User talk:KoA/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| For being almost infinitely patient with a user, despite numerous provocations and opportunities to not be, I award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar! We need more people like you :) Ironholds (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
Your revert of Bayer
Your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bayer&oldid=655974454 Your comment: "Nor really relevant here, but moreso over at Neonicotinoid."
If the findings of a new meta study implicate Bayer's Neonicotinoids, and there is a section called Neonicotinoid pesticides in that article with several paragraphs that tend to exonerate Bayer, how is my edit not relevant? If it wasn't you would need to delete the entire section.
Together with your reverting of text critical of Syngenta in the respective article that makes you look like a shill for big agro-chemical corporations.
I will undo your revert. If you want you can discuss this on the Bayer talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chic happens (talk • contribs)
@Chic happens: Assuming from your edit summary that the unsigned comment above was yours, this was pretty ugly behavior. If you have an argument for retaining the material based what is already present there, that's great. But the "shill for big Agro" comment was completely uncalled for and does not contribute in any way to collaborative editing. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Chic happens, as mentioned above, those remarks are highly inappropriate. You appear to be a fairly new editor, so please remember to read the talk page guidelines, especially that we assume good faith and focus on content, not contributor. Referring to someone as a shill is never appropriate here. That all being said, conversations on content should be on the article talk page rather than user talk pages so others who watch the page can see. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| For your kindness, and extraordinary patience, especially when dealing with contentious editors. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC) |
GM Food RfC
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) 21:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.AlbinoFerret 00:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Emerald ash borer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Emerald ash borer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've protected the page for 24 hours due to ongoing edit warring. I appreciate that this may be frustrating, but there does potentially seem to be a legitimate question, here. Please note that my protection does not endorse either "side" of the debate, on which I have no opinion. Because of concerns about stability and now being "involved" with the page, I have closed the GA review at this time. I'm sorry I couldn't see it through to the end; I do encourage you to renominate once the disputes/concerns have died down. Depending on my commitments, I may be happy to take up a new review in the future. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Josh Milburn, considering that the editor in question followed me to the article to purposely derail the GA process by edit warring, what's the best way to approach things in terms of future GA review or admin action? The ANI is pretty recent:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding_by_GregJackP. I've never seen such strange vindictive behavior like this before, so that the editor's actions had a role in your close is really concerning for me. Just looking for any insight on direction rather than you getting involved in the case itself. Thanks.Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I only saw the ANI report after I'd protected the page and closed the review (and all of this I was just about to head out of the door). I appreciate that this must be very frustrating for you, but if what you say about the hounding/harassment is true, then hopefully the ANI thread will be able to get to the bottom of it, and the article can be renominated after that point. From my end (and with the caveat that I was looking only at the EAB page, and have given other administrators full permission to override my actions), it looked like edit warring over a fairly minor issue, but one about which there could be genuine and legitimate disagreement. The accusation of "vandalism" also seemed misplaced; whatever this was, it didn't look like vandalism. With regards to the GA review- I did have outstanding concerns (but was happy to work these out with you), but I thought the closure was appropriate, first, because a page which is currently subject to an edit war over a potentially legitimate issue (and here I reiterate that this does not look like straightforward vandalism) is not a good candidate, and second, it's not ideal for me to be reviewing an article on which I've recently taken a (probably controversial) admin action. This is more of a "let's start the nomination over later" than a "this article is not ready for GA status", if that makes sense. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely see the value in holding off on the review for now, so thanks for approaching it that way. The vandalism comes from the context at ANI (purposely making WP:POINTY edits), so it can be a wolf in sheep's clothing concern if one doesn't know what's been going on off the page unfortunately. I'll come back to the GA process in awhile. There are a few new reviews that came out I should be able to incorporate soon, so we'll see how it looks then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for understanding. It was good working with you- I'll keep my eyes open for your articles at GAC/FAC/PR in the future. I hope the current issue is resolved relatively painlessly. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I definitely see the value in holding off on the review for now, so thanks for approaching it that way. The vandalism comes from the context at ANI (purposely making WP:POINTY edits), so it can be a wolf in sheep's clothing concern if one doesn't know what's been going on off the page unfortunately. I'll come back to the GA process in awhile. There are a few new reviews that came out I should be able to incorporate soon, so we'll see how it looks then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I only saw the ANI report after I'd protected the page and closed the review (and all of this I was just about to head out of the door). I appreciate that this must be very frustrating for you, but if what you say about the hounding/harassment is true, then hopefully the ANI thread will be able to get to the bottom of it, and the article can be renominated after that point. From my end (and with the caveat that I was looking only at the EAB page, and have given other administrators full permission to override my actions), it looked like edit warring over a fairly minor issue, but one about which there could be genuine and legitimate disagreement. The accusation of "vandalism" also seemed misplaced; whatever this was, it didn't look like vandalism. With regards to the GA review- I did have outstanding concerns (but was happy to work these out with you), but I thought the closure was appropriate, first, because a page which is currently subject to an edit war over a potentially legitimate issue (and here I reiterate that this does not look like straightforward vandalism) is not a good candidate, and second, it's not ideal for me to be reviewing an article on which I've recently taken a (probably controversial) admin action. This is more of a "let's start the nomination over later" than a "this article is not ready for GA status", if that makes sense. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Emerald ash borer
