User talk:KoA/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Equine therapy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Saw you pop by over there. Found this, which I think may meet everyone's need for NPOV and analysis... they provide the research and the summary. We can't copypaste, obviously, and it doesn't cover everything, but it seems to be the most comprehensive review I've seen. I can live with its conclusions (beats "bogus pseudoscience" which one person called it) Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, I haven't had a chance to dig into details on the ex-suite of articles until now. The moves were the main thing I was looking for. Aside from that folks like jps and Alexbrn do have some valid points in the fringe noticeboard discussion on reliable sourcing. That being said, there is nuance between more of a physical rehabilitation to riding and the claimed mental therapy as you've brought up. I have no idea on on the validity of either, but just saying those need to be looked at separately. If more action comes up on the single therapy page, I'll probably check things out a bit more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You accurately state that the physical health and the mental health programs are different. I'd go so far as to almost say they are apples and oranges. Physical health aspects have a lot more research out there (summarized to some extent by the Aetna piece, but even it only notes about 8 studies) and are quite a bit farther along (that field has been around since at least the 1970s -- the predecessor to PATH was founded in 1969). To that end, I think that jps shows some willingness to look at the physical health questions and that those articles can be cleaned up and brought up to snuff without too much drama if we keep the mental health material out of them entirely. But the articles addressing animal therapies for mental health issues, and equine therapy in particular, are a little different and need a different approach. As you don't seem to have an emotional stake in the issue, I am interested in your views. Here's where I see the rub:

1. I am concerned that people on BOTH sides go too quickly to emotion and personal attacks when it is not needed...no one should be cherry-picking data that only fits their own emotional viewpoint, and attacking the intelligence or goodwill of others doesn't help (such as when you call something "bogus"...). Remember the time someone declared the entire field of psychology to be "pseudoscience?" That doesn't help...
2. I believe there needs to be a clarification of terminology, as some of the confusion is due to inconsistency: In the US, "hippotherapy" is basically used to address occupational and speech therapies. Similarly, in the US, "therapeutic riding" generally addresses physical aspects (though some programs also work with autistic children and those with developmental disabilities). The mental health programs have several different names (EAT, EAP, EAMHT, etc...) and most de-emphasize riding (one branch doesn't ride at all) But some places, even RS sources, the terminology is used in a looser sense, creating confusion.
3. The Equine-assisted mental health field is quite new (post-2000 for all practical purposes, though horses have been used prior to that in a manner similar to other sports-based and wilderness-based programs as an adjunct to treatment for decades) and for all practical purposes was "legitimized" when NARHA and EAAT merged to become PATH in 2011.
4. So, truth is, there wasn't a lot of good research done before that time, but we now have three systematic reviews, two leaning favorable, one leaning unfavorable, but all three acknowledging that there simply is not enough research yet; the famed "more study is needed."
5. I keep trying to explain that one really useful thing about these three reviews is not just their own content and conclusions (and frankly, all three have points where they can be criticized), but also the analysis of the sources themselves helps us see which ones are the most robust so far and which ones were three kids on a pony ride and can be ignored.

Sorry for the tl;dr. I'm interested in this stuff, obviously. As a horsey person I think that the are clear potential benefits to these therapies, but DONE RIGHT: my own POV is a concern with safety protocols so that people don't get hurt. My own view is that, unlike fringe treatments with the potential to be actually harmful (like Laetrile for cancer and such nonsense), here we have a situation where the articles need to avoid SYNTH in both directions and simply explain to the reader what the evidence is and how it is weighted. Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had a chance to glance at what you wrote, but I may not get over to the equine article for a day or two aside from my brief comments about the merge. I will say that without analyzing the sources quite yet that in situations where there isn't enough research yet, saying claims of treatment are unsubstantiated are intended to be a bit critical as Alexbrn and others are leading towards. That goes whether we're dealing with pure quackery or something that has potential that's getting pushed a bit far beyond it's early hypothesis stage. I get the vibe there's definitely some of the latter in parts of this topic, but there are ways to work in both the scientific criticism and the outcomes current research is looking into.

My general take on the mental stuff though is that being a newer field, we're either going to have something in the strongest secondary sources to flesh out on, or we just simply wait until the field establishes itself. There's a period where every fledgling field doesn't have acceptance (psychology as you mentioned), but that's more of a feature than a glitch that we reflect in articles until they are accepted or just fizzle out. That's how I generally weigh how science topics are covered, so I'll see what I think when I start digging. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically, I think that the "dealing with pure quackery or something that has potential that's getting pushed a bit" is the underlying question in the discussion that is now consolidated at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy. From my discussions with Alexbrn, I have the impression that he views the topic as quackery, (though I am pinging him because I don't want to misstate what he meant by his use of the word "bogus") while I admit that I am in the "has potential" camp; I've been looking into the topic for a couple years now and have formed some pretty clear opinions as to which factions are heading in the right direction and which ones are not. Montanabw^(talk) 23:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that either question ends in the same result. If there isn't evidence to support something, either from a quack or just an extremely young field, you're looking at a fringe subject either way. In the latter case, all current mainstream scientific fields start out that way and move into mainstream. That said, I'm just digesting sources, so I'll probably wrap things up here and head over to the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just popping by to say that before we get too heated at the talk page, do look at what I am actually trying to do over there, which is to present the source material accurately and fairly. I'm not trying to argue that Laetrile cures cancer or something. The physical therapy with horses stuff has been around since the 1970s and a sincere literature search should pull up plenty of material about those topics. The major content debate appears to be over the mental health stuff, which is much newer, though I'm finding studies going back at least 15 years (though, as we all agree, many of them aren't very good). For that reason, I would not go so far as to lump new fields with pseudoscience as "fringe". If you pop by MastCell's page, I thought his comments to me there about what can and cannot be proven and the use of words like "pseudoscience" were well-stated. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw I'm going to have to ask you to step back and really work out some of your behavior here. I try to focus on content at articles, but since this is a user talk page and you're having issues across the board, this needs to be dealt with. Not only have you violated WP:3RR, but you continue trying to edit war in material you've told about twice (now three) that you need to get consensus for on the talk page first.[1][2]. In that process, you have been making WP:GEVAL arguments instead of dealing with the undue weight issues associated with the Selby study. Replacing content sourced to secondary literature reviews with poorer sources and different content doesn't help either.

