You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
p.s. you can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
Apology for the edit conflict on Community Ag.! Hope I didn't mess you up. I didn't know you were still working on it. -Will try later. Pollinator 05:24, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC) (Ain't this fun!)
I added the reference (Werther eau de cologne) on the bestseller talk page, as requested. Feel free to move it into the article proper if you feel it merits a note. Asav13:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to thank you for your constructive criticism on this article. It didn't make it as a FAC, but will take some time to rework it and resubmit it again sometime in the future. Have added some comments to your reply if you are interested. Cheers! Captmondo21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At Organic food you wrote "marketing products like frozen entress and other convenience foods". Did you mean frozen starters or frozen main coarses? Entree means starter in non-US English, main course in US English. Reply not required - just clarify the article as you see fit, when or if you see fit. Jamesday 13:28, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I like you additions to the plant breeding, another issue surrounding the decline in nutritional value of food the degradation of soil over that period(I'll look for some refs) which is more to do with farming techniques than breeding. Also could you include the details of the reference that you cited in the reference section of the article. Thanks--nixie 22:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed you created the article on Albert Howard, and generally do work on organic food articles - we need more of these, thanks for your contributions. Keep on keeping on! JesseW20:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Layla will disappear before Cool most certainly does. I now see that "Cool", besides a specific national anthem is the only featured article on a song that does not relate to The Beatles somehow. So that's why you don't think "Cool" deserves to be in the list — because its impact won't last as long, because Gwen Stefani is not a worldwide icon, and because things in the music industry worked differently back then. Well let me tell you that there's a reason it made it to its status: because it is a well-written, descriptive, informative and COMPREHENSIVE article about the song. End of discussion.
I just caught your edit to Ido(talk · history · watch). You did a good job fixing up the spelling and grammar, but your browser also stripped out all non-ASCII characters from the page. This meant that all unusual letters, including IPA and interwiki links to Russian, Chinese and Japanese equivalent articles, were relaced with question marks. This means any page you edit with your current browser settings will be affected. Please could you do something about it! --Gareth Hughes18:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But I do not know where from. I remember seeing your name somewhere in articles where I have made contributions. I just came accross your name again in Raul's page where we discussed the quality of FA articles. I agree 100% with what you said. Cheers. --Anagnorisis01:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've addressed all your specific and actionable objection points. Would you mind providing other examples? Thank you. Saravask01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be rude. I really appreciate some comments after such a long period of no critique. It is just that the FAC is getting close on to seven days old. This is about the time that Raul654 designates FAs. Again, I appreciate your input whichever way this turns out. Thanks again. Saravask03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just needed to suggest that, if you are checking the text, you should reload your web browser every few minutes. This is because I am continuing to de-uglify the prose (even while you read). I don't want you to spend valuable time commenting on old revisions of the text. I've had such problems too. Thanks. Regards, Saravask03:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I'd like to reiterate what you've stated your concerns are about the Chavez FAC:
Awkward writing.
I addressed all the specific examples you provided. I also did an extensive copyedit to search out and revise all long sentences, sentences with awkward clause/phrase order, awkward syntax, awkward use of dashes, commas, and semicolons. Please notify me if you spot significant remaining examples.
Excessive use of modifiers.
I remedied all examples you gave. In addition, I searched out mawkish or inappropriately toned modifiers. I toned down a significant number of phrases and words. I believe I got them all.
Lack of clear distinction between recollections/facts in the "Childhood" section's Harvard citations.
I believe I've remedied this full stop. Please let me know if my solution may be improved upon still further.
Revision of lead for clarity/background.
I've worked to address this. Again, please notify me if any aspects of the lead remain unsatisfactory.
This diff might help you in reviewing your vote. I have addressed all of your concerns, and I thus cannot find any other instances in the article where the points of objection still stand. Please raise the issue if other improvements (that I have missed) are needed. Thanks. Saravask17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRYFOR LET?röck02:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to apogolize for giving you the third degree in The West Wing FAC. Your points about production, distribution, and marketing are very valid. I've just had a tough time with the FAC and was upset to see another objector. I'm sorry again, and I'm looking up the information you requested as we speak! I hope that with your help we will achieve FA status and set the bar at a new level for television FAs! -Scm83x05:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have added several new bits of information to the article concerning the points you were worried about. I hope that you will look them over and, finding them sufficient, will vote support on The West Wing FAC. Thank you so much! -Scm83x18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd let you know! Revamped article: Delrina, with more info, clarifying some points and highlighting the Berkley Systems Inc. v Delrina case, and (hopefully) thoroughly copyedited. A valued your comments last time so wanted to give you another chance to look it over. Here's its listing on the FAC page. Cheers! Captmondo18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a bother, but could you please take another look at the Céline Dion article. Ive taken the comments at the last FA and have tried to address them: Ive found many print sources, about 4 Books, more authoritative reviews:New york Times, Billboard.com, Los Angeles Times etc. Ive addressed her music, changes in sounds/genres, motivation etc. at the end of each sub-section, and Ive also added a "Image and Celebrity status" section at the bottom. Ive sent it to peer review for two days, but no reply. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Orane(t)(c)(e-mail)02:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I've mentioned this on the respective FAC page for Delrina, but I believe I have addressed the issues that have been pointed by other users with regard to footnotes and references.
I appreciate your comments with regard citing the Hugo Chávez article as a reference for footnotes. It was odd to get a reference to an article that was not corporate in nature with a very different referencing system. As it turns out, a more direct and relevant reference probably would have been the Acorn Computers article, which was deemed to be of Feature Article quality in the past.
I guess my only real complaint about the FAC process in general is that it has become the de facto peer review, as people tend not to scrutinize articles in detail until they reach this area. Also, the inconsistent quality of comments -- such as the fellow who was tentatively objecting to the corporate template being there, which was a truly helpful and useful addition that came out of the peer review process. And yet if it stands, the article "falls".
And I realize that I blowing off steam at this point, but if this candidate article fails, I do not plan on resubmitting it as a possible FAC in the future. I think I spent less time justifying the finer points of my Masters thesis way back when! ;-)
Hi—I'm very pleased to see your detailed objections to the renomination of this article; well done. Since I gave this one a drubbing first time around, I wanted to hold off. Really, doesn't Raul see that he's embarrassing himself? Apart from that, there's a potential conflict of interest involved; I think the process would be better if the judge distanced himself from it. (I might mention this on the page.)
I'm hoping that more WPians with critical/editing skills will hang around the FAC room to raise the standards of FAC and prevent signals being sent to all contributors that low standards are good enough (that's what happens when poor FA nominations succeed). Tony03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tony. Sorry I didn't reply earlier (see my explanation in the note to HasBeen, below; I'm writing my way upwards). Thanks for the support. You know what they say about sticking one's head above the crowd, "Take care you don't get it shot off." So, support is well-taken when you're feeling the breeze in your hair... ;)
And, yes, the FAC Director position is just too murky and unsettling. The current argument seems to be that the miracle of WP permits a "safe" suspension of disbelief and acceptance that a person can actually act like "just another editor" in some cases, while also being solely responsible for FA and TFA, and an AbCom member. That's bizarre, and the guidelines for FA->TFA are, as far as I've found, non-existent. Not to get too Classic Rock here, but it could seem like shades of, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."...?
After two months, I'm having a bit of trouble justifying to myself my time on FAC, given the results. Mainly, it's the FA->TFA connection that gets me... Oh, well. Being a squeaky wheel can be thankless, but it has its own rewards...hopefully, once in a while. Later on...! --Tsavage18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good Morning. I support the arguments you made in the CDion FA nomination, and would like to lend my support to any review procedure that you might become involved in over this issue. My name is apparently mud at the moment for AfDing a bunch of pop song entries that I considered to be blatant commercial advertising after finding Cool (Song) on page one, but it isn’t deterring me from commenting legitimately in FACs (yet…) I have brought this to the pump, but got heavily slapped down. Any suggestions? --HasBeen08:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I had this idea that I'd stay out of..."backchannel" stuff relating to FAC, all the lobbying and whatnot that drives this place (not that that's anything but normal). In any case, I replied to Ta bu shi da yu below (Celine Dion), so, so much for that (but definitely no email, IM, IRC, ;)...
Hate to wake you up so early but... we hobbits have to get things done ya know ... what do you mean when you say "good morning"... do you mean to say it's a "good morning" or do you wish me a "good morning"? --hydnjotalk03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Unfortunately(?), I'm not Tom. You guys do look mighty happy... With me, it's at times one or the other, sometimes both (I recently did a quiz that said I'm a "post-modernist", so maybe that explains it)... Nice to meet you! :) --Tsavage17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Tsavage :-) I was wondering what we should do to get that Celine Dion article up to scratch. I guess what I'm asking is: at a bare minimum, what information about her music do we need to include in the article? Incidently, I have no axe to grind about this article (I'm not actually a fan), but I feel it would be a pity if User:Journalist, who spent a fair amount of effort on the article, wasn't made precisely aware of precisely what should be included. I think your suggestion has a great deal of merit, btw. That's why I'm going straight to the horses mouth!
Hey, Ta bu shi da yu. You do seem quite "reasonable and level-headed" (famous last words? ;), so I'll reply. (I've been trying to keep out of "backchannel" stuff in relation to FAC, but I guess it's inevitable. I will, therefore, now also reply to Tony and HasBeen, above.)
Well, my objection about lack of a music section in Celine Dion still seems quite clear to me on the actionability scale. I don't have a precise format or template for such a section in mind, as in part, I imagine the information would somewhat vary by the artist (style of music, length of career, and so forth). I'd have to read it to strike. My objection expresses the general interpretation of FA criteria that, when looking up a singer in a thoroughly modern encyclopedia that is "comprehensive", one should be able to easily locate basic information about that subject's "tools of the trade". Here, that would include stuff like vocal range, training, stylistic quirks, evolution of singing voice over the years,... The examples, for Billie Holliday and The Edge, which were included, further clarify the point (perhaps a combination of both of those would be somewhat of a guideline). As it stands now, the CD article offers a biographical background, and an annotated discography (that relies mainly on pop media critics). That alone does not even address the "why" of her notability on any sort of technical level. It's like writing an article about a certain jet engine by only noting where it was built, who designed it, and what planes it was attached to, with no discussion of its design, its capabilities, its place in the world of jet engines... IOW, there is a "technical" side to most things, and that should be addressed as a matter of course. This, as I've noted, is simply what I consider a reasonable interpretation of the "great article" criteria for this topic. It can be dismissed procedurally, if the FAC Director finds it unreasonable...
As a side note, I'm curious as to how "helping Journalist" fits into your view of FAC. I'm all for being supportive, I work on actionability even when I think something should be quite clear as stated, and I have made changes to articles in FAC during their candidacy,. Still, I think there has to be a separation between FAC and generally being supportive and encouraging. Presumably, the FAC Director has left CD hanging so long so that things can maybe get worked out, but that is one person's interpretation of a much broader guideline. The FA criteria simply say the objections should be actionable, not that they're supposed to be fixed during the (one week) candidacy. That could equally be interpreted as a vetting mechanism to ensure valid objections, but not to encourage rewriting of articles on FAC. (I also noted this in my CD comments on FAC.) If FAC is to be not a sham, votes and opinions should be, for one, on a consistent (the same) version of an article, not one that has undergone dozens or hundreds of rushed edits, under pressure, serving (and often, byu) many editors, in a short period of time. That doesn't seem like a good way to promote quality, or even an efficient process... It's like asking you to sign a petition, with the caveat that the petition might be "reworded" above your signature. Being too "supportive" here therefore can (and, IMO, quite often does) become counterproductive.
A lot of this has, for me, to do with the FA->TFA connection. Holding FAs to the rigorous standards they claim is particularly important to me because these articles appear to many, many people on the front page. They should really be the best, not simply "almost there". At this stage of WP, with millions of dollars and probably the same in hours of labor going into it, we should be able to do better... Perhaps you'd like to glance at my fledgling TFA guideline proposal. (Well, there, I've crossed my line...) Sorry if I'm (at times :) a little WORDY: no passion, no interest, and I guess that's how I express it... --Tsavage18:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I normally delete items listed as speedies on sight, and the actual content obviously wasn't worth keeping. However, in this case, although it's not an alternative spelling, Leibig is a plausible mispelling - I have a chem degree, and I have to think which way round the "i" and "e" are. The article creator obviously had the same problem, so in this case I thought it was worth keeping a redirect.
I know it's frustrating that your objections sometimes aren't taken seriously; it's happened to me too. But don't forget that your efforts have caused significant improvement in many different articles, and for that, Wikipedia is better off. Keep up the good work! --Spangineer(háblame)18:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you are frustrated with the passing of the article, as it seemed as if your objects were blatantly overlooked. I really dont know what to say...sorry maybe? Despite my "heatedness" over the matter, I actually respected your objection and how you have taken a sense of duty to the FAC process. I saw your question on the FAC director's page, and Im also curious about the answer.
However, my assertion that the article is "there" still stands, and I'm a bit happy that rough concensus was taken to promote the article. As much as there are some good voters, FAC nowadays are infiltrated with editors who are ignorant of manual of style and many other conventions and policies; people who just want to get a few edits in and be included in something. Many of them often take a "my way or the high way" attitude to their votes and suggestions, failing to arrive at compromises. People have different tastes, and as the policy states, there is no such thing as a perfect article. An article can always be improved, and "Celine Dion" will, but at its present state, it meets the FA criteria, and I believe thats why it was promoted.