The article Emerald ash borer you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Emerald ash borer for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by. Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Quick question: Would this [1] be considered a primary study? Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is, though highly cited to the point it's worth citing directly (and for further explanation). Now that you mention it, it doesn't have one of the reviews citing it as an additional citation, so I'll have to add that in when I get a chance. Good catch. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm bringing this up on your talk page rather than the article page because I'm not objecting to its use in the article - I am questioning your use of a primary study to include:
- It is, though highly cited to the point it's worth citing directly (and for further explanation). Now that you mention it, it doesn't have one of the reviews citing it as an additional citation, so I'll have to add that in when I get a chance. Good catch. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Quarantines can limit the transport of ash trees and products. Economic impacts are especially high for urban and residential areas due to treatment or removal costs and decreased land value from dying trees. Costs for managing these trees can fall upon homeowners or local municipalities. For municipalities, removing large numbers of dead or infested trees at once is costly, so slowing down the rate at which trees die through removing known infested trees and treating trees with insecticides can allow local governments more time to plan, remove, and replace trees that would eventually die. This strategy saves money as it would cost $10.7 billion in urban areas of 25 states between 2009–2019, while removing and replacing all ash trees in these same areas at once would cost $25 billion.
- You and I have repeatedly disagreed on the occasional use of primary studies. IMO they can be very helpful when one is attempting to present an accurate and up-to-date article. You, however, have argued against them and have removed them from articles, and at the on-going discussion on their use are even in favor of changing "should generally not be used" to almost never be used. And yet in this article you quote a primary study at length when you find it helpful to present your POV. Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- As I was getting at above, that article was meant to be paired with the reviews citing it, but that just got lost in the shuffle. There's a bit more to that story in terms of the strategy the federal government is recommending (more review type sources), so I'll be adding a bit more about that now that page protection is over (once I'm back from fishing for the day). I rarely do use a primary source in non-controversial topics, but that's only to use the introduction section as a literature review. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Revision of my contribution to "Organic Farming"
Hi I put a great deal of time and energy into my conversions to acreage in the article. You then deleted them without any attempt of discussion and only a single-word explanation, "redundant.". Would you care to explain? That is not even consistent with the rest of the article, which already has a half-dozen mentions of acreage, and I saw fit to expend my time and effort to make the article consistent. I encourage you to explain yourself before further edit warring, and refer you to the English Wikipedia style guide, which is very clear when it comes to the use of English units. The acre is used by hundreds of millions of people for land measure in the English-speaking world and I ask that you would respect its use just as I would respect the use of Japanese characters on jp.wikipedia.org and their own style guide.
- Hi 40ac&amule. It appears others have been talking to you about other edits, so I'll just remind you that content discussion goes on article talk pages. I should point out that you shouldn't taken comments on edits quite so personally. One needs a thick skin in any kind of collaborative writing, or simply to just not personally invest oneself in the content. I don't have time for awhile to follow the organic farming page for awhile, so I'll just leave my comment here for now. Both acre and hectare are used in the English speaking world, and I haven't seen articles or a manual of style suggesting the use of both like we do inches vs. cm. That's why I said the content was redundant since we already listed hectares. The two do get used interchangeably in articles, so that might be a conversation for something like WikiProject Agriculture to figure out a preference for handling it in the future. For now I'm not going to worry about it though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Essay of interest
Your userpage made me think you might be interested in an essay by DrChrissy, Wikipedia:Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles. The guidance on how and when to use "introduction" or "general discussion" sections as secondary sources seems particularly worthy of being promoted to guideline status. FourViolas (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasn't aware of that one. I've generally seen WP:SCIRS used more by the community, practically used as a guideline, etc. It was modified from WP:MEDRS, which is a guideline, so I'm looking in the long term to work on getting SCIRS up to official guideline status. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Removal of reliable source content
Hi, I've noticed that you now removed the content in question per MEDRS. Ironically the source has a medical background and seems reasonable. Please don't start an edit war because of your opinion, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- prokaryotes, I'm not sure why you're posting on my talk page rather then the article talk (best for other folks to see when dealing with content). However, you did revert the change without even addressing the reasoning behind it left on the article talk page itself in terms of reliability. I do suggest reading what I wrote there as it's a very basic failure of reliability in terms of MEDRS at the organization and individual level, specifically in the context of WP:MEDORG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Genetically modified organism
