Hey friend, I am trying to figure out what is causing the mass deletion of information on this page. I feel like enough external sources have been added of third party articles to cite information. Let me know how I can improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C8:1505:A710:D516:60A:61B2:F90E (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one example. You added a chunk of text describing the "Super Bowl Breakfast", SELF-SOURCED to the organization that runs/provides the event. (superbowlbreakfast.com) The only other source there had only one line briefly mentioning that: "The 2024 Bart Starr Award will be presented during the 36th annual Super Bowl Breakfast on Feb. 10 in Las Vegas", and that source doesn't even say that it is related to Athletes in Action. To have a paragraph about the Super Bowl Breakfast, you need to find some newspaper type source (See: WP:RS and WP:RSP) that talks about Athletes in Action and that Super Bowl Breakfast is their event. Please also see: WP:IS "Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful." - meaning that not all events/actions that non-profits do are important enough to be included in their Wikipedia article. ---Avatar317(talk)00:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ITER
Great work trying to shorten the introduction paragraph to the ITER article, especially citing the relevant guidelines that suggest the four-paragraph standard. The problem is that this paragraph cites work by a journalist who is an ITER sceptic and who is committed to a rival fusion technology, so he is very active about keeping that critical information at the top of the page. I wrote on his talk page that we should transfer it to the Criticism section, but he just deleted my comment. I look forward to seeing how he reacts to your change...
I saw your posting on my Talk page a few months ago. I wanted to respond right away, but had not the time. My schedule has been hectic most of this year. Sorry I could not respond to your welcome request sooner. Good that your writing has been posted.
Today I looked at it, your "California housing shortage" article. It is a very important topic, and an interesting one. Many people are severely affected. Everyone on the coastal metropolitan areas are. I have been on both side of the supply and demand equation, personally and professionally.
I will try to read your article this month. In the meantime, one issue suggests itself to me. The 'Great Recession' quickly stopped new construction. Many construction companies made drastic cut-backs on skilled employees, or went completely out of business. Now that California needs a building boom, the housing supply factor is relatively anemic. It should be robust.
A dramatic increase in housing supply is clearly the long term solution. Ironically, short term fixes like rent control work to reduce future housing supply. Yet in the meantime rent control can alleviate some of the pain of the housing shortage, especially needed for low income renters. It's a difficult zero-sum calculus, at best. Studies have shown that rent control does not effectively lower rents over time for a region, but instead benefits certain tenants (who stay put in rentals in favored locations) and increases the rent for new tenants and those in adjacent locations that are not controlled. It also favors some more prosperous tenants, who would not qualify as low income.
It's difficult for government to intervene in the economy in the interests of a sense of political justice, to challenge the supply and demand reality, without serious unintended consequences. Rent control can alleviate today's housing pain, in exchange for prolonging the shortage. Yet sometimes the short-term realities are so abnormal that such intervention is warranted. Rent control is often a blunt instrument, but part of the political-economic tool kit.
Another major factor driving up the price of real estate in California is foreign investors. Obviously, through the influx of funds. But also, many buy homes as investments (for appreciation of their value) and then let them sit unoccupied. In not a few Los Angeles suburbs 10% of the homes are said to be idle due to absentee investors.
Today I read some of your California housing shortage article, the first half of the text and sections of the rest. Generally it is clear, well-organized, and well-sourced. Thank you. Otherwise, at the this time I have nothing to add to the May 1st paragraphs above. Hopefully I can revisit it next week. One thing: you might want to add a "redirect" page entitled "Housing shortage in California". Elfelix (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Elfelix Sorry it took me so long to respond to this.
You are right, CA does have a shortage of both companies doing construction, and skilled workers to do that work, resulting in high market rate prices for construction labor...AFAIK, both these factors are actually true around the nation.
You are right about the problems that arise when governments distort markets. In my opinion, a smarter way to help low-income renters is to use government money to subsidize their market rate rents. Rent-control forces landlords (rather than government) to subsidize rental payments for poor, middle, and rich tenants. Subsidizing food for everyone (rather than just the poor as we do in the US) is what got Venezuela into their current food-supply predicament. Having LOCAL governments pay these subsidies would be a HUGE incentive for them to fix the factors that drove rents so high in the first place.
On your other comment, blaming "absentee investors," primarily Chinese (in the news, not what you said), is just a "blame the outsiders" mentality rather than face reality. (Why is there so much crime in America? Well it must be the illegal aliens committing it all, if we just get rid of them we'll have no crime....yeah, right.) Would this be any different if they were all "local" investors? Also, I've seen no DATA in any of the articles I've read supporting this...only conjecture from interviews with individual real estate agents....anecdotes do not make data.
In a normal functioning free market, more demand just yields more supply. EVERY investment is a bet: if people are buying homes in CA because they think it will be a good investment, they're betting that CA won't solve this housing shortage anytime soon, and that CA's economy will remain strong/improve to keep the demand side up.
One more thought on investors buying homes and leaving them empty. *IF* they are doing this, one has to ask "Why are they forgoing the large amount of money they could be making by renting out those properties?" Here are a couple of my theories:
1) If they are buying new or newly renovated homes, maybe the depreciation of a slightly used (and damaged) home reduces the resale value so much that it is not worth the risk of a renter? and they intend to resell the property in a short time frame.
combined with 2) A rental agency (if the investor were to have an agency rent the property for them) is required by CA anti-discrimination law to rent to the first person(s) who can demonstrate financial sufficiency...they are not allowed to look at 20 potential renters and choose the one they think would be the least risk of damaging their property. A landlord can disallow pets in the rental contract, but not children, and children often damage homes more than pets....These factors (essentially risk of degradation of investment) may be why homes sit vacant rather than rented. ---- Avatar317 (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317[reply]
I'd like to ask you, then, what do those articles convey and can we include it in the article? Demand clearly isn't just from national demand. There is not one mention of immigration in the article. I feel this article is a well-intentioned piece which suffers from one-sided perspectives sometimes. If it's more balanced, it will be a great article. Your efforts have nonetheless made a very effective article.Qwertyuiop1234567898 (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grendelkhan Hello, and thanks for the good words about the CA housing shortage article! I'd love any suggestions you have about any ways to improve the article, (or just do them yourself, of course) and I'm writing a reply to your talk page comments now.
Clearly, you have infinitely more familiarity with charts/graphs/data on Wikipedia than I (I have none, so far); thank you for contributing, and for nominating it for GA review!!!! ---- Avatar317 (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317[reply]
Hello,
Per-capita means per person, not per property. I removed "per capita" in my edits. Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy. I have added these relevant facts to the article. I think they help understand that a 0.42% rate does not necessarily imply the locale is getting a giant subsidy. I think that's important for readers of the article to understand--recent money has resulted in SOME people paying much more per property, but longtime residents don't necessarily pay less than the rest of the state does (median property tax in CA is under 3,000 dollars per source 59). Those longtime residents have paid decades of other high taxes that compensated for prop 13 too, and we need an accounting of how much that is (and I don't think this exists).