I have also never mentioned pseudoscience once in the conversation as far as I can recall. I have said Selby is not considered the mainstream point of view, but being a minority or fringe view does not implicitly imply pseduoscience if my mention of the fringe guideline triggered that thought. I can deal with comments being off-base of MEDRS or how we hash out undue weight, but these other things are not helping you at all. You're going off a cliff here and you really need to stop second. This kind of behavior is not going to help you if you try for another RfA, and I'm seriously trying to point you in a good direction here in that regard rather than try to score points. Please take that to heart.

At this point, we need MEDRS sources to describe the current mainstream thinking on the topic. When we have a dynamic between two reviews like Selby and Anestis without other reivews, Anestis is going to represent the mainstream view when Selby conflicts with it in areas Anestist addressed while incorporating the Selby study. That doesn't completely exclude Selby, but undue weight is going to be a huge consideration for anything included from it. You need to get consensus on the talk for specific uses of that source when they are shown to be a problem. You talk of a lot of other history, but we really need to have sources to discuss that. For now, we're working with the sources we have. I have more of the content/source details at the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"Step back and work out my behavior? Excuse me? I came over here because I felt that you were on the verge of a personal attack and wanted to cool things off; until now, you appeared to be one of the few folks from the anti-pseudoscience crowd who appeared amenable to logical discussion. "Going over a cliff?" Um, has there been the slightest attempt by others to discuss different viewpoints, look for compromise, seek consensus? No. So, I most respectfully disagree—or more to the point, I am trying to stay as respectful as I possibly can in the face of WP:BAITing and some very extreme failures of AGF by other users (though not you until this latest bit, and didn't I in fact invite you to look at the article and the sources?). You are correct that you aren't the one who threw around words like "bogus" or "pseudoscience", but your colleagues have (at least the one who started this whole issue). If you look closely, there are no cases of me committing a 3RR violation; I'm generally very careful about that (though if I'm wrong, provide diffs). I can discuss the sources back at article talk, but I truly wonder if you are really reading MEDRS -- I have not seen evidence that a study in a MEDLINE indexed, peer-reviewed article is "fringe"; here I am seeing one highly critical study, and far from "refuting" the earlier one, basically said, "we looked at things differently and drew different conclusions." I find it quite frustrating that I present logical arguments, grounded in evidence, and simply am dismissed and called incompetent (I don't think it was you who said "incompetent", either). Sorry if this is tl;dr, but essentially I am having issues with two other users at their talk, and now you, and have sincerely been trying to keep behavior issues away from the article page. Montanabw^(talk) 04:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm speaking as the kind of editor you said you expected to find that you're having some problems with editing behavior. You've been repeatedly told there isn't consensus to insert the specific edits you want, yet you keep trying to reinsert them. Normally that means you need to stop, go to the talk page, and either figure out something different or drop the stick when your ideas don't get traction. Instead you engaged in multiple reverts since the start of the year:

18:46, January 10

18:07, January 13

13:25, January 14

13:37, January 14

14:20, January 15

20:59, January 15

21:20, January 15

22:46, January 17

You had five reverts in an approximate 24 hour period between Jan 14-15, which crosses the clear line of 3RR, but your string of reverts on the same content also indicate edit warring. Being careful not to have three reverts in an exact 24 hour period but continuing the reverts over time is something 3RR specifically points out is a violation. Because I'm "amendable to logical discussion" as you said and I assumed you were as well, I tried dealing with the behavior I outlined here instead of going to the drama boards. I can't say there's been a case of baiting at the article, but comments like that and generally reacting poorly to legitimate concerns about your behavior are why I gave my going over the cliff caution. It's tough to do when someone gets frustrated, but not taking the time to slow down and reflect rarely ends well for people. That's why I'm posting this here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the barrier here is that you think your strongly held point of view represents a consensus, but you are not. But, that is a fruitless "I know you are but what am I" debate, so no sense discussing it further here. We disagree that there is a consensus and we disagree what that consensus is should there be one. If you look carefully at my edits, you will see that these were generally not pure "reverts" but attempts to rephrase and balance both old and new material; I find it easiest to revert initially to "my" last clean version, but then I rebuild and incorporate the intervening edits as much as possible. I'm sincerely looking for a way to incorporate both views -- and no that is not a false balance. My frustration is with the attitude that I am entirely wrong and you (or your allies) are entirely correct. I think it's fine to ask for good sources; the problem is when you latch onto one and won't let go even when presented with solid, logical arguments to the contrary. I"m fine with a FOC, it's the "you are too stupid and incompetent to understand the right way to do it" attitude that is baiting and frustrating. If we can declare a truce and figure out a way to end the impasse, I'd be glad. After all, I was the one who invited you to comment because I originaly viewed you as someone reasonable who wouldn't get their ego wrapped up in the debate. Montanabw^(talk) 00:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll point out that I don't have a particular point of view on the subject. I'm just working on the standard description of the literature we are called to do per scholarship. You're obviously having trouble with the idea that some of your ideas are not getting traction. That's really apparent with you now trying to use Lentini when practically everyone else on the talk page agreed not to even give it the time of day or you denying you violated 3RR. I don't have "allies" in this. Whatever past disputes you've had with other editors is between you and them. The problem here now is that you decided to continue your edit warring today with this edit. Seriously, what's so hard to understand about following WP:BRD instead when that's been repeated to you time and again?