Im quite happy, as I was actually frustrated with the double standard people seemed to be taking to the article; it's on par with many other featured articles of the same nature. Sorry to be flooding you talk page like this. I have to go, but I will be on today at about 5-6 pm ET in case you want to continue. Orane(t)(c)(e)15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review you opposition for Cheers! I just went through Toasting Cheers, the best source of information for the show, and added a nice Production section including information on the crew. Please let me know what else you want! Staxringold14:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for striking out your object. What comments (specifically) do you feel like I still need to add/work on (hopefully to garner your support). :) Staxringold02:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to explain my comments yesterday on the FAC: I did not want to get drawn into a long drawn out point-counterpoint - you made my point, I made mine, and there was not much more to add. I did not write the article, although I have copyedited it a couple of times, and I am not bothered very much about its subject matter. However, as I have said, I do think it is good enough, and I see an undercurrent of objections which I find hard to understand. Assuming you accept that the article could be featured, it would be interesting to know what you think should be added or changed. Compare Spoo for example.
I also wanted to say that I do not agree with Celestianpower's latest comments: I have assumed all the way through - and it is entirely apparent to me from your other contributions to FAC - that you are motivated by the best of intentions: to make our articles as good as possible. As I have said before, your standards may well be higher than mine. That is not a bad thing; however, I see the standards set by FAC reviewers rising relentlessly, so articles that would have been featured 6 months or a year ago are dismissed without a second thought, but articles that were featured then stick around; and, all the time, less than one article in a thousand is featured, but many of the other 999 are "good" articles. -- ALoan(Talk)17:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm afraid that I stand by everything I've said so far. You have gone to 2 FACs currently and just totally ruined them. If I wasn't Admin Gen of Esperanza I'd both block you and call you all of the swear words under the Sun. You're objections are either lies or unactionable. You don't have the right to call the article "Mediocre, even crappy" when a teacher of English has given it the OK. He's much more qualified to object on these grounds as you are. If making me really upset and angry was your aim, you've certainly acheived it. --Celestianpowerháblame17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on the Projectplace article. Much better than the first entry I made that was just describing the service.
--Zpeed07:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just some advice: It might help if you avoid extended dialogue on Featured Article Candidates. I find it is better to get straight to the point, as people are less likely to read comments which go into the authors childhood, or habits of other editors, and so on. Thanks, --Colle||Talk-- 22:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've added a section on the applications of invasion strategy in terms of fourth generation warfare. (I've also cleaned up the fourth generation warfare article, and created new articles for the first,second, and third generations, since I don't like my articles linking to crappy stuff when I can help it).
I'm also planning to add the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the table, but I wanted to make sure that's in line with your suggestions before I do that. Some people initially objected to its inclusion, but they're not complaining anymore so, as they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I've also responded to your other questions on the fac comment page.
Thanks for your feedback, and I hope the changes will help you decide to support the article. If you have any other suggestions, please feel free to let me know and I'll do my best to address them. Happy editing! Kafziel01:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're still plugging along... I don't know how much I have left in me, but I've made some more changes to the article and addressed each of your comments on the fac comment page. In addition to your suggestions, I've also updated the footnotes to the new <ref> style and changed the table of invasion examples to prose format.
Thanks again for your feedback. I hope my changes are enough to at least cover your objections, if not garner your support. Kafziel05:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikipedia:Featured Music Project by signing up on the status page. What you'd do is sign up for one (or more) of eight categories, such as the discography or lead section. No more than once a month, you'd be given an article which is getting close to being ready for WP:FAC, and is only deficient in a few categories. You'd do what you can in your section (and, of course, anything else you like). If a couple of people specialize in each category, we should be able to take some concrete steps towards improvement on a wide range of articles. In addition, you can sign up as a "shepherd" to take articles that meet all the criteria through a peer review and (hopefully) successful candidacy. Tuf-Kat04:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on hormesis; I've no objection to reinstating the last deleted section, is there another way of flagging that they need references? I didn't mean to be non-constructive here, but I thought that it was important to keep this article in the scientific mainstream Gleng23:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been noting your sniping at me for some time - what exactly is your role here - do you write pages? - advise on pages? or merely advise as you see fit on assorted subjects on which you have experience? I'm just curious. Giano | talk21:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, I'm not sniping at you. That's not my intention. I only just recognize your username, from, I guess, FAC. Other than that, what? Thinking about it, I remember a minor exchange in one of the FAC reviews, something about hornets... Other than that, and my comment about your FARC noms, I can't recall any other exchange?
What do I do here? My contributions. You probably have to go back past the last 1,000 or more entries to get beyond my recent FAC stuff, Bulbasaur alone takes up a lot... What else? As indicated at the top of this page, I joined in Dec. 2003. Until last November, I paid no attention to all things WP, other than article editing. Then, after reading a TFA that I thought was not so good at all, I followed the links back to FAC, and that's been for the most part, my winter on WP, with side trips into FARC, stable versions discussion, AfD, and the related like... Oh, and I contribute mainly in the winter, because I farm the rest of the time... So, what's on your mind? --Tsavage22:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irresistibly butting in here, sorry about that. Tsavage, you seem surprised that anybody would take it personally to be called petulant, ridiculous, and silly. Might you have gotten into some counterproductive rhetorical habits? Because that way of leaping out at a stranger from the undergrowth, teeth and nails flashing, and then retracting the aggression with smilies and admissions of harshness, reminds me strongly of the way you responded to me on WP:FAC a while back.[1] (And this is where you scramble out of the wrong tree with egg on your face.:-)) Do you have a particular purpose with the practice, or is it just, well, habit? You do realize it's likely to piss people off...? Thickness of skin varies, no doubt, but I think most people dislike being greeted with a mouthful of hasty epithets. Bishonen | ノート02:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen: Is this, like, a pastime, tracking imagined slights and posting nasty comments to people's Talk pages? You've plucked a bit of dialog out of one discussion, which had its own context, attached it to another comment about a series of FARC noms so irregular they were removed and their subpages deleted, and come up with a "practice"? "...leaping out of the undergrowth, nails and teeth flashing"—what is that about? "Admissions of harsness"???!! Saying, "look, if that sounded harsh, it wasn't meant to be," is not an admission of harshness. I didn't "retract" a thing... Why are you here? To scold me? To initiate an attitude readjustment? My comment wasn't to Giano, it was about the series of protest nominations in FARC, that sucked me in (I read the first two before I figured out what was going on). If I criticize your writing, is that automatically a personal attack on you? Every objection in FAC is then a personal attack on the nominator? Such a thing as a "petulant comment" does not exist? I looked up Giano's comment to me in Beethoven's Fifth FAC II—"Obviously it's a hornet's nest here so I'll leave you in it to sting away." Now THAT's personal... And why are you citing stuff I wrote from other pages? What is the issue? If you think I've insulted someone, just say it in plain English, don't insult me in turn: "this is where you scramble out of the wrong tree with egg on your face"? And if you're gonna make cautionary comments like, "we also need to be careful about making FAC nominators jump through so many hoops they tire of taking their articles through FAC at all" in the FAC discussion page, in the midst of a bizarre Bulbasaur FAC II where I'm basically getting accused for weeks on end of doing exactly that, and I'm not sure who's who and how the whole thing "really" works, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOURSELF MORE CLEARLY... (A smiley is far too blunt an instrument, I never had much use for them in the first place...) --Tsavage04:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no interest in Bulbasaur - as one of my children grows out of that sort of thing sadly another grows into into it - but that is the extent of my knowledge of the subject so I won't comment on the value of your works there. As I recall the FAC you refer to was a complete hornet's nest with much stinging - so me jumping out to leave others still there and stinging away was directed at no-one in general. When riled I can be a very angry hornet indeed, and when I wish to insult believe me I can do better than that - trust me.
Your sniping, the specific incident I refer to is here [2] The adjectives you use are particularly untrue. Matthew Brettingham's FARC was/is (I count no chickens yet!) going well, so I had no reason to be in you words "entirely petulant and ridiculous" and ".....a cheap form of re-validation ". I was making what I and many others feel is a valid statement. If Matthew brettingham was worthy of an FARC then so were the other however many pages in similar, that's not petulance but stating a fact. A fact that seems to rather indigestible to many on this encyclopedia. Confusion seems to be all around us take for instance this comment here [3] made since our altercation. The comment has been admirably refuted but the confusion remains.
You attitude above to Bishonen is sad, she merely points out to you that perhaps on occasions your choice of word are less than judicious, and yet you seem to be attacking her for having the temerity to say it. Someone less charitable than myself may think that is a demonstration of petulance and cheap rhetoric. Bishonen is not just one of the most fair and busy admins on the site, but a rarity a valued contributing editor and creator of articles as well. You would do well to remember that. Giano | talk18:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Very kind, Giano.] Aha, tunnel vision. You were in the midst of the FAC of something called Bulbasaur, therefore we were all "in the midst of a bizzarre Bulbasaur FAC", and if I'm going to comment on something in a totally different nomination, then I need to check out all the FAC discussions to see if you're being accused of something somewhere and [shout] EXPLAIN MYSELF CLEARLY so it doesn't accidentally sound like I'm talking about you...? OK, that's obviously gonna make it a lot more cumbersome to comment on talk FAC, but you know what? I actually don't mind, because I'm so pleased to unexpectedly learn what your beef was that time. You thought I was sneakily referring to you. I'm sorry it sounded like it. I wasn't. For the record, I had no idea you were being accused of things in the Bulbasaur FAC. I wasn't following that discussion. Bishonen | ノート19:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen: This is like our own private review of...something or other. I suppose I'm pleased that you've found a better sense of It. You could also reconsider my comment that you conveniently linked to above, I did say the same thing. I didn't particularly think you were sneakily referring to me; I did vigorously seek clarification of your statement. I didn't launch into a long explanatory spiel like this one, I trusted that the sense of it would get through fine with "I'm about as new in FAC as anyone, and I know it's a tricky thing finding one's bearings." It wasn't code; it did take into account the extended "Hollaback Girl" review, my first gruelling long one, where you were an active participant and obviously an old hand in FAC and elsewhere around WP, and would therefore realize that things on the FAC page are picked up by reviewers (wasn't that the point of the whole thread? Wasn't it read and replied to by a reviewer who commented directly before me in reply to you, and in part influenced my comment: "I definitely don't want to scare off anyone with mandatory PR. I'm a relative newbie to the FAC page."). It seems we're discussing for the sake of it, but that's OK. Clearly, I don't mind...rattling on. "Petulant" is a hot-button word, and Giano is offended seems to be the point. My intention wasn't to injure him, only to make a strong comment about a rather drastic FARC tactic that affected me, which is what I did. Tunnel vision? Why do you keep trying to...categorize and diagnose...? Finally, caps isn't SHOUTING in my book, it may still be an online convention, like in the old days ("please don't write in all caps, it's SHOUTING"), to me it's simply an emphasis alternative to boldface, a typographical flourish from my own zine past... I might use a smiley here if I still did, but I don't... --Tsavage21:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very taken aback to find that you read my comments as "nasty" and insulting where I had no intention to offend. But that's the nature of the medium of text, as we all know. I honestly thought I was referring pleasantly enough to an old situation where I thought you aware of having levelled groundless accusations against me, and that you were a bit embarrassed about it. The reason I thought that was that to my ear you sounded embarrassed, and aware of being in the wrong tree, here. Incidentally I think you construct a false dichotomy between yourself as sensitive newbie who needs much consideration and wikilove, and me as calloused old hand who deserves neither. You've been on Wikipedia longer than I have, and on FAC pretty long now and fifty times more intensely than I ever was. I don't understand what you mean by the point of the whole thread: the whole thread was created by somebody saying Peer Review was compulsory, so how could people have the nerve to nominate on FAC without going through Peer Review first? That was the message I responded to, that was the message that interested me. It stopped me from nominating an article I'd just written. No, come to think of it, I do mind rattling on and accumulating misunderstandings. I'm done, bye. Bishonen | ノート01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Ahoy! There is an additional reason behind the deletion - in the event of a legitimate Farc, I do not want these as any kind of benchmark. Raul agreed with my decision as well. For the record though, as the text of each and every Farc was the same, I have undeleted one of them (here - oddly enough, the talk page had the same exact text as the Farc) . In my view, by the way, nothing you said on Farc Talk was necessarily innapropriate. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*>02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching the FAC page for a couple of months and I have noticed that you are one of the best reviewers there. Your comments always illustrate that you have fully read the article and understand what is trying to be presented. More than anything I am impressed by your dedication to each FAC as you fully review and re-review the same article many times and constantly reply to the nominators to get the article to be good as it can possibly get. I am also impressed by your courage in diving right into those shall-we-say "pop culture" articles. My point here is to prod you into considering writing a How-to page on how to comprehensively review FACs (like User:Taxman/Featured article advice) to help other potential reviewers. --maclean2507:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eternal Equinox has also been deleting my comments on the FA candidate page for this article. (As explained in my comments, I've intentionally disabled my WP account because I believe WP is fundamentally flawed.) --Bcrowell
Hey, Ts, Just wanted to come make a couple little suggestions here. I agree with everything I have seen you post so far, and appreciate the help you gave me in the WBT FAC, but there are a couple lingering concerns with how brash you are in terms of comments. It rubs quite a few people the wrong way, and certainly doesn't help convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. Could you perhaps use some softer language? I dont mean sugar coat, more the difference between "Hey you assholes!" and "Listen, you guys are being pricks." Anyway, feel free to yell at me or whatnot, but I thought I might help point it out. -Mask02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was just building to a big exit... What I really think, though, is what I've said: FAC and FARC need more active management, less cage matches and unexplained decisions. More transparency... I've never been rude, and if I've become not so subtly sharper, that's an accurate reflection of my evolving opinion. If more editors actually participated in the "hotspots", individuals "like me" (outspoken?) wouldn't become the lighting rod for what problems with the process (or with individual articles) that many don't seem to want to get involved in. Anyhow, I won't be doing FACs, for a while, I'm not leaving in a huff, just other seasonal commitments. Happy enough if I was of some help in the process... Thanks for the note. (There's me being abrasive again. :) --Tsavage03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sharper? To me you're just the guy who likes to spit in my face. Have you thought about what it might be like on the receiving end? Bishonen | ノート14:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Look, I'm not trying to torture you. In fact, I made a mistake in sticking around FAC for so long. I originally arrived there after reading an atrocious TFA, and wondering how it made it to the front page. I tested out the process, beginning with supports, for a couple of months, and then got caught up in it. I don't have the type of focussed commitment to WP that Raul654's Law #1-ers seem to have. I was quite happy editing the few pages I worked on for the two years previous. FAC is fine for what it is, but it IMO is certainly more of a loose game of "get a star" than any sort of serious attempt to use WP resources to truly find "the best". That's fine. I'm perfectly aware that I've become sharper in my statements, but hurting people has not been the goal. FAC is competitive, and really, adversarial in the way it is managed, and if one can't express things bluntly (which can be far from rudely), there's a problem. When I read things like Jkelly's "advice" (mentoring?) below, I'm only more convinced that FAC is not a forum into which I should channel my energies. I don't get any satisfaction from skimming an article, posting a vote with a few words, and then moving on. That to me has nothing to do with "best" of any sort. So, yes, you have made your point. --Tsavage20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? Not following. Is that really a reply to me or are you thinking of somebody else? You've never spoken to me on FAC, or showed any interest in a nomination of mine. | ノート23:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen: I understand and respect what you're doing as an admin. I'm not sure exactly of the details, but I glanced at your transparency list and I have a reasonable idea. It takes all kinds of interests to make big collaborative, volunteer projects work, and this is a big 'un. If you're really bothered and can't fathom my comments, as bottom-line an explanation as I can muster:
I'm simply pushing for what I think is reasonable, well-considered improvement in FAC operation. I don't know if there are inherent limitations in the overall WP model (I tend not to like the "it's great (but it'll always remaina a hobby site)" view of the quality potential), and I do like the idea of channelling energies ("our" group drive) in positive directions, like, how good could at least some articles really get as the result of a process, and not just individual editing efforts. So, in FAC, I soon realized that I could either "keep my head down" when I saw that standards for some promotions were IMO shockingly low, or I could stick my head out. Why the latter? Not at all to satisfy myself in the sense of venting, but more to lead off doing some of the heavy lifting, set a bit of an example if you will, because tides of consensus change have to start somewhere. In the course of doing that, I've been blunt (not rude), and that by definition will involve individuals, because things don't just "happen" here, they're done by people, so pointed comments will focus on people through their actions. I've taken as much flak as anyone who feels I've been...abrasive. Look at this page! Things can be "fun and collegial" here and there, but the moving forward of WP is a somewhat adversarial process at critical points, in the sense of people arguing strongly held, often quite opposing opinions (though it of course should never be be...gladiatorial, or bullying). This doesn't have to be nasty, but in some cases, it will get sharp. "Nothing personal" is perhaps a cliche and annoying as such, but it comes from somewhere for a reason, it is not always a negative, and IMHO it really, truly does apply in a positive way here!