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Rent regulation. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
This is the only invitation you issued to join a discussion. It's generally fine to advertise discussions on WikiProject talk pages, or to various noticeboards, or sometimes the talk pages of other articles. You're on shaky ground when you're inviting hand-picked editors. That can be OK when you notify every single editor in a class, such as every editor who touched an article in the last year. But one and only one editor? The one who wrote "If you haven't studied economics, don't edit this page" in direct violation of the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR policy? That does not look good.
I invited the one editor who I've encountered that stated that they had a background in economics, because I figured that an expert in the field could help improve this article. That person had stated: "As someone studying economics at the graduate level, ..."
This is the way encylopedias were written before Wikipedia, by experts in the field of the subject they wrote about, and that resulted in the articles all being of MUCH higher quality than the Rent regulation article is now. ---Avatar317(talk)06:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Alex Berenson Edits and New Article
Hi Avatar317, I wanted to thank you for all the work you put into the Alex Berenson article and the new article you created about his book, Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness and Violence. I heard his perspective on a podcast called The Argument from the New York Times in which 3 NYT opinion writers (one an anti-Trump conservative, one a left-leaning moderate, and the last quite to the left of the other two) debate controversial issues in a rational and factual manner, often times finding common ground on some points and agreeing to disagree on others. It's refreshing to hear such a reasonable debate about real policy and circumstance, but I digress. One of them did an interview with Alex Berenson about cannabis, and I found his arguments and propositions so filled with fallacies and factually incorrect information that I simply had to check how he and his book were characterized in his Wikipedia article, only to find it just briefly mentioned without any mention of the substantial number of criticisms laid against him and his book.
I wanted to make it clear to any readers that his position is not backed by science, and I really appreciate all the effort you put into reworking that article and creating a new article for the book to ensure that all readers of Wikipedia who may stumble upon his page understand that he is not an expert, nor does he defer to the actual experts, and, at least from my perspective, is trying to push an agenda instead of the actual reality of the consequences of cannabis use. Thanks again. Matt18224 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt18224:Thank you for the edit you did to the Alex Berenson article in which you added the sentence: In particular, they describe his book as highly problematic because Berenson infers causation from correlation, .... I don't recall how I came across that article, but that sentence caught my attention, and got me interested to read more. (I think a neat feature of Wikipedia is how info in articles can bootstrap better articles in this manner; I hadn't heard anything about his book until I read that Wikipedia article; without your contribution I likely wouldn't have heard about this at all.)
I do think that we will be better off as a society when more people in the general public understand science and scientific methods, and respectful and rational ways of having discussions/arguments; especially considering that in a democracy, everyone is allowed to vote and is therefore expected (or asked) to give their input on public policies, some of which may be very scientific in nature (climate change and vaccinations).
I wonder whether Berenson started his inquiry into cannabis without a pro/con legalization belief, and simply made the mistake(s) of misunderstanding science, but that once he released the book, and heard the criticism, that he now cares more about "Being Right than Doing The Right Thing", (and selling books) and doesn't want to admit his mistake: that many months of his work and his conclusion therefrom are simply wrong. The book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) was an interesting read on this subject (though I don't agree with every one of their analyses of their case studies). Another way of phrasing this is that people can behave (to varying degrees) like "insecure narcissists", whose egos are more threatened by admitting that they are wrong than the threat of public ridicule from supporting unreasonable/ridiculous/crazy beliefs. It would be interesting/telling to see what his beliefs on cannabis legalization were prior to his beginning the "quest" that lead to him writing this book, that would indicate whether he started with an agenda, or whether my theory above is the more likely case.
Lastly, I don't know if you've seen this site, but I was thinking of asking the author (Tyler Vigen) whether he would open-source one of his graphs for either/both the Correlation does not imply causation and Spurious relationship article(s). See his site here: [1] Title of the first graph: "US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation" Correlation: 99.79% (r=0.99789126) ---Avatar317(talk)20:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: Dear god, I had no clue science spending caused suicides! We need to STOP SCIENCE FUNDING NOW!!! (I probably shouldn't give anyone any ideas...) I always try to assume good faith, which, as I'm sure you know, is a common principle here on Wikipedia, and the impression I got from the interview (found here about 2 minutes in) was that Alex Berenson's wife, who is a forensic psychiatrist, anecdotally told him that she saw high numbers of criminals who also happened to use cannabis, which led him down the road of hearing anecdotes of individuals who had bad experiences with cannabis and cherry-picking the limited data and anecdotes that reinforced his belief based on his wife's assertion. I'll have to listen to the interview again to be sure, but I think he said he paid little attention to cannabis prior to his wife telling him her experience. Likely thanks to anchoring, I suspect that was his jumping-off point where he decided that if his wife, an admitted expert in psychiatry, decided cannabis was causing criminal behavior, that confirmation bias kicked in and sent him spiraling down the rabbit hole of "cannabis must be illegal for a good reason."
I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist (actually pretty far from it, computer scientist), but I took several psychology classes in college that didn't contribute toward my major in any way because I always thought the biases and fallacies to which we almost universally fall victim are so interesting, and I felt that understanding how people interpret information would both help me realize when I'm engaging in those behaviors myself and also make me a more effective programmer. I mentioned anchoring and confirmation bias, but what's almost certainly happening with him now is the backfire effect, which is related to, but distinct from, confirmation bias. According to him, his initial view on cannabis was something of a blank slate until his wife, both a trusted source and an expert in his mind, gave him the idea that cannabis and crime are associated, so he probably started looking for information that confirmed that assertion since it was his "anchor." Despite being presented with momentous amounts of scientific evidence contradicting his claims, he felt even more confident in his assertions instead of less, an example of the backfire effect. His argument that there weren't enough psychiatrists who signed the letter to validate any of its claims is a great example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I suspect even if all the signatories were psychiatrists (who are typically clinicians, not researchers, which also means selection bias comes into play since patients of psychiatrists are usually people with pre-existing mental health issues), he would find some reason why all those psychiatrist signatories aren't actually experts.
One thing you pondered was whether he's "in too deep" to admit he was wrong. You essentially described irrational escalation, also known as the "sunk cost fallacy" where, despite an outpouring of criticism of his claims, he's put so much time and money into pushing those claims that he continues doing it because he's gone "all in" on promoting prohibition. He continues to promote the idea that cannabis causes violence, despite science and experts disagreeing with him. I can't say what's in his heart, but I suspect he truly believes what he's pushing and that he simply doesn't realize all the cognitive biases he's experiencing. He thinks the overwhelming majority of "real experts" agree with him, but, according to his words and actions, they're only "real experts" if they agree with him.
