time3Continuum2x |🖖]] 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 08:57, 13 June 2024
|
||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 40 sections are present. |
Lurking Stats
from Piotrus.
Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days |
---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
Lurking Stats
from Piotrus.
Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days |
---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/TWA_guide_left_bottom.png)
- Hi David Tornheim! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 06:26, Sunday, July 12, 2020 (UTC)
Hello! After reviewing previous discussions, I saw that you were previously involved in Operation Gideon (2020) and don't think you have been notified of any of the recent discussions. If you are interested, feel free to take a look talk page to see how we have been improving the article and working on a new title. Any input would be greatly appreciated! WMrapids (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- WMrapids Thanks for the ping. Sorry I have not gotten back to you sooner. I don't have much time for Wikipedia editing right now, and no way I can jump into the hornets' nest of those articles right now. I appreciate the work you are doing and wish you luck in making them NPOV and keeping in the sourced material that is being inappropriately deleted. I did see the recent AN/I that got closed without action. Nice effort. Please don't get discouraged. If I had to give one piece of advice for all the time I have spent on articles like that: Always focus most on RS both in supplying it and insisting on it. No one can ever attack you for that. I think you are doing that. So much discussion I have seen on Wikipedia on talk pages tend to end up with editors saying that other editors did something wrong. Such accusations often just escalate rather than being resolved. when it comes to AN/I, simple diffs are best. Long paragraphs will tend to be ignored. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice and your reply. As I said in the ANI, it was clear civil POV pushing. With such subtle edits, I felt like all of the context had to be provided since the numerous problems being observed and addressed were more important than a successful sanction. Hopefully things are more calm moving forward, but if there are future issues with other users or myself, a history of such behavior has now been documented in that report. WMrapids (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- WMrapids If you or Ultranuevo do feel the need to go to AN/I again, I suggest you spend some time looking at successful and unsuccessful posts there. It is always the diffs that make the case. I believe the senior editors who read the narratives at AN/I know there are two sides to every story, so they will assume the narrative posted is probably one-sided. The diffs, on the other-hand, are indisputable and are easy to identify and look at. If the diffs look bad, you have a case. Also, always make sure to provide simple diffs showing the editor was warned. Make multiple strong warnings before bringing someone to AN/I, and if you do go, show diffs for each of the warnings. This is one example of my successful AN/I in that area: [1]. I have plenty of experience with posting unsuccessful AN/I's. :)
- Also, establishing another editor is POV-pushing is difficult. Editors at AN/I are unlikely to know the subject articles and its RS. It is unreasonable (or at minimum unrealistic) to expect editors who have not participated in the subject to read all the RS to understand if there is bias. Edit-warring, acting against consensus, or name-calling are accusations that are more easily proven. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice and your reply. As I said in the ANI, it was clear civil POV pushing. With such subtle edits, I felt like all of the context had to be provided since the numerous problems being observed and addressed were more important than a successful sanction. Hopefully things are more calm moving forward, but if there are future issues with other users or myself, a history of such behavior has now been documented in that report. WMrapids (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Starbucks unions on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shambuka on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Palestinian political violence on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
CS1 error on Tim Simonec
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tim Simonec, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Recent canvassing
Hi. I could not help but notice that in the recent President of Venezuela article dispute, and others, you have notified several editors that have not edited the article or the talk page in a long time, without including all of the sides involved. Here[2], you wrote to C.J. Griffin in their talk page, claiming to ask about a problem restoring their edit. In this edit([3]) you pinged 25stargeneral. If that wasn't enough, in a message in my talk page[4] you pinged WMrapids, Ultranuevo, Chipmunkdavis, Blindlynx and SOUTHCOM, essentially all editors I have had content dispute with in the last months but totally unrelated to the article in question, in most cases, all of this after WMrapids left you a message above just a few weeks ago.
