User talk:Avatar317

Hi Avatar317, I wanted to thank you for all the work you put into the Alex Berenson article and the new article you created about his book, Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness and Violence. I heard his perspective on a podcast called The Argument from the New York Times in which 3 NYT opinion writers (one an anti-Trump conservative, one a left-leaning moderate, and the last quite to the left of the other two) debate controversial issues in a rational and factual manner, often times finding common ground on some points and agreeing to disagree on others. It's refreshing to hear such a reasonable debate about real policy and circumstance, but I digress. One of them did an interview with Alex Berenson about cannabis, and I found his arguments and propositions so filled with fallacies and factually incorrect information that I simply had to check how he and his book were characterized in his Wikipedia article, only to find it just briefly mentioned without any mention of the substantial number of criticisms laid against him and his book.

I wanted to make it clear to any readers that his position is not backed by science, and I really appreciate all the effort you put into reworking that article and creating a new article for the book to ensure that all readers of Wikipedia who may stumble upon his page understand that he is not an expert, nor does he defer to the actual experts, and, at least from my perspective, is trying to push an agenda instead of the actual reality of the consequences of cannabis use. Thanks again. Matt18224 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Matt18224:Thank you for the edit you did to the Alex Berenson article in which you added the sentence: In particular, they describe his book as highly problematic because Berenson infers causation from correlation, .... I don't recall how I came across that article, but that sentence caught my attention, and got me interested to read more. (I think a neat feature of Wikipedia is how info in articles can bootstrap better articles in this manner; I hadn't heard anything about his book until I read that Wikipedia article; without your contribution I likely wouldn't have heard about this at all.)

I do think that we will be better off as a society when more people in the general public understand science and scientific methods, and respectful and rational ways of having discussions/arguments; especially considering that in a democracy, everyone is allowed to vote and is therefore expected (or asked) to give their input on public policies, some of which may be very scientific in nature (climate change and vaccinations).

I wonder whether Berenson started his inquiry into cannabis without a pro/con legalization belief, and simply made the mistake(s) of misunderstanding science, but that once he released the book, and heard the criticism, that he now cares more about "Being Right than Doing The Right Thing", (and selling books) and doesn't want to admit his mistake: that many months of his work and his conclusion therefrom are simply wrong. The book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) was an interesting read on this subject (though I don't agree with every one of their analyses of their case studies). Another way of phrasing this is that people can behave (to varying degrees) like "insecure narcissists", whose egos are more threatened by admitting that they are wrong than the threat of public ridicule from supporting unreasonable/ridiculous/crazy beliefs. It would be interesting/telling to see what his beliefs on cannabis legalization were prior to his beginning the "quest" that lead to him writing this book, that would indicate whether he started with an agenda, or whether my theory above is the more likely case.

Lastly, I don't know if you've seen this site, but I was thinking of asking the author (Tyler Vigen) whether he would open-source one of his graphs for either/both the Correlation does not imply causation and Spurious relationship article(s). See his site here: ^[1] Title of the first graph: "US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation" Correlation: 99.79% (r=0.99789126) ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Dear god, I had no clue science spending caused suicides! We need to STOP SCIENCE FUNDING NOW!!! (I probably shouldn't give anyone any ideas...) I always try to assume good faith, which, as I'm sure you know, is a common principle here on Wikipedia, and the impression I got from the interview (found here about 2 minutes in) was that Alex Berenson's wife, who is a forensic psychiatrist, anecdotally told him that she saw high numbers of criminals who also happened to use cannabis, which led him down the road of hearing anecdotes of individuals who had bad experiences with cannabis and cherry-picking the limited data and anecdotes that reinforced his belief based on his wife's assertion. I'll have to listen to the interview again to be sure, but I think he said he paid little attention to cannabis prior to his wife telling him her experience. Likely thanks to anchoring, I suspect that was his jumping-off point where he decided that if his wife, an admitted expert in psychiatry, decided cannabis was causing criminal behavior, that confirmation bias kicked in and sent him spiraling down the rabbit hole of "cannabis must be illegal for a good reason."

I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist (actually pretty far from it, computer scientist), but I took several psychology classes in college that didn't contribute toward my major in any way because I always thought the biases and fallacies to which we almost universally fall victim are so interesting, and I felt that understanding how people interpret information would both help me realize when I'm engaging in those behaviors myself and also make me a more effective programmer. I mentioned anchoring and confirmation bias, but what's almost certainly happening with him now is the backfire effect, which is related to, but distinct from, confirmation bias. According to him, his initial view on cannabis was something of a blank slate until his wife, both a trusted source and an expert in his mind, gave him the idea that cannabis and crime are associated, so he probably started looking for information that confirmed that assertion since it was his "anchor." Despite being presented with momentous amounts of scientific evidence contradicting his claims, he felt even more confident in his assertions instead of less, an example of the backfire effect. His argument that there weren't enough psychiatrists who signed the letter to validate any of its claims is a great example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I suspect even if all the signatories were psychiatrists (who are typically clinicians, not researchers, which also means selection bias comes into play since patients of psychiatrists are usually people with pre-existing mental health issues), he would find some reason why all those psychiatrist signatories aren't actually experts.

One thing you pondered was whether he's "in too deep" to admit he was wrong. You essentially described irrational escalation, also known as the "sunk cost fallacy" where, despite an outpouring of criticism of his claims, he's put so much time and money into pushing those claims that he continues doing it because he's gone "all in" on promoting prohibition. He continues to promote the idea that cannabis causes violence, despite science and experts disagreeing with him. I can't say what's in his heart, but I suspect he truly believes what he's pushing and that he simply doesn't realize all the cognitive biases he's experiencing. He thinks the overwhelming majority of "real experts" agree with him, but, according to his words and actions, they're only "real experts" if they agree with him.

With regards to that graph, the author mentions the data source, and since it's from the US Government, the data should be publicly accessible in one way or another. I have some experience with graph design, and I'll definitely look into acquiring that data and creating a public domain version showing that surprisingly high degree of correlation between the two entirely unrelated phenomena. I'm surprised the Correlation does not imply causation article doesn't have a graphic demonstrating the phenomenon, since such a graph would make it very easy for individuals who are just skimming or who are better at understanding concepts through visualizations instead of reading giant blocks of complex, jargony text like the ones present in the article to grasp the gist of what the article is trying to say. I'll see what I can do. Matt18224 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Avatar317, thanks for fixing the Alex Berenson article after it had been maliciously altered. I got my email digest showing the anonymous removal of information and immediately went to revert it, only to pleasantly discover that you had already done so. I geolocated the IP address, and it's suspiciously in the exact same area of New York where Alex Berenson lives. The editor also added information about Berenson's pet, with quite specific, unsourced details and poor following of the Manual of Style. While I have no definitive proof, the anonymous editor's seemingly visceral reaction to the content in the article debunking Berenson's claims, as well as Berenson himself being publicly annoyed by any criticism of his works, leads me to suspect that Berenson himself altered the article. He removed every bit of properly-sourced, reliable information in the article that was critical of his book, while leaving information simply stating what the book is and what he claims in it.

It may be necessary to keep a close eye on this situation, including potentially requesting an IP ban from an admin, if he continues to remove unfavorable, factual information, since this would be a blatant violation of WP:AUTO. I know you've put a lot of work into improving the article (as well as the topic overall), and I wanted you to know I'll staunchly back you up if it ultimately comes to a conflict. I strongly suspect other editors will also support the inclusion of that information in the article, since its inclusion objectively improves the quality and breadth of the article and is not "slanderous" or "partisan" as the anonymous editor claimed. Matt18224 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Matt18224: Thank you for also keeping an eye on this; I do think it may be an article which might see other edits like that one. I looked at Wikipedia's policies on page protection, (WP:Protection_policy) and it says that a page cannot be prophylactically protected; but after repeated vandalism, protection can be asked for:

Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. This level of protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sock puppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing.