With regards to that graph, the author mentions the data source, and since it's from the US Government, the data should be publicly accessible in one way or another. I have some experience with graph design, and I'll definitely look into acquiring that data and creating a public domain version showing that surprisingly high degree of correlation between the two entirely unrelated phenomena. I'm surprised the Correlation does not imply causation article doesn't have a graphic demonstrating the phenomenon, since such a graph would make it very easy for individuals who are just skimming or who are better at understanding concepts through visualizations instead of reading giant blocks of complex, jargony text like the ones present in the article to grasp the gist of what the article is trying to say. I'll see what I can do. Matt18224 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Avatar317, thanks for fixing the Alex Berenson article after it had been maliciously altered. I got my email digest showing the anonymous removal of information and immediately went to revert it, only to pleasantly discover that you had already done so. I geolocated the IP address, and it's suspiciously in the exact same area of New York where Alex Berenson lives. The editor also added information about Berenson's pet, with quite specific, unsourced details and poor following of the Manual of Style. While I have no definitive proof, the anonymous editor's seemingly visceral reaction to the content in the article debunking Berenson's claims, as well as Berenson himself being publicly annoyed by any criticism of his works, leads me to suspect that Berenson himself altered the article. He removed every bit of properly-sourced, reliable information in the article that was critical of his book, while leaving information simply stating what the book is and what he claims in it.
It may be necessary to keep a close eye on this situation, including potentially requesting an IP ban from an admin, if he continues to remove unfavorable, factual information, since this would be a blatant violation of WP:AUTO. I know you've put a lot of work into improving the article (as well as the topic overall), and I wanted you to know I'll staunchly back you up if it ultimately comes to a conflict. I strongly suspect other editors will also support the inclusion of that information in the article, since its inclusion objectively improves the quality and breadth of the article and is not "slanderous" or "partisan" as the anonymous editor claimed. Matt18224 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Matt18224: Thank you for also keeping an eye on this; I do think it may be an article which might see other edits like that one. I looked at Wikipedia's policies on page protection, (WP:Protection_policy) and it says that a page cannot be prophylactically protected; but after repeated vandalism, protection can be asked for:
Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. This level of protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sock puppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing.
So WP:Pending_changes might be the best thing to ask for if this starts recurring, since these two articles don't seem to have had that many edits.
I also did the IP-geolocate to see the same info as you, though I didn't know what area of NY he lives in, but I do also suspect him of being that editor, as you said, based on the edit summaries and other info added. I agree with you about the ridiculousness of (and similarity to his current statements) the claim of "...purely slanderous and partisan non-facts." All the sources used to reference those statements are listed as "Reliable sources" here: WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, and I specifically include quotes so that editors and readers can have reasonable confidence that the article is appropriately paraphrasing the reference.
Lastly, thank you for the good psychological overview in our last discussion of some of what you suspect is going on here, and thanks again for also keeping an eye on these articles!!
September 2019
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
@Walter Görlitz: From my experience, every medium to large church also has an attached school, and other programs like daycare, marriage counselling, feed-the-homeless, community relations, etc. ....that don't belong in a Wikipedia article (aren't IMPORTANT enough to be mentioned) unless those programs have been mentioned by Independent Sources like newspapers. If someone wants to know about a church's programs, they can visit that church's website. If the church has a program that others than the organization itsself thinks are important, Independent Sources will cover that program/school/mission.---Avatar317(talk)21:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: So you have the arrogance to CLAIM you KNOW what others did and did not do? I read everything I remove carefully. The school has its own wikipedia article, all the things I removed were sourced by websites created/owned/run by the church, and had no linked wikipedia articles. (I have not checked to see whether the school's article is notable enough to exist or should be put up for AfD...maybe I should check that now.)---Avatar317(talk)22:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I make no such claims. I simply responded to your statement that "every medium to large church also has an attached school", yet that's what you removed. I saw that you removed the self-sourced content but did not remove the only thing without a source. I don't care what you do and don't read, I care about sources. Don't ping me again. I have no interest in discussing this further with you. WP:SPSWalter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For vigilant reversal of whitewashing on pages about anti-vaccination groups. Discredited theories are not "innovative research" and those groups are not "vaccine safety advocates". Thank you! Robincantin (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding citing non-independent sources on Trace Amounts
Hello,
I'm curious about why you say that the film itself and its website aren't reliable sources for supporting statements about what the film and its authors claim – surely they're as reliable as is possible? They are obviously not independent, but I feel it's still relevant to cite them per WP:V.
[Copied this to the talk page for the article, because that is a better venue for this discussion which will allow other editors to give input] Re-publishing on Wikipedia the claims of the film itself and the film's website amounts to re-publishing their propaganda (in my opinion). I feel that it is the same as publishing an organization's mission statement or motto, and I would support this essay WP:MISSION being a policy. In my opinion, an organization/movie/person should not be allowed to frame the discussion about itself/themselves. ---Avatar317(talk)02:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why you reverted my edit on.[1] I removed the word 'false' as the citations listed are not recognized medical sources. In fact the people writing those articles are not even doctors, but journalists. Thus they form no more than a journalistic opinion.
Markbanin (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First source at the end of the sentence where you removed the word "false" is this article [1] in the magazine Science (journal) (Science, also widely referred to as Science Magazine,[2] is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science[3][4] (AAAS) and one of the world's top academic journals.) author: Martin Enserink [2]Martin Enserink is Science’s International news editor. Based in Amsterdam, he coordinates and edits news from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He also writes stories, primarily about infectious diseases, global health, and research policy. Martin received a master’s degree in biology from the University of Groningen and worked for various publications in the Netherlands before joining Science in 1999. He was a reporter at the magazine’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., for 5 years and became the Paris correspondent in 2004. Between 2011 and 2018, he was Science’s European news editor. Fascinated by emerging diseases, he covered outbreaks on four continents, including the 2001 anthrax letters in the United States, the global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. He also wrote about basic research, epidemiology, ecology, and drug and vaccine development for diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and influenza. In addition, he has written extensively about research funding, scientific publishing, research ethics, and scientific misconduct. Martin won the Communications Award of the American Society for Microbiology in 2004, 2008, and 2012, each time with a different Science colleague, for stories on SARS, malaria, and a suspected link between a virus and chronic fatigue syndrome. His story on golden rice was included in Best American Science Writing 2009. He was a mentor to four African science journalists in a program run by the World Federation of Science Journalists and wrote an online course, Covering Ebola, with Helen Branswell. In November 2019, Martin's story about the eradication of yaws, a disfiguring bacterial disease, won the Communications Award from the American Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene. - Seems like a VERY Reliable Source WP:RS written by a very qualified journalist to me, and that's just the first of FIVE sources for that statement. ---Avatar317(talk)04:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Marcus Lamb, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;
@Elizium23: You should pay more attention to who ADDED a source before accusing me of adding copyrighted material. I merely reverted an edit[3] which removed the material because it was claimed to use bad language, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. That material had been in the article for some time, and was NOT added by me.---Avatar317(talk)22:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: NO, I RESTORED deleted content (reason for deletion being offensive language) without carefully checking whether the sources for the material were acceptable. Like I said above, this content had been in the article for some time, and was not originally added by me.---Avatar317(talk)00:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw there’s been a lot of back and forth on the Calif. Prop 15 article especially in the lead section. In an effort to avoid stepping on any toes, I'd like to get your input on some minor adjustments. Your most recent change was an improvement to illustrate the "split roll" piece so I agree with you there and I think there could be some additional fine tuning to A) avoid the repetitive language, and B) more clearly define that the underlying change comes from a reassessment of property values:
Current version:
The 2020 California Proposition 15 provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" property tax system that increases taxes on large commercial properties by taxing them at market value, without changing property taxes for residential properties.