This is not the first time that this has happened, and you have been warned several times that further canvassing may lead to a block (#Formal warning for canvassing), so I kindly ask you to beware of this pattern in the future. Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Archiving
Hello friend. Would you like some help setting up auto archiving for your 382 user talk page sections? I'm happy to help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: Yes, please. Thank you for offering! I have been meaning to ask others for the last couple of years! --David Tornheim (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I added some code that should summon a bot within 24 hours, and will keep the most recent 40 sections on the page indefinitely. Hope that helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: Thank you. Where did you add the code? I looked in your contribs and don't see it there. Can you send me a link to the archiver that will be used, where I might be able to adjust the settings?
- I had planned to use one of the typical archivers used by most editors on their talk pages and on the article talk pages. I believe it is the lowercase sigmabot III. I probably started reading the documentation and my eyes glazed over. There is also a "one-click archiver." I would like to be able to use that one too.
- The reason I waited so long for archiving is for full transparency. I want others to know that I don't delete and hide warnings. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I added the code at the top of this user talk page. Here's the config diff you're looking for. It's a variation of the code found at Help:Archiving a talk page#Sequentially numbered archives. I set you up to use Lowercase sigmabot III. One Click Archiver will also work with this setup, although I'd recommend letting the bot do its first run before using One Click Archiver. I like transparency on user talk pages, so that's a good thing to strive for :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Archiving complete. Ah, more breathing room already.
- If you no longer use the feedback request service, that might be good to turn off, to reduce talk page spam. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: Yes. Much better. Thanks. I have thought about reducing the feedback service. Mostly I just didn't have time for Wikipedia for last year or so, but now I will probably start looking at those posts.
- And FYI. I think there is a problem with the way the code is written for the service. I believe I looked carefully at it and discussed with the author, who was indignant about changing it.
- The problem--as I remember it--is that it is not even close to random: The likelihood of getting a notice has much to do with what day of the month the RfC is filed. I think the later in the month you file, the less likely random editors will get notice. To me that's just a bug. I don't know if you are a coder or not. I could try and dig it up. I really would like it to be changed, but doubt I have the time to make a change and support it. That's why I just left the code as is "under protest." --David Tornheim (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am a coder, but bots tend to have one owner/maintainer, so if they said no, the decision is probably final. I agree that that sounds like a bug though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I added the code at the top of this user talk page. Here's the config diff you're looking for. It's a variation of the code found at Help:Archiving a talk page#Sequentially numbered archives. I set you up to use Lowercase sigmabot III. One Click Archiver will also work with this setup, although I'd recommend letting the bot do its first run before using One Click Archiver. I like transparency on user talk pages, so that's a good thing to strive for :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I added some code that should summon a bot within 24 hours, and will keep the most recent 40 sections on the page indefinitely. Hope that helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
RSN
See WP:RSN#Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- I saw it. Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hyperinflation in Venezuela, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bloomberg and Chevron.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Toolforge account
@Novem Linguae: You had asked me to create a Toolforge account. I went to the link you provided. Is this the correct place to apply? They mention "member",
"maintainer", "admin" and "developer". It's not clear to me if these terms are all equivalent or whether there are different levels of access and different ways to apply to each. I want to be sure I apply to the correct level of access.
