User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

⬅️ Previous Archive Page (#-1) ☕ 🗄️ ☕

Next Archive Page (#1) ➡️

🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #AndreJustAndre/Archives/55🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳
1	Trickle down economics	2022-10-24 16:21	2022-10-24 18:02	4	3425	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
2	Reverting my edit	2022-10-30 00:02	2022-10-30 00:22	2	741	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
3	Bolduc’s page edit reversal	2022-10-30 17:03	2022-10-30 17:04	2	915	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
4	October 2022	2022-10-30 17:50	2022-10-30 17:51	2	2499	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
5	Meus parabéns pelo seu desempenho! Lula	2022-10-30 22:33	2022-10-30 22:49	2	549	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
6	Sat Nov 12: WikiConference North America in NYC	2022-11-03 16:18	2022-11-03 16:18	1	2570	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
7	Frivolous vandalism warning	2022-10-31 15:54	2022-11-03 18:57	6	2582	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
8	revert - we follow wh	2022-11-17 21:10	2022-11-17 21:24	2	549	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
9	Nov 30: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn + online	2022-11-25 21:36	2022-11-25 21:36	1	2077	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
10	Disambiguation link notification for November 28	2022-11-28 06:06	2022-11-28 06:06	1	794	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
11	ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message	2022-11-29 00:24	2022-11-29 00:24	1	2039	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
12	Khazar Hypothesis	2022-11-29 05:59	2022-11-29 23:27	3	1182	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
13	The Flash	2022-11-30 16:49	2022-12-01 09:29	4	1756	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
14	Policy or etiquette	2022-12-03 21:41	2022-12-04 15:17	3	1685	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
15	Biden Laptop	2022-12-05 21:32	2022-12-06 00:48	6	2813	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
16	Wikitionary Question	2022-12-09 19:00	2022-12-09 19:19	2	1790	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
17	A barnstar for you!	2022-12-12 00:58	2022-12-12 00:59	2	1078	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
18	HB	2022-12-23 01:56	2022-12-23 02:28	2	451	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
19	AI stuff on Wikipedia	2022-12-23 10:59	2022-12-23 18:21	2	597	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
20	Dec 28: WikiWed Salon (+ Wikipedia Day on Jan 15)	2022-12-23 19:26	2022-12-23 19:26	1	2290	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
21	Happy holidays, to my talk page visitors	2022-12-25 00:25	2022-12-27 18:18	2	515	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
22	Happy New Year, Andrevan!	2022-12-30 13:04	2022-12-31 18:54	2	1078	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
23	Happy new era	2022-12-31 16:40	2022-12-31 18:54	2	786	User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55
24	Happy New Year, Andrevan	2023-01-01 03:53	2023-01-01 03:53	1	1682	[[User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55#Happy New Year, Andrevan|User talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55]]

Trickle down economics

Hi Andrevan,

Thanks for your note regarding my proposed edits. I totally understand that we strive to be neutral and I felt my edits were in line with that goal. Perhaps you were reacting to my use of the word 'pejorative' and I'm fine if you think that's too strong.

I do, however, think that it's important in the interests of neutrality as well as factual accuracy to remove this line:

"Some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and some newspapers concluded that trickle-down economics does not promote jobs or growth, and that "policy makers shouldn't worry that raising taxes on the rich ... will harm their economies"."

The International Monetary Fund paper cited here to support that claim of "Some studies suggest.." does not once mention "trickle down economics". It's simply false to assert that this source supports the claim being made in this sentence. Note especially the use of "Studies" in the plural. This claim is simply not supported.

Similarly, from a factual perspective, the citations to support the claim that newspapers reached conclusions about "trickle down economics" aren't accurate. The Bloomberg article, for instance, never once mentions "trickle down economics" and is only about a London School of Economics study on tax cuts in 18 OECD countries. This isn't surprising, because as the Wikipedia page on "trickle down economics" notes, it's not an economic theory supported by academic research, it's just a critical term used by some people to influence policy debates.

I hope that helps clarify why in the interests of neutrality and factual accuracy that line should be removed.

Thanks,

- Nicholas Kerrni (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas, thanks for your note. Indeed, since trickle-down theory and the trickle-down effect are used in many reliable academic as well as news sources, I do object to the use of "pejorative." I'm afraid that I also can't agree with your analysis. The IMF paper does contain the term "trickle down," and from my read it does indeed support the claim, as do the newspaper reports and the IMF study. Also, you should know that there is an active discussion on the talk page that concerns the very questions we are considering, so it would be proper to discuss the changes there and join the conversation. However, the idea that we should remove all economic information critical of trickle-down ideas is a problematic one from an NPOV perspective. Also, please be careful of editing your father's page, since that would be a WP:COI. Thanks Andre🚐 16:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Is there a link to the discussion you referenced? I'd be happy to discuss these topics there.