I'm going to ask you one last time to stop and realize there's validity in what I and others have been saying lately with respect to your behavior so you work on those problems. I'm not going to try to help you any further with respect to that though. I was aware that there was a lot of drama surrounding you after your RfA (I wasn't interested in getting involved of any of that or following it really), so I came at this particular interaction to create an opportunity to prove your detractors wrong and actually have a potential supporter if you did decide to go for RfA again. That was even when I started seeing you might disagree with content; I still wanted to see you handle content disputes well. That's all I'm going to say on this here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The edits that you just made constitute a revert, and it is slightly more than a day since your last revert. As such, you have just barely complied with 1RR in the letter of the law, but not really in the spirit of the law. If I am going to be fair about AE, I perhaps should file a complaint about you, too. It's borderline (whereas the existing AE was not borderline), so I strongly urge you to reconsider. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, it's actually been closer to two days since my last edit there, we haven't gained talk page consensus for the new change, and I was making a bold edit with the new additions. I'm open to self-reverting the consensus language temporarily if you feel the edit is still problematic with all that in mind, but I just wanted to be sure of your thinking on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be prudent to self-revert. It has been somewhat more than one day and somewhat less that two. The status quo thing is subjective, and it is never a valid reason for exceeding a revert limitation. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly on your mention of status quo. That's why I specifically mentioned we hadn't gained consensus after a good deal of discussion as opposed to a blanket "no consensus" claim immediately after the language was first introduced. That's the big distinction between edit warring and consensus building that I try to be really careful to separate myself from some other editors by. Either way, I did self-revert as it's the sources the matter as this point. We'll eventually get to re-adding the consensus language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have access to a source?

As you have probably seen at my RfC request, some editors are treating the Domingo review as being very important. That led me to search for subsequent papers that cite Domingo, and I found this. I added it to "Proposal 1", footnote 4, in this edit. I can freely access the abstract, but I was wondering if you have access to the full source. If so, perhaps you could look to see specifically where they cite Domingo and what they say about Domingo. Any direct quote that I could add, where they make some criticism of Domingo, would be very useful. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I've been managing to keep up, but that's about all I can muster right now time-wise. Thanks for pushing things forward. I'll make time when it comes to the RfC though, and I'll try to look over the current proposal this weekend to see if there's anything to strengthen.

I've got a mixed bag for you on the source. Domingo is cited in only one sentence, "It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA." in a brief introduction to what the "opposition" has been doing, while the paper goes into dismissing the broader concerns instead of individual papers like Domingo. It is never even mentioned in the context of science though in the exact same fashion WP:FRINGE says such sources tend to be ignored by reliable sources when describing the scientific discourse. It's going to be rare to get direct criticism. I'm going to try to address that at the RfC to a degree.

However, there is this little gem (my bolding) , "Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food."[3][4][5][6]source I can't access] Studies have not documented any reports of ill effects in the human population. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that consuming foods containing GMOs is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques. Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date."

How many sources do we have now with the wording broad scientific consensus?

In the conclusions,

"Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, inmost cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome."

This is yet another source that explicitly says broad scientific consensus, explicitly states the WHO standpoint is the same as AAAS, etc. (for those who try to claim the WHO claims different), and reiterates the summarization of both major scientific organizations and the peer-reviewed literature. It also hits on the duality of the consensus we've talked about before of currently marketed food being safe and the more predictive risk-analysis of GM food not being riskier than conventional. You might have found something better than you expected. I'll dig through it for smaller tidbits this weekend.Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much! That's very helpful indeed. I can certainly work with that, and it looks like this is a useful source, regardless of my initial expectations. No worries about you being busy – I feel pretty comfortable about having things under control. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

About: [7], after they unprotect the talk page, perhaps you should redact the words "witch-hunt". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, you don't necessarily have to wait. You could tell a supervising admin that you want to, and let them do it for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that problem was the equivalent of continued hounding on a particular idea (not necessarily the following around kind of hounding), so terms like witch-hunt, ax-grinding, etc. are pretty applicable there. I can see how witch-hunt could unintentionally invoke hyperbole a bit, so I'll see if it can be switched to more concise descriptive terminology. I really thought for some time on how to write that comment and what was really appropriate for the RfC page. It was a weird gray zone because it was dealing with an admin being involved rather than something belonging at ANI, AE etc. There's quite a case building for multiple editors now if GMO-2 has to happen, so if someone tries to say something was improper about my actual comments outside of where they were said, it'll just shed more light on the aspersions issues I've dealt with in the past and likely backfire on them.