If you would like me to spend more time reading the documentation before asking questions like this, please let me know which pages to focus on first. I will read up on jobs framework as you requested. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think you'll probably want to create an LDAP account, then request Toolforge membership. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- After that, let's do the abandoned tool procedure by filing this ticket on Phab. I'd suggest that you file it and put both our usernames so we both get access. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: As you can see in the next section below, that Yapperbot is running again. It started with this activity at 6:00, 21 February 2024. Is that your doing? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. And Naypta hasn't edited recently. It must be the toolforge people undisabling the bot for some reason? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: I will continue with our plan. It sounds like the urgency is less now. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Done LDAP account created. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Done Toolforge membership request submitted. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. And Naypta hasn't edited recently. It must be the toolforge people undisabling the bot for some reason? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: As you can see in the next section below, that Yapperbot is running again. It started with this activity at 6:00, 21 February 2024. Is that your doing? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- After that, let's do the abandoned tool procedure by filing this ticket on Phab. I'd suggest that you file it and put both our usernames so we both get access. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Anatolia on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foreign Secretary on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shefali Shah on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, This is the blocked user in question. I try to keep an eye out for logged-out editing (which he is known to do), but I was less active until the last quarter of last year, and missed the spurt of activity under this and some related IPs. If the activity were more recent, I'd have filed at SPI and sought a rangeblock, if feasible. Grandpallama (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: Thanks, when I asked about this, I wasn't questioning your judgment--I assumed you were an admin who knew what was up with the editor. But I was trying to figure out how an editor like me could find out that this came from an editor with a "bad" reputation. I looked in the usual places: (1) talk page (2) block logs. Nothing there. As a usual practice for me, when I see a new IP with no talk page, I try to have a welcome for multiple reasons: (1) To, of course, welcome them (2) Urge them to create an account, as it is so hard to track IP behavior (3) Encourage good editing and discourage bad editing (4) Provide a first warning for problematic edits (5) Keep a record for future editors as to whether the IP started off on the right or wrong foot. So, when I asked about putting a note there on the IP's talk page, it was mostly for (5). Make sense?
- As a side note, how did you know it was the same editor--because it was in the same blockrange? I didn't look at any of the edits, so maybe it is obvious from the editing record. How do you know the editor won't use the IP again? Is that their M.O.? [Not asking to divulge the secrets of WP:checkuser if that was used.] --David Tornheim (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin--I'm sure I'd never pass any RFA! :)
- Everything you say makes sense. I realized I hadn't named the editor on the talkpage, and I didn't want to seem like I was being coy, or that I'd lied and the situation wasn't as I'd described. My strikethrough had puzzled an admin, who also isn't familiar with the editor, which made me realize I should just go back and remove them altogether.
- I recognize the IP as a result of previous interactions with him before his indef, when he was causing trouble by IP editing while blocked; there are also a number of behavioral and language tells to combine with the IP recognition. None of the edits I've seen are recent enough to justify taking it to SPI. Without giving too much away, I'll say he tends to post on talkpages to provoke a response, watch for someone to engage, then stir the pot; that was behind my initial inclination to strike out talkpage discussion that had served no purpose other than to create drama.
- I don't know for certain that he won't have that same IP again, but it seems like they get randomly assigned to him within a small range, and I haven't yet seen it repeat. If you want more details to keep your own eye out, I'm happy to send you an e-mail through WP, but he avidly reads talkpages, so I'm loath to put too many tells on one. His usual pattern means that even if he gets that IP assigned again, and even though he might read the discussion at Che Guevara, he's unlikely to ever actually edit there again. Grandpallama (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: Thanks for the explanation. No need for an email.
I'll say he tends to post on talkpages to provoke a response, watch for someone to engage, then stir the pot;
That's terrible. Now I understand why you struck-out the language, which I support after your explanation, especially if the goal is to protect other editors from falling into the trap of responding to the bait. If that's the case, rather than strike out the text--which, as you can see, calls more attention to it--I would be inclined to delete it or, even better, archive it. After all, experienced editors know that reporting first hand experience can be disregarded and no one but the editor who posted it is going to care if such irrelevant text is thrown in the dust bin of the talk page. - I do still think it is better to address the behavior issues on the editor's talk page, rather than on the article talk page. That's where I always look and probably that admin did too. I know how hard that is with IP jumpers, but I still think it is better, so that other editors know what is going on. At least that's what I prefer and try to do.
- Do you think there is a chance that anyone else might ever use that same IP address? I don't know much about how people are able to use different IP's--I was thinking they might be at a school, university or library, and just use different computers or their friends' or family's computers. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now that I think of it, hatting would probably be the best solution--avoids the bother of trying to archive it. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Grandpallama: Thanks for the explanation. No need for an email.