- Nicholas Kerrni (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the last few threads including "RFC" on Talk:Trickle-down economics Andre🚐 18:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

Please don't revert my edit. I was planning on making a page for Keith Pekau. I'm new to Wikipedia. If you tell me what to do to not be reverted, tell me. IEditPolitics (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I gave you the information but basically you need reliable sources to establish notability. Usually, political candidates that haven't won office aren't given their own article unless they're notable for something else. Andre🚐 00:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Bolduc’s page edit reversal

My concern was the neutrality of the page to begin with. I added Bolduc’s military service history in a headline portion of his bio as it’s consistent with other war veterans pages. (See Jocko Willink for instance)

I don’t understand the issue you have with neutrality of my edits, when on the talk page you see dozens of complains about his biography being written by the oppositions campaign staffer. Let’s make it fair and neutral Oldgreg100 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edit removed sourced information. Please read up on our policies before making these edits again. Andre🚐 17:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Your recent editing history 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.
Falsely claiming a consensus is not something befitting of a Wikipedia editor. Stop this farce now and self-revert while discussion is ongoing, per WP:BRD. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Warning is misplaced. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I only have 1 revert on that page. Andre🚐 17:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Meus parabéns pelo seu desempenho! Lula

Great news for the Amazon Rainforest, Lula da Silva defeats Jair Bolsonaro. Andre🚐 22:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

+1 Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Sat Nov 12: WikiConference North America in NYC

Sat Nov 12: WikiConference North America in NYC

Like Wikidata Day last month, this event will be at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza. WikiConference North America 2022. You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for WikiConference North America in NYC, as a local satellite event and celebration of the primarily online WikiConference 2022 (Nov 11-13). The Saturday in-person event will feature beginner workshops, keynote presentations, breakout group discussions, and lightning talks. It is inspired by such past events as the Wikipedia Day tradition in New York City. In keeping with the online conference's partnership this year with Mapping USA and theme of "open knowledge allies", we are highlighting OpenStreetMap NYC efforts and other local organizing around various communities of practice. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. Saturday November 12 WikiConference North America in NYC (RSVP on-wiki). 9:30 am - 5:30 pm (Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Frivolous vandalism warning

This vandalism warning is frivolous. You should know better. Level-4 vandalism template should ever only be used for warning about obvious vandalism. POV editing is obviously not vandalism. Politrukki (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Frivolous isn't the word, but you're right, I should have used an npov template and not a vandalism template for that. I assumed it was a BLPvio but on another look, not as clear cut as it appeared. Andre🚐 16:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The word OP is looking for is 'reckless'. 2600:6C5E:107F:701:88B3:4C18:F390:5B24 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not the word either. Andre🚐 14:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

How about tendentious? Wrongly accusing others of vandalism is considered tendetious editing. If you want to use BLP warning templates, we have {{uw-biog1}}, {{uw-biog2}}, etc. I agree that using {{uw-npov1}} would have probably been the best course of action. By the way, if you don't want to be templated yourself specifically because you consider yourself a regular, don't template others. In case you missed, WP:TR presents a dissenting view to DTR (which doesn't argue that using templates is always wise). Politrukki (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Nope. It's a simple mistake and not tendentious editing. I am indeed a regular, I've been editing for almost 20 years and I am a former admin and bureaucrat. TN05's actions are worthy of a topic ban. I don't template the regulars. Andre🚐 18:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

revert - we follow wh

What's wh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation_Reduction_Act_of_2022&action=history 675930s (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I pressed enter before I finished typing my edit summary. I meant "What the sources say." Andre🚐 21:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Nov 30: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn + online

Nov 30: WikiWednesday @ BPL + on Zoom

WikiWednesday is back in-person, pizza included! You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. Wednesday November 30 WikiWednesday @ BPL (RSVP on-wiki). 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm (note modified time) (Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn) Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Joe Biden

added a link pointing to Assault weapons ban

Presidency of Joe Biden

added a link pointing to Assault weapons ban

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Khazar Hypothesis

The information I posted has a source. Here it is: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/jewish-q/about/results Please don't undo my edit again. Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC) There was nothing wrong with my edits. I corrected mistakes in the article and added a citation from a reliable academic source. If you undo my edits again, I'll report you for disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ուլտրաբոմբ (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I already reported you to WP:AN/I. WP:CIR WP:RGW WP:SOAP WP:NPOV WP:EDITWAR Andre🚐 23:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Flash

Hi, i read what you sent me, i put a lot of sources of the movie, but they get removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.6.18.2 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As best I can tell I didn't warn you about those edits. Unless you did so from a different account. Andre🚐 00:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah found it, 201.188.133.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). @HJ Mitchell, this would be a block evasion would it not? Andre🚐 00:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. They need to address their conduct and respond to editors' concerns before anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Policy or etiquette