Quite frankly though, tiptoeing around editors that lash out when their behavior issues are brought to light even in relevant situations is getting tiring. We had a good opportunity to finally crack down on that until Laserbrain was threatened. At least my interaction from above isn't that bad. I typically try to ignore what SV did back then as I don't normally interact with them, but the problems keep seeming to pop up when they keep moving into this topic. I'm still hoping the RfC result tamps down all this so we can forget about the past behavior issues and move on instead of needing GMO2 to stop those issues. Hope is the key word there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at what you said at Coffee's talk page, and I think that's fine. Thanks for doing that. If I parse this out for you, for the time being, this isn't really about whether that phrase was accurate or not. Rather, I don't want to see other editors saying that you violated WP:NPA. That phrase really does leave you vulnerable to that. (It's always better to use policy-related terms, like COI-accusations or hounding.) Your post to Coffee has taken that vulnerability away, thank goodness, although you should not be surprised when other editors try to make a stink about it, which I am sure they will. Your edit also went on at a lot of length about past disputes, instead of about the current RfC, and that was probably the wrong strategy for that moment, but I think uninvolved admins will see that as understandable in context. I raised this because I saw Laser brain say at AN that he had been in the process of saying something to other editors before the interruption, and I figured he meant you and perhaps me. I trust that you know that I have said all this in friendly intent, and it's not meant to lecture you. Bottom line: what you said to Coffee was very good. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh I know you're not lecturing. I went into it prepared that someone was going to raise a stink no matter how things were phrased or where I brought it up. I wish there was a better way to go about this instance. Especially after ArbCom, I'm always calculating how my language can appear and am proactively heading off potential claims in various ways. People often claim personal attack and aspersion when it's just a brief mention without explaining diffs, so it was kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't type situation on top of the venue. That's why I tried to be thorough yet concise so that it couldn't legitimately be considered a personal attack, but a description of the behavior that made them involved. Especially since I've been forward about this, I'm confident uninvolved folks in the end won't see an unambiguous personal attack on my part if it comes up at AE, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Distorting text

Stop do this. You distorted text based on on sources. 64-101 are bigger than 23-33, although source mentions it. Cathry (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussed also at my talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

NOBAN

Replying here, as that thread is long enough already and I'm hopeful it's winding up. You're right that WP:NOBAN doesn't give a user absolute discretion on their talk page. Practically speaking, however, there's little sense in posting to someone's talk page when that person has asked you not to. It's a long-recognized principle that a user can archive (or not archive) their talk page in whatever manner they see fit, and there's little practical difference between "banning" someone from your talk page and aggressively "archiving" anything they might say.

I don't care for the practice. I think it strikes against the spirit of this project and I admit I look askance at the people who do it. Even when I was on the Arbitration Committee and figuratively getting pelted with crap on a day-to-day basis I never found cause to do so (not that I can remember, anyway). I might suggest that certain discussion threads had outlived any practical purpose and that conversation should move elsewhere but even people whom I rather disliked were welcome to come have their say. Whether I replied or not was another matter.

On to the main idea, I don't think it's helpful to contest this particular issue during this discussion. People have strong feelings about user talk pages (for whatever reason) and reasonable people disagree on the scope of NOBAN. It's a side issue and shouldn't distract from the central question of the appropriateness of BMK's engagement in the article space.

Thank you for the reply all the same, and apologies for rambling on your talk page. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I just wasn't sure if you had read that particular section or not is all. I'm not really commenting on that incident otherwise since it looks like it's wrapping up, and I got too much on my plate to really deep dive into anything ANI related.

There are rare instances when editor requests that someone not post on their talk page anymore (i.e. user talk page ban) helps prevent antagonizing and harassment that's brewing under the action threshold for sanctions, but it can also be used by folks wanting to ignore legitimate discussion of their own behavior issues. I have mixed feelings on that all too, but I just wanted to point out the guideline just in case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

ARCA notice

I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA of which you are named party: action 1, action 2 --David Tornheim (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

ARCA archived

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (1) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Second ARCA archived

A second clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms (2) (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Neonicotinoid

If you want to remove a primary source to Neonicotinoid, please be more surgical & do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. bbc.com is a secondary source last that I checked. Peaceray (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peaceray, that source actually isn't the kind of secondary source we can use in this case. It generally needs to be a review paper in a journal citing the primary study if you give WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS a read. The BBC source is not a reliable scientific source per se, and it's part of the normal press releases that come out after a paper (usually part of a press release the authors or journal put out for news agencies). News articles are good for lay-summaries in a complementary fashion, but not as a true secondary. The kind of news flush that comes out immediately after paper publications generally aren't given any weight, especially if you read this section of SCIRS about not giving special emphasis to breaking news.

