This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/55.
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.
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)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Is there a link to the discussion you referenced? I'd be happy to discuss these topics there.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.ToaNidhiki0517:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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])[reply]
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 Wellertalk15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. SPECIFICOtalk23:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SPECIFICOtalk00:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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_
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Chris Troutman (talk) — is wishing you a HappyNewYear! 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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