Suggested changes:
The 2020 California Proposition 15 provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increases tax revenue from large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties.
Alternatively, we could use "by assessing them at market value instead of their original purchase price" which even more clearly illustrates the change. But the above version also keeps it simple and to the point. Do you have any objections to this modification? Thank you! PureFuLT (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020 California Proposition 15 provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increases tax revenue from es on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties.
My main issue is this: the sources and the ballot wording all say that commercial property taxes will INCREASE: ("A YES vote on this measure means: Property taxes ... would go up"), and in my opinion to obscure this fact as "increases tax revenue" is misleading (it is possible to raise tax revenue withOUT raising the total "fees" paid: by re-allocation of who gets what...for example look at "fees/taxes" on water and electric bills). The simplest, clearest, and most honest way to state this is that taxes will go up (increase).
I'm ok with more details, I just want the "taxes will increase" in the first sentence, as that is necessary to balance the earlier phrase: "provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding"
One could argue that by listing the funding first and tax increase second, is biased for the initiative, and that to mention a tax increase first and revenue second would be biased against the initiative, but it needs to be done one way, and I'm fine with the spending phrase first and tax increase second.
@Avatar317: This seems fair to me. It's a bit tricky to make sure it all remains easy to understand, concise, and as neutral as possible, so I appreciate your help with this. Will go ahead and make that change, thanks! PureFuLT (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valproate
The reverted edit you did was very wrong. Yes it's unsourced, but I'm just letting you know: You have removed information that is obvious to many demographics. Yes I understand it's in all of our natural instincts to remove unsourced info, but in the future when this keeps popping up, you know why.Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about finding sources that say what I want them to say, it's finding an accurate way to summarise the plethora of sources that are out there on the subject without ignoring them. The bottom line is that there are lots of good sources out there showing one way or another that the gap has either stalled or is/could be outright declining in recent years, from here[1] to here[2] to here [3] to here[4] to here[5] to here[6] if you don't want to use the Forbes articles, which I totally understand. But the bottom line is that the sources don't reflect a consensus that COVID-19 is the sole cause of the widening or stagnating gap, and the ones that do link it to COVID don't just link it to daycare centers and schools being closed in particular, hence the wording needs to be more encompassing. I prefer my wording but if you really want to include COVID then perhaps we could combine the two and say something like "Since 2018 however, there are signs that it could be widening again, with the COVID-19 pandemic largely attributed to the reversal." Or something. What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davefelmer: 1) It's not "what sources I want to use", Reliable Sources are determined by consensus: See: WP:FORBESCON and you can see the listing for Forbes contributors. 2) Any statement added to Wikipedia must be supported by the sources YOU INCLUDE as sources, not some grouping of other sources you've read. 3) The first three sources you list are acceptable (CNBC, NPR, and CNET), but the others are not news organizations reporting on an issue, and wouldn't be considered Reliable Sources: beckershospitalreview.com talks ONLY about physician salaries, this is NOT generalizable to everyone; the kent source is a comment article, and the diversityq is an advocacy organization.
I'll add one sentence to the article using the CNBC and CNET sources, and leave the COVID statement intact, now also supported by the CNBC source. We can't OVER-generalize from sources which only talk about small segments of the labor market to everyone. ---Avatar317(talk)06:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look at your added sentence and while I appreciate that you've incorporated some of the sources I previously introduced, your wording of 'since 2018, the gender pay gap has not decreased' is not NPOV and not reflective of the source describing it. The source uses the language "no progress has been made" in its title and then is critical of the stagnation multiple times throughout its body, so I'm gonna rephrase it to reflect that.
The source also discusses other reasons for why gender wage gap growth has fallen off through the pandemic, for reasons other than the one explicitly and specifically focused on within the page text, including that women have been disproportionately impacted by furloughs and because they hold jobs in fields disproportionately shrunk by the nature of the pandemic. Yes we shouldnt over generalise at times or from some of the sources I provided before that focused on particular fields but from the ones linked now, they discuss multiple angles for the gap stagnation/rise and that should be reflected rather one of the reasons in one of the sources focused on in an extremely specific way. Davefelmer (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davefelmer: Your reasons for this change should be discussed on the Talk page FOR THIS ARTICLE, not on my Talk page; while your reasons are valid, your edit should be one which ADDS to the explanation as to why this is happening, rather than giving the reader LESS information and no idea of why the gap might be increasing. Also "stagnated" does not accurately describe what happens as well as "not decreased". ---Avatar317(talk)22:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realise you had already transferred our initial conversation onto the article talkpage! But I've seen it now, migrated the rest of our conversation over and replied there! Cheers, Davefelmer (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminding that Forbes contributors on expert sources are allowed in narrowed contexts. However please do not use capital letters in the edit summary, in a way that can be considered shouting and incivil. I don't take offence, however you may encounter editors that do, so remember the civility policy the next time an edit upsets. GeraldWL03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience, wit, and helpful teaching, it's much appreciated! I look forward to working on the issues and recommendations mentioned. Best, Hephestus-1964 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting think-tank sources
I don't understand your stance on think tank sources from your edits in Minimum wage in the United States. You link to WP:RS, but reading over that it seems to say the exact opposite of your stance. It has no stance on think-tanks in general, but it does have a stance on "biased or opinionated sources" (which would seem to include think-tanks), and states that "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". Seeing that, I have no idea what your justification is for deleting all think tank sources. The only doctrinal page I could find even mentioning think tanks was Wikipedia:Articles with a single source which merely prohibits taking the sources from a think-tank as a way of effectively copying a think-tank.
Considering the article quotes several individual people directly (who are also by no means reliable sources) to present the range of opinion on the topic, singling out think tanks seems like an unjustifiable position.
I'll drop this if it's a doctrinal thing for Wikipedia for some reason, but otherwise I will attempt to/call for reverting all of your deletions following this line, or ask that you revert those deletions yourself. Considering I don't have a Wikipedia account (and am not planning on getting one), I'm not signing this, idk if that's rude, but I'm not trying to be. I'll check back to this page within a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.10.3 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please spend more time familiarizing yourself with Reliable Sources. It is one thing when a think-tank is ATTRIBUTED and used as a source for an OPINION, it is quite another when it is being used to support "facts." Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in balance with others as presented by Independent Sources WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for. ---Avatar317(talk)23:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thought that simply making it clear it was from a biased source could possibly enough, but I forgot the doctrinal distinction between opinion and fact on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.10.3 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Videos as texts
Hi Avatar317; regarding your ES here; yes, videos are regarded as "texts" in academic contexts (see Content_analysis#Kinds_of_text). I was trying to avoid using the term "video" to refer to both pieces together since we've defined one as a "video" and the other as a "film". I understand your point though; maybe "productions" would be a better way to collectively refer to them. I'm not too fussed though. Cheers, Baffle☿gab06:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that most readers (laypeople) might be confused by an academic term, and tried to choose the word (that I think) is most easily understandable to most people given the context. ---Avatar317(talk)19:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. Of course articles should be as clear as possible, so that's fine and I've no problems leaving it alone. This c/e is quite complex so I'll be active there for a couple more days; feel free to chime in. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab22:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch
Good catch on Minimum Wage in the United States. However, I am still skeptical as to whether it is necessary to include the information in the lead because very few polls show support for a $15.00 minimum wage being that low. I am not familiar with this area of Wikipedia all that much, but I intuitively think it would be best to include more polls in the lead. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions13256: I think that if we had multiple polls in the article then we could summarize them with a single statement in the lead; this article only has these two recent ones in the lead, and some older ones in the "Polls" section, complicated by the fact that from all the polls I've seen, there is greater support for increasing the min wage slightly (to $10 for example - supported also by many economists) and reduced support for larger raises ($15 - not generally supported by economists), and the level of support also varies rather significantly between different political leanings and demographic groups. ---Avatar317(talk)20:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is regarding the changes that I made in the article Lancet MMR autism fraud calling the published paper fraudulent, that was reverted by you. The paper was fraudulent as stated in the MMR vaccine article. The word fraudulent is defined as "obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception." As stated in the article , the lancet editor-in-chief said that the journal had been deceived into publishing the paper and wakefield's conflict of interest and manipulation was undisclosed/unknown.