So WP:Pending_changes might be the best thing to ask for if this starts recurring, since these two articles don't seem to have had that many edits.

I also did the IP-geolocate to see the same info as you, though I didn't know what area of NY he lives in, but I do also suspect him of being that editor, as you said, based on the edit summaries and other info added. I agree with you about the ridiculousness of (and similarity to his current statements) the claim of "...purely slanderous and partisan non-facts." All the sources used to reference those statements are listed as "Reliable sources" here: WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, and I specifically include quotes so that editors and readers can have reasonable confidence that the article is appropriately paraphrasing the reference.

Lastly, thank you for the good psychological overview in our last discussion of some of what you suspect is going on here, and thanks again for also keeping an eye on these articles!!

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- Frood (talk!) 22:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

qedk (t 桜 c) 07:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel_Fort_Lauderdale&oldid=prev&diff=964690561 and others, no, it's not advertising, but I’ll leave it as it’s not vital to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: From my experience, every medium to large church also has an attached school, and other programs like daycare, marriage counselling, feed-the-homeless, community relations, etc. ....that don't belong in a Wikipedia article (aren't IMPORTANT enough to be mentioned) unless those programs have been mentioned by Independent Sources like newspapers. If someone wants to know about a church's programs, they can visit that church's website. If the church has a program that others than the organization itsself thinks are important, Independent Sources will cover that program/school/mission.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not even read what you removed. You only left the school. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: So you have the arrogance to CLAIM you KNOW what others did and did not do? I read everything I remove carefully. The school has its own wikipedia article, all the things I removed were sourced by websites created/owned/run by the church, and had no linked wikipedia articles. (I have not checked to see whether the school's article is notable enough to exist or should be put up for AfD...maybe I should check that now.)---Avatar317^(talk) 22:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I make no such claims. I simply responded to your statement that "every medium to large church also has an attached school", yet that's what you removed. I saw that you removed the self-sourced content but did not remove the only thing without a source. I don't care what you do and don't read, I care about sources. Don't ping me again. I have no interest in discussing this further with you. WP:SPS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm curious about why you say that the film itself and its website aren't reliable sources for supporting statements about what the film and its authors claim – surely they're as reliable as is possible? They are obviously not independent, but I feel it's still relevant to cite them per WP:V.

— Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

[Copied this to the talk page for the article, because that is a better venue for this discussion which will allow other editors to give input] Re-publishing on Wikipedia the claims of the film itself and the film's website amounts to re-publishing their propaganda (in my opinion). I feel that it is the same as publishing an organization's mission statement or motto, and I would support this essay WP:MISSION being a policy. In my opinion, an organization/movie/person should not be allowed to frame the discussion about itself/themselves. ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Can I ask why you reverted my edit on.^[1] I removed the word 'false' as the citations listed are not recognized medical sources. In fact the people writing those articles are not even doctors, but journalists. Thus they form no more than a journalistic opinion. Markbanin (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

First source at the end of the sentence where you removed the word "false" is this article in the magazine Science (journal) (Science, also widely referred to as Science Magazine,[2] is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science[3][4] (AAAS) and one of the world's top academic journals.) author: Martin Enserink Martin Enserink is Science’s International news editor. Based in Amsterdam, he coordinates and edits news from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He also writes stories, primarily about infectious diseases, global health, and research policy. Martin received a master’s degree in biology from the University of Groningen and worked for various publications in the Netherlands before joining Science in 1999. He was a reporter at the magazine’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., for 5 years and became the Paris correspondent in 2004. Between 2011 and 2018, he was Science’s European news editor. Fascinated by emerging diseases, he covered outbreaks on four continents, including the 2001 anthrax letters in the United States, the global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. He also wrote about basic research, epidemiology, ecology, and drug and vaccine development for diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and influenza. In addition, he has written extensively about research funding, scientific publishing, research ethics, and scientific misconduct. Martin won the Communications Award of the American Society for Microbiology in 2004, 2008, and 2012, each time with a different Science colleague, for stories on SARS, malaria, and a suspected link between a virus and chronic fatigue syndrome. His story on golden rice was included in Best American Science Writing 2009. He was a mentor to four African science journalists in a program run by the World Federation of Science Journalists and wrote an online course, Covering Ebola, with Helen Branswell. In November 2019, Martin's story about the eradication of yaws, a disfiguring bacterial disease, won the Communications Award from the American Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene. - Seems like a VERY Reliable Source WP:RS written by a very qualified journalist to me, and that's just the first of FIVE sources for that statement. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Marcus Lamb, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: You should pay more attention to who ADDED a source before accusing me of adding copyrighted material. I merely reverted an edit which removed the material because it was claimed to use bad language, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. That material had been in the article for some time, and was NOT added by me.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317, you added it in this edit Elizium23 (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: NO, I RESTORED deleted content (reason for deletion being offensive language) without carefully checking whether the sources for the material were acceptable. Like I said above, this content had been in the article for some time, and was not originally added by me.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317, added or restored, the onus is the same for you to verify you are not violating copyright. Elizium23 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw there’s been a lot of back and forth on the Calif. Prop 15 article especially in the lead section. In an effort to avoid stepping on any toes, I'd like to get your input on some minor adjustments. Your most recent change was an improvement to illustrate the "split roll" piece so I agree with you there and I think there could be some additional fine tuning to A) avoid the repetitive language, and B) more clearly define that the underlying change comes from a reassessment of property values:

Current version:

The 2020 California Proposition 15 provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" property tax system that increases taxes on large commercial properties by taxing them at market value, without changing property taxes for residential properties.

Suggested changes:

The 2020 California Proposition 15 provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increases tax revenue from large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties.

Alternatively, we could use "by assessing them at market value instead of their original purchase price" which even more clearly illustrates the change. But the above version also keeps it simple and to the point. Do you have any objections to this modification? Thank you! PureFuLT (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@PureFuLT: How about this:

Your version with a minor change:

The 2020 California Proposition 15 provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increases tax revenue from es on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties.

My main issue is this: the sources and the ballot wording all say that commercial property taxes will INCREASE: ("A YES vote on this measure means: Property taxes ... would go up"), and in my opinion to obscure this fact as "increases tax revenue" is misleading (it is possible to raise tax revenue withOUT raising the total "fees" paid: by re-allocation of who gets what...for example look at "fees/taxes" on water and electric bills). The simplest, clearest, and most honest way to state this is that taxes will go up (increase).

I'm ok with more details, I just want the "taxes will increase" in the first sentence, as that is necessary to balance the earlier phrase: "provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding"

One could argue that by listing the funding first and tax increase second, is biased for the initiative, and that to mention a tax increase first and revenue second would be biased against the initiative, but it needs to be done one way, and I'm fine with the spending phrase first and tax increase second.

Thanks for discussing this, and thank your your other edits on this article! ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Avatar317: This seems fair to me. It's a bit tricky to make sure it all remains easy to understand, concise, and as neutral as possible, so I appreciate your help with this. Will go ahead and make that change, thanks! PureFuLT (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The reverted edit you did was very wrong. Yes it's unsourced, but I'm just letting you know: You have removed information that is obvious to many demographics. Yes I understand it's in all of our natural instincts to remove unsourced info, but in the future when this keeps popping up, you know why.Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not about finding sources that say what I want them to say, it's finding an accurate way to summarise the plethora of sources that are out there on the subject without ignoring them. The bottom line is that there are lots of good sources out there showing one way or another that the gap has either stalled or is/could be outright declining in recent years, from here^[1] to here^[2] to here ^[3] to here^[4] to here^[5] to here^[6] if you don't want to use the Forbes articles, which I totally understand. But the bottom line is that the sources don't reflect a consensus that COVID-19 is the sole cause of the widening or stagnating gap, and the ones that do link it to COVID don't just link it to daycare centers and schools being closed in particular, hence the wording needs to be more encompassing. I prefer my wording but if you really want to include COVID then perhaps we could combine the two and say something like "Since 2018 however, there are signs that it could be widening again, with the COVID-19 pandemic largely attributed to the reversal." Or something. What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: 1) It's not "what sources I want to use", Reliable Sources are determined by consensus: See: WP:FORBESCON and you can see the listing for Forbes contributors. 2) Any statement added to Wikipedia must be supported by the sources YOU INCLUDE as sources, not some grouping of other sources you've read. 3) The first three sources you list are acceptable (CNBC, NPR, and CNET), but the others are not news organizations reporting on an issue, and wouldn't be considered Reliable Sources: beckershospitalreview.com talks ONLY about physician salaries, this is NOT generalizable to everyone; the kent source is a comment article, and the diversityq is an advocacy organization.