(And I'm not being RUDE. My EE comment was very much a part of the FAC point, and had nothing to do with any one user, I would have said the same thing about any user/admin in that situation. I always imagine a group of interested editors following the various threads, and I was simply making clear the distinction between the "FAC issue" and a user behavior issue. The "self-righteous" and "relish" too weren't personal, I recently sampled some RfC stuff, and there is a definitely such a tone in many, maybe it results from a little battle-fatigue, or from being essentially uncomfortable with wielding power and passing judgement over others, but there IS a...tone amongst many. That was that reference. It is a form of public speaking here, and we're all tryiing to actually communicate hopefully worthy points... ) (I hope this isn't me being both verbose and stubbornly pedantic again... :) --Tsavage17:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, differences that we have and will have, I have come across people here who are far ruder. Some even make Tsavage sound like Barbara Cartland - one editor here only recently unwittingly likened another reviewer to a plague of mass murderers while extolling figure of speech; "other seasonal commitments" now there's a phrase to make the mind wander. March/April....seasonal....I shall be pondering all night long. Giano | talk21:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. After reading your comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, I thought that it might be worth mentioning a few things. The first is that, yes, something a little unusual is going on. The conversation there, and in the other pages it has spilled over into, is politely ignoring the fact that an awful lot of effort has been put into mentoring a young problem editor by a number of users, User:Bishonen among them. A detailed explanation of the entire history, or an ArbCom case to make everything "official", would likely be both embarassing to the user in question and counter-productive insofar as it would likely escalate a situation that has, in fact, shown some drastic improvement. Secondly, if you are concerned that you (or someone else) might wind up being temporarily banned from pages by admin fiat, the absolute best way to avoid such a thing happening is to avoid being disruptive for several months until everyone's patience has been exhausted. Finally, if you're noticing a number of editors suggesting that your commenting is coming across as more aggressive than you intend it to be, you may want to consider toning it down. The question of whether or not it "really is aggressive" should be a lot less interesting than the question "how do I work well with other editors in a fun, collegial project devoted to making great encyclopedia articles". Thanks for taking the time to consider the above. Jkelly20:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your view. I appreciate any helpful intent, but it isn't helpful. You say, observe the status quo, go along to get along. Any idiot can see that for themselves, that's life's standard rule. I'd rather consider a view like (copied from above): "I have been watching the FAC page for a couple of months and I have noticed that you are one of the best reviewers there. Your comments always illustrate that you have fully read the article and understand what is trying to be presented. More than anything I am impressed by your dedication to each FAC as you fully review and re-review the same article many times and constantly reply to the nominators to get the article to be good as it can possibly get. I am also impressed by your courage in diving right into those shall-we-say "pop culture" articles." Perceptions differ... --Tsavage20:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your response, but I don't want to suggest that you are under any obligation to explain anything. Good luck with your editing. Jkelly22:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hope the growing season goes well and that it's a relaxing time away from Wikipedia. Breaks are always nice; though I've never been able to stay away for more than a few weeks myself. Like I said before, you do great work, and aren't unwilling to push for higher standards. I'll do what I can while you're gone, but it won't be the same =). See you around! —Spangineer[es](háblame)22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I sense a lot of self-righteousness and even relish in punishing people, which, whether they "deserve" it or not" from here [4] is actually not only rude to Bishonen, but very unjust. I'm sure you have the best intentions for Wikipedia, but so does Bishonen who spends a great deal of time oiling the cogs. It is therefore inevitable that she will come up against the mavericks more often than those who keep their heads down, consequently her appreciation and understanding and experience in dealing with these matters is greater than that of most other editors. This makes it very sad that you should perceive her actions in such a way, especially the crack "deserve it or not" in my opinion she is far too patient and forgiving of these people - far more so than I would be - I don't tolerate fools at all. I agree with the editor who praised your reviewing I too think you are thorough and don't doubt your dedication and sincerity - and when I don't agree with you I can generally see where you are coming from - that is why I think you could perhaps take the trouble or at to show others the same consideration, or at least give the benefit of the doubt.
I hope when you are tending your crops you will give these matters some thought. I hope you have a happy and successful summer (don't go organic or you will be poor for life) and when you return, as I hope you will, you understand that those who work hard for the project if not deserving of thanks are at least due a little respect. Regards Giano | talk15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was brought to my attention at my Request for bureaucratship that I hadn't apologised to you about the whole Bulbasaur incident. I now officially apologise for assuming bad faith on repeated occassions and being uncivil. I hope the whole incident can be put behind us once and for all. Esperanzial regards, --Celestianpowerháblame14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to bug you, and feel free to ignore if you're not interested, but I found your comments on the recent Cape Horn FAC so helpful that I wondered if you would be interested in looking over the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race FAC. I feel that this is an interesting article; it currently has a couple of "support" votes, but seems to be suffering from a lack of interest. I'd much rather have it fail because of 100 specific objections than for simple lack of readers; so, if you have too much time on your hands ;-), I'd welcome any comments you might have, positive or negative. Cheers, — Johan the Ghostseance14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected one of your redirects, Processed food. I was reading the history to check if there was anything intersting, and I found you changed it to exactly the opposite. So I thought I should meet Tsavage, shake hands and offer drinks, and ask about it. I often hear processed foods in a negative light in my nutrition classes, and struggled to find the same kind of matching content in the previous article food preservation. I think the redirect is correct and with time I'll think of more content to add, like comparing to fresh fruits. Nastajus02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has undergone a major rewrite and I was wondering if there are any comments you have before it is nominated at FAC (which will likely occur at the end of May)? —Eternal Equinox | talk21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tsavage, Thanks for your additions to this article. We need good editors. I wanted to see what you thought about my thoughts on your recent revision. You talked about organic certifications as those, "...which preclude most of the practices that characterize industrialized agriculture." I would argue that the major components of all agriculture are the anthropomorphic production of crops that inlcude the amelioration of germplasm to better suit human and environmental requirements. Next I would say tillage and (in most cases) irrigation of the planted ground are part of most practices. What do you think? --Agrofe19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TS, the issue of whether factory farming should be called that or something else has arisen again, as well as whether there should be separate articles on factory farming, intensive farming, and industrial agriculture, and whether these are in fact separate phenomena, as some argue they are. We're making no headway, and as the issue has been brewing on and off for some time, I've filed an RfM. I didn't list you as a party because you've not taken part in the most recent round of hairpulling, but as you moved the page and commented not long ago, you may want to add yourself. Cheers, SlimVirgin(talk)01:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tsavage. Given your strong edit history, I was hoping you would take a look at a new task force we've established. Please consider taking a look (and of course we'd be really happy if you joined)! Benzocane21:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!
Charles Ives has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. MrPrada08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Arable farming, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please look over WP:ELNO to realise why these links aren't proper on Wikipedia. In particular, I'm referring to points the following points:
1Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
11Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).
13Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
14Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.
As per the above, the links in this article clearly don't meet our policy for external links, so I have yet again removed them. Don't reinsert them without a valid rationale as to why our policy should be circumvented in this instance. ThemFromSpace19:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Garden sharing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ThemFromSpace14:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the timestamp on your comment, I'm not sure what you're referring to. My editing work on the Garden sharing article is new copy. If you're so concerned with the content of that article, you should research the subject. --Tsavage (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tsavage! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 410 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bullitt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
com/auctions/21392/lot/100/ Bonhams Lot 100 From The Chad McQueen Collection: The Bullitt Jacket]</ref>
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Okay, I'll respectfully defer to your judgment on that and that of the wider community. Suggest you post neutrally worded notices to a few related WikiProject talk pages. — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Finder-Spyder may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
]'': Pilot (S01E01); "J-Cat" (S01E17); "Unearthed" (S02E09); "Dirt Nap" (S03E10); "Safe and Sound)" (S04E05); "The Legend" (S04E10)
*''[[Without a Trace]]'': "Baggage"); "Cloudy with a Chance of Gettysburg")
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cold War may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* ''[[The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (film)]]]] (1965) [[Martin Ritt]]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cold War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phantom (film) and Todd Robinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hi Tsavage. You'll note that I removed your reworked 'technique' section within the Piano article. It's really a subtopic of piano performance-related articles such as Piano history and musical performance or Piano pedagogy. Alternately, perhaps the material from 'technique' could be worked into the existing History > 'History and musical performance' section, although I believe that even there it would burden the article with excess detail that would be better covered in Piano history and musical performance. Cheers —Waldhorn (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanton Glantz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eagle Scout. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
For football transfers, we generally don't make changes until a deal is announced by the involved club(s). As it is, the fee is set and Defoe passed his medical, but the transfer hasn't gone through yet, so "widely confirmed" isn't entirely true. It'll go through shortly, so we can edit it then. Mosmof (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mosmof: Yeah, no problem, then. I considered reverting, but decided not to as I don't regularly edit sports pages (other than via semi-protection editing), however, please read my explanation of the edit.
FYI, as a semi-protection editor, I found the page last night on hold with 10 pending changes, most or all relating to Sunderland (I checked some, no time at the time to fully investigate), and today added my Sunderland edit to accommodate the info to date. The considered wording in my edit was "widely confirmed in the sports media," which is a fully cited fact (cited sources include ESPN, TSN, CBC Sports,Toronto Star,The Guardian, and others). The general reporting in the media was "a source confirmed the deal" and "the swap has been completed."
As this information could be permanently included in the article, documenting the trade speculation and resolution, whether the trade ultimately went through or not, I felt it was not a "breaking news" or "news" entry.