A Dobos torte for you!
![]() |
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @User:7&6=thirteen: Yum! Never heard of that. Looks delicious, like Tiramisu--the best I have ever had was at Steps of Rome in
- North Beach, San Francisco, run entirely by vivacious Italians, who would often sing loudly to the Italian music and banter back and forth as the night wore on. The place was often out of control with noise and exciting energy. So sad to learn that it closed. Nothing like it anywhere I have been. :(
- And thanks for working on and calling attention to M. Emmet Walsh. I was disappointed that it was considered to be in a sad state at the time of his death. When I first saw him in Blood Simple, I was so impressed, and I'm almost certain I looked at the article. I didn't remember it being too bad at the time--it's not that much worse than a number of actors--and now I regret I didn't work on it then! I'd probably jump in the fray to help out, but it looks like there are already enough eyes on it. Hope it is finished in time to get in the news. You can keep me posted if you think more eyes are need, only if you think that would make it more likely to get "in the news". --David Tornheim (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I just watched Blood Simple That was a film that presaged later Coen Brothers. All the characters were grifters and worse. I tought Frances McDormand was under used, but Walsh was especially slimey and menacing. I've tried to update the article, and hope it will find its way to being approved. Hell, we had 300,000 views! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I thought Frances McDormand did pretty well. I don't know of any other films she was in before that (without looking at her entry). So I think she was new.
- As for Walsh, I thought he did such a great job creating that bizarre character--so characteristic of Coen Brothers' films. Those initial scenes really impressed me. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:ITN has its own standards, and that's just what they do. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @User:7&6=thirteen: Thanks. I'll take a look. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I just watched Blood Simple That was a film that presaged later Coen Brothers. All the characters were grifters and worse. I tought Frances McDormand was under used, but Walsh was especially slimey and menacing. I've tried to update the article, and hope it will find its way to being approved. Hell, we had 300,000 views! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Pronouns
Hi. For the sake of simplicity and for everyone else, feel free to use he/him pronouns when referring to me. Regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm a he/him. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Venezuelan politics opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel–Hamas war on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Tupac
In the lead of Tupac's page I had made some changes using professional sources that report the opinions of academics and experts but there is a user who always removes the content. What do I have to do? Pier1999 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Pier1999: Discuss on article talk page. Make sure not to cast aspersions. I recommend you read the section at the top of my user page (User:David_Tornheim)--Advice for New Editors. A number of things written there are applicable to your situation. Sorry I did not respond earlier. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Barkley Marathons on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Edit war
So why has the other participant not been warned of being involved in an edit war? It's not just me. We have a difference of opinion here is all. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Because you were he one removing content without first gaining a consensus. Please see WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- And they kept re-adding it after others have removed it in the past as well. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please show me the WP:DIFFs and I will reconsider. These issues need to be discussed on the article page, not on the talk pages of users. You go to the talk page to discuss improper editing behavior, but generally after discussing content concerns.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- And they kept re-adding it after others have removed it in the past as well. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted
The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Vaush on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:AT&T Corporation on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel–Hamas war on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Did you know on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:FCSB on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Frederick the Great on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Republican Party (United States) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hunter Biden
Hi, this edit deleted two edits by other editors. I assume that was unintentional? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Space4Time3Continuum2x: Ugggh. No. My mistake. Do you mind fixing it? Or do you want me to? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- It would be easier if you just copied the text you added, then self-reverted your entry, and readded the copied text. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC). I can do it if you run into any problems. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Another user just readded the missing edits. They may have been lost in an edit conflict. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed as I was trying to fix it. The self-revert didn't work. Yes, it was definitely an edit-conflict. Glad that is resolved! --David Tornheim (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sh*t happens!
Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sh*t happens!
- I just noticed as I was trying to fix it. The self-revert didn't work. Yes, it was definitely an edit-conflict. Glad that is resolved! --David Tornheim (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)