This is also because we as editors cannot evaluate primary literature as anonymous editors (more on that here), so we instead need to show how this paper has been received by the scientific community (whether it's accepted by multiple citations in reviews or critical comments on study design, etc.). As with any just published study, that means waiting for reviews to comment on the study. That shouldn't be a long wait because this is both a controversial topic and one where reviews come out pretty often. I'd be happy to discuss this further on the article talk page, but please keep in mind the article is under discretionary sanctions (just left a courtesy notice with more details on your talk page). Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Voting

About this: Actually, we do count votes for some purposes, and merging WikiProjects is one of them. (RFA is another.) "Votes" count here, because if you don't count my vote of opposition on a talk page, then I'll force you to count a different kind of vote of opposition: I'll quit. We do not permit hostile takeovers of WikiProjects because they don't work. You cannot force editors to work in a team with people that they do not want to work with. If you try it, then many of them will quit. We're WP:VOLUNTEERs here, not employees whom management can reorganize at will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The main thing is that decisions need to be based on WP:CONSENSUS. The decision will be from within the Wikiproject, but any opposition (just like support) needs to be based on sound reasoning and be based in policy and guideline as well. That's becoming the crux of the issue here, so my comments on "voting" were a reminder to editors that simply being opposed to the merger or using faulty logic that vet med is so distinctly different it has no place under WP:MED is not enough justification. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision of Colorado potato beetle

Hello Kingofaces43, the Colorado_potato_beetle was, or probably is still a serious pest in some regions where potatos are grown. In Europe this alien beetle seems to be under control, perhaps due to consequent use of insecticides? "It is not endemic in any of these Member States, although occasional infestations occur, as in Finland in the summer of 2011, when strong winds blew from Russia, where the species is endemic." The link within above cited sentence does lead to the article concerning ecological and geographical endemism, thus is surely misleading. In case we liked to used the term at all, the link shall be altered to Endemic (epidemiology). For usual this term is used to describe a status of infectious diseases concerning mankind and animals, BUT NOT pest organisms in general. However, i may not exclude that "endemic" is used in epidemiologic sense to desribe the status of animals like the Colorado potato beetle within regions. Thus i do suggest to alter the link. Kind regards, Erwin Stamnariophilus 08:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamnaria0568 (talk • contribs)

I've moved the discussion to the article talk page as content discussion belongs there. It sounds like you are misusing the term endemic here though. Being a pest insect does not change the topic to this epidemiological definition, so we shouldn't be getting hung up over that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Essays are not guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Essay and guideline are clearly defined in wikipedia policy. per Wikipedia:Essays, “Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community”. If an essay “has a large degree of acceptance in the community” to use your quote, it should have enough acceptance to be promoted to a guideline. Until that happens, it is incorrect to refer to SCIRS as a guideline, and while you are free to refer to the essay as much as you'd like, I suggest you stop referring to it as anything other than an essay.Dialectric (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Dialectric, this line of questioning is wandering into WP:WIKILAWYERING territory by sticking to this it's just an essay mantra, so it's really time to shed some light on that now that we're not on an article talk page focusing on content. That is problematic behavior (and another well accepted essay and concept by the community). I highly suggest you recognize that as this is already a controversial topic where inserting behavior issues like that only exacerbates things. For instance, if someone received sanctions for WP:TEND editing, no one would take a person seriously trying to say that decision should be reversed because TEND is only an essay and would likely be called out as wikilawyering to boot. The community recognizes that tendentious editing is a problem regardless of how it's codified. The same goes for essays like WP:BRD, WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDEPENDENT, etc. that are even cited by policy sometimes.

I suggest reading what WP:ESSAYS has to say. They are probably our widest ranging category ranging from "widespread norms or minority viewpoints" with a whole lot of nuance in how we handle different essays. SCIRS is one of the essays that falls more towards the the former, mostly because it accurately reflects how scientific information is disseminated. When I cite SCIRS to someone, it is not to wikilawyer in the sense that we are beholden to a particular alphabet soup wikilink (same goes for citing guideline and policy), but rather that that link has ample real world based guidance on the particular topic at hand. The latter is what we are beholden to. Saying that SCIRS is just an essay for instance contributes nothing to a conversation on how newspapers generally aren't reliable for scientific content (saying that essays are not guidelines also applies here). The next time someone cites an essay like WP:SCIRS when you are around, I suggest taking a read through it because it is meant to provide background guidance in the real world context that exists regardless of whether it's called policy, guideline, or essay. That's going to exist in determining WP:CONSENSUS regardless of how many times you say it's just any essay. Spirit refers to not viewing Wikipedia as hard set of bureaucratic rules that must be encoded as guideline or above for various reasons.

Either way, I've said what I'm going to say on your behavior and will leave it at that. In the future, please remember that it's just an essay arguments with respect to SCIRS are entirely missing the point it being linked. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kingofaces43. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Honey

Do we really have to discuss every small change? Please consider my edits carefully before you reverse them. Thanks. BTW I understand you're an entomologist, so am I. Gidip (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a few things you're doing that don't need to be added or can be written more simply and concisely. I'll post more at the article talk page since it seems clear some of the issues aren't apparent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Please be aware that a case has been raised against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm KofA: sorry that this happened to you. It's clearly going to boomerang, and I'm sorry about that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries on my end. Since I grew up on a farm and especially since becoming a scientist, I got one of those fancy shutoff switches installed for the "stuff that stresses you out" part of your brain. That mentality has been a life-saver on more than one occasion. I do feel bad about what's going on with the Doc, but I moved on to trying to ignore what was going on there awhile ago. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

MEDRS

Hi there. I noticed that you reverted[8] my addition of sources to some unsourced statements in DDT. WP:MEDRS seems to have come into it's own since I was last active on WP, and now that you've pointed me to it I'm 100% in agreement with the guideline. Makes perfect sense--we need secondary sources or better--and I'll be looking for some for those statements on DDT. (Though with limited time and no research library access, it might take a while).