I am always concerned and respond when I see an editor's work effort (in this case, my effort) summarily dismissed by deletion for no valid reason other than another editor's preference. While, I get the idea of listing trades only when announced by the clubs, to keep confusion and speculative edits down, if an editor makes a valid Wikipedia entry, i.e. not against policy, and also within guidelines, that edit should be respected and discussed BEFORE deletion. In any case, from here, I'll leave it to...you guys. :) --Tsavage (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I don't think your edit was too problematic and you're right about "widely confirmed", but my issue was that how it could be interpreted. When I read it, I thought it meant media outlets had reported the deal as done and official, when it really meant that, as you say, sources confirmed the deal was ongoing. Maybe the edit should be something like the interested parties had agreed to the deal and it's pending? Mosmof (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tsavage, I can't speak for Jytdog, but it looked to me like his recent restoration of content on the Monsanto article was an accommodation to the concerns Gandydancer and I raised about the removal of the controversies section, that is, putting the legal issues and controversies both back in the article. I think it will be easier to move forward starting with the longer version, then breaking off content as discussed on the talk, and not addressing reorganization in-article until the less controversial content split is settled.Dialectric (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dialectric, I haven't check timestamps, things seem to be moving so quickly... Did you see my Resetting this discussion addition on Monsanto Talk? Jytdog was acting extremely quickly, in the midst of ongoing disucssion. So I reverted as explained. Please see if that makes sense to you. Although I may seem committed to debate, I really hate it, all of this energy could go into article improvement. Hopefully, everyone is editing with good intentions, if so, it should be relatively easy to improve things quite a bit. --Tsavage (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your comments on the Talk page make it seem like you are not familiar with Monsanto, but based on your contribs that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I tell my story of coming to learn about GMOs and Monsanto on my Talk page, if you haven't seen that already. And if you didn't see this piece in the NY Times, I recommend it. It is hard to find reliable information, and you have to throw out a lot of chaff. Even sources that often are great at exposing the truth of corruption, like Democracy Now, get facts dead wrong when it comes to GMOs. They completely missed the mark here and see this section on El Salvador in the Monsanto archives where TruthOut butchered a story. There is a lot of misinformation out there; WP cannot regurgitate misinformation. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog Hahaha, your tone her sounds...civil enough, so I will speak with you. I'm not a Monsanto historian my any means, but I know a bit about the company, I find Monsanto interesting, beyond just their technology. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Regarding reliable information about anything, I'm generally skeptical about all sides and sources, everybody is spinning. I used to be quite familiar with the Schmeiser case, a few years ago I read the Appeals Court and Supreme Court decisions, and some reactions and commentaries. Not sure what problems you had with the stuff you linked - I didn't read 'em (I did skim DemocracyNow interview). My impression was that Percy made a willing poster boy for general anti-GMO activities, but in the case itself, it seems like he knowingly planted the seed. Basically, he discovered a few acres of largely volunteer roundup ready canola, however it got there, harvested it, had it processed, and used it to plant out a way larger area the next season, which is what they nailed him for. Many accounts never make that clear - guess it sounds better that Monsanto just polluted his fields, then took him to the cleaners, or maybe too complicated to fully explain. Also, the final judgement, without damages, was seen by some as hesitation of the Supreme Court to make policy on lifeform ownership - it chose to apply existing Industrial Age patent law to a biotech problem and wait for legislation to catch up. That's my very general impression of that whole thing. Is that what you wanted to know? :) --Tsavage (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you "get" the Schmeiser case; you will see that Democracy Now completely distorted it. While Schmeiser had an interesting point about farmers owning their harvest (and when I say "interesting" I really mean that - it has been to supreme court of multiple countries) in my view at the end of the day he is less-than-noble for letting people elide the fact that he intentionally planted the seed after he harvested it, which every supreme court so far has found is infringement. Those decisions are not Monsanto's - they are society's. WP is not here to right great wrongs; we show the world as it is.
So many people have crazy-goggles on when it comes to Monsanto. I am really proud of the work I have done on the Monsanto and GMO-related articles to remove distortion, and to build reliably sourced, accurate content. The state of those articles was really shameful before I started working on them. That work has been hard and ugly - I have been vilified more times than I can count by people who get their news from TruthOut. Democracy Now, and similar sources, and most times when allegations of "whitewashing", "obscuring", and "being sneaky" come, most times it is part of an ongoing campaign to turn the articles back to the shit state they were in before. That is some of the background for my reaction to some of the things you wrote. As to why I wrote here... my sense is that things were going south between us and I wanted to humanize myself to you, if that is still possible.
With regard to the publicity section, I am general a deletionist. While many people add great content and bear out Jimbo's trust that underlies this whole project, there is also so much bullshit in WP, and I spend way more time than I like just fixing that, than I do building content. Please feel free to rebuild that section, in NPOV fashion based on really reliable sources. In my view it was mostly COATRACK, unsourced/badly sourced and non-NPOV.
In any case, thanks for listening and talking back with me. I mean that.Jytdog (talk)
Jytdog: I hear you. It's really no problem. I've experienced and reacted to editor intensity as well, and I suppose in doing so, I've been the intensity for someone else. I'm pretty blunt, literal and persistent, but never rude (I hope not, I don't intend to be). Active editors who've taken ownership of particular issues and pages can tend to bully, and that can get drawn out and tiresome if you don't stick to the point. Often, you still don't "win," but at least you've made your best effort.
Ironically, I guess, given what you've said about Monsanto and crazy-goggled people, the Publicity section I mentioned that you deleted is kinda the stub to possibly addressing the pro-Schmeiser spin in a neutral way. From what I've gathered, Schmeiser is a politician, literally and by nature (far from a simple working class farmer), and took to his role as anti-GMO folk hero gladly, while in the case itself, it seemed as if he was just trying to pull a fast one on Monsanto (which is what the courts consistently found). It's hard to cover stuff like that neutrally and without it becoming original research, although it's fully part of the story. --Tsavage (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Goliath may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
a small or weak person or organization tries to defeat another much larger or stronger opponent" > "The game looks like it will be a David and Goliath contest."</ref>
exact height is not given, but he was a head taller than anyone else in all Israel [1 Samuel 9:2]) which implies he was over 6-feet-tall (1.83 m); and Saul's armour and weaponry are apparently no
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Goliath may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
a small or weak person or organization tries to defeat another much larger or stronger opponent" > "The game looks like it will be a David and Goliath contest."</ref>
exact height is not given, but he was a head taller than anyone else in all Israel [1 Samuel 9:2]) which implies he was over 6-feet-tall (1.83 m); and Saul's armour and weaponry are apparently no
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Kingofaces43: I notice you haven't similarly tagged Mark Marathon, who has performed three direct reversions. You are apparently choosing to view my incremental edits as reversions, I was simply editing forward from his changes. If you examine the edits and the simultaneous Talk thread, you'll see that I went out of my way NOT to delete material that is clearly not RS and probably OR, as documented in the discussion. --Tsavage (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't tag Mark Marathon because you already warned them on the talk page. Incremental edits in this kind of situation can still be edit warring, so it's best to slow down and discuss first to reach a consensus version when you know your edits are contested. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kingofaces43: I only reverted twice. The rest were simple edits. Mark Marathon reverted three times, but I don't know if I feel like opening an edit war ticket on him. Perhaps you should consider doing so. --Tsavage (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Pincho Man requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jersey92 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment on Jersey92's talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mesclun, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mustard and Cress. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
@BattleshipMan: Meant to get back to you earlier, but in any case, I don't have a direct comment on this. I had been reading and skimming your threads on date of release in the country where the film was produced, and I think I get the general idea, but I'm not clear on the exact outcome you want. This doesn't seem to be about editors not allowing or removing content, or of somehow obscuring content - ultimately, everything can exist in the individual film articles - instead, it's about additional presentation. If you can't get satisfaction otherwise, perhaps you could create your own pages listing films by year and the release date you want. If those pages were put up for deletion, I might have a comment. Cheers! --Tsavage (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsavage: What I meant is too have year by film articles to have release from countries that made and produced, not by the earliest global release dates because the majority of them never made or produced specific films. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, well, I think I got what you mean with "date of release in the country where the film was produced," or close enough. My point is, in film by year articles, global release date is one way of ordering them (having one film first released at the Edinburgh Film Festival, and another at, say, "worldwide," sounds a little random, but if it's about first public release, then great). If you want to order them some other way, like by the date they were released in the country where they were produced (or, I suppose, in the country where they were first released in cases of co-productions between two or more countries), then, I guess, great as well. If you want to change the existing pages, I suppose you could just go ahead and do that and see what happens, but it seems like a lot of work. Or you could create your own pages. I dunno. It's not like the info is not available in each film article (one kinda solution would be to put a note on the film by year pages explaining the global release date, and that an additional production country release date is available on article pages). What is the overridingly important reason for gobal vs country, for Wikipedia readers all over the world, I can't see a clear case for any one first release date. What more can I say, or have I somehow misunderstood everything? --Tsavage (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have a dog scrambling in Scrambler therapy, I just wanted to add another thanks for the questions you posed:
How is it that "experienced health topic editors" are allowed to synthesize summaries with statements like "no good evidence," or selectively highlight certain results because they are from types of studies that are considered higher quality, without explicit explanation? We remain anonymous editors, and verifiability has to take that into account, we have no special expertise when it comes to summarizing. And again, after more no direct addressing of the question: Do we recognize "experts" at Wikipedia who can essentially override core policy and guidelines? It seems what is being suggested is that, as a general encyclopedia reader (and editor), in cases where special technical knowledge is required that I don't possess, I should trust self-confirmed experts in that area to synthesize conclusions for me (at least, in cases where no secondary review source is there to do that)? Is that not what "no good evidence" is, a Wikipedia editor's "expert" summary of specialized medical data?
Perhaps the answers have not been forthcoming because the possibility of WP:NOR exists. Support groups are also a growing concern. WP identifies some of that activity as WP:Tag team but when it involves groups large enough to sway consensus, then what? Does it become WP:Soapbox? I'm having a bit of trouble deciding the best way to identify such activity. We all know it exists or there wouldn't be PAGs addressing it. I'm thinking perhaps WP has grown big enough that new PAGs need to be implemented to prevent mob mentality from taking it over by storm. Atsme☯Consult15:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having been a recent recipient of "bad dog" behaviour, I feel so strongly that this needs to addressed. I was absolutely staggered at the speed, volume (and perhaps most importantly) voracity of a group of editors attacking me, simply for raising a potential NPOV issue. It would be amazing to see what the response would have been if my ANI had been raised against lower profile editors. I have just suffered a major bruising by editors that just wanted to beat the crap out of me, rather than address the problem or indicate there might be other avenues of raising my concern. I feel one area editors might benefit is being directed to the most appropriate dispute page. This might help them avoid the assault I feel I have just received. Tsavage, I have found some problems with the 2 reviews over at Scrambler therapy. One of these is that they both cite the same article ....but with different authors! So much for the elite quality of PUBMED articles!__DrChrissy (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
drchrissy you should really should stop following me around and bringing silly ANIs. And please do actually read WP:GANG and WP:CAMPAIGNING, atsme and drchrissy, and think about what you wrote above. What is your goal in writing here? Also all three of you might want to read a bit about WP:WikiProjects - Project Medicine is one of them and is legitimate. Atsme and drchrissy, if you want to legitimize what you are doing, you should consider making a WP:WikiProject DriveJytdogFromWikipedia or something. sheesh. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have one motivation only and that is to make editing on WP more pleasant. When bad dogs keep growling, snapping and biting, the experience becomes thoroughly unpleasant for many. SIT and STAY!__DrChrissy (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
my past rudeness to you was addressed by the community and i was warned, accepted it, and i apologized to you. That was indeed wrong of me. you really should drop the stick and get on with your life in WP. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you have never dropped the stick, and i have not come to you - you are following me around. the longer you go on with this, the more absurd you are going to look. the ANI you brought was just silly. anyway, you will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I did not drop the stick because the bad dog kept pushing it back in my hand before I could let it go. Let's go WALKIES!__DrChrissy (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. It's like urban warfare, a running gun battle through back yards, fighting in the streets! Anyhow, feel free to...chat. While you're here, perhaps you would indulge my further rant?! I have a thing for restating the obvious...!
Wikipedia rules is obviously a huge issue. I have on and off worked on Wikipedia fairly intensely for a bunch of weeks at a time, and there's always been edit warring and contentious discussion. I spent some time vigorously critiquing Featured Articles a few years ago, and there were quite heated discussions there, with highly motivated editors. However, this wikilawyering via constant hurling of WP:PAG and WP:ESSAY shortcuts seems new to me. Thing is, when I go and read the relevant material, it has more often than not been conveniently and completely MISINTERPRETED (and here I'm only referring to really glaring misinterpretations).
One BIG example, goes well with summary deletion of content, is the popular "unsourced per WP:V." When you actually follow the link and read the guidance on deleting uncited content, it is made abundantly clear that (with the exception of legal issues like copyright violation and defamation of character) DELETION IS A LAST RESORT, to be considered AFTER reviewing the context, allowing time, seeing what other editors think, adding inline tags, and maybe actually fixing it instead. And even after doing all that, WP:V advises that the deleting editor make clear that they believe the item they are deleting may not be verifiable. Overall, this upholds the core principle, that sourcing is implicit, that every factual item must be attributable to a reliable source, but does not necessarily have to be explicitly attributed. Inline attribution is therefore selective and meant to be applied reasonably, and it is not an absolute prerequisite for adding material.
FUN EXERCISE: Look at editing histories for major articles in all fields and see how many started out fully cited (I just randomly tried interferon). Point being, Wikipedia is built for unhurried, progressive editing, not sudden-death rule slinging, surgical sourcing showdowns and speedy deletes. (Maybe that needs to change?)
In fact, just about all editing and discussion on Wikipedia can be done from common sense, provided all parties are reasonably open (which actually does happen, given a chance), and the PAGs only tend to reflect that type of constructive discussion. IOW, you don't need to cite LAW if you are actually editing, collaboratively when necessary, in good faith, because the policies and guidelines simply codify that common sense in action. It's logical, because the core rules reflect what has worked. It is why WP:PAG says, second and third sentence: "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles."
In this vein, the couple of WikiProjects I've encountered slightly, Film and Medicine, seem to have a good amount of reiteration of basic policy that mainly seems to give more ammo to editors who wish to fight for their versions of things, using rules rather than discussion, patience, and seeking actual consensus (which not uncommonly in disputes, ends up being no consensus, so, bring it to a mutually acceptable stand-off state and disengage - or just disengage - and let time go by). I'm not saying Projects are bad, but they can be badly used when expanded into unhelpful areas that eclipse the core policies. Perhaps one way to stem the flood of rules is to BAN the use of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Essays shortcuts in polite editorial discussion. If editors have a point to make, let them spell it out!