So the paper was fraudulently published. I did not revert back to my edit because I didn't want to engage in an edit war, and cause any inconvenience. So I thought It would be appropriate to talk to you directly.
Please take care when describing your actions in edit summaries or within a discussion on Wikipedia that you do not suggest a limit to an editor's editing privileges. In the Troy Newman article, you incorrectly reverted my edit, then told me "You could do minor grammar edits separately, those are acceptable." Wikipedia determines what edits "are acceptable." You do not. As a professional editor for more than 35 years with hundreds of published works, and as a Wikipedia editor for more than 11 years, I am quite familiar with what constitutes an "acceptable" edit. I don't like to mention my professional experience, but since you have sought to restrict the "acceptable" areas in which I may edit, I feel it is important for you to understand that this isn't my first rodeo. To answer a question you asked of me, yes, I did read the article. I am happy to return the language of Newman's removal from Australia and agree with you that it is an appropriate part of the intro. I choose to believe that you mean well in your actions. However, your language is unkind, unprofessional, provocative and does not abide by Wikipedia's principle to "always assume good faith" (WP:FAITH). Your language also inhibits the collaborative spirit which should be observed in Wikipedia. I am eager to work together with you to bring this bloated article up to the highest possible standard, but I must insist on professionalism, good faith and a collaborative atmosphere in keeping with the standards established by Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) Per WP:BRD, when your first change to a stable article was reverted, YOU should have initiated a Talk page discussion, which you did not. You redid your identical edit (a removal); you later admitted (above as well) that the part I mentioned in my second reversion about the Australia visit IS in fact sourced in the article. Meaning that about half of your first removal and RE-removal was not appropriate.
2) I apologize for quickly choosing the word "acceptable" rather than "non-controversial". My use of that word was in response to you stating that my reversion of your initial edit also reverted a one word British-->American English change, so I was recommending that if you did grammar changes (minor edits that no one would contest) SEPARATELY from content edits, than only the content edit would be reverted. (You should know by now that no one is the King/Queen of Wikipedia, so I can't tell you (or anyone) where you can/cannot edit, only the community has that power.)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hello! In regards to the edit at Factitious disorder by proxy, my main concern is that the article text says that the neurologist stated that the parents encouraged her to be sick. In the actual article, it's a bit more nuanced than that - he said that he wanted them to not encourage her to be sick, but to act like a normal teenager. As reported in various news sources, other doctors did believe her to have mitochondrial disease, and the actual person involved in the case seems to still believe so as well. I think it is controversial to say with certainty that this is a case of factitious disorder by proxy, especially given the attitude of the person concerned in regards to the matter. Is there a way you can think of to rephrase the section so that it is more accurate to what the neurologist in the source article actually said, and perhaps make it more clear that it is merely suspected rather than confirmed in this case? Thank you, Feather Jonah III (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Feather Jonah III: See my recent change to the article. I found three more sources which updated it with the results of the trial. I also restated the neurologist's statement to what the source said. Thanks for bringing this up, it got me to look more at this than I otherwise would have. Thanks! ---Avatar317(talk)23:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About Columbia International
About the Columbia International University de-edit, are you serious? [5] They DO have an athletics program, and those are the current sports the school sponsors. What else do you want? jlog3000 (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Core principles? I was just posting something that's true or a fact, but also using my own way to express words in regards. And I mean, what I posted wasn't even fake nor false. Which I don't know why it had to be removed. jlog3000 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First my previous post being removed, now this?: [6] How the hell is that against "core principles", and how do you expect me to verify? I swear that there are people that are against athletics histories of current and former institutions for purposes of education and understanding. Again I was expressing as part of my own words, because I genuine believed that there is no need for a reliable source; unless that is proven from a website that explain otherwise. Like this sample: [7] Which I had to summarize it to avoid a 'copyright violation issue' cuz most of its history does come from a website, like this: http://www.crossroadsleague.com/f/History.php Any other ideas?. jlog3000 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your: "I genuine believed that there is no need for a reliable source;" is simply WRONG and against Wikipedia's Verifiability principle WP:V. Now, per WP:SPS it would be acceptable to source things like their athletic programs to the website of the college itself, as long as it isn't overly detailed or promotional (saying how great their teams are - that would require Independent Sources WP:IS like newspapers.) To say what sports they participate in/field teams for and what Division they play in would be fine, sourced to the college's own website. ---Avatar317(talk)23:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then what else did I do wrong in such terms? Like in the case of Columbia International's, I only listed the sports the school has actively sponsored (and they are still currently), which are true based on that school's athletic website. But then, I tried to list the sports a former institution sponsored before that school either dropped its athletic program and/or closed the school altogether, like in the case of Patten's, before that got removed oppressively. Any ideas? jlog3000 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to use the Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). and when the argument of Berkeley's zoning code being a model for other single-family zoning codes is weakly or never made in the sources in this article. There is also the section of the lede which states that single-family zoning "both increases the cost of housing units and decreases the supply." Though I do not doubt that this is often true, I also find it inappropriate that this statement is offered without qualification in the lede, especially when the source does not provide much direct information on whether single-family zoning increases costs or decreases supply outside of one example in Washington DC. In fact, that the source for this statement is much more careful about its language supports the idea that this article's lede should similarly refrain from making such unsupported and unqualified statements.[1]
...zoning rules like building height caps and minimum lot sizes often limit the financial feasibility of developing new housing.
— Jenny Schuetz at Brookings
In light of this, I believe my version is better supported by the sources in the lede, and I will restore it.
As a form of exclusionary zoning,[2][3][4][5] it can have the effect of increasing the cost of housing units and decreasing their supply;[1] single-family zoning can also be used as a way to keep members of minority groups out of white neighborhoods.[6][2][4] In many United States cities, 75% of land zoned for residential uses is zoned single-family.[7]
I haven't been editing on Wikipedia regularly since before the @-function, so I'm not sure of the ettiquette around it, so I'll add this to your talk page as I added it to the SFZ talkpage.