I'll add one sentence to the article using the CNBC and CNET sources, and leave the COVID statement intact, now also supported by the CNBC source. We can't OVER-generalize from sources which only talk about small segments of the labor market to everyone. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just had a look at your added sentence and while I appreciate that you've incorporated some of the sources I previously introduced, your wording of 'since 2018, the gender pay gap has not decreased' is not NPOV and not reflective of the source describing it. The source uses the language "no progress has been made" in its title and then is critical of the stagnation multiple times throughout its body, so I'm gonna rephrase it to reflect that.

The source also discusses other reasons for why gender wage gap growth has fallen off through the pandemic, for reasons other than the one explicitly and specifically focused on within the page text, including that women have been disproportionately impacted by furloughs and because they hold jobs in fields disproportionately shrunk by the nature of the pandemic. Yes we shouldnt over generalise at times or from some of the sources I provided before that focused on particular fields but from the ones linked now, they discuss multiple angles for the gap stagnation/rise and that should be reflected rather one of the reasons in one of the sources focused on in an extremely specific way. Davefelmer (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Your reasons for this change should be discussed on the Talk page FOR THIS ARTICLE, not on my Talk page; while your reasons are valid, your edit should be one which ADDS to the explanation as to why this is happening, rather than giving the reader LESS information and no idea of why the gap might be increasing. Also "stagnated" does not accurately describe what happens as well as "not decreased". ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise you had already transferred our initial conversation onto the article talkpage! But I've seen it now, migrated the rest of our conversation over and replied there! Cheers, Davefelmer (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Birth control darts are a thing. --Countryboy603 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Countryboy603: Sure, for deer. How is it that you did not notice that the Birth control article is about contraceptives for HUMANS, not veterinary medicine? ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding that Forbes contributors on expert sources are allowed in narrowed contexts. However please do not use capital letters in the edit summary, in a way that can be considered shouting and incivil. I don't take offence, however you may encounter editors that do, so remember the civility policy the next time an edit upsets. GeraldWL 03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: It is not meant as shouting, it is meant to emphasize certain points in a text field that does not allow bolding. SHOUTING WOULD BE AN ENTIRE SENTENCE OF ALL CAPS!!!! :-) ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your stance on think tank sources from your edits in Minimum wage in the United States. You link to WP:RS, but reading over that it seems to say the exact opposite of your stance. It has no stance on think-tanks in general, but it does have a stance on "biased or opinionated sources" (which would seem to include think-tanks), and states that "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". Seeing that, I have no idea what your justification is for deleting all think tank sources. The only doctrinal page I could find even mentioning think tanks was Wikipedia:Articles with a single source which merely prohibits taking the sources from a think-tank as a way of effectively copying a think-tank.

Considering the article quotes several individual people directly (who are also by no means reliable sources) to present the range of opinion on the topic, singling out think tanks seems like an unjustifiable position.

I'll drop this if it's a doctrinal thing for Wikipedia for some reason, but otherwise I will attempt to/call for reverting all of your deletions following this line, or ask that you revert those deletions yourself. Considering I don't have a Wikipedia account (and am not planning on getting one), I'm not signing this, idk if that's rude, but I'm not trying to be. I'll check back to this page within a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.10.3 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please spend more time familiarizing yourself with Reliable Sources. It is one thing when a think-tank is ATTRIBUTED and used as a source for an OPINION, it is quite another when it is being used to support "facts." Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in balance with others as presented by Independent Sources WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, thought that simply making it clear it was from a biased source could possibly enough, but I forgot the doctrinal distinction between opinion and fact on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.10.3 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Avatar317; regarding your ES here; yes, videos are regarded as "texts" in academic contexts (see Content_analysis#Kinds_of_text). I was trying to avoid using the term "video" to refer to both pieces together since we've defined one as a "video" and the other as a "film". I understand your point though; maybe "productions" would be a better way to collectively refer to them. I'm not too fussed though. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I just think that most readers (laypeople) might be confused by an academic term, and tried to choose the word (that I think) is most easily understandable to most people given the context. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Of course articles should be as clear as possible, so that's fine and I've no problems leaving it alone. This c/e is quite complex so I'll be active there for a couple more days; feel free to chime in. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Good catch on Minimum Wage in the United States. However, I am still skeptical as to whether it is necessary to include the information in the lead because very few polls show support for a $15.00 minimum wage being that low. I am not familiar with this area of Wikipedia all that much, but I intuitively think it would be best to include more polls in the lead. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: I think that if we had multiple polls in the article then we could summarize them with a single statement in the lead; this article only has these two recent ones in the lead, and some older ones in the "Polls" section, complicated by the fact that from all the polls I've seen, there is greater support for increasing the min wage slightly (to $10 for example - supported also by many economists) and reduced support for larger raises ($15 - not generally supported by economists), and the level of support also varies rather significantly between different political leanings and demographic groups. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

This is regarding the changes that I made in the article Lancet MMR autism fraud calling the published paper fraudulent, that was reverted by you. The paper was fraudulent as stated in the MMR vaccine article. The word fraudulent is defined as "obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception." As stated in the article , the lancet editor-in-chief said that the journal had been deceived into publishing the paper and wakefield's conflict of interest and manipulation was undisclosed/unknown.

So the paper was fraudulently published. I did not revert back to my edit because I didn't want to engage in an edit war, and cause any inconvenience. So I thought It would be appropriate to talk to you directly.

So please considered restoring my version.

Thank you.2409:4042:2E13:BF34:788A:1077:B6FB:D77F (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I restored your version; thanks for discussing this and pointing that out.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Please take care when describing your actions in edit summaries or within a discussion on Wikipedia that you do not suggest a limit to an editor's editing privileges. In the Troy Newman article, you incorrectly reverted my edit, then told me "You could do minor grammar edits separately, those are acceptable." Wikipedia determines what edits "are acceptable." You do not. As a professional editor for more than 35 years with hundreds of published works, and as a Wikipedia editor for more than 11 years, I am quite familiar with what constitutes an "acceptable" edit. I don't like to mention my professional experience, but since you have sought to restrict the "acceptable" areas in which I may edit, I feel it is important for you to understand that this isn't my first rodeo. To answer a question you asked of me, yes, I did read the article. I am happy to return the language of Newman's removal from Australia and agree with you that it is an appropriate part of the intro. I choose to believe that you mean well in your actions. However, your language is unkind, unprofessional, provocative and does not abide by Wikipedia's principle to "always assume good faith" (WP:FAITH). Your language also inhibits the collaborative spirit which should be observed in Wikipedia. I am eager to work together with you to bring this bloated article up to the highest possible standard, but I must insist on professionalism, good faith and a collaborative atmosphere in keeping with the standards established by Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

1) Per WP:BRD, when your first change to a stable article was reverted, YOU should have initiated a Talk page discussion, which you did not. You redid your identical edit (a removal); you later admitted (above as well) that the part I mentioned in my second reversion about the Australia visit IS in fact sourced in the article. Meaning that about half of your first removal and RE-removal was not appropriate.

2) I apologize for quickly choosing the word "acceptable" rather than "non-controversial". My use of that word was in response to you stating that my reversion of your initial edit also reverted a one word British-->American English change, so I was recommending that if you did grammar changes (minor edits that no one would contest) SEPARATELY from content edits, than only the content edit would be reverted. (You should know by now that no one is the King/Queen of Wikipedia, so I can't tell you (or anyone) where you can/cannot edit, only the community has that power.)