You are welcome, especially considering this is your TP. You are spot-on when it comes to the ambiguities and contradictions of PAG. However, no project or group should take a WP:OWN position over any article. Stewardship? Yes, because that is how we fight vandalism, but how do we distinguish stewardship from ownership? GAs and FAs are probably a good example of where stewardship enters the stage. Stubs, starters, C-class - uhm...not so much. The advice and recommendations of technical/scientific/medical/legal experts is certainly respected and welcome, but it is not a trump card. Problems arise when one group controls the information that goes into/comes out of an article, and to me it is the same as....ugh....censorship, the latter being one way for COI situations to gain control. It happens everywhere...corporate, medical, science, legal, sports - wherever there is competition and/or hypotheses. So how do we resolve the issues? I say it gets resolved by evaluating article content the same way the FA review team would evaluate it. It may require an independent task force, but why not? Admins don't have the time to analyze article content wherein the problems have permeated. A task force is devoted to that aspect of the review, therefore can provide a much better analysis. Admins take care of the symptoms while a task force would be looking at the cause of the disease. Atsme☯Consult20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's crazy. STILL, no-one has answered my direct question, which is also DrChrissy's question, but in my case, I've simply been one-track and asking it over and over wherever this topic has gone, and NO-ONE has addressed it head-on: Why is summarizing medical studies with original conclusions like 'no good evidence' not WP:SYNTHESIS, (where in WP:MEDRS does it override NOR policy?)?
I like that talkquote template so much, I'm gonna archive my last replies from the NOR noticeboard here, in case I need to...re-use them. --Tsavage (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are conveniently misinterpreting guidelines. WP:MEDASSESS is concise and informative for a non-technical editor, but is not WP:SYNTHESIS. They are complementary, one does not supersede the other.
Any editor should assess the quality of the material that is about to be used to create content (using, if appropriate, WP:MEDASSESS), and it is very helpful for the non-medically trained editor to have a quick guide to the various types of medical research before editing a medical article. This could for example help an unfamiliar editor avoid writing in an article, "Xyz drug was proven 98% effective," based on the glowing results of a single uncontrolled study. It helps avoid poor quality edits that would eventually have to be fixed by more knowledgeable, even "expert," editors.
This has nothing to do with evaluating the relative merits of several studies, and forming an original conclusion about the overall body of research, like "no good evidence," for inclusion in an article. How do you find that WP:MEDASSESS gives special dispensation to override WP:NOR and synthesize conclusions?!
In fact, WP:MOSMED, under Citing sources, says: "Do not publish your own views about studies." If not directly attributable to a source that says something very much like "we found no good/strong/solid evidence," what is "no good evidence" but an editor's own view about studies?
And...
How exactly does WP:MEDRS allow synthesis of conclusions (per WP:SYNTHESIS) by evaluating a collection of medical study results, determining relative weight of individual study types and findings, and coming to an overall conclusion like, "no good evidence"? It is one thing to assess material, it is another to form original conclusions about it that are in no way supported by a proper secondary source and include them in an article - where is the attribution for that conclusion? If I am so wrong, it should be simple to point to the guidance that indicates that: if I can't understand a specific sentence or paragraph or section that clearly supersedes WP:SYNTHESIS, then I am an idiot and will shut up.
Hahahaha, this question has been so roundly unanswered everywhere else, I've resorted asking it on my own Talk page. So sad. :) --Tsavage (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look at this edit of yours. you wrote there "most food holidays are created at the request of trade groups. What the source actually says, is "Often, a commodity group looking to popularize a food holiday will wrangle a government official to help.". How do you get "most"? Real question. (my sense is you are going to say "it is a reasonable summary". but one could argue - easily - that the sources supports only "some" but you are making some point, with your summary. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one answered at end of this Jytdog installment...
and this dif - this one actually seems pretty bad - like you are just adding stuff wholesale. Where in pages 148-153 of the source do you find anything about urban decay being discussed by the McGovern committee, or ads on TV? I don't find either. this actually looks like some OR to me mixed in with nicely summarized content from the source - or maybe you got stuff from elsewhere in the book. Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, out of order, this is the third of three bizzaro attacks I'm attempting to counter.
do you find anything about urban decay being discussed by the McGovern committee - So you found an unsourced item that you want sourced (that's not original research). Well, it was actually from Wikipedia's own United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs - I just now grabbed the citation from there and added it - which says: "In 1971, McGovern expanded the focus of the committee to look at environmental conditions that affected eating habits. He toured the abandoned, destroyed neighborhoods of The Bronx, New York, and issued a report highly critical of the Federal Housing Administration for failed urban renewal efforts." If you'd like to argue that urban decay is not an accurate summary, please do.
Sentence in question:' "the committee's scope progressively expanded to include environmental conditions that affected eating habits, like urban decay,"
ads on TV? - p 150 "Reflecting other critical arguemnts, the report pointed out the high ratio of television ads for junk foods..."
ok, let's look at this dif by you - second sentence, where you summarize a whole article with "Few studies have focussed on variations in food perception according to socio-economic status (SES); some studies that have differentiated based on SES indicate that the economically challenged don't perceive healthy food and junk food any differently than any other segment" and you provide some nice quotes to seemingly support that. the article talks mostly about perceptions of healthy food. so where did that "and junk food" come from? maybe you mean the reference to foods that are fatty/salty/sweet. but what the paper actually says is 'However, the influence of SES on the perceptions of fat, salt and sugar is not clear." it says nothing about "don't perceive differently" is that just sloppiness, or is that "OR"?
Tiresome, but I continue follow you down this path. First, I figured this single review source, although a little old, was comprehensive enough based on its claim: "This article’s aim is to review and summarize the literature on the perceptions of healthy eating and to identify the current state of knowledge and key knowledge gaps. Databases, the worldwide web, selected journals and reference lists were searched for relevant papers from the last 20 years.
Source: from the abstract: "Reviewed articles suggest relative homogeneity in the perceptions of healthy eating despite the studies being conducted in different countries and involving different age groups, sexes, and socio-economic status." and from literature search methods "...small number of studies that focussed on variations in perceptions according to socio-economic status (SES)..."
Original sentence: "Few studies have focused on variations in food perception according to socio-economic status (SES); some studies that have differentiated based on SES indicate that the economically challenged don't perceive healthy food and junk food any differently than any other segment of the population."
Updated sentence to more unambiguously conform to source: "Few studies have focused on variations in food perception according to socio-economic status (SES); some studies that have differentiated based on SES suggest that the economically challenged don't perceive healthy food much differently than any other segment of the population."
I still don't see your point. Your seem to be looking for very examples of synthesis on my part, and are coming up with wording issues of what clearly are summaries of what is in the text. I don't own pages, other editors can continue to comb through, expand, update. Your approach is extremely pointy, and kinda nasty, not a very good spirit. And all to avoid answering a simple question. Anyhow, on to your next point. --Tsavage (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i went looking at your diffs to try to figure out how you edit, that you are asking this bizarre question, so aggressively, like you are the God King Perfect Editor of All Time. i cannot figure out how you edit. and since you have no clear and consistent way you edit, i have no way to relate how project medicine summarizes secondary sources to that. so i won't try anymore. maybe somebody else can find a way to explain it to you. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ANYTHING to avoid answering a simple question: Where does WP:MEDASSESS say it overrides WP:SYNTHESIS and allow synthesis, characterization, original formulation of conclusions based on editor evaluation of medical studies?
But what's is your tactic here? You are hoping to draw some bizarre parallel between my junk food article edit and my WP:MEDMOS question. You're trying to illustrate how I syntehsized a conclusion, and how normal that is? Wrong. I didn't synthesize anything, I interpreted. It's all plain English, non-technical, easily understood by anyone who can read, from a New York Times article. The key part of the source content is:
At least 175 days a year are set aside in recognition of some form of food or drink.
Most food holidays didn’t spring from a spontaneous national outpouring of passion for, say, lunchmeat (Bologna Day is Oct. 24, by the way). Unlike Mother’s Day, which sprung from early anti-war efforts, National Crown Roast of Pork Day (March 7) has no political underpinnings. National Frozen Food Month (also in March) does not have the religious or cultural framework of Valentine’s Day.
Although most elected officials will happily declare a food holiday when a trade association or commodity group asks, the proclamations don’t really mean much. Schools and banks do not close for National Vinegar Day (June 16).
No, most food holidays are invented by people who want to sell more food.
Often, a commodity group looking to popularize a food holiday will wrangle a government official to help.
From that, I summarized: "..it is one of around 175 US food and drink days, most created by elected officials at the request of a trade association or commodity group."
I hadn't actually reviewed it, other editors have not had a problem with it (and the page is watched), HOWEVER, on reviewing it now, and since you as an editor have brought it up but not seen fit to make any adjustments, I do see a possible overreach that I will now correct:
Updated to: ".. it is one of around 175 US food and drink days, most created by "people who want to sell more food," at times aided by elected officials at the request of a trade association or commodity group."
It's incrementally more accurate to the source now, does not change the overall sense - these are generally holidays created by business to sell stuff - and I think, a bit more fun to read with the quote. There are other ways to edit that, it's not my page. But it is consistent with the source.
well that is disappointing. you are asking a question. i have been trying to answer. the answer is not getting to you. so i went to your edit history to see if i could figure out how you think, so i could answer you. you didn't deal with the other things, but apparently you will not have a serious answer - just something breezy like above. somehow you can demand hyper-accurate, super close paraphrasing from other editors, with no summarizing allowed and very clear explanations on a micro level. ... but your own editing? shrug. and "fun". and "oh, i just threw that urban decay thing in, from a whole different article without sourcing it". and here you are freaking out over something really petty - good vs strong. (which is very similar to "some" - which probably would have been more accurate to the source about the food festivals - vs "most") oh, fun. oh, i just threw that in from a whole different article.
it is pretty clear that your question is not a real question. the rigor you are demanding of others, is not something you demand of yourself. what does seem clear is that you enjoy being a hammer and pounding away (the energy you are putting into this!); well, i am not going to be your nail. as before, i leave you with a wish - may our paths cross rarely. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any levity and fun was addressed at your attack on my edits (and at myself for replying to them). And "good" vs "strong" is NOT the issue as you obviously know, it started that way, I wasn't looking to critically, but then it became clear that the whole characterization - "good/strong/whatever" - is not reflected in the source. THAT, of course, is the issue, not the choice of one adjective over another.
the rigor you seem to be demanding of others, is not something you demand of yourself I suppose that's what you were trying to illustrate above, but you didn't. A) You were trying to point out original research, but only found normal wording and citation tweaks that no doubt can be found for a significant, possible large, possibly vast number of articles and individual edits, nothing you found showed my trying to insert original research or include stuff that I thought was unattributable; B) why are you trying to, what, discredit me as editor?!?, we're all anonymous editors doing our thing, there is no discrediting unless I break some big rules, and why, for asking a question and trying to get an answer; C) I am not demanding rigor, I am simple asking a question about policies and guidelines.
My very real question is: How exactly does WP:MEDRS supersede WP:NOR by allowing editor's to come to original summaries like "no good evidence," based only on a collection of studies, without a secondary source saying something pretty much the same?
You pointed to WP:MEDASSESS, I've read that and I commented very clearly at NOR noticeboard and copied in green above.
Several editors have said "no good evidence" is a good summary of the...evidence. I really don't doubt that it is. But what is it attributed to if the source that is cited doesn't come to any sort of conclusion that sounds like that, and it is therefore clear that the summary is MADE BY THE EDITOR, not the source. This Scrambler therapy thing is relatively trivial, but it ILLUSTRATES, is an example of, a much bigger issue - interpretation of policy, and effective control over content - and the fact that no-one can answer the simple question seems telling. Could it be that the answer is, such summaries are against NOR, strictly speaking, but we do it because medical articles are superimportant and the end justifies the means? Is that the answer? Because some many people point me to rules, that when I get there, I expect the rules to reasonably explain what it was I was being pointed there for, and often and in this case, they don't. --Tsavage (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I don't want to clog up the noticeboard with this more (I sense people getting a bit fed up) but it seems to me your question are well meant so here's an attempt to explain my thought process. The goal is to end up with something pithy in plain English which states the current state of knowledge about the therapy. Then we have:
(Most important) The understood context which pertains in evidence-based medicine that something is considered ineffective until there is very strong evidence to the contrary
An non-committal assessment of Scrambler in a review (to be viewed in the light of 1 above)
A mention of very poor-quality evidence that it works, and some evidence that it does not.
For many untested treatments we would say (remember the context) "There is not good evidence X is effective". But we can't say that here as there is some evidence. Sometimes editors put "There is [only] weak evidence that X is effective" (although I don't like this as lay readers understand this as being a confirmation whereas medics see it as dismissive). But we can't say that either, as there is evidence the therapy is positively ineffective (the blinded trial). That leaves the option of "no good evidence" which given the above is a fair summary.
Of course in general one man's fair paraphrase is another's synthesis - but this way is I believe the way that has become accepted by consensus at WP:MED and applies to much of our (good) medical writing. Another way of looking at it is from the readers's point of view. Are they missing any encyclopedic knowledge from the statement "There is no good evidence ST is effective in treating neuropathic pain"? or have we effectively summarized the current state of human knowledge on that question? Alexbrn (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, it is point 3 that is the problem. Describing all 3 studies finding a benefit as "very poor-quality" is subjective - what is the basis for this assessment? Then, to describe the absence of a benefit as "some evidence it does not", clearly implies the writer believes this is a better quality study, but again, on what basis? As I have already indicated the "no benefit" study has n=7 patients...I'm staggered it was ever published.
Let's try a different approach. Please pretend for one moment that you have no knowledge of non-human animal intelligence. You go to the Animal intelligence article and you see that I have written, "There is no strong evidence that dogs are more intelligent than cats" with two sources cited. You look at the sources cited and can not find any comment whatsoever about the strength of the studies reviewed in those sources. Wouldn't your first inclination be to ask how I arrived at this conclusion?