There are a few points regarding NPOV that I sought to remedy with an edit I made yesterday in the lede (without being signed in), which was later reverted by @Avatar317 with the memo "Restored sourced statements".
One is that the lede should specify the time periods and locations that are being discussed in regard to single-family zoning. "Recently" will not have the same meaning in ten years, and "the nation" will not have the same meaning for reader. In my edit I added a {{when}} tag to the "Recently" portion and changed "the nation" to "the United States" in order to support a NPOV. Reverting this part of my edit has nothing to do with restoring sourced statements.
The issue that seems more contentious is the part of the lede which states that single-family zoning "is a form of exclusionary zoning" and "was created as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods". These unqualified statements are supported by sources name the 1916 zoning code of Berkeley, California as the first example of single-family zoning in the United States. Because of placement of these statements in the lede, whose purpose is to introduce and summarize the following content, I find that its use of Wikivoice to attribute intentions of the creators of Berkeley's zoning code to the creation of single-family zoning in general to be inappropriate, especially when other sources used in the article include other motivations for single-family zoning,[8] and when the argument of Berkeley's zoning code being a model for other single-family zoning codes is weakly or never made in the sources in this article. There is also the section of the lede which states that single-family zoning "both increases the cost of housing units and decreases the supply." Though I do not doubt that this is often true, I also find it inappropriate that this statement is offered without qualification in the lede, especially when the source does not provide much direct information on whether single-family zoning increases costs or decreases supply outside of one example in Washington DC. In fact, that the source for this statement is much more careful about its language supports the idea that this article's lede should similarly refrain from making such unsupported and unqualified statements.[1]
...zoning rules like building height caps and minimum lot sizes often limit the financial feasibility of developing new housing.
— Jenny Schuetz at Brookings
In light of this, I believe my version is better supported by the sources in the lede, and I will restore it.
As a form of exclusionary zoning,[2][3][4][5] it can have the effect of increasing the cost of housing units and decreasing their supply;[1] single-family zoning can also be used as a way to keep members of minority groups out of white neighborhoods.[6][2][4] In many United States cities, 75% of land zoned for residential uses is zoned single-family.[7]
^ abcdSchuetz, Jenny (2020-01-07). "To improve housing affordability, we need better alignment of zoning, taxes, and subsidies". Brookings. Retrieved 2021-07-12. Even where multifamily buildings are allowed, zoning rules like building height caps and minimum lot sizes often limit the financial feasibility of developing new housing. Single-family houses use more land per home than other housing types. Therefore, in places where land is expensive, building multiple homes on a given lot is the most direct way to reduce housing costs, because it spreads the cost of land across multiple homes.Cite error: The named reference "Brookings_2020" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ abcdCite error: The named reference SJMN_2021-03-01 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abCite error: The named reference SJMN_2021-02-24 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abcdCite error: The named reference BS_1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abCite error: The named reference VOX 2021-02-17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ abCite error: The named reference KQED was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Fox, Justin (19 January 2020). "News Analysis: How we got single-family home zoning and why it is under attack in the U.S."Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 27 June 2020. This was an era when lots of reformist types also supported eugenics, and the role of similar bigotry in the rise of zoning can't be denied. But it was also driven by comparatively innocent beliefs that just happen to have been totally wrong. Zoning advocates argued, for example, that channeling residential development into neighborhoods of detached single-family houses far removed from shops and offices would be a boon to Americans' health, while in fact the extreme dependence on automobiles that often resulted has been the opposite."
Your recent editing history at Gavin Newsom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Hello. I am writing because you have reverted a number of changes that I have made to the current Governor of California articles. You are re-adding a non-sequitor point to the article which has been moved to a more relevant section of the article. Thank you for your help and now your point has been added to the relevant section. Take care Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I am writing to you again to request that you please ensure that you add the requested sentence your are attempting to add to the relevant section of the article. Please be respectful.
- I am writing you again because you went into my profile and tagged me with this same tag, and had wikipedia send me a warning, after I tagged your profile here. However, as you can see you were wrong in what you were doing. The very fact that you have not gone back and re-added that ridiculous sentence is an admission of this. We don't want your kind of dishonesty here on Wikipedia. You don't have good intentions. Go blog or something. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
By claiming the article is only about the "surge" and therefore should not include the disinflation period, then since any news articles that come about later in time will be about how the inflation stopped, then that means that they'll be able to claim that those articles are irrelevant to the current article, thereby keeping their narrative on the article intact.
You are right, that's why I wanted to name the article "...high inflation period"... I think that might be better, because it would continue. I don't think that "2023 disinflation" is a topic or term that is being used in the news... I'll think more about this, though. ---Avatar317(talk)00:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! First, thanks for your edits to that page, which, among other things, have caught some deficiencies in my edits and fixed them. I do have a question about the sentence "The most common reason women report for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing". Isn't that always the reason for an abortion, that is, doesn't it include all the other reasons given? Perhaps that reason is intended to include only not being ready to have a child (rather than reasons such as a deformed fetus or danger to the health of the woman), but that's not clear and it would also would include several of the other reasons given. So I'm questioning the logic of referring to postponing or stopping childbearing as the most common reason. NightHeron (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the sentence I questioned is taken directly from the Guttmacher source. But I still don't see the logic of it. Postponing or stopping childbearing is what an abortion does. Saying that that's the most common reason for abortion is like saying that the most common reason employees call in sick is to not go to work that day. Maybe the sentence could be paraphrased, or it could be omitted, and then for the other reasons we could say "Among the most common..."
NightHeron (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so that source also says in the "Conclusions" section: the decision to have an abortion is usually motivated by more than one factor.
And: Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns
The "postpone or stop childbearing" could be for reasons OTHER than the socio-economic ones, like birth-timing, or like maybe (not mentioned in this source) but I've seen in a US poll: "so they can spend more mothering time with the children they already have / to be a better mother to the kids they already have", but it is NOT economic constraints.
Also, from same source: Timing births and controlling family size. The desire to postpone a birth or to stop childbearing is a very common reason given by women seeking abortion. In almost half of the 23 studies (in 20 countries) with this information, about 50% or more of women gave the birth-timing and family-size control cluster of reasons as their most important reason.
Essentially, if you read this section in the source it explains that in detail: "Underlying Reasons for Abortion".
Maybe it would be better paraphrased as "The most common reason women report for having an abortion is for birth-timing and limiting family size."? ---Avatar317(talk)02:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like the paraphrasing in terms of birth-timing and family size. That removes the apparent incongruity of the other less clear wording. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up, you are right, my original phrasing basically uses many words to tell the reader nothing, like the previous wording of that sentence, sorry about that. ---Avatar317(talk)05:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You started the edit war by reverting my change (of your misrepresentation of the NYT source) of YOUR ADDITION. You could remove your addition and we could discuss that. ---Avatar317(talk)17:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I know this is ironic as my username is not a robot, but I can vouch for DaniaHernandez, Abigail Kingston, and Kedmon 10. You may be right that they didn't cite well (I don't know because I can't see what they did), but they are real people. We're in a digital writing class together and we were assigned a project where each group has to edit a Wikipedia page based around a social justice issue. Bear with them as they learn the editing process, most of us have never done this before. Thanks, friend :) NotaRobot5000 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We appreciate this. I know I messed up the one citation, I didn't get a chance to go back and correct the error. We are new to the Wiki community. I apologize for the learning curve we are experiencing. 98.101.109.21 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thankyou. I guess the article is drawing to a close now as the dams come down, but the restoration is worth following. The people on the Yurok Tribe condor cam message board (where I became involved with condors' plight) liked it as it shows their efforts to save the salmon that their society is so tied to. I will try to keep an up-to-date section on habitat restoration on their article page which I have started working on and especially the food culture section.Richard Nowell (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Hi Avatar317,
Revision history on the article "Bolsa Familia" shows you deleted my edit of 16th May 2024 as coming from an unreliable source.