In the meantime, it seems to me like leaving the primary sources in, but adding a {{npsn}} tag would be better than having those statements totally unsourced. Especially when direct quotes are involved--we can't have those just dangling there without attribution. So would you object to me adding those sources back along with the {{npsn}} template? Yilloslime ^T_C 20:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yilloslime, no worries. I'm a bit swamped with work, and DDT has been a bit lower on my to-do list, but I do have university access to journals at work if you find one that looks useful but is paywalled. Just let me know if you need something looked at if it's inaccessible.

The issue with the pieces in question is that they have had citation needed tags for years. Normally, I would delete such tagged content at this point, but I just restored it back to the status quo this time around in case this spurred someone to dig up sources in question before I or another revisit it to either find a source or delete the content. As for the npsn tag, the current MCN tag replaces that, so there's no need for the npsn tag as it's redundant. Nowadays, medical content that is only sourced to a primary source often gets deleted outright (what you see with the MCN tags is actually rare), so re-adding the primary sources wouldn't really help anything at this point.

I'll see if I can dig through relevant literature in the next week or two. Just at a quick glance on Web of Science, some of these publications do have enough citations that could have a review or two in them, but I've pretty much maxed out my Wikipedia time for the week outside minor edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I did this[9]. I figure, if we are going to explicitly discuss a primary study, then we ought to be clear about which study it is and provide a refernce. The relevance of this study is (still) supported by the reviews cited in the subsequent sentences. By the way, thanks for the work you did earlier, finding refs and cleaning things up.Yilloslime ^T_C 03:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, another non-primary source discussing that specific study is [10], which goes so far as to state that "Girls exposed to elevated levels of DDT before puberty, when mammary cells are more susceptible to carcinogenic effects of chemicals, hormones, and radiation, are five times more likely to develop breast cancer in middle age."

Yeah, normally if a review mentions a primary study, there's nothing wrong with citing the primary study alongside the secondary one. I still watchlist the article, so if any need for paywalled sources or Web of Science access (to search for citing reviews) comes up, so I should be able to help. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

For getting Emerald ash borer to GA-nominee standard, I thank you on behalf of Wikiproject Beetles. Zakhx150 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

		The Golden Stag Beetle Barnstar
		For contributions to Wikiproject Beetles, I award you this Barnstar. Congratulations!

Your GA nomination of Emerald ash borer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Emerald ash borer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahem? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, I just got back in yesterday, so I'm tackling your comments this morning. Thanks for taking on the review so quickly. Your initial comments at the article didn't show up on my watchlist for some reason either (part of why I didn't let you know I was out of town earlier), so I think the GA process does something different on watchlists. You'll see my comments at the talk page shortly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this edit put back a lot of changes you made, seems like something slipped? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was sitting on another edit when I saw your ping. Looks like I had a previous version of the article open looking at what references you were referring to. I should be wrapped up pretty soon with comments for you on the talk page too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emerald ash borer

It passed actually...

Chiswick Chap, thanks for the GA acceptance (looks like you might have grabbed the wrong template because this one says the nomination failed). It was a tough article to get up to nomination quality as I discussed in the comments, so you definitely had a bit to sort through. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I definitely chose the right one, and it's definitely passed, but there was the old one so perhaps it got in the way and the bot plonked something well wrong here. I'll give it another shot. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to take a look at our first article

Hi!

We are students writing an article on Colors of Biotechnology as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have interest in these kind of topics, we would like you to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at the article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time. --Nahomi Alonso (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Nahomi Alonso, I took a look, but it doesn't look like the topic would qualify as an article. First, content in articles needs to be directly cited to reliable sources. The main issue though is that it doesn't appear this color association is used by mainstream scientists, policy makers, etc. (even I've never heard these terms used at academic conferences on biotech). This amounts to what we call a WP:NEOLOGISM. Articles at Wikipedia need to fulfill WP:GNG to establish that the topic is notable. What you need to establish first is common usage of the terms. When such designations are mentioned in peer-reviewed journal articles (namely review articles), then the topic would have some notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Better to discuss here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

KOA, I did a careful review of WP:TPNO, which reads, in pertinent part,: “Personal threats: For example, threatening people with "admins [you] know" or with having them banned for disagreeing with you. However, explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is not considered a threat.” Stating “you are on thin” ice after having templated me about the existence of discretionary sanctions sounds like a threat that you are going to take the issue to “admins you know.” I do not think that you are merely “explaining the consequences of violating WP policies, as per DS guidelines here and here: “The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion…” and "Restrictions are placed on users only in cases where their behavior seriously disrupts the wiki process or fulfillment of Wikipedia's mission to produce an accurate and useful reference work." We are having a candid discussion at the equine therapy article, and I have been asking you to provide a diff to support one argument. You keep repeating the same argument about bias in one of the studies and I honestly have been digging to find the diff myself and cannot. Further, it is not “battleground” behavior to request evidence or to present newly published material for comment. So hereafter, please confine your discussions solely to content and I shall do the same. Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw, at this point you are continuing to exhibit very clear battleground behavior even in this post. Quite frankly I'm disappointed. After a lot came to light at your RfA (I was actually surprised by how much evidence there was at the RfA votes), myself and other editors tried to help you with your problematic behaviors afterwards, but you're doubling down on it instead.