Dog lovers will opine that WP has no credibility while cat lovers will use it as a reference in their thesis. Another popular response used by some editors is WP:IAR. Yes, the PAGs need clarification. Atsme☯Consult22:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone in the dog pound (trainers or bad dogs) might like to know that there is discussion of extending WP:MEDRS to veterinary medicine and other sciences. See the Talk page at WP:MEDRS__DrChrissy (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A final extended Scrambler reply from this Talk page
@Alexbrn: Thanks for your renewed effort in trying to explain things to me (it would have been better placed on the NOR noticeboard). Please believe that I already understood that there is incisive reasoning behind your conclusion, it is just that I see it as unverifiable without the specialized technical knowledge required to assess the studies being interpreted, and therefore is an original conclusion, not a simple paraphrasing or interpretation.
Transparency is critical. My understanding of Wikipedia core policy is that readers should be able to easily verify content by checking sources. The more difficult that becomes, the easier it is for content to be deliberately manipulated.
The Jytdog-dissects-my-edits exercise is actually a perfect field test of plain English verfiability. The article is about 'junk food." The questioned sources include a newspaper (New York Times), a book, and a PUBMED-indexed review paper. Challenges and replies, illustrated by reprints of the source next to the content, show how all of it could be easily checked, and how accommodations could be made based on editors' (reasonable) differences in interpretation and opinion.
To test this simple verifiability on a medical article, I went to the Cochrane library and clicked the first report my eye landed on, which also has a Wikipedia page: Rivastigmine, a dementia drug. As the Cochrane review (of 13 RCTs, specifically for Alzheimer's) hadn't yet been used in the WP article, it turned out to be a good sort of meta test: I could use a "gold-standard" review written in "plain English" to compare overall use of sources in the WP article.
The apparent discrepancies to a lay reader, between article and Cochrane, seem significant. The WP article notes that effects are typically "modest," but conveys the overall impression (to me) that the drug is potentially quite effective. Cochrane did also say, "In summary, rivastigmine may be of benefit to people with Alzheimer's disease," but it also points out (in my non-technical reader's framing) that effects over placebo were noted in only three out of five outcomes, "differences were quite small" from placebo, the evidence quality was not great ("moderate") due to patient dropouts, trials were only up to a year so long-term effectiveness was unknown, adverse effects were double the placebo (sounds significant), and that all studies were sponsored or funded by the drug manufacturer. The impression from Cochrane was, "this drug seems pretty marginal and iffy."
A key summary sentence for me from the WP article:
"Rivastigmine has demonstrated significant treatment effects on the cognitive (thinking and memory), functional (activities of daily living) and behavioural problems commonly associated with Alzheimer’s[10][11][12][13]"
Under the Scrambler rationale, I should be able to easily verify that summary from those four cited studies, (perhaps with some WP:MEDASSESS support), however, Cochrane, which presumably includes those studies if they are high enough quality to warrant the "paraphrase" in the article, gets different results. For example, Cochrane found no "behavioral" effect (unless "significant treatment effects on ... behavioural problems commonly associated with Alzheimer’s" from article, is different from "There were no differences between the rivastigmine group and placebo group in behavioural change" from Cochrane).
My point is, even with multiple sources and a gold-standard RCT review with a plain English version to vet them against, verification of a drug article is not simple. Which is why I don't get how summarizing study results into new language by an editor is OK and somehow not original research.
EXAMPLE: If Cochrane says, "There were no differences between the rivastigmine group and placebo group in behavioural change" then "no evidence of behavioural effect" or anything like seems like a useful and verifiable lay summary, but not if that summary wording comes from an editor who cites only a collection of studies or a review that does not come to such a specific conclusion. In the former case, at least the article wording may be discussed by any editor, by referring to the literal source wording; as a "paraphrase" it is essentially unverifiable unless asking the editor to explain counts.
What to do when there is no Cochrane or equivalent? There are always ways that conform to core policy; I don't think making exceptions for any form of OR is one of them, and I don't think not covering topics that are clearly out there in the world, on the sole basis that they can't be covered in way that suits a certain specialized knowledge framework is appropriate here.
Anyhow, I'm not trying to change the world, and I don't claim to know much, I'm simply looking into an interesting question that came up. I think I've gotten as close to an answer as I will this round. Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and i will leave you with one last, yes WP:CIR to make plain english summaries in technical fields. and medicine is technical. if you don't believe me, try editing Cut (graph theory), where they have failed terribly to make it accessible and don't care. in medicine, we do. but really, go check out graph cuts, and its talk page. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIR: I believe your interpretation is...wrong-headed! Yes, technical expertise is needed in a lot of areas, but not to actually synthesize content. Core policy is: "it must be verifiable before you can add it" aka verifiability, not truth. If something can't be verified, like the collective evaluation of several studies, then it can't be included, the solution is not to let a self-confirmed expert or group of experts then do OR.
Specialized expertise, directly or via guidance like WP:MEDASSESS, is good for, say, helping an editor avoid quoting results from a single study as a generally established fact about the subject, or having an experienced editor recognize and fix a poor edit like that. Which is quite different from...synthesis. How exactly do you disagree?
The worst is failure to directly address things that have been clearly set out. Like here, nobody addressed how saying: study a + study b + study c = "no good evidence" is not WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
as has been said above, what you are calling SYN is expert summary. I have been trying to explain this to you, but i really don't think you have any interest in listening, so have given up. have fun at graph cuts! Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I am starting to understand better, which Alexbrn did pointedly point out, is that this all makes sense within the framework of evidence-based medicine. It still seems problematic to me, and way more complicated of an issue: it seems for this "expert summary" to work, we have to agree what falls under the...purview of EBM. Which makes much more specific sense to me when I see Wikipedia arguments and accusations of trying to consider one thing or another "medical," so they fall under MEDMOS, or about using MEDRS as a standard for general notability. I mean, I got that some editors wanted to try and apply more specific guidelines under MED, but not how it was based specifically on the prevailing EBM model. Like making one thing the official thing, one religion trumping all others, or whatever. It is hard to argue this sort of thing. --Tsavage (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Atsme, I figured there had to be one of those around somewhere! :) So now I know I have a little issue camp I may feel "comfortable" in, no matter how tiny.
I am trying to pull myself out of this rabbit hole of a concern, but as in the comment I posted just above about evidence-based medicine, it gets more and more fascinating and potentially contentious. Cheers! --Tsavage (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yep, WP:EXPERT does talk about things that experts have to beware of doing. But "no good evidence" is a great summary of the two reviews of scrambler. it is not synthesis, but rather plain English summary. Very well supported by the sources.Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might be plain English...but it is still wrong. Where do the 2 sources say anything about the strength of evidence of the 4 primary sources...oh, and why don't they discuss other primary sources. Time to stop chasing your tail and go to your basket.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't always make it so (or not so)! I STILL don't see how evaluating the relative merits of different types of medical study and their findings, and coming to a conclusion in plain English summary language that is in not in any similar form present in any of the cited sources, is not WP:SYNTHESIS. I guess no-one wants to actually spell it out for me: "Editors with expertise in medical research are allowed, at least in some circumstances, to evaluate medical studies and form reasonable conclusions about the results for use in content." That's what I am gathering, am I wrong? --Tsavage (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more akin to translation: turning the formulaic medical-speak into plain English. Would you call translation synthesis? Another classic example is what you often find in articles "more research is needed" which sometimes gets mistakenly rendered by editors here as "and the authors called for more research". In actual fact, this is largely just a kind of EBM formality that means very little (which is why MOS:MED says we should ignore such wording). Alexbrn (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask… how do you pronounce your username? Part of me thinks it’s “savage” with a harder beginning, and part of me thinks it’s something foreign and I’m ignorant. Obviously this is a non-critical question, so no hard feelings if it’s ignored. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@174.141.182.82 It's a handle conceived on a keyboard to fill in a registration form quite a while ago, with no connection to anything "real." Can't remember the last time I said it out loud - maybe never - so a preferred pronunciation doesn't actually exist (that's the virtual world for you!). It's not an exotic foreign name, as far as I know; I'd go with "T-savage" as that's what it looks like to me. Hope that helps! :) --Tsavage (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Are you accusing me of not discussing in good faith?"
No, I am not.
"Are you opening an ArbCom case, is that a warning, or a threat?"
The article is under ArbCom enforcement, so no new cases should be necessary at all. Instead, editors are informed that such enforcement applies, are given a formal notice if the problems continue, and are considered for sanctions if the problems continue still.
"What disparaging remarks are you referring to?"
...and how it has been recently edited by a group of editors: content gutted rather than improved, blatantlay and redundantly stamped with a pejorative description, left to be an embarrassment, and that is not balanced, impartial writing." --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed your recent expansion of Food truck, finding some the material overly promotional and the link to one of the companies mentioned as being WP:REFSPAM. The other company didn't appear to be mentioned in the reference at all. Am I overlooking something? --Ronz (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now Jytdog is trying to make my post seem like it's about recruiting you to Gorski when it was actually about the skepticism section for you to demonstrate at the Fringe discussion. He even put a recruiting banner on the TP of Gorski. This harassment is way over the line. Atsme📞📧02:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I archived his Canvassing template, and he reverted my response on his TP because now he can't crawfish out of it. He screwed up. I explained to him that my post to you was about the discussion over at Fringe and that I simply wanted you to look at Gorski's section on skepticism and the BS at the TP so you could back up the points you were making in the discussion, [7], not that I wanted you to participate or collaborate at Gorski, which I could have asked you to do without it being canvassing, but that's neither here nor there. So sorry for all the drama. Atsme📞📧03:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you've been previously involved with both the Lomborg and Lynas topics. I can't help notice that both of these people have been accused of the same things, even though Lynas presented a public front that gave the appearance of being in opposition to Lomborg. In other words, Lomborg's public writings as a so-called "skeptical environmentalist" appeared for all intents and purposes to be a tactical PR strategy to support fossil fuel interests and delay climate change remediation. More than a decade later, biotech companies (represented by the same PR groups) resurrected the Lomborg card at the height of public opposition to GMOs, this time in the guise of Lynas, who came out as skeptical of the GMO opposition. Stranger still, it looks like Lynas tried to gain street cred by attacking Lomborg with a pie -- even though they were essentially playing the same PR role on two different environmental topics. Have you also noticed the same parallels here, as if Lynas was deliberately playing the same role as Lomborg? Both Lomborg and Lynas have been accused of being undercover spokespeople for the fossil fuel industry and biotech companies, respectively. For me, the similarities are striking, right down to the same type of New York Times editorials and use of lecture series to ply their talking points. They seem to be molded by the same forces, following the same path as corporate apologists. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really meant what i wrote at RSN. You have written zillions of bytes on what you don't like for a statement on the relative risk of GM food. I am interested to see what you would support so we can try to work toward consensus on something. Please do propose something at the GM food Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this is a form letter. (Aren't you special!) Since you edit around Indian cinema articles, your comments are solicited at this discussion at the Indian cinema task force.
The question is: Should box office gross totals be labeled as estimates?
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June Swann until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping clean up the Morley list. I had no idea so many entries had been erased prior to my recent editing. I am trying to coordinate articles about big fake companies (Morley, Oceanic Airlines, and Finder-Spyder). Is this something in which you would be interested? LAIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LA Maybe! I just do stuff on my own when I get the urge. What are you thinking of? BTW, I also restarted Finder-Spyder, which had been deleted once or twice. As for Morley, your organizing by media type is great! On a mildly critical note, though, I find the "In the season two episode" format visually distracting and repetitive when reading - I'm just being straightforward, not attack-y. :) I thought about all that when I did the (season x episode) format, there seemed to be no convention for that notation, and it requires explanation, but it is not distracting, and quickly conveys some timeline information (as we have in movies with the release year). I'm also not sure of what use linking to a particular season is, as far as finding out more about Morley, whereas linking to the main show article indicates when the series started, and what it was about. Cheers! --Tsavage (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I spelled out the seasons because NUMERAL says to spell out numbers 0 through 9. I had the opposite problem you had with the (season x episode) format, too many parentheses too close together. It was jarring to read. I got a sanity check over at Wikiproject Television before I dove in and changed everything.
As for linking the seasons, it was my way of making a time line; but I admit I may have gone overboard on it. I am willing to go through and remove the season links which lead to episode lists in the series' main article pages (there are around half a dozen). I could go through and add dates in to create a time line too.
I wish it were encyclopedic to sort the entries by pack design, but I fear that may be too trivial. (There are four pack designs out there, so far.) LAIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LA Hahaha, it's good to know that I am not the only one giving these important details due consideration! On that, I thought at the time that the SxE format gave readers info in a way they commonly think of shows they follow by season, "halfway through," "third episode," etc - they'd also would know when the show started and how long it ran, so get a rough idea of when the appearance was (works even better for binge watchers!). If not, check the main show link. I mean, I didn't sit around mapping that out, but I remember it was the quick thought! Yeah, do what you think for now, if you read starting at, say, Frasier, you'll maybe see what I mean about the repetitiveness of the "in the season seven episode" format, and the ever-increasing "I don't want to click that episode link" annoyance.... Adding dates would be extreme, but the ultimate solution!
It would be great to include pack designs somewhere. I guess it could be sourced by describing from appearances, and noting date of appearance. Skirting OR, maybe? And a little too fanatically detailed for me. Sorting by pack design I don't think is trivial, just not the most likely to be useful, less so than by show, by media, by appearance date. All of this suggests a sortable table! --Tsavage (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we can work on all three articles at once, I created User:Lady Aleena/Big fake companies. Everything from the lists is on there, so we can work together but away from the lists until we get something on which we can agree. I am in the process of adding dates to the Morley episodes, they already existed for the Oceanic Airlines episodes. After we get the information up onto the lists, then we can use the page to play with things like pack designs, whether a series was before or after The X-Files/Lost, etc. Please take a look, right now my eyeballs are hurting a bit. LAIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I can't help further with Ronz's assault on David L. Jones. The thread is disturbing my equanimity. Good luck in the fight against his guerilla BLP ! SageGreenRider (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
(Note: title edited from original "Done with Ronz's abuse" to promote editing harmony. --Tsavage (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
SageGreenRider: Yes, it is tough, that's unfortunate, and you shouldn't mess with your good karma. Being essentially chased off is the worst possible result of Ronz-type editing behavior.