The important part is that the article is now slightly improved thanks to (in my opinion) both your and my changes. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Gavin Newsom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hello. I am writing because you have reverted a number of changes that I have made to the current Governor of California articles. You are re-adding a non-sequitor point to the article which has been moved to a more relevant section of the article. Thank you for your help and now your point has been added to the relevant section. Take care Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

- Hello, I am writing to you again to request that you please ensure that you add the requested sentence your are attempting to add to the relevant section of the article. Please be respectful.

- I am writing you again because you went into my profile and tagged me with this same tag, and had wikipedia send me a warning, after I tagged your profile here. However, as you can see you were wrong in what you were doing. The very fact that you have not gone back and re-added that ridiculous sentence is an admission of this. We don't want your kind of dishonesty here on Wikipedia. You don't have good intentions. Go blog or something. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please remember to remain WP:CIVIL on discussion pages such as Talk:15-minute city. All-caps WP:SHOUTING is unlikely to help you make your case when other users have disagreed with your proposed changes. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I use those to emphasize certain words, shouting would be using all caps. I guess I could use bolding instead. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This may be of interest. Polygnotus (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you prefer, you could combine all those sources in 1 footnote, so that the article just shows a single ^[a] with the templates {{efn}} and {{notelist}} Polygnotus (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Avatar317, Revision history on the article "Bolsa Familia" shows you deleted my edit of 16th May 2024 as coming from an unreliable source. I'm not sure whether you do indeed understand the topics you censor or just apply a set of rules, but my edit is very much true and reliable. Please find below the link to a Youtube video where President Lula da Silva makes the statements I faithfully quoted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTMckO9i53A I trust you will undo your deletion after watching the original video (from the year 2000), and allow my paragraph to be featured at the page, offering readers very relevant context on the issue. Thanks 2A02:8308:317:BE00:F92E:3A5A:96A8:C3CE (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, when you added the paragraph I removed: [], you didn't list ANY source. But Lula's speech is what on Wikipedia is considered a WP:PRIMARY source. We generally want editors (us) to use WP:SECONDARY sources so that we editors don't pick and choose which parts of the primary source to represent or talk about or interpret. Interpretation or choosing which lines to quote from a primary source is what we are supposed to let reporters (who have journalistic training) do. They are trained to tell the WHOLE story, from a balanced point of view. Cheers! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linear no-threshold model. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

What the HELL are you talking about? ONE reversion against ONE editor is not edit-warring. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Responding to your query on my talk: 3RR is not an entitlement. You were warned for restoring a contested edit in violation of WP:ONUS rather than joining the ongoing discussion on the talk page, which already involves more than one editor. Angelfire should be obviously recognizable as failing WP:RS in any context to any experienced editor. Also review WP:CIVIL, please and thank you. VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

How about you be civil and not LIE about edits. What sort of BULLSHIT is this comment? "You were warned for restoring a contested edit in violation of WP:ONUS". Where did you make any comment about my edit being against consensus or non-consensus on the Talk page; that discussion seemed to have no real conclusion, and you never even mentioned it when reverting me, nor did the editor I reverted make any edit summary about the Talk page subjects. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"no real conclusion" means there isn't consensus to restore the contested content per WP:ONUS. And the responsibility to check the talk page is yours (though a more thorough check on your part may reveal that I did in fact mention the talk page): you, and no one else, is responsible for your behavior. Please review WP:AGF since you seem to have some issues with that along with civility. Kind regards. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

And you CLEARLY have problems with incivility and inability to admit when you are wrong. Instead of making such a rude and obnoxious comment in your edit summary: "use talk page, and no one should need to explain to you why angelfire is not a RS!" - where you must be referring to how you stupidly removed THE ARCHIVE LINK but NOT the source itsself, and you ignored the THREE OTHER SOURCES I was referring to, and then continue to be even more uncivil by this ridiculous post about edit warring here on my talk page.

You COULD HAVE used an edit summary like: "Those sources were discussed on the Talk page and decided to be poor sources; if you feel differently, please discuss on the Talk page."

And if YOU were civil, you would apologize for starting this conversation in the first place with an inappropriate Edit War warning. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have any concerns about my alleged incivility I'd be happy to discuss those concerns at ANI. Beware the boomerang, however. Enjoy your weekend! VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving that you are an insecure narcissist who lacks the ability to admit when you are wrong. Now could you please stop TROLLING my Talk page, or must you as an insecure narcissist get the last word? ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

And please add WP:NPA to your burgeoning reading list. Maybe take a walk, touch some grass. Hope you feel better soon. VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: It seems I got caught in a crossfire between you and VQuakr. I see that you are both big contributors to WP, so I don't doubt anyone's good faith in this debate over LNT, but I am frustrated that VQuakr seems to be nitpicking over the rules, rather than the substance of the debate. I understand that WP is not a forum for ongoing discussion, so I linked to a more appropriate forum for that purpose. He deleted my link, calling it spam. That seems like censorship, not just avoiding topic debate on the article's talk page. I see from your other contributions that you do have some expertise relevant to this topic, and I will welcome your participation in the discussion. Please contact me, if you are interested. macquigg at gmail. David MacQuigg 09:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I think you have the right side of this debate. The UCS anti-nuclear view should be left out until there is "consensus". But I worry about VQuakr's lawyering skills, arguing that his version has "long standing" status. However, if you look at the articles edit history, the "long standing" version should be the one where I had a good balance between the two sides. That version stood for four months, before a massive deletion by WritKeeper. At that point I gave up. Does my failure to challenge the bias at that time, constitute acceptance of a new "long standing" status? David MacQuigg 04:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Thank you for enduring this long acrimonious debate and getting a fair resolution. The ThorCon article is still nowhere close to what it should be, but I'm not willing to spend time fighting for every inch of improvement. Other experts have the same feelings about WP, a "bottomless rabbit hole" one called it. However, we are willing to help, if you need technical backup. Are you getting these messages? David MacQuigg 16:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am. If you can find any of what Wikipedia calls Reliable Sources WP:RS about ThorCon and post them to the Talk page there, I and others can add content from those sources. I found this chapter from a 2024 book, but the two authors appear to both employed by ThorCon. Often simply FINDING sources can be the hardest problem. I don't have access to the many academic libraries/publishers which are paywalled; if you have this type of access, those types of sources are generally very good, as long as they talk about Thorcon, and not just MSR's in general. Thanks!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have free access to that book, as I am now retired from the University of Arizona, but if it is important, I can pay the $31.50 they are asking for the chapter on ThorCon. As for sources that satisfy WP:RS that is going to be difficult, since the only people who really know the details of this reactor are the engineers who designed it. My experience in trying to dig up sources for WP is that nothing will be good enough. On the ThorCon design, I tried to cite their filing with the IAEA. See the discussion on the talk page for how ridiculous the opposition gets.

Citing sources is a lot easier at Citizendium. I showed that UCS complaint to ThorCon and got an immediate response. The complaint and response go together on our Debate Guide page, and I'm done, until someone on the anti-nuke side wants to challenge it, then we may have to dig into the IAEA filings to verify what the ThorCon engineer said. That kind of challenge rarely happens. What I get is flimsy rationales, defending the UCS report: Their statement that all MSRs require on-site chemical fuel processing (introducing a risk of diversion) is true because collecting the gases that bubble off the reactor is "chemical processing". This is the kind of BS we save our readers from having to endure.