Do me a favor and stop trying to insinuate or accuse me of impropriety where there is none at all. WP:ROLLBACKUSE is policy, as is WP:CIVIL and I take both very seriously. I have done nothing wrong, and you can't seem to indicate differently. If you find a policy violation (of either one) then feel free to take me to WP:ANI but stop trying to tell me I don't know how to use the tools. Elizium23 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You pinged me and summoned me to your talk page. I haven't said a word to you in weeks or months. You can go your way and I will go mine. Personally, I do not believe rollback is supposed to be used that way. I thought that the policy/guidelines supported such an interpretation as well. Maybe my interpretation is incorrect or the norms or policies have changed. But that's pretty ridiculous to ping me to your talk page to comment on an unrelated dispute and then come here and ask me to take you to ANI. Andre🚐 22:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC) (regarding [1])

My issue iss that it seemed to be tagged as a normal rollback but the editor says they made an edit summary which isn’t possible with normal rollback. Village pump technical? Doug Weller talk 15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Biden Laptop

Not clear what you mean you are cool with the new compromise? You endorse replacing the entire lead with the proposed text? SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No just the first sentence, the current live edit Andre🚐 21:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I"m not following what folks are agreeing to there. OP posted an entire new lead and it has 100 problems. The first sentence has problems, but it would be helpful if separate threads were set up for the pieces of that long new lead text. As you know, these things easily get so diffuse and so many variants get proposed, that it takes a huge amount of time and attention to sort it out. Maybe separate threads could be opened for each sentence or groups of related sentences in the text? The alternative, which might be more productive, would be for folks to agree on the key content that belongs in the lead and then work on how to prioritize and write it? I don't have an opinion on that, just think the current setup is going all over the place. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I was merely referring to this edit, I absolutely agree that the changes should be discussed individually and not all at once. I think "the question of its ownership" is an improvement over "belonged to" affirmatively. Beyond that, I'm not wholesale endorsing the entire proposal. Andre🚐 23:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Didn't mean to put the whole matter on you. I just proposed breaking up the discussion into manageable segments at the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries. If any changes are desired beyond that one, which "ended the dispute" that was open, they should start a new section to isolated specific proposals. Andre🚐 00:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikitionary Question

Hello Andrevan. I spotted your name on the Wikipedia help page and was wondering if you could help me with a problem I came across while creating a page for the etymology of the Persian word "رای." I was trying to enter my citations but i got an error stating that I was spamming. The error also said that I could get my account banned, which i obviously do not want. Are you aware of what could be causing this? this is the citation I would like to enter:

Qaemmaqami, A. R., & Khatebey, A. (2013, July 9). رای و رأی ([New Persian] rāy and [arabic] ra'y). Academia.edu. Retrieved December 9, 2022, from https://www.academia.edu/3992194/%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D9%88_%D8%B1%D8%A3%DB%8C_New_Persian_r%C4%81y_and_Arabic_ra_y_

This is the link to the page: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C

There is also a Persian word "رای" of Arabic origin, however the words are distinct in their etymology and pronunciation. Maybe Wikitionary thought I was creating another page for a word that already has a page? Thank you for your time. MarkParker1221 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, I haven't contributed to Wiktionary in a long time. I suggest you try to contact whoever left you the warning over there. Maybe there is a policy about the type of sources you're using or something to do with the language aspect. I don't see any warnings on [2] Andre🚐 19:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I've seen you on the RCP trail a lot lately-- you've even beaten me to a few reverts! Just dropping by to tell you that your efforts are recognised and appreciated. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 00:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very kind! Andre🚐 00:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

HB

Howdy. I tweaked your 'survey' option choice, so its reads clearer, for the RFC closer. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Andre🚐 02:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

AI stuff on Wikipedia

I just made a new essay here about using ChatGPT content that I think you may be interested at. What do you think about it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for sharing with me. I'll take a look. Andre🚐 18:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Dec 28: WikiWed Salon (+ Wikipedia Day on Jan 15)

Dec 28: WikiWednesday @ BPL + on Zoom

WikiWednesday is back in-person, pizza included! You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. Wednesday December 28 WikiWednesday @ BPL (RSVP on-wiki). 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm (Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn) Also online via Zoom P.S. Next big event January 15 will be Wikipedia Day NYC 2023, and you can sign up now for your lightning talk!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays, to my talk page visitors

Best wishes for a pleasant, covid- and rsv-free holiday, and a prosperous 2023. Andre🚐 00:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

🍻Cheers! — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Andrevan!

Happy New Year!

Andrevan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

• Thank you! You as well! Andre🚐 18:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new era

Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 16:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

Aw thank you same to you Bishsocks! Andre🚐 18:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Andrevan

Chris Troutman (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2023. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2023 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2023 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Posted at 20230101035015

• Thanks, same to you Chris! Andre🚐 03:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)