I've been contributing on and off for over a decade, often enough in areas where argumentation runs high, and when I returned a few months ago to do a little winter editing, I discovered what seems like a new and evolved approach to editing "by the rules" that I think is fairly described as intense, obstructive wikilawyering. I never had to consult the policies and guidelines before, because they are in fact almost always just common sense, but now editors were tossing around guideline abbreviations and arguing practically by the word and phrase, and quickly going to the noticeboards, RfCs, and admin sanctions. Not one to be...bullied, I've now spent months mostly arguing on Talk pages, and learning the ins and outs of WP:PAG, which are usually misinterpreted or used entirely out of the obvious intent. Grrr.
Ronz I've briefly encountered before, and it seems s/he is well-meaning and does do some useful stuff, but the approach, and IMO misuse of rules to achieve an end that s/he believes ultimately observes the rules, is counterproductive, an end justifies the means philosophy, it would seem, that hobbles usefully incremental, iterative editing. Specialist editors who concentrate on certain things, like sourcing, or punctuation, or AfDing stubs, or whatever, in some cases can be a serial nightmare.
No doubt there are deliberate POV-pushers and (even paid) advocates trying to include all kinds of things that shouldn't be here, but in these recent months of argument, despite constant charges of that sort of thing against individual editors, I haven't actually encountered any, only editors fighting against other editors in a battle over inappropriate policy/guideline interpretation, nothing but my-way-ism and ownership.
It is not good. In this case, I actually read and watched a fair bit of Jones' stuff - I didn't know him before the last AfD - and he is good. I'm not an electronics engineer, hobbyist or fan, and I found his approach to technical topics refreshing and solid: conversational, fun, good-natured, informative, detailed without being pedantic, no dumbing down, and that is added to a huge body of work and substantial audience. So trying to delete him, rather than working to provide a good quality article from less than stellar sources, is just contrary to my idea of the core letter and spirit of the Wikipedia project.
Thanks for the note! Who knows where this all leads?! Meanwhile, I'll stick in there on Jones, as time permits - I haven't gotten round to actual editing, but I intend to. :) --Tsavage (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and refactored the section heading of this discussion per WP:TALK and WP:NPA. We're here to work cooperatively with other editors. "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. " --Ronz (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz This is the second time you've edited the same comment, written by another editor, on my Talk page. I have asked you to stop. Nothing in WP:TALK or WP:NPA says, "Go ahead and edit out words you don't like, like 'abuse,' use in reference to you, from 'User talk' pages." WP:TALK says, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." As I read it, the editor was expressing that they felt attacked and abused, and while this obviously doesn't reflect nicely on the one cited, I don't see it qualifying as a personal attack, under the letter and spirit of WP:NPA#WHATIS. Review the editorial activity involved: it was heavy-handed, to say the least, and obstructive, deleting matters of wording from sourced content in the midst of other editors editing is not the way to cooperatively edit. So, the editor involved decided to walk away, and left a note here because I had been arguing some of the same points he had. As far as my Talk page, that editor should be free to make that comment. --Tsavage (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The editor was projecting and trying to justify his own inappropriate behavior. You're encouraging it.
WP:TPO: "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate"
Look at WP:TALKNO please, "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. "
WP:TALKNEW, "Don't be critical in headings", "Don't address other users in a heading"
WP:TALKNEW, "Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines"
@Ronz: I clarified the heading - is that better? Upon, re-reading, I believe the editor wasn't referring to you personally, but to your editing, so in fact there is no personal attack component. This is supported by his comment, "I can't help further with Ronz's assault on David L. Jones" and "Good luck in the fight against his guerilla BLP" - these refer to editing activity, not personal characteristics of the editor. If you still have a problem with the heading, please let me know. --Tsavage (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz I'm assuming your "no" is to my "is that better?" I've removed the offending "'s abuse," and noted the edit in tiny text - my intention is never to deliberately distress anyone. Meanwhile, you should consider not doing stuff in a way that irks editors and drives them to statements of displeasure... --Tsavage (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Of course, I do. The problem is that our policies and guidelines irks some editors. Wikipedia may not be a bureaucracy, but there enough policies and guidelines to make it highly bureaucratic, especially when BLP, COI, SPAM, or AE applies. When a policy outright says to do or not do something, I expect editors to make good faith attempts to at least try. As far as how to handle the editors that don't, Wikipedia offers little guidance and I rarely get any recommendations at all when I outright ask for them. Got any? --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking past each other. I appreciate your elaborations. I don't have much time to reply. Please don't take my terseness as a sign that I won't elaborate further. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote, '"BLP contentiousness is" could clarify why you believe this by quoting from our policies and guidelines?' [8]. Were you going to answer the question? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just kidding, nothing new or fun. And I realize you've been pretty clear about your interest in putting lots of time into this subject... but I'd like to hear your views on WP:CSECTION with regard to the GM food and controversy articles. What do you think of re-merging these articles and integrating controversy/criticism as suggested? petrarchan47คุก21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
petrarchan47คุ I believe putting GM food and GM food controversies back together, and sorting out what's now in Controversies that shouldn't be, is a good idea. There's a solid argument to be made for that, and a useful example in that CRS report, for describing what is a controversy, and not simply calling all issues, controversial, and segregating them.
I've recently argued against the WP:CSECTION approach (in the Monsanto article), because it seemed to me in that case that trying to disperse numerous specific controversial issues throughout the article would be editorially difficult, and make it harder for the reader to find what they might be looking for. CSECTION makes sense in cases where it's pretty clear that a separate Controversies section (and labeling things as controversies) is unnecessary, like, for a big, named controversy that would fit squarely under an existing section title. BUT, controversy/criticism sections have for better or for worse become a standard feature here, and I do consciously look for csections to quickly check whether a subject is notably controversial - lazy approach, maybe, but undeniably handy - and this usefulness would be improved by only having csections when there are several clearly delineated controversies, enough that one could summarize in the lead that the subject had often been associated with controversy.
In the case of GM food, my question is, are there enough clear controversies for a separate csection/article? If we say (let's say for right here at least) that a controversy necessarily describes the various sides, their competing positions, and significant actions specifically supporting those positions (using reasonable judgement that the actions focus strongly and specifically on those positions), then off-hand, labeling in the US seems like a big, clear controversy. Food safety would need research to separate that issue in consumer campaigns and the like, from environmental and other concerns; setting up "consumers against GMOs" as a catchall controversy doesn't seem encyclopedically helpful, given the distinct issues. Intellectual property/bioownership stuff seems only secondary for this topic.
Also (already argued somewhere in recent GM food discussion), sections now in GM food controversies, like "Public perception" and "Health and safety" (now called "Health") logically belong in the main article, they are natural, expected subject areas and broad issue areas, that any general reader might be looking for. And "Regulation," a cornerstone area and issue, is in both articles, the majority of material in the Controversies article, and IMO poorly covered on both places.
So I guess, with this quick consideration, it would seem that CSECTION could directly apply here, in that one area so far that could be labeled as strongly controversial falls under a natural section heading for this subject (including Labeling under Regulation), and there are natural sections for a broad range of issues that we wouldn't label as specific controversies. That's what I think off the top - hope it was worth the read! :) --Tsavage (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, when I first saw a "Socratic Barnstar" (on another page), I came straight here, because it (and Minor, above) perfectly describe your contributions. I didn't press enter because you seem to rather hang out in the background, and I thought it might have embarrassed you. So, thanks again for taking the time to give one of your infamous responses ;) A few hours after making this comment to you, I realized that in the case of GMOs, a controversy article does make sense. A single article can't possibly cover these issues and remain navigable. When you have a "March Against...", chances are the topic can be encyclopedically considered "controversial". I don't disagree with anything you've said, and in fact am itching to change the CSECTION guideline. But this is a quick note to say thanks, and that I have a lot to say in response, but it may be a few days. petrarchan47คุก01:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Thanks. That really drives home how bad it is, it seems to be exactly the same thing underlying much of the GMO and alt-med arguments and editing - I was pretty sure there was a reason I've been hanging around here ARGUING for months, this isn't good, and it spreads. It's kinda surreal, but not trying to help with an online problem, with something as public and prevalent (pervasive?) as Wikipedia, is like turning your head and walking away from anything else, like trouble in the street. (Is that dramatic enough? :) --Tsavage (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dramatic? How can one overstate the importance of this site? For the vast majority of topics, this is the number one search result, and oftentimes the only seemingly-neutral source of information. The trouble on your street is finite. The (pervasive) influence of Wikipedia is not possible to turn from. petrarchan47คุก08:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Petrarchan47: Great timing on your comment! :) In the past, I've worked on Wikipedia for short spurts; I stuck around for over a year this time because I got caught up in the GM food craziness, kinda fascinated by how a tiny number of editors could so successfully defend such overall poorly sourced, unbalanced, incomplete content for such a long time. But much of the involved discussion around here, GMO and otherwise, gets mired down in toxic, petty argument that has little to do directly with content, and I suddenly hit saturation from one moment to the next, and stopped posting. It had become all disagreeable work, and no fun. But I haven't really quit! --Tsavage (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Equally good timing on yours! I can't really tell you how happy I am to hear you haven't quit. You're our one last hope, hehe. Good timing also because as per usual, I might steal your words to help me make a point, with attribution of course. I'm involved in a bit of nesssesary noticeboard bs due to my similar year long involvement in the GMO debacle. At a certain point, working at the talk page/article level is nothing but ugly and pointless, as you describe, but I am still trying to get the attention of the community. It's a challenge when you realize that although WP seems vast, and one assumes at the top is a strong commitment to the encyclopedia, in truth the reality is what anyone should have expected: it's who you know, not what you do, that counts in the end, that if going against the grain, status quo, (relatively small) popular crowd/clique, is synonymous with sticking to facts, sources and truth, it is truth - and the Wikipedia reader - that looses. Getting deeply involved in the ArbCom case took me down a rabbit hole that forced the scales off. There is no near-saintly group of administrators resisting the urge to gain or retain power, putting NPOV above enjoying membership in a well established buddy system here. And how silly that I ever thought otherwise! petrarchan47คุก07:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David L. Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Jose. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "David L. Jones". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 December 2015.
The request for formal mediation concerning David L. Jones, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
GoodDay Um, must I?! :) It's just another column added on, probably the last column or one before "Living as of." If you know how to format wikitables, just copy the header and the first line entry or two and add a column! If Notes gains traction and seeing an example is perhaps the dealmaker, then I might do that, but really, implementing solutions should be up to the DR parties, don't you agree?! --Tsavage (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much for your level headed edits at glyphosate. i've always loved seeing you around.
please keep up the good spirit. I continue to follow things going on of course, even though topic banned. now you are "replacing" not just me, but 3 banned editors who cant work to stem the butchering/erosion/whatever one wants to call it.
if there is anything I can do to help you aside from editing in the GMO area, do not hesitate to contact me! --Wuerzele (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wuerzele: Hi. Thanks for the thanks. This is all quite absurdly interesting, I don't even know how I could describe it all to someone not involved, let alone describe why I spend whatever time I do. I mean, it's just another set of people arguing - it's what we do, argue and try to dominate - BUT, it also directly shapes this massive informational resource that shows up in the top couple of search results for just about every search phrase one could imagine. So it is kind of a public duty (whatever THAT means, we are wired for, among other things, fairness, aren't we?) to do what you can to help keep it kinda straight. (Unfortunately, I suspect all this leads back to the policies and guidelines. From the little I've looked, there seem to be lots of incremental changes over the last five years or so that appear to be skewing things increasingly in favor of certain types of position. The prospect of pursuing that kind of a course, arguing PAGs directly, is not...inviting. :) --Tsavage (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re shaping this massive informational resource: exactly. The public duty thing is something I also feel similarly about, weirdly. I admire your discipline and ability to stay cool. sure reason why you have not been caught in some sort of net.
Re last 5 years: interesting that you say that. i've never reviewed policy history. i only noticed a trend ~2009-presence very recently, upon deeply reviewing edit histories (to their time of creation) this yr. previously i didn't pay attention to WP works/ governance at all, too time consuming/ cliqueish.
i would like to email you something, an attachment. you must have your reasons why you don't have email enabled. could you email me maybe, when you have time? (it's nothing bad). fyi my account is only for WP, only shows my username in case you are worried about anonymity.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz: I have moved this to the article Talk page. Except when required procedurally, such as in an official notification, please stay off of my Talk page. Your contributions here to date have been nothing but unhelpful and mildly annoying. Thank you. --Tsavage (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon: I'm trying to figure out my position on this as far as DRN. I came to that article from examining cases on DRN, because I thought in that case it could be handled locally, whereas on DRN, it would drag on almost exactly as it had on the Talk page, unnecessarily tying up resources there. With my input at the article, there is already what appears to me to be a very clear consensus among three editors that the challenged edits are OR and POV, so it should be possible to ask for an administrative close on the relevant Talk section.
The problem I see is that some editors seem to misunderstand (and some deliberately misuse) DRN, thinking new eyes will be focused on the case, and while that is true insofar as moderators do comment on content arguments, when they realize it is simply Talk all over again, nothing binding, those who just want to stick to their position as they did in Talk will continue to do so. IOW, how to separate willingness to compromise, from those only looking for some sort of additional authority to back their position? As a moderator, I wouldn't want to waste my time, in the full and literal sense, on the latter.
Robert McClenon: I see you've settled the issue as far as DRN. I made a number of edits and improvements to the article, and at some point, the lead, which is in fact an entire stub article, will have to be rewritten to properly summarize the expanded article body... --Tsavage (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David L. Jones . 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.