If you want to improve the WP article, take a look at what we have on CZ. Surely some of it could go on WP without challenge. Or you could join us at CZ and write articles without having to spend half your time fighting with people who abuse the rules to suppress information they don't like. David MacQuigg 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317 You said on my talk page that you were "interested in pretty much everything in the nuclear subject area". Are you interested enough to help us develop these articles in Citizendium? Many of them could be ported to WP, if there is someone like yourself willing to defend them. David MacQuigg 00:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia's policies would not allow Citizendium articles to be "ported" to Wikipedia, and I don't have the power to individually make policy. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not have said "ported". Is there any information in Citizendium's ThorCon article that might be useful in Wikipedia? Do you agree with me that CZ's articles are far better than WP for anyone interested in understanding the new technology? This was originally a WP article, then "ported" to CZ, where it was more fully developed, then "ported back" to WP, where it was "longstanding" for a few months, then someone did a massive deletion, claiming it was all "promotional". If you are interested in improving WP coverage of nuclear power, there are a lot of things that could be done. You might, for example, restore the earlier version of the WP article, then demand that the anti-nukers justify each deletion. This is going to be a lot of work, but if you are willing to battle the rule-bots and anti-nukers, I will do what I can to get better sources from experts on our panel at CZ. David MacQuigg David MacQuigg 14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey. No problem, I was just trying to match the antonym's article, which mentioned its antithesis in both the lede and the See Also section, lol. Doesn't bother me much though if they're different.

Although if "YIMBY" were removed from "NIMBY"'s see also, it would make the columns even, and then my OCD would be soooo happy. But I'm sure that would get reverted too, so why even bother right? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your worry about POV issues involving new citations and source verification fixes in MMT. If for some reason you don't feel like discussing it on talk, I am confused about your position. I was trying very hard to be neutral and don't have a dog in that economic school. Poorly written and confusing articles just bother me 98.118.249.192 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Polygnotus (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Avatar317,

I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing to address your reversions of my recent attempted edits to the Dilation and evacuation article. I thought it would be worth a shot to attempt to resolve these concerns and this dispute mutually and without unnecessary, prolonged drama. My intention here is to foster a constructive dialogue, address any misunderstandings, and explore how we can collaboratively improve the article.

In your reversion of my edits, you stated that my changes constituted "POV pushing" and cited my editing history as evidence of bias. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my edits, and I’d like to explain why.

1. The changes I proposed were grounded in reputable sources, including medical textbooks and training manuals that describe the procedure in detail. Specifically, the use of terms like "dismemberment" and "decapitation" are used to describe the abortion procedure in Dr. Warren Hern's "Abortion Practice" textbook, a reputable and widely cited manual on abortion procedures that is still used in training today. They are not intended to push a narrative. Instead, they reflect the terminology and descriptions used in reliable sources, such as Dr. Warren Hern's textbook, which is widely cited in the medical field. You can also read "Dilation and Evacuation" from Medicover Hospitals to read more about how the procedure is performed. The terms "dismemberment" or "decapitation" are not terms of "pushing a certain point of view," they are medically accurate and factual terms that describe the procedure.
2. My intention in editing the Dilation and evacuation article is to add clarity and detail to the Surgical procedure section, which is currently, in my opinion, vague and undetailed. For instance, the phrase "uterine contents are removed" lacks specificity and does not fully inform readers about the nature of the procedure. Including the medical steps and rationale, such as the use of forceps to extract fetal body parts and the importance of ultrasonography, provides a more accurate representation of the procedure as described in medical literature.
3. I am very familiar with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and I always strive to uphold it. Looking at many of your edits on abortion-related topics as well, and some of your conversations above in this talk page on similar matters, many of your edits and reversions appear to have been motivated from a point of view that is in favor of abortion access. However, I am going to assume good faith, and I would appreciate if you would do the same for me as well. It is my editorial view that the article should specify that the abortion procedure is "generally safe to the mother" instead of calling it safe altogether. By broadly calling the procedure safe, you are blatantly endorsing a pro-abortion-rights perspective, because no anti-abortion person (nor many pro-abortion-rights scholars) would consider the procedure to be safe for the embryo or fetus. You implied that I tried hiding that edit in the edits I attempted to make, when that's not true. I believe that the article is written in a way that completely ignores what happens to the fetus during the procedure, and that generalizes the procedure as safe in a way that, in WikiVoice, completely erases the fetus from consideration.
4. I recognize that discussions around abortion articles can be highly charged, and I appreciate the need to guard against bias on all sides. However, your edit summary referenced my editing history and implied that I am "not here to improve Wikipedia." I’d like to address this directly. I have a wide variety of contributions on Wikipedia, and any honest look at my editing history would reveal that I spend time working on a variety of different articles and topics, including abortion. I am a biology student who has a very deep interest in embryology, and my goal is to help improve and expand articles on Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if concerns about individual edits were addressed on their own merits rather than attributing a generalized intent to my contributions.

To move forward, here are some ideas on how we can resolve this issue and improve the article:

• I’m happy to provide the specific pages and context for the sources I used, including Warren Hern’s textbook, if you'd like wider ranges of context.
• I'm open to working with you to see how we can keep the article in a way that does not take a perspective on the abortion debate, but simply portrays the facts.

While I disagree with many of your edits and your decisions, I do respect the time and effort you’ve put into contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope we can work together to improve this article for the benefit of all readers. Please let me know your thoughts or if there’s a preferred way to proceed. I hope we can have a civil dialogue regarding this.

Kindly,

DocZach DocZach (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your failure to WANT to understand (WP:IDHT) that your edits like: "generally safe to the mother" are not POV pushing is YOUR problem. ZERO readers assume that during an abortion a fetus will be removed from the woman and implanted into another woman or artificial uterus to be then gestated to term.

EVERYONE understands that the fetus will die, just like bacterial cells die when we use antibiotics, but we don't list antibiotics as "safe for humans, but not bacteria." ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're being disingenuous here. A fetus is an individual human organism, a bacteria is not. When we are referring to safety in terms of medications or procedures, we are usually referring to the safety of humans. A fetus is not safe during a dilation and evacuation abortion, because they are dismembered and subsequently deceased. You wouldn't call a boxing match "safe" for both participants if one is knocked unconscious, even if the match is conducted under strict rules and the referees ensure the other fighter isn’t harmed. Similarly, calling a dilation and evacuation abortion "safe" doesn’t apply to the fetus, as its death is an inherent and inevitable part of the procedure. The term "safe" in this context only refers to the pregnant woman, not to the fetus. By calling the procedure "safe," you are inherently taking on a pro-abortion point of view, because you are implying that the fetus is not a human being and does not possess any consideration in the discussion.

Secondly, my most recent edit that you reverted did not even include the statement "generally safe to the mother." My most recent edit added to the article information about the frequency of the procedure, and the details of the surgical portion of the procedure. You still have not addressed how describing the procedure (the use of dismemberment or decapitation) is "POV pushing." DocZach (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the IP editors on the trade articles are sockpuppets of James 4, Branog and/or Rabbiod. Thenightaway (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Thenightaway: Thanks for the heads up on that; I'll keep an eye out to compare the editing style and post a SPI when I spot this. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Avatar317, thank you for your recent feedback on the pages “Cap and Share”, “World taxation system”, and “Wealth tax”. I understand your concerns and appreciate the time you took to share your critical feedback and apply Wikipedia’s content guidelines.

I would like to respond to your concerns and clarify the rationale behind the edits.

1. Cap and Share:

- Original Research: Could you kindly specify which parts you consider to be original research? The section on public support for climate policies (now removed) was based entirely on peer-reviewed academic literature. Given that all sources were published in reputable journals, it does not appear to fall under Wikipedia’s definition of “original research.”