I'm not sure whether you do indeed understand the topics you censor or just apply a set of rules, but my edit is very much true and reliable. Please find below the link to a Youtube video where President Lula da Silva makes the statements I faithfully quoted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTMckO9i53A
I trust you will undo your deletion after watching the original video (from the year 2000), and allow my paragraph to be featured at the page, offering readers very relevant context on the issue.
Thanks 2A02:8308:317:BE00:F92E:3A5A:96A8:C3CE (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, when you added the paragraph I removed: [[8]], you didn't list ANY source. But Lula's speech is what on Wikipedia is considered a WP:PRIMARY source. We generally want editors (us) to use WP:SECONDARY sources so that we editors don't pick and choose which parts of the primary source to represent or talk about or interpret. Interpretation or choosing which lines to quote from a primary source is what we are supposed to let reporters (who have journalistic training) do. They are trained to tell the WHOLE story, from a balanced point of view. Cheers! ---Avatar317(talk)22:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the trouble
Sorry for any trouble I caused joining in editing yesterday. I think all of us were trying to make the article better. I don't know how it ended up as an administrative issue. BasketOfDucklings (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linear no-threshold model. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
(edit conflict)Responding to your query on my talk: 3RR is not an entitlement. You were warned for restoring a contested edit in violation of WP:ONUS rather than joining the ongoing discussion on the talk page, which already involves more than one editor. Angelfire should be obviously recognizable as failing WP:RS in any context to any experienced editor. Also review WP:CIVIL, please and thank you. VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you be civil and not LIE about edits. What sort of BULLSHIT is this comment? "You were warned for restoring a contested edit in violation of WP:ONUS". Where did you make any comment about my edit being against consensus or non-consensus on the Talk page; that discussion seemed to have no real conclusion, and you never even mentioned it when reverting me, nor did the editor I reverted make any edit summary about the Talk page subjects. ---Avatar317(talk)01:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"no real conclusion" means there isn't consensus to restore the contested content per WP:ONUS. And the responsibility to check the talk page is yours (though a more thorough check on your part may reveal that I did in fact mention the talk page): you, and no one else, is responsible for your behavior. Please review WP:AGF since you seem to have some issues with that along with civility. Kind regards. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you CLEARLY have problems with incivility and inability to admit when you are wrong. Instead of making such a rude and obnoxious comment in your edit summary: "use talk page, and no one should need to explain to you why angelfire is not a RS!" - where you must be referring to how you stupidly removed THE ARCHIVE LINK but NOT the source itsself, and you ignored the THREE OTHER SOURCES I was referring to, and then continue to be even more uncivil by this ridiculous post about edit warring here on my talk page.
You COULD HAVE used an edit summary like: "Those sources were discussed on the Talk page and decided to be poor sources; if you feel differently, please discuss on the Talk page."
And if YOU were civil, you would apologize for starting this conversation in the first place with an inappropriate Edit War warning. ---Avatar317(talk)06:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any concerns about my alleged incivility I'd be happy to discuss those concerns at ANI. Beware the boomerang, however. Enjoy your weekend! VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving that you are an insecure narcissist who lacks the ability to admit when you are wrong. Now could you please stop TROLLING my Talk page, or must you as an insecure narcissist get the last word? ---Avatar317(talk)06:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: It seems I got caught in a crossfire between you and VQuakr. I see that you are both big contributors to WP, so I don't doubt anyone's good faith in this debate over LNT, but I am frustrated that VQuakr seems to be nitpicking over the rules, rather than the substance of the debate. I understand that WP is not a forum for ongoing discussion, so I linked to a more appropriate forum for that purpose. He deleted my link, calling it spam. That seems like censorship, not just avoiding topic debate on the article's talk page.
I see from your other contributions that you do have some expertise relevant to this topic, and I will welcome your participation in the discussion. Please contact me, if you are interested. macquigg at gmail. David MacQuigg09:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: I think you have the right side of this debate. The UCS anti-nuclear view should be left out until there is "consensus". But I worry about VQuakr's lawyering skills, arguing that his version has "long standing" status. However, if you look at the articles edit history, the "long standing" version should be the one where I had a good balance between the two sides.
[9]
That version stood for four months, before a massive deletion by WritKeeper. At that point I gave up. Does my failure to challenge the bias at that time, constitute acceptance of a new "long standing" status? David MacQuigg04:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: Thank you for enduring this long acrimonious debate and getting a fair resolution. The ThorCon article is still nowhere close to what it should be, but I'm not willing to spend time fighting for every inch of improvement. Other experts have the same feelings about WP, a "bottomless rabbit hole" one called it. However, we are willing to help, if you need technical backup. Are you getting these messages? David MacQuigg16:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. If you can find any of what Wikipedia calls Reliable Sources WP:RS about ThorCon and post them to the Talk page there, I and others can add content from those sources. I found this chapter from a 2024 book, [10] but the two authors appear to both employed by ThorCon. Often simply FINDING sources can be the hardest problem. I don't have access to the many academic libraries/publishers which are paywalled; if you have this type of access, those types of sources are generally very good, as long as they talk about Thorcon, and not just MSR's in general. Thanks!! ---Avatar317(talk)20:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have free access to that book, as I am now retired from the University of Arizona, but if it is important, I can pay the $31.50 they are asking for the chapter on ThorCon. As for sources that satisfy WP:RS that is going to be difficult, since the only people who really know the details of this reactor are the engineers who designed it. My experience in trying to dig up sources for WP is that nothing will be good enough. On the ThorCon design, I tried to cite their filing with the IAEA. See the discussion on the talk page for how ridiculous the opposition gets.
Citing sources is a lot easier at Citizendium. I showed that UCS complaint to ThorCon and got an immediate response. The complaint and response go together on our Debate Guide page, and I'm done, until someone on the anti-nuke side wants to challenge it, then we may have to dig into the IAEA filings to verify what the ThorCon engineer said. That kind of challenge rarely happens. What I get is flimsy rationales, defending the UCS report: Their statement that all MSRs require on-site chemical fuel processing (introducing a risk of diversion) is true because collecting the gases that bubble off the reactor is "chemical processing". This is the kind of BS we save our readers from having to endure.