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of classic rock songs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lola. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Tsavage. If you get a spare minute or two could you have a look at User:Aircorn/sandbox. I thought I would start making a table following your suggestion at the GM food page. It is still in a very raw form (and very incomplete), but it would be good if you let me know if it fits in with what you had in mind before I go too much further. If you let me know of any other fields you would like to see I can try and add them in. Feel free to leave a comment on the sandbox talk page, my talk page or here. AIRcorn(talk)23:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn:: Looks good! And the History section is vastly improved - see ya later, Sumerians...Babylonians, too. After a year of mainly arguing about stuff (and not just in GM), one can almost forget the quiet satisfaction of making articles better. :) I've had this bookmarked: GMO approval database. And of course, this is what I loosely had in mind, Genetically_modified_crops# Crops, but haven't given it much more thought. I'm not at all up on the world approval situation, so I'm not sure how much data there is. What comes to mind immediately is, with approved vs what's actually on the market, do we maybe need two tables, a comprehensive table as a List of... article, and a more compact, friendly one for the GM food article, maybe listing just the crops currently on the market (with context and extra info covered in the section lead/text)? Lemme know, and give me a day to look around. And thanks for...collaborating! I'll continue comments on your sandbox Talk. --Tsavage (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am glad you like the expanded history section, I was laid up yesterday with a busted ankle so had a bit of time to tinker around. Despite being very pro, ISAAA is a pretty comprehensive source for what GM crops are approved. I figured the notes section could be used to explain the intricacies a bit, especially as approval in the EU doesn't actually mean a lot as the individual countries can basically impose their own moratoriums on them. We might have to look for sources outside the database to get a clearer picture on that and it might need explaining in text form.
Hadn't really thought about turning it into a "list of" article. Was more thinking of cutting and pasting the relevant parts into the main GM articles (food in food, crops in crops). There is much more detail we could go into regarding events, trade names, genes used, ha planted etc. so a comprehensive list article is not a bad idea. A better, broader and more accessible version of List of varieties of genetically modified maize would be nice. AIRcorn(talk)07:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: It's looking big! Re "very pro ISAAA" - Yeah, it's funny, but kinda related to that, I've found a couple of good summaries of GM stuff on pro-biotech blogs, like one on substantial equivalence at Biofortified. Anyhow, what I can do for the chart is start gathering info on what's actually on the market, by country - I can put that as a text list below the table in your sandbox. You can see how that fits on the big chart, and it might be good as I mentioned for a more compact, what-impacts-most-people version for the GM foods article. WDYT? And lemme know when you've thought more about versions of the chart, List page and compact.
Also, just as a thought for the future, what about a "Genetically modified organisms in agriculture" / "GMOs in agriculture" article as a kind of gateway out of the full-on Genetics > Genetic engineering area. Right now, there's a GE section in the Agriculture article, but it links as See also to a slew of the (imo) scattered GM articles, which is maybe off-putting, a bit hard to get into. Ag is a generally familiar term for people that's broad enough to cover everything about GM that's directly for human consumption. Just a prelim thought... --Tsavage (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to talk about content. The big trouble with ISAAA is that they tend to avoid anything that paints GM negatively, even the minor stuff. For example Japan has approved lots of GM cultivation but apart from a few flowers none has ever been grown. I am pretty sure Spain and maybe Romania were the only EU countries to be actively planting GM crops. I remember reading somewhere that the Iranian cultivation is very small (as in almost non-existent). Yet this is glossed over quite a bit by ISAAA, so other sources will probably be needed. Any help there will be appreciated.
It is big, but it is mostly the major crops (maize, cotton and soybean) with lots of country authorisations that are inflating it. My thoughts are to create a mega list with as much information as we can handle at List of commercialised genetically modified organisms or something. This can be a main or intext link from the other articles for all those who love lots of information. However, this will include insulin, chymosin and probably a whole lot of other enzymes, proteins, bacteria and other research supplies so it might be better to go List of genetically modified organisms used in agriculture. As to the articles a lot of the crops aren't food (we could cut it down even more if we concentrate on human food), so I think a overview version would fit in. We could even have three versions for each section (crop, derivative and feed). Not sure about the crops article, we could always hide it under a show template.
When you (I think it was you) mentioned problems with the GM food/GM crops split I was going to suggest a GMO in agriculture article as not all crops are food and now not all food are crops. I would need to think on that a bit more before committing either way. On the topic of overview articles I wouldn't mind re-creating the Genetically Modified plant one either someday. I would suspect that most plants are actually in the research lab (tobacco and Arabidopsis) and not crops at all. AIRcorn(talk)08:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Looks great! Useful. Imo, the perfect sort of main article to link to while excerpting and summarizing it in other articles (unlike most in the current maze of GM articles). If you know it off the top of your head, you should add something about cultivation vs importation, that countries may import but not grow and any other variations on that. Also, if you're on a roll, use this table to start a List of GMOs in agriculture, with livestock, bacteria, insects, that would also introduce the idea of a GMOs in agriculture article - it doesn't have to be complete to start with. (I'll do those things eventually, if you've had it with tables for now, and no-onte else does.) --Tsavage (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: Sorry, this is an update to my previous comment. I read the text again, and realize you did mention approval for consumption. I'll add some detail later on, making a bit clearer the regulatory and practical distinction between cultivation and consumption (e.g. importing is regulated at EU level, member countries determine cultivation; Japan allows cultivation, but doesn't grow GM food, but imports it). --Tsavage (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Still have a bit of work to do on the current list, including a section on the countries that approve importation of GMO food/feed like you mentiom. Looked at some featured lists when making it and it would be nice to get it up to that quality (I have never made any featured content and don't think any of the current GM articles are at that level). AIRcorn(talk)18:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You yourself have referred to WP:ISNOT when you wrote, "if the item is not obviously trivial or otherwise unencyclopedic (as covered under other PAGs, like WP:ISNOT" [16], so I'm unclear why the confusion."
By taking my comment out of context - the context being a three-month running dispute over just about every addition to that article - you are suggesting that I myself use the term "unencyclopedic," while objecting to it - in fact, your quote is me trying to be reasonable and get to specifics by interpreting your vague references to PAGs, after you had said: ...The current version appears undue, and its identifying reviews rather than using them as sources is unencyclopedic... --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC) As I have said repeatedly on that page, presenting broad references to entire pages of policy rather than clearly described, actionable challenges, is unhelpful and does not support useful discussion or dispute resolution. --Tsavage (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the excessive number of disambiguation links on the page, "List of classic rock songs" has been moved to draftspace until such time as all disambiguation links on the page have been fixed, to avoid excessive disruption to the work of disambiguators. Please feel free to contact me to have this page move back to mainspace once all disambiguation links have been fixed. Cheers! bd2412T21:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.
It doesn't appear you've been formally alerted to this yet as far as I can find, and I don't recall you being involved in the case, so just making sure. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: I have started a discussion about your contributions to Wikipedia at WP:FTN about whether you should be reported for disciplinary action to WP:AE.
@Tryptofish: I'll take a look and perhaps update. Right now, my Wikipedia time is severely limited - if you could give a few days notice of a specific date when you're planning to launch this RfC, that would be great. --Tsavage (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC page is getting set up now, so it's going to be soon. If you could do it in the next 3 days, I think that would work. If not, and you need more time, please tell me. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Unfortunately, there is an interaction ban in place involving myself and one other editor who is currently active on the Tomahawk article.
Therefore, I won't be commenting and editing. (I don't want to disrespect the admins who put the ban in place, neither do I want to be silly and get blocked from editing)
I think from my previous comments and edits, my opinions are pretty obvious, and I wanted to say thanks for the hard work you have put into that article.
I'm pretty confident that whatever edits/comments you make there, they will reflect my opinions.
Anyway, good luck with it Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety
A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety based on the five proposals made at the GMO crops talk page here which you have either commented on or made your own proposal. The Wordsmith and Laser brain have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk)
Hello, Tsavage. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Tsavage. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
^This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am currently revamping the project. Created lots of pages and added a lot of content, but there is so much to do. I saw that in the past you have contributed, so I wanted to invite you to collaborate once more. Thanks! Eccekevin (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continuous harvest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?)06:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tsavage. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Your comment was much appreciated. We've now got 2 options. I have added your suggestion to option 1. Atsme is suggesting a slight change to option 2, so please wait a bit until I've made those changes before weighing in. petrarchan47คุก07:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tsavage. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
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.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaxRange (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finder-Spyder (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
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.
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.
@DiannaaWas it necessary to remove all of the subsequent edits? Also, it wasn't a cut-and-paste, the material was edited -- what degree of editing is required in order not to be considered a copyright issue? Tsavage (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. You presented the same content in the same order using almost identical wording. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in each sentence is still a copyright issue. — Diannaa (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War on drugs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Thank you for providing such unusually long responses on article talk page. Since this is all related to a single poorly written phrase ("Multiple mainstream studies and findings since the 1930s have recommended against such a severe classification"), I would rather refrain from continuing this discussion and editing the page, at least for the time being. I checked your replies and agree with many things you are saying, but the whole discussion seems to be much ado about nothing. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes Thanks for the Reply. Yeah, a lot of words involved! Your very last post in that discussion seemed to indicate your position quite clearly, but that wasn't apparent to me through much of it. In any case, I guess it's all's well that doesn't end in tears! --Tsavage (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tsavage. Thank you for your work on Maui Nui Venison. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi, can you please explain why you created a new page and filled it with {{citation needed}} tags? Since you are the creator of the page, you should be able to provide a source for your statements. Remember that per WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Broc (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A recent edit of yours (at least I think it was yours) put a PDF at the start of the War on Drugs article. I assume that was some sort of mistake (but wasn't sure)?Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just saw and corrected that. Dunno how that got pasted there. It had replaced the article's short description, so I fixed that as well... :) Cheers. -- Tsavage (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I've been meaning to add a source to that article: David Farber's book on the crack epidemic (I have the hardcover). I probably will over the next week or so.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah, messy but seems sufficiently supported to include. It's pretty basic for an article to indicate whether its subject is dead or alive or in whatever other state, so I guess we should do what we can! :) Tsavage (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I understand you really like that article but… But please… Hear me out.
You are almost alone making edits in that article.
100% of the edit you make actually is already preexisting information present elsewhere on wikipedia.
Where it exists, it would benefit from small expansion or update, more than by being added elsewhere in a less-complete manner, as you do.
Your lack of knowledge of international law and North-American biais make you fall into the usual over-simplification of a complex topic, which then require fixes behind… It's a game of cat-and-mouse… not the best practice in science.
The new page where you add bits of information serves only as a trampoline for readers to (hopefully) reach the complete article about the topic. But I fear they often don't and stick to the over-simplified, one-sentence statement of 60 years of geopolitical struggle and complex layers of international binding, non-binding, and other forms of law.
Just one example… you add "the goals of the convention as stated in the preamble" but there are decades of scholarly research, there is an official commentary spending pages and pages discussing the preamble, there is varied subsequent practice of States in interpreting the preambles, etc, which are absolutely critical to understanding ––and therefore explaining to others–– the preamble, ite meaning, its implications. Copy-pasting bits of the preamble without having incorporated all these elements is simply an incorrect statement of the reality of the implications of the preamble.
Don't get me wrong, I see the effort, energy, and good will you put into this (with one exception: your obstination on using an incorrect title was quite bad faith). I just know that hell is paved with good intentions and your obstination in making incremental edits to this page, making it now an extremely dense, long and complex one, with myriad of small or larger mistakes (and nobody with the time to go behind you correct it) is sort of tragical. I wanted you to at least be aware of that.
This is law, it has impacts on life of people. I have concrete examples of wikipedia pages containing incorrect information, whose contents arrive at decision-making level and generate actual mistakes in the law. This would be dramatic if it happenned again and I can only but fear this page has a perfect profile for that purpose…
Hi, again! I read your comment with care and I believe I understand your quite detailed concerns (and agree that the use of incorrect information and misinformation can be lead to tragic outcomes). The bottom line is that, as Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, we should proceed on the article page, following the core policies of WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, that seem to have worked quite well on Wikipedia so far. (There is an article on editing by subject matter experts that you may find useful a WP:EXPERT!) I've made a comment with concerns about one of your recent edits on the United Nations drug control conventions talk page. Cheer! --Tsavage (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You added something on 10/13 to the article.....but it is at the start of it. I think you probably want it somewhere else....but I was uncertain as to where so I didn't change it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Fixed. It was an accidentally pasted citation quote. That's happened before. I'm almost in the regular habit of checking the top of the article every save. Cheers. Tsavage (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|Talk-- 22:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
02:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Garden sharing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ThemFromSpace 14:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Tsavage! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 410 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bullitt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Atsme☯Consult 15:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Atsme☯Consult 17:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
You are spot-on when it comes to the ambiguities and contradictions of PAG. However, no project or group should take a WP:OWN position over any article. Stewardship? Yes, because that is how we fight vandalism, but how do we distinguish stewardship from ownership? GAs and FAs are probably a good example of where stewardship enters the stage. Stubs, starters, C-class - uhm...not so much. The advice and recommendations of technical/scientific/medical/legal experts is certainly respected and welcome, but it is not a trump card. Problems arise when one group controls the information that goes into/comes out of an article, and to me it is the same as....ugh....censorship, the latter being one way for COI situations to gain control. It happens everywhere...corporate, medical, science, legal, sports - wherever there is competition and/or hypotheses. So how do we resolve the issues? I say it gets resolved by evaluating article content the same way the FA review team would evaluate it. It may require an independent task force, but why not? Admins don't have the time to analyze article content wherein the problems have permeated. A task force is devoted to that aspect of the review, therefore can provide a much better analysis. Admins take care of the symptoms while a task force would be looking at the cause of the disease. Atsme☯Consult 20:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Another popular response used by some editors is WP:IAR. Yes, the PAGs need clarification. Atsme☯Consult 22:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
—174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Done, by the way - cheers! bd2412 T 00:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