- Synthesis (WP:SYNTH): : I understand your concern about the connection between the sources and the topic. However, the beginning of the article explains that “Cap and Share” and the “Global Climate Plan” refer to the same policy framework, differing primarily in naming conventions. For instance, Feasta uses “Cap and Share,” while economist Adrien Fabre uses “Global Climate Plan” or “Global Climate Scheme.” In the section on “public support”, the cited study by Fabre, Douenne, and Mattauch (2025) published in Nature Human Behaviour clearly defines this framework in terms identical to those used in the Cap and Share model: “A cap on carbon emissions to limit global warming below 2 °C is implemented. Emissions rights compatible with the carbon budget are auctioned each year to polluting firms and fund a global basic income, alleviating extreme poverty. These emission rights would be allocated equally among human adults, yielding redistribution from richer to poorer countries” (source: Fabre, A., Douenne, T. & Mattauch, L. Majority support for global redistributive and climate policies. Nat Hum Behav (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02175-9). Additionally, in Adrien Fabre’s book “The Global Climate Plan: A Global Plan to End Climate Change and Extreme Poverty” (https://ssrn.com/abstract=4850808), it is mentioned explicitly that “Cap and Share” and “Global Climate Plan” refer to equivalent systems.

In your opinion, how could we clarify the link between “Cap and Share” and the “Global Climate Plan”?

2. World Taxation System

You mentioned that Cap and Share is not distinct from an international carbon tax. While both are market-based instruments, they differ in fundamental design: a carbon tax consists of setting a price and letting the market determine the corresponding emission levels, while a Cap and Share fixes the emissions cap and then allows the market to set the price.

That said, if you consider that the two paragraphs were too redundant, we could indeed add a reference to Cap and Share with a short summary, as you suggested.

3. "Wealth Tax" > "Global Wealth Tax"

- Source independence: I agree with your feedback that some of the sources are not fully independent such as Oxfam and Global Redistribution Advocates. However, these sources were contextualised in a paragraph on “civil society organisations and economists supporting a global wealth tax.” I would welcome suggestions on how best to include these public endorsements while respecting WP:RS and WP:IS.

- Regarding public support: robust empirical evidence of majority public support for a global wealth tax was demonstrated through a survey on 40,680 respondents in 20 countries (Fabre, A., Douenne, T. & Mattauch, L. Majority support for global redistributive and climate policies. Nat Hum Behav (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02175-9) - Wording: I agree that the phrase "highlighting a near-consensus" was too strong and have no objection to removing it.

I am fully open to improving the edits collaboratively and ensuring full alignment with Wikipedia’s content policies. Thank you again for your input and looking forward to your response. Vic Mbz (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Vic Mbz: Responding to your numbering. Hopefully this is clear.

1) I think we should have more support for the two (maybe three) systems being IDENTICAL than just Fabre's papers (other people saying this). If the two systems are in fact equivalent, this should be mentioned as an alternative name in the lead. If they are identical, it should be easy to find sources saying: X, also known as Y. Additionally, how is this different from the Global Climate Scheme, which is what the survey you linked asked about, and seems to be similar. (there's a Wikipedia redirect to the article, but that term ("scheme") is not mentioned in the article.)

2) A link to Cap and Share with a short description would be good for that article, under the carbon tax section, because it is not a financial transaction tax or wealth tax, but a pollution tax. We (unfortunately) don't have any other pollution (Pigovian) taxes proposed (that I know of), so I think it would be best put in that section.

3) Part of the problem with that addition is that your wording conflated multiple issues. Wealth taxes may have majority support in 20 countries, and separately climate and redistributive policies, but saying that the majority support wealth tax revenue to be directed toward climate policies is not supported in the source. That is the SYNTH(esis) part. I didn't see any question in that source that asked about wealth tax revenue to be redirected toward climate policies, only to helping poor countries. Please be very careful with wording when using surveys, as outcomes can be dramatically different based on the phrasing of the questions (and as psychologists know, what was previously asked or stated before the question).

Additionally, we shouldn't be using think-tanks as sources for their opinions AT ALL, we should be using journalistic or scholarly sources, because editors like you or I shouldn't be deciding to source Oxfam's opinion and leave out the opinion of the Cato institute, or vice versa. This is concerns the issue of WP:DUE.

Thanks for discussing! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Avatar317,

Thank you for your follow-up. Please find below my responses to your points:

1. Cap and Share

I understand the concern about possible confusion due to the different names used for what is essentially the same policy framework. While terms like “Cap and Share,” “Global Climate Scheme,” and “Global Climate Plan” are not always labelled identically, they are built on the same core principles. “Cap and Share,” originally developed by Feasta in 2005, can be seen as the umbrella concept. In recent years, economist Adrien Fabre and others have built on this framework through research and public opinion studies, using terms like “Global Climate Plan” or “Global Climate Scheme.” While the terminology differs, the underlying principles and mechanisms are always clearly spelled out in the sources cited in the article: a global emissions cap, permits sold to major emitters, and equal redistribution of revenues among all individuals.

One difference in Fabre's “Global Climate Plan” (GCP) is a mechanism that allocates slightly more emission allowances to middle-income countries (e.g., China), aiming to foster global participation.

As described in Fabre’s book, The Global Climate Plan: A Global Plan to End Climate Change and Extreme Poverty (https://ssrn.com/abstract=4850808), the GCP is a variant of Cap and Share which is supported by the Cap and Share Climate Alliance (CASCA), a coalition co-founded by Fabre.

If that could help avoid confusion, I’d suggest adding a short note at the beginning of the article to clarify the different terms used and highlight the common principles they all refer to.

2. World Taxation System

Agreed. A link to Cap and Share, along with a concise description, would be better placed under the carbon tax section.

3. Wealth Tax > Global Wealth Tax

a) SYNTH(esis): Thank you for this point. I agree we should revise the section to clarify the survey methodology and findings.

b) WP:DUE: I understand the importance of neutrality and avoiding editorial bias, so I’m fine with removing the reference to Oxfam. That said, would it be acceptable to mention that over 20 political parties have publicly endorsed this type of framework by signing a petition launched by Global Redistribution Advocates? This is a verifiable and factual statement, not an editorial opinion, and could be relevant to show the level of political support the proposal has received.

Thanks again for your constructive feedback and for helping improve the quality and neutrality of the article. Vic Mbz (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that I've looked more closely at the Cap and Share article, I have more concerns. It seems from the sources there and your explanations here that this/these related concepts are proposed by three individuals/groups (Feasta, Fabre, and then maybe someone else?) but don't seem to be covered/discussed by people outside of these three? If this is the case, a bigger issue is the Notability issue WP:N which is the essentially the question: "Are lots of academics in this field discussing this idea, (is it a mainstream idea) or is it just a pet idea of one group, one economist, and one other and these separate ideas share some commonality?" If these ideas (C&S, GCP, & GCS) are NOT mentioned in MAINSTREAM climate policy discussions, than this article is covering a WP:FRINGE topic and really should remain rather small. See: Fringe_theories#Peer-reviewed_sources_help_establish_the_level_of_acceptance - this guidance would help here, because it would be better to cover this by using sources from people OTHER than the creators of these policy proposals (that is called WP:PRIMARY source; WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred.

For the record, I'm not trying to argue that these ideas are not accepted or mainstream, I just don't know from the sources I've seen so far. (Personally, I think they are good ideas, but my opinions don't matter for Wikipedia policy.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Avatar317, thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern about notability of Cap and Share. However, I would like to clarify that the broader idea underlying this framework - a globally coordinated carbon pricing system with equitable redistribution - has been widely discussed and endorsed by a range of economists (from both mainstream and heterodox schools of thought) over several decades, well beyond Feasta or Adrien Fabre. This was the purpose of the “Support from economists” paragraph included in my initial edits, which I’d like to share again here for clarity:

“The idea of distributing global carbon quotas on an egalitarian basis is not new and has been widely endorsed by economists since the 1990s, coinciding with the publication of the first IPCC report. Michael Grubb (1990), professor at University College London, has been the first advocate for this solution, arguing that “by far the best combination of long-term effectiveness, feasibility, equity, and simplicity, is obtained from a system based upon tradable permits for carbon emission which are allocated on an adult per capita basis.” Since then, numerous prominent economists from various countries and schools of thought have supported similar proposals, including Bertram (1992), Baer et al. (2000), and Jamieson (2001). More recently, Blanchard and Tirole (2021) - former IMF Chief Economist and a Nobel laureate, respectively - and Rajan (2021) - former Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and former IMF Chief Economist - have reiterated support for global carbon pricing. In the book “Global Carbon Pricing: The Path to Climate Cooperation”, several experts, including Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Jean Tirole, and William Nordhaus, advocate for the implementation of a global CO₂ pricing mechanism. The International Monetary Fund (IMF, 2019) also supports global carbon pricing, recommending a global carbon price floor as a short-term measure. However, support for global carbon pricing extends beyond mainstream economists to include environmental and degrowth economists. For instance, Kallis et al. (2012) identified Cap and Share as the first of six policy measures in “The economics of degrowth”. Additionally, heterodox economists such as Ostrom and Costanza have expressed their support for a similar solution, proposing a variant whereby half of the revenues would fund a basic income and the other half would be directed toward low-carbon projects.”