If you want to improve the WP article, take a look at what we have on CZ. Surely some of it could go on WP without challenge. Or you could join us at CZ and write articles without having to spend half your time fighting with people who abuse the rules to suppress information they don't like. David MacQuigg21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317 You said on my talk page that you were "interested in pretty much everything in the nuclear subject area". Are you interested enough to help us develop these articles in Citizendium? Many of them could be ported to WP, if there is someone like yourself willing to defend them. David MacQuigg00:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia's policies would not allow Citizendium articles to be "ported" to Wikipedia, and I don't have the power to individually make policy. ---Avatar317(talk)23:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should not have said "ported". Is there any information in Citizendium's ThorCon article that might be useful in Wikipedia? Do you agree with me that CZ's articles are far better than WP for anyone interested in understanding the new technology? This was originally a WP article, then "ported" to CZ, where it was more fully developed, then "ported back" to WP, where it was "longstanding" for a few months, then someone did a massive deletion, claiming it was all "promotional". If you are interested in improving WP coverage of nuclear power, there are a lot of things that could be done. You might, for example, restore the earlier version of the WP article, then demand that the anti-nukers justify each deletion. This is going to be a lot of work, but if you are willing to battle the rule-bots and anti-nukers, I will do what I can to get better sources from experts on our panel at CZ. David MacQuiggDavid MacQuigg14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were already warned about edit warring in a section just above. Next step is AN3 since this hasn't abated with your latest violation at [11]. As a reminder, 3RR is not an entitlement. Do not edit war. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. No problem, I was just trying to match the antonym's article, which mentioned its antithesis in both the lede and the See Also section, lol. Doesn't bother me much though if they're different.
Although if "YIMBY" were removed from "NIMBY"'s see also, it would make the columns even, and then my OCD would be soooo happy. But I'm sure that would get reverted too, so why even bother right? --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
POV issue
I don't understand your worry about POV issues involving new citations and source verification fixes in MMT. If for some reason you don't feel like discussing it on talk, I am confused about your position. I was trying very hard to be neutral and don't have a dog in that economic school. Poorly written and confusing articles just bother me 98.118.249.192 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Dilation and evacuation (abortion) dispute. Seeking resolution and civil dialogue.
Hello, @Avatar317,
I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing to address your reversions of my recent attempted edits to the Dilation and evacuation article. I thought it would be worth a shot to attempt to resolve these concerns and this dispute mutually and without unnecessary, prolonged drama. My intention here is to foster a constructive dialogue, address any misunderstandings, and explore how we can collaboratively improve the article.
In your reversion of my edits, you stated that my changes constituted "POV pushing" and cited my editing history as evidence of bias. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my edits, and I’d like to explain why.
The changes I proposed were grounded in reputable sources, including medical textbooks and training manuals that describe the procedure in detail. Specifically, the use of terms like "dismemberment" and "decapitation" are used to describe the abortion procedure in Dr. Warren Hern's "Abortion Practice" textbook, a reputable and widely cited manual on abortion procedures that is still used in training today. They are not intended to push a narrative. Instead, they reflect the terminology and descriptions used in reliable sources, such as Dr. Warren Hern's textbook, which is widely cited in the medical field. You can also read "Dilation and Evacuation" [13] from Medicover Hospitals to read more about how the procedure is performed. The terms "dismemberment" or "decapitation" are not terms of "pushing a certain point of view," they are medically accurate and factual terms that describe the procedure.
My intention in editing the Dilation and evacuation article is to add clarity and detail to the Surgical procedure section, which is currently, in my opinion, vague and undetailed. For instance, the phrase "uterine contents are removed" lacks specificity and does not fully inform readers about the nature of the procedure. Including the medical steps and rationale, such as the use of forceps to extract fetal body parts and the importance of ultrasonography, provides a more accurate representation of the procedure as described in medical literature.
I am very familiar with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and I always strive to uphold it. Looking at many of your edits on abortion-related topics as well, and some of your conversations above in this talk page on similar matters, many of your edits and reversions appear to have been motivated from a point of view that is in favor of abortion access. However, I am going to assume good faith, and I would appreciate if you would do the same for me as well. It is my editorial view that the article should specify that the abortion procedure is "generally safe to the mother" instead of calling it safe altogether. By broadly calling the procedure safe, you are blatantly endorsing a pro-abortion-rights perspective, because no anti-abortion person (nor many pro-abortion-rights scholars) would consider the procedure to be safe for the embryo or fetus. You implied that I tried hiding that edit in the edits I attempted to make, when that's not true. I believe that the article is written in a way that completely ignores what happens to the fetus during the procedure, and that generalizes the procedure as safe in a way that, in WikiVoice, completely erases the fetus from consideration.
I recognize that discussions around abortion articles can be highly charged, and I appreciate the need to guard against bias on all sides. However, your edit summary referenced my editing history and implied that I am "not here to improve Wikipedia." I’d like to address this directly. I have a wide variety of contributions on Wikipedia, and any honest look at my editing history would reveal that I spend time working on a variety of different articles and topics, including abortion. I am a biology student who has a very deep interest in embryology, and my goal is to help improve and expand articles on Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if concerns about individual edits were addressed on their own merits rather than attributing a generalized intent to my contributions.
To move forward, here are some ideas on how we can resolve this issue and improve the article:
I’m happy to provide the specific pages and context for the sources I used, including Warren Hern’s textbook, if you'd like wider ranges of context.
I'm open to working with you to see how we can keep the article in a way that does not take a perspective on the abortion debate, but simply portrays the facts.
While I disagree with many of your edits and your decisions, I do respect the time and effort you’ve put into contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope we can work together to improve this article for the benefit of all readers. Please let me know your thoughts or if there’s a preferred way to proceed. I hope we can have a civil dialogue regarding this.
Your failure to WANT to understand (WP:IDHT) that your edits like: "generally safe to the mother" are not POV pushing is YOUR problem. ZERO readers assume that during an abortion a fetus will be removed from the woman and implanted into another woman or artificial uterus to be then gestated to term.
EVERYONE understands that the fetus will die, just like bacterial cells die when we use antibiotics, but we don't list antibiotics as "safe for humans, but not bacteria." ---Avatar317(talk)06:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being disingenuous here. A fetus is an individual human organism, a bacteria is not. When we are referring to safety in terms of medications or procedures, we are usually referring to the safety of humans. A fetus is not safe during a dilation and evacuation abortion, because they are dismembered and subsequently deceased. You wouldn't call a boxing match "safe" for both participants if one is knocked unconscious, even if the match is conducted under strict rules and the referees ensure the other fighter isn’t harmed. Similarly, calling a dilation and evacuation abortion "safe" doesn’t apply to the fetus, as its death is an inherent and inevitable part of the procedure. The term "safe" in this context only refers to the pregnant woman, not to the fetus. By calling the procedure "safe," you are inherently taking on a pro-abortion point of view, because you are implying that the fetus is not a human being and does not possess any consideration in the discussion.
Secondly, my most recent edit that you reverted did not even include the statement "generally safe to the mother." My most recent edit added to the article information about the frequency of the procedure, and the details of the surgical portion of the procedure. You still have not addressed how describing the procedure (the use of dismemberment or decapitation) is "POV pushing." DocZach (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Capital accumulation. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. You keep commenting on editors, rather then content have done so over four times nowDes Vallee (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
.jpg)
_12.jpg)