Here's how things actually worked out. Your issues with edit warring aside (which has finally stopped at least), the main issue right now is your use of the article talk page for battleground behavior, poisoning the well, etc. You've dismissed repeated warnings about that and continued to pepper such comments into content discussion. The way you are intermingling that makes it nearly impossible to continue content discussion without responding to your behavior in some manner. Simple reminders on an article talk page are ok (though not always preferred) when an editor is acting that disruptively, but you're making disruptive comments on a DS topic of all places. You really should recognize how serious that is at this point. "Free and candid discussion" does not mean free permission to engage in battleground or other behavior inappropriate per WP:FOC, WP:TPNO, etc. I highly suggest reviewing your own posts again after reading FOC especially if you still aren't seeing all the behavior issues you're interjecting at the article. Requesting evidence or providing new sources is indeed not battleground behavior (why would you even bring this up?). I don't know why your battleground comments aren't plain as day to you (I believe this same issue for you came up in some post-RfA discussions too), but you really need to step back and reread what you've been actually writing.

You've also been reminded about WP:POT in the past. It's extremely silly at best to engage in disruptive behavior and then turn around and claim someone is threatening you for telling you to knock it off or steer the conversation back to content discussion (I've tried the latter a few times now to no avail). That's akin to telling someone, "Don't threaten me!" in response to being told they're about to fall off a cliff. It's nonsensical. So is trying to deflect away from your behavior by just saying it's because I don't agree with you on a content issue (or that I'm trying to ban you over it). Not to mention that "admins you know" (where in the world did this thought even come from?) comment. Uninvolved admins take care of such sanctions. I've been working with both your behavior issues and the content issues patiently for awhile now, but the behavior aspect does need to shape up at some point and not be interjected into talk page discussion (I've only ever responded to your instances of doing this). Less patient people would have requested sanctions already to put a stop to the behavior problems, but my hope is still that you take the opportunity to stop it yourself. You should know better at this point after multiple warnings that you're skating out onto thin ice.

On a tangentially related topic, I've said this to you before, but I'm confident some editors (including myself) would no longer at least oppose you at a second RfA if for one you weren't interjecting behavior issues like this into content discussions. As it stands right now, this incident is not an improvement at all from the behavior perspective (content disagreements are mostly irrelevant in that consideration). How you choose to resolve the behavior issues that many people have pointed out to you is up to you, but even my patience can run thin if the behavior issues continue like this at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This is why I am taking the discussion off the article talkpage, because the issue is your tone, which is shutting down “free and candid discussion.” I am concerned about your gaslighting, and yes, “well-poisoning”; you are exaggerating and making false accusations against me, a 10-year veteran of this project, and it is unwarranted. I see a disagreement that you seem to frame as a violation of wikipedia policy, which it is not. Perhaps you do not understand that your decision to keep using phrases such as “shape up” or “ you are on thin ice” really do sound threatening—consider this official notice that I do believe that you are threatening me with administrative action in an attempt to intimidate me, silence my voice, and prevent me from editing an article. The problem is not the article, which I have avoided editing for over a month — it is your stifling of dissent rather than to simply respond to my perfectly reasonable and repeated request to provide the specific diff to verify a statement you claim was made “long ago” and that I have not found even after a diligent search (a link to an entire lengthy argument is not an answer.) Provide the diff to the edit you made where you claimed the Selby source was not an RS due to a supposed COI or bias of some sort and what that bias is. That is all I am asking. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Kingofaces. It is not battle ground behaviour to ask for input, to disagree. It is, however, battleground behaviour to characterize discussion and requests for input as disruptive. Content issues? An editor who has as many GA/FA articles as this one does? And finally, you are using an RfA to attempt to intimidate which is pretty low, frankly. Montana has asked you repeatedly for a diff. Either cite the diff., or admit you don't have it or can't find it. When you take those steps this discussion can continue in a way that complies with our guides for talk page discussions, without personal attacks and intimidations, and with what looks like stonewalling on an issue, all of which block the easy interchange of ideas on an article- what a talk page is for. Until you do that, and given your accusations and threats against Montana the behaviour concerns seem to be yours.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC))