(The Wikipedia version included references to all of the works mentioned above).

These examples show that while specific terms like “Cap and Share” may originate from a few sources, the underlying principle has been developed, discussed, and endorsed independently in a broad and diverse body of literature.

I fully agree that WP:N and the use of secondary, independent sources are essential. The proposed edits cite numerous such sources, mostly peer-reviewed publications.

Thanks again for raising these points - I hope we can move toward a constructive consensus and improve the article collaboratively. Vic Mbz (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Vic Mbz: Thanks for the explanation. Maybe what we need is to rename that article to a more "large tent" phrase like "Global carbon pricing" and list the separate proposals as separate headings as being slightly different proposals with a very similar framework.

Now that I look, we have an article: Carbon price which seems to discuss this; Looking at that article, I think maybe the best thing to do would be to add about one paragraph for each of the policy proposals (C&S, GCP, & GCS) into the Carbon_price#Implementation section: (this statement addresses this in a small manner: "Standard proposals for using carbon revenues include a return to the public on a per-capita basis".

And your info above (support from economists from 1990's onward) could go in a new subsection "Support by economists" under "Advantages and disadvantages", since your paragraph seems to be broadly supportive of carbon pricing.

For the record, the Cap and Share article is getting about 4 pageviews/day, while the Carbon price article gets ~ 75 / day, so it seems that not many people have heard of, or are searching for, info on C&S.

IF we had enough secondary sources to have stand-alone articles for each of C&S, GCP, & GCS, we could go that route also, but it doesn't seem like there are enough sources separately about each one to do that, so I think it would be best to incorporate these separate policy proposals into the Carbon price article, and we can point each full name "Cap and Share", GCS, GCP to redirect to each respective section of the Carbon price article.

How does that sound to you? ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Avatar317, thank you for your response and for your suggestions.

I agree that the Carbon price article covers a wide range of policy approaches and that incorporating Cap and Share, GCP, and GCS into the "Implementation" section would make sense. However, I believe that Cap and Share stands out as a distinct and coherent policy framework that merits its own article.

Unlike broader carbon pricing models, Cap and Share is defined by a combination of key features: a global emissions cap, permits sold to carbon-intensive companies, and an equal per-capita redistribution of revenues. These characteristics give it a unique identity that goes beyond just an implementation variant of carbon pricing.

While it may currently receive only a few views per day, the article already exists and can serve as a useful reference for researchers, students, and policymakers looking for alternatives to conventional carbon taxes or trading systems. In that sense, it plays a role in representing a particular strand of climate policy that might otherwise be lost or diluted in broader summaries.

So while I support adding reference to Cap and Share, GCP, and GCS in the Carbon price article, I’d like to suggest keeping the Cap and Share article for now, possibly with a note at the top pointing to the broader Carbon price article for additional context.

What do you think about this compromise?

Thank you! Vic Mbz (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Vic Mbz: That all sounds good. Thanks for discussing! ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kosovo 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 19:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good catch on finding an even better target for the redirect and merge at that article. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: Thanks! I was an editor in that article when the Greedflation article was created from that, so I saw how it was created, but I somehow missed the first time you put it up for deletion. One of my favorite quotes from that year is the one I added to the 2021–2023 inflation surge article in that section: Jason Furman, who served as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama said, "Blaming inflation on [corporate] greed is like blaming a plane crash on gravity. It is technically correct, but it entirely misses the point." ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The Greedflation page was closed as a merge to 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits. I think you are likely the best person for the job to merge it over and turn what is now Greedflation into just a redirect. Thanks Avatar317. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: I'll work on that later today. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Let me know if you need a hand. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"I'll work on that later today." :) Iljhgtn (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Just let me know if you need me to do it. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Main thing now is the redirect/page move of Greedflation over to 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits. Looks like you have done the rest of the prep/advance work. Thank you for doing that. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

One question is that sellers' inflation currently points to Greedflation, where should that link go? Or just be removed? I was planning on opening a discussion on the 2021–2023 inflation surge Talk page about that, or on the Redirects for Discussion noticeboard. Any suggestions? ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I finally finished the merge, now I just need to clean up the pages that use that link (one transcluded). ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that sellers' inflation should just redirect to the same end target 2021–2023 inflation surge. That is normally what happens to redirects that previously pointed to a page which has now been decidedly merged. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I just made that update. Thanks for the rest of your great work. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry it took so long; I wanted to go through that to make sure that we didn't lose anything which might have helped the target article, and it helps me to take breaks. (I guess I could have just re-directed and then gone through that stuff at a later date, since it still exists in the revision history.) Thanks for fixing the Sellers' inflation redirect. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Effects_of_pornography. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved it to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Effects_of_pornography. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on a "Religion and philosophy" 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 09:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment, and at Talk:Reform UK 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Floppy disk on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Elizabeth II 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 19:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment and edit. I will see what I can find. Ihave read this in his bios on other cites which I can cite to. Is this really important? Should Wiki be consistent on this?

I looked at the wiki articles of notable graduates of the University of Missouri. The following do not have sources for having graduated: Roger Straus, Lazlow Jones, Robin Duke, Ed Sanders, Robecca Johns, Marjorie Paxson, Stephen W. Thompson, James Potter, Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash. I did not look at them all. Do you want to take out these references? Orvis2003 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Orvis2003: Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT. All statements should be verifiable: WP:V. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to go into the notable University of Missouri articles and take out all of those that are not verified? I can send you many more. Or are you saving this for Austin Ruse alone. Do you think that people brag about attending the University of Missouri. Please advise. Orvis2003 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

If I was interested in editing those articles, than yes, I would remove all unverified, which I do whenever I find this type of content in articles I choose to edit.

Rather than caring about what *I* might do, you should work on making any article you edit conform to Wikipedia's policies, because while *I* may not go to those articles you mention and remove unsourced content, any other editor can go there and remove that content, and if you edit war with them by trying to keep unsourced content, you will lose (and can be WP:BLOCKED) because you would be editing against one of Wikipedia's core policies. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It is clear you are not an impartial editor on this page. I suspect this violates one of the core princies of Wiki editing. I am not warring. I am happy to bring an unbiased judge into this situation. BTW> I have added two sources but, given your clear bias, I doubt you will accept them. Orvis2003 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Avatar317, this is a courtesy notification that ເສລີພາບ (talk · contribs · count) has started a discussion on the biographies of living persons noticeboard at WP:BLPN § Libel against Brian Tyler Cohen in edit summaries about your recent edit. — Newslinger talk 16:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 16:54, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I am the editor of the block about the psychotomimetic effects of LSD and the possible reservicification of the problematic effects with modern antipsychotics.

It is allways a really good feeling and makes my whole day a lot better, If the wikicommunity is stating it and therefore have a lot of trust in my good faith.

Thank you, and I wish you a really good start into the week!🤗✌️ 2A02:3033:706:85F3:49A0:951F:E017:A19B (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rolie Polie Olie 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 05:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

After thoroughly reading the Simone Gold article, it was apparent to me, with cited references, that she and her organization had negative comments about the COVID-19 vaccines. But no where in the article is there any evidence that she is against vaccines in general; in fact, she says she is in favor of some vaccines. That's why I added the COVID-19 modifier, which you reverted in Simone Gold: Difference between revisions.

