User talk:KoA

Please take this as something said in friendship. I think the uninvolved editor who has been trying to give advice in the RSN discussion really does mean well, and is simply reacting to which group of editors is in the majority. I see your point of view there, and believe me, I get it, how it can be obnoxious to say that something published by an academic in your field is not a reliable source. But I think it's not worth fighting over this one, and there is a risk of it backfiring against you if you start to be seen as arguing against everyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a tough one especially with the tone like That's a facile comparison and I would expect better from an experienced editor such as yourself. I've seen plenty of WP:1AM situations where it's better to just move on, but this is a tough one when you have many editors trying to override experts with their own personal opinions instead. That's to a point I feel like our hands our tied where we can't give credence to the idea in terms of WP:PAG. I don't have that much training in neuroscience outside of insect neuroscience for example, but I'm sure you can think of an example in your field where if someone insisted neuroscientists don't have expertise in that area (when its a core area you're expected to be able to navigate under the umbrella of neuroscience), you'd be pretty astounded. Usually I'd expect people to say I don't know much about that field and ask for more info rather than confidently say it's not related at all. At a higher level, it's like rejecting a source criticizing the statistics in another paper because they are a neuroscientist/agronomist/whatever rather than a statistician when the reality is that all those groups have statistics in their umbrella of expertise.

So when it comes to RSN, I was planning to step back from it there for the most part (also limited time over the weekend). Partly it's clear this has become a larger meta-issue and that's spurred discussions more on content generation on the subject where I'd probably focus more. With that said though, how would you address this (at a later date or for a broader discussion)? I could have posted a list of extension publications that do directly cover health effects of pesticides that make it very clear this is an area agronomists, etc. cover, but the sense I get from comments is many editors just don't like that being in their area of expertise and would continue to claim they're not reliable.

I was hoping the two articles were settling down and editors could just let it breath for a bit with the holidays coming up, so that was my plan at least. It looks like they're getting worse on the behavior side with Katzrockso canvassing individuals to check out the dispute though and David Tornheim pinging me that they're following my edits to areas they don't edit (their topic ban was supposed to be in lieu of a one-way interaction ban towards me and others), it seems like editors are just getting emboldened to keep pushing the envelope. I've lost track of how many times I've seen things where I've thought if I did that, I'd expect to be blocked knowing what the ArbCom expectations are. Yet, other editors ignore them like with Katzrockso poisoning the well commenting on changing my username to an abbreviation (before any of this happened) as somehow a conflict of interest or pushing in edits while talk is ongoing. That or the stuff you got deal with recently where they claim something was never said when it was. I guess I'm just tried of that battleground attitude and the gaslighting whenever trying to get them to knock it off. I don't have the time I used to do take things to AE either, but there's the catch-22 of AE in this topic almost always being messy vs. trying to not take things to AE to focus on content that's having knock-on effects creating a double-standard between editors who are really careful about CT restrictions and those that are skirting them.

I do have an idea I'm working on though to propose at the Monsanto talk page (mentioned earlier on there too) that should hopefully at let everyone move on one way or another. That's for at least after the weekend if not Christmas though when I can get some focused editing time. KoA (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I hear you. My advice is to just let things go at the Monsanto and glyphosate pages for a while. I think things are going to quiet down, and I'd rather they just stay quiet. I think any further proposals are going to be more trouble than they will be worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I should have said that comment on a proposal was more of an if-needed scenario if other editors kept pushing things on talk or through edits. Seems like it's quiet enough to mostly let things be right now, and better to let things be and cool off before tackling any issues for more grounded discussion.

In a similar vein, I'm not planning to remove the K&O paper mention you've discussed on the talk page myself at least right now. I think it's a point there's not consensus for it, but it's also a good opportunity to let the editor to self-revert on their own too. If that isn't done, that can be tackled at a later date. KoA (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. In my own opinion, the way things are now, there's nothing that's enough of a problem that it would require fixing. I actually feel pretty strongly that I just want things to be quiet, and not have any further drama. Obviously, there have been things I've disagreed with, but in the context of the disruptions that we have had historically, I think the editors who have come newly to the page are people who are willing to be cooperative enough that there's no one I want to escalate things with.

By the way, if things really do quiet down, I'm going to start a new page on, of all things, a species of insect that I find very interesting. (A totally non-contentious topic!) When I have something worth looking at, I'd love it if you would give it a critical go-over. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Will do. I'm actually hoping to get to a list of less stressful wiki-projects over the holiday break too, so happy to take a look if it's during that period or after too. KoA (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

After some delay, I finally got around to having the draft far enough along that it would benefit from you looking at it: User:Tryptofish/Drafts/Drab stinkbug. If you can, it would be great if you could give it a critical eye, and please feel free to edit it directly if you want. I'm especially interested in whether there might be additional sources I don't know about and, of course, having any errors I made corrected. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure thing, I probably won't be on much until mid-week, but I'll definitely take a look then. KoA (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, I didn't have much to add, and I think it looks pretty solid. It looks like you may have ran into the similar issue I did where most the literature on this one is pretty new aside from a stray early 1900s (or earlier) manuscript, so my searches didn't pull up anything. The only thing that still stuck out to me was in User:Tryptofish/Drafts/Drab_stinkbug#Parasitism_by_wasps. I think the "normal" trend is to wikilink the full species name, even if it redlinks rather than going to the genus page. That's not a big deal though, especially if you're thinking about doing a stub for the parasitoid too where that link would be changed shortly after anyways. I think you'd be solid to move it to article space at least. KoA (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, very, very much! I really appreciate it. I did a variation of that redlink for the wasp binomial. I like the edits you made very much. I had actually seen that old Yago paper when I searched, but I hadn't gone behind the paywall, so I'm glad that you did.

By the way, I had also been meaning to thank you for, a couple of weeks ago, explaining to ArbCom why they shouldn't end the CTOP for GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello KoA, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for the good discussion at the Poole Museum talk page. I figure I've said enough over there, so I didn't want to post there if it wasn't immediately relevant, but I also wanted to express that I really appreciate the time you're taking to discuss, and especially appreciate your discussion style. It's done a good job of keeping me focused on the material issues, and even if we end up not agreeing, I'm glad we had the conversation. Cheers! EducatedRedneck (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I usually like try to find ways to cut through or navigate through messy issues, so sometimes it helps to just spell out what all I'm trying to navigate through even if folks don't always agree. I like to think it at least helps reduce the inclination to pin a person as being in a full-throated stance of camp X or Y. It's nice to see people appreciate that and definitely makes wiki-life easier. I partly found the topic through the AN3 board and saw how rough it was with personal comments, sniping, etc., so it's good to see people like you wanting to focus on the material issues. I wasn't going to mention it on article talk too, but as a fellow educated redneck/farmer, I definitely like the name choice. KoA (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear I'm not dragging things down! And I'm glad you like the name; it's always good to eat a fellow rural-livin', gun shootin' (depending on your inclination and area of reasidence), philosophy talkin' over a jug o' moonshine individual! :p I'm glad our paths crossed; like you said, there's a lot of polarization, so it restores some of my faith in humanity to talk with folks who are looking to find the right answer, not to prove the one they already have is right. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, gun culture is definitely interesting out where I am, though I grew up definitely more with the idea guns are for work/hunting mindset rather than what you see talked invoked in politics.

Also thanks for posting the RSN. I was thinking about that too. I know I've tangled with the local vs. national BBC question before a few times, but these conversations did get me wondering if it's come up in the past for others or if it's worth getting something figured out at a higher-level. KoA (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)