Please don't mischaracterize the situation (even of cursory reading of my posts here should have indicated you are way off base). Montana's behavior issues were based in personal comments directed at editors on the talk page (i.e., behavior issues), not the content dispute itself. It's an extreme mischaracterization to say I am saying the content dispute is battleground behavior. It's also highly disruptive to claim I am attempting to "intimidate" by mentioning the RfA. I mentioned it because I had tried to help Montana out with some of the aftermath of the their RfA and what behavior they could improve on. I also mentioned it because I wanted to make it clear that I'm not out to get Montana or anything like that because I'd would no longer have reason to oppose at another RfA if they just took care of the battleground behavior when they get into content disputes. As for diff's, Montana has been directly pointed exactly to where the content was discussed multiple times already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually was going to mention gaslighting alongisde the cliff allegory, but originally decided against it. Since you bring it up though, you are reacting to critiques of your behavior in a manner in line with gaslighting (i.e., going to back me cautioning you about your behavior causing issues only to have you claim I am in the wrong by trying to work with you on that problem). I can't really do anything to help you out when you're doing that. Everyone reacts different to comments of their own behavior though (some accept and reflect on it, others deflect, etc.), so I originally thought it best to just outline the main issues with the article talk page behavior rather than higher level meta-behavior like that. At the end of the day, none of the behaviors I've talked to you about are appropriate at article talk pages (being here for X years doesn't excuse that), so the shape up comments are simply telling you that you really need to work on fixing those issues. Trying to turn that into me attempting to intimidate, silence you, etc. is unfortunately reinforcing evidence of the battleground mentality at the article I've been telling you to stop engaging in. You just keep digging that hole, and I'm trying to give you a chance to get out of yourself it rather than let it sink in around you (again, the cliff allegory).

For clarity's sake if I wasn't clear enough already, I only bring up your RfA because there was quite a bit of critique of your behavior you can benefit from there. It's your choice at the end of the day what to do about your behavior, but you should ideally be choosing to focus on article content rather than going after editors that tell you to stop interjecting behavior issues into article talk page discussion that clearly violate WP:TPNO while making it next to impossible to continue discussion solely on content. As I mentioned before, your behavior easily could have been brought up for administrative enforcement awhile ago, but I was choosing to try to work with you on those behavior problems instead (always a better option than needing sanctions). You referring to "threats" of enforcement seem to entirely ignore your behavior or that I'm trying to get you to fix those problems yourself rather than needing sanctions in the first place. Especially given your most recent comments, I'm done trying to make you aware of or change the behavioral problems you were causing (again, independent of the content issues). I think you've made it clear that you're not going to stop reacting poorly towards me while trying to get you to stop those issues. It's apparent anything I say isn't going help that now, so it's entirely up to you at this point to change things.

As for the "diff", I already pointed you exactly there multiple times. I think I might be at the third of fourth time pointing that out on the article talk page. As I said before, we discussed the sources to death with multiple issues with Selby being discussed besides lack of independence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

revert mistake

Lady beetle. Made a revert by mistake and left a rather terse edit summary because I could only see a partial summary left by you. Apologies, self reverting and will continue on talk page. Edaham (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Edaham, I just saw your message on the article talk page too. No worries. I've done similar things before too and ended up putting my foot in my mouth on more than on occasion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Please take this as friendly advice, but consensus is tending towards being against you and you need to be real careful about 1RR, because you are right on the edge of it. Arguing that it's slightly more than 24 hours won't get you very far. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I'll add more on the talk page soon, but since you posted here, I'll cover the less concise non-content stuff. In my case, I was trying to keep people (including yourself) following the spirit of 1RR. Back during the ArbCom case, we talked about putting in additional restrictions related to edit warring, but the overall expectation with 1RR amongst arbs was that editors would basically follow WP:BRD when it was clear new content was not getting traction.[11] We've been doing pretty good about that after ArbCom, but when you reverted the content back in[12], that went against that expectation and spirit of 1RR. It was an improvement definitely, but the content had some still had some underlying issues, hence the request to take it to the talk page.

Generally, the time to begin discussion for those who felt strongly about included the content was after I reverted Gandydancer's edit. There's obviously room for trying to constructively improve things with edits as you did, but by the time I removed your edit, that was definitely the time for everyone to stop reinserting it and obtain consensus on the talk page. We're kind of drifting back to pre-ArbCom habits in terms of reverts, so that's why I'm asking editors to by wary of 1RR and what it was intended to do. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

About "trying to keep people (including yourself) following the spirit of 1RR", I was not reverting. Revising in response to other editors' (your) comments is not reverting. If you had asked everyone to come to talk, fine, of course. But to keep reverting multiple editors is a big mistake, one that could get you blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, your edits at least were improvements and that can be a bit a gray zone in the realm of "technical" reverts, so please don't take that intended as an accusation of wrongdoing. The main point is that once Gandydancer's edits were reverted, the expectation was that editors would come to the talk page if something was unclear from my edit summaries or they wanted to include the content in some form. That still gives some room for edits like you made (sometimes better to open up discussion before making them), but it was definitely time for discussion when your edit was undone.

I'm not trying to be critical of your edits where you gave it a good shot, and I'm definitely not lumping you in with the same degree as say someone who just reverted the same exact content back in. I'm just outlining how there had been an increasing degree of drifting away from 1RR expectations from workable in your edits to problematic with Binksternet's most recent revert. The main thing was just that I was operating under the general 1RR expectation we had for the topic where once Gandydancer was reverted, that was usually the time for discussion to start for everyone unless someone has a bang up solution edit that gets accepted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Skunk

I don't really care but there was no discussion it was you who removed the sourced content on your own. You don't need to keep posting about what you've done on my page you can just do it. Thanks Bacardi379 (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You also added a redirect but I checked to where you redirected and you never added any of the content you removed Bacardi379 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There's some old content we used to have prior to your edits I need to look over, but I've run out of time for the night. I'll look everything over in the morning. As for the original merge, I wasn't the one who performed it back in August 2016, but you can follow the diffs I have you on your talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)