Unless there are valid sources, referenced in the article, that state she is an anti-vaxer (i.e.-against vaccines in general), would you please reconsider your revert. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. You are right. Hopefully my new change fixed this issue. Thanks for discussing! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:North Korea 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 03:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Diane Keaton 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Julian in LA is WP:NOTHERE. Have you had experience with something like this? Beyond just reverting his edits, which seem to be borderline trolling (especially on the talk page), I wonder if we should seek a sanction of some sort. Would ANI be the right venue? I have never done anything like that so wondering if you have thoughts. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Marquardtika: I've seen editors like him before; he seems to be behaving like a combination of someone who doesn't WANT to admit or understand that he is wrong (or his edits are wrong; one of those people who ALWAYS think that they are right no matter what feedback they get) and a somewhat new editor who doesn't fully understand all of Wikipedia's policies. He hasn't been edit-warring (much) and we have multiple editors: myself, Novellasyes, BBQboffin, and you watching that article, and explaining policy to him. So I'd say ANI isn't warranted for now.

I'd suggest to not get too caught up in conversation on the Talk page given his non-policy based comments and "arguments" and concentrate more on article edits and give good explanations for your reverts; if an administrator gets involved, it is easier to read good edit summaries with policy explanations than extensive Talk page discussions. If he persists at edit-warring against multiple editors, than we ask ANI for an article block. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The tags were added in compliance with WP:STATUSQUO. The COI editor requested a very reasonable change which was rejected out of hand. Please explain how and where to make changes to an obviously biased article. Julian in LA (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this WP:CANVASSING? Julian in LA (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Transparency International 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 14:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Julian in LA (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Visual Studio Code on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 05:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 15:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 05:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sati (practice) 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Thank you for your clear and constructive criticism when reverting my edit for Unified growth theory. I will work on a better version, when I get more time, and clearly back each part by a verifiable source, and address the tone accordingly. I will ping you when I edit the article again to get your feedback. Thank you again! Particleshow22 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Particleshow22: You could do small changes over time. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Take one source, compose a good summary of it, and add it to the article. Smaller changes also make it easier for other editors to follow, and Wikipedia is a collaborative environment.

Here's a comment I have left for others: It would be helpful if you did multiple smaller edits rather than a few large edits; that makes it is easier for others to leave your good edits and revert your controversial/disputed ones, as well as it making it easier for others to follow what you are doing. I recommend you make deletions separately to additions, justifying each deletion, and re-organizations separately as well. This way any discussion on a reversion can more clearly discuss the problem, rather then the difficulty of having to discuss which part of a large edit was the problem part. Cheers! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Absolutely! thank you for this guide, I will bookmark it in my notes. Particleshow22 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Age of Disclosure on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 19:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Dispute opened. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Arabella Advisors Julian in LA (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Hi, you reverted without engaging on the talk page. Can you please engage on the talk for this article? 0¹⁸ (talk) 0¹⁸ (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Arabella Advisors Julian in LA (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion is at:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Arabella Advisors#Editing of Wikipedia page

Julian in LA (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Economy, trade, and companies" 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 19:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:North Korea 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 06:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Avatar317: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant) 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 10:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi friend,

I wanted to reach out personally and share that I think your definition of what is "promotion" is not consistent with Wikipedia:NOTPROMO. Primary sources can be included when citing a claim; is the claim accepted by everyone? Maybe or maybe not. However, we have to also consider "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Currently, and I say this as an LGBTQ person, the section reads like a critique of Fuller's Community standards, not like encyclopedic content, in my view. I am going to start a talk page section on this and would like to invite you to cooperate with me to find a consensus on how to be both fair and neutral in point of view. Thank you, neighbor. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

As an aside, there were some older edits (by other editors, not us) that also only used the self-sourced/primary source of Fuller's website/policy. I removed those as well since the primary sources are being discussed and may not be added back.SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Tendentious editing warning Hi — I wanted to flag that some of the recent editing patterns here could be interpreted as tendentious editing under WP:TENDENTIOUS. That policy discourages repeatedly advancing a single position or re-litigating settled issues. You may want to be mindful of that going forward. Thanks.

RecardedByzantian (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

if you edit a comment to include a ping, it doesn't actually ping the user

you have to make a new comment. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks! I'll have to remember that. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RecardedByzantian (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Yitzhak Rabin 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:President of South Korea 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs with the criticism that this editor has added their own assertions that contradict source material. Despite attempting to clarify on several occasions, this editor is reverting changes without revision or further investigation to verify that the information they are providing agrees with source material. ~2026-23986-9 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It ain't me who "can...not read" ~2026-23986-9 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Bullshit Jobs. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 05:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Response to your edit/question about fuel in Peach Bottom Unit 1: The fuel used is a mixed-carbide fuel using ²³²Th and ²³⁵U.

The short answer is that "driver fuel" simply refers to the actual fuel mix that is running the reactor. This is in contrast to "blanket fuel" which, in a breeder or burner reactor, is not providing the fuel to keep the reaction running but is simply absorbing neutrons to either breed more fissile material (breeder) or destroy transuranic waste products (burner). This sentence should probably be changed as technically there is only driver fuel present so the phrase is redundant and confusing.

You are correct that ²³⁵U is the fissile material and is thus required for the fission reaction, as the ²³²Th is only fertile and must be converted to ²³³U via neutron capture while the reactor is already critical. In a true thorium fuel cycle, only ²³³U and ²³²Th are used even if another fissile material (²³⁵U) is used to start the reactor initially. At Peach Bottom, the fuel was a ²³²Th-²³⁵U mixture because it was an experimental reactor - the United States Atomic Energy Commission was investigating the use of ²³²Th as fertile fuel either for reasons of cost; to extend the limited supply of uranium, or in preparation for the investigation of a full thorium fuel cycle. I'm not exactly sure what the design objective here was, but I do know that this configuration (²³²Th-²³⁵U) was used in several reactors including Dresden Unit 1, Indian Point, Peach Bottom, Fort Saint Vrain, and others.

I'm going to clarify the wording in the Peach Bottom article, and will work on adding more clarification of this topic, perhaps to the nuclear fuel article, which needs a substantial rewrite. H2so4aq (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza genocide 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 01:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 12:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Avatar317, thanks for taking the time to review and revert what you identified as a poorly sourced addition to the Gig worker page. I’ve since rewrote the paragraph to keep the government document as a primary source only for what the guidelines direct, and added independent, secondary sources to describe what is actually happening as per your advice. I’ve added the draft to my sandbox here: User:Zhengfa12/sandbox If you have a minute to check whether the wording and attribution address your initial WP:RS concerns, it’d be much appreciated since I’m eager to seek and apply kind advice from more experienced contributors. If it looks OK, I’ll re-add it with the updated sourcing. Thanks again! — Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Zhengfa12: That looks better with the two sources (law review and ILO paper) which add some analysis.---Avatar317^(talk) 01:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to know why you removed my edit regarding human trafficking on the abortion page. You claimed without evidence that the live action is biased because it’s anti-abortion advocacy yet that is not enough to impeach the credibility of a source. For example, Amnesty International is openly pro abortion, and is considered a reliable source. Cannolorosa (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Waymo, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 10:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 18:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Avatar317,

I've noticed your editing of some nuclear articles and would like to respectfully ask if you would give a third-party opinion on a dispute between myself and another editor, Ludviggy.

For context, I reverted Ludviggy's edit that added a statement I believe was incorrect and not constructive, based on what I believe to be a misunderstanding of the NRC approval process. I left a message on Ludviggy's talk page explaining my rationale, and we continued the discussion on the Kairos Power talk page. We seem to be unable to reach a consensus on what to do so I ask if you would consider giving your own opinion.

Thank you! H2so4aq (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2026 (UTC)