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.prokaryotes (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- prokaryotes, you were already well aware that you were edit warring content (if not, now you are), and that my single revert was restoring the status quo for two different edits you made. In the future please be aware of your own edit warring and not attempting to edit war content back in even if you are a bit eager to post edit warring templates. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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.prokaryotes (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
ANI Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.prokaryotes (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration request notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, Looie496 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sulfoxaflor war
Whether sulfoxaflor is truly a neonicotinoid seems unlikely to be decisive in any court cases. The NYT said "Sulfoxaflor is a neonicotinoid subclass, according to the ruling.". It is likely the court was just echoing back the terminology it saw being used in the briefs. The scientific papers seem to switch their terminology back and forth, and there is a Syngenta paper (ref. 2 of the article) using a tritiated analog of sulfoxaflor which considers sulfoxaflor a new kind of neonicotinoid that just avoids some of the resistance pathways the insects have developed. They say it binds to the same target site but avoids being metabolized by oxygenases before getting there. Being a neonicotinoid shouldn't be a badge of shame. All it says is that these products employ a pathway also used by nicotine. Whether you call them neonicotinoids or not, all these chemicals are admitted to be highly toxic to honeybees. Sulfoxaflor is different because it is the only one of these chemicals containing sulfur. Dow's claim that it's a whole new class of pesticide would need to be confirmed by future work. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, especially on that first sentence. I'm pretty much in agreement with you on everything there. I'm personally skeptical of the claims that it's a brand new class as well, but that's how the sources currently lay even with independent ones backing up the classification (for now). Most call it neonicotinoid-like and put it in a sister grouping, and for where my expertise comes in (pesticide resistance management among other things), is generally treated as being in a similar enough mode of action group to not call them truly distinct. There's a lot of nuance in all that, and I don't think we can really handle that in the current environment for now at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Termite
I only have one more section to work on until I can finally move it to the article itself. I'll do a ce first and some minor fixes, but I should be able to get it done tonight. I am confident you'll be pleased on what you'll see in comparison to its current state and what it used to look like before I worked on it. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
- Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
New insect article to work on
You will probably know by know that Termite is being reviewed for GA, but I have been thinking about working on another insect article. I have sawfly on my to-do-list, but it's quite an obscure topic when you compare it to articles such as butterfly, bee, wasp and ant. Do you have any particular article you wish to see improved? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Burklemore1, have you used the statistics page over at Wikiproject Insects? I'd work my way down those currently listed as B class in the top, high, and mid importances. C-class could have good topics that need a bit more work to get them up to GA status if there's enough content for it.
- When it comes to articles I'm looking at on my to-do list, I tend to stick to species specific ones, namely invasive species because they tend to have a lot of sources. I've set emerald ash borer to the side for a bit due to an editor following me around causing drama there, but I'll probably renominate that one after I go back and clean up a few areas mentions before the nomination was cut short. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I see beetle and mosquito as potential candidates, but I'm not sure how stable mosquito is due to how much vandalism occurs. Beetle has excellent content and seems to be complete in most areas, but so much of it is missing citations that it's hard to verify it all. I may look into Embioptera first, it has great content and it's reasonably well sourced. It just needs an expansion and additional citations. Shame to see the emerald ash borer unable to reach GA, hopefully it will be listed very soon. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't let that kind of vandalism get to you. Edit warring will likely make a GA nomination fail, but plain old vandalism isn't a reason to deny it. If it comes to citations, I have full access to most any journal publication as well as library access, so just let me know if there's a particular source you're looking for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good point, I might just work on it in my sandbox instead so no vandal disrupts my editing. With 2,108 views per day, I think the article really needs an improvement. As for citations, I'll keep that in mind, but I already do have one source I need for access. Are you able to access the following source:
- I wouldn't let that kind of vandalism get to you. Edit warring will likely make a GA nomination fail, but plain old vandalism isn't a reason to deny it. If it comes to citations, I have full access to most any journal publication as well as library access, so just let me know if there's a particular source you're looking for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I see beetle and mosquito as potential candidates, but I'm not sure how stable mosquito is due to how much vandalism occurs. Beetle has excellent content and seems to be complete in most areas, but so much of it is missing citations that it's hard to verify it all. I may look into Embioptera first, it has great content and it's reasonably well sourced. It just needs an expansion and additional citations. Shame to see the emerald ash borer unable to reach GA, hopefully it will be listed very soon. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Haskins, Caryl P.; Haskins, Edna F. (1964). "Notes on the biology and social behavior of Myrmecia inquilina. The only known myrmeciine social parasite". Insectes Sociaux. 11 (3): 267–282. doi:10.1007/BF02222677.
If so, thank you very much, I'm working on Myrmecia inquilina atm, and the source may contain valuable information on such a rare ant. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Normally I try to be resourceful with finding online copies, but it looks like this one is fully paywalled. I won't post it here for that reason, but send me an email and I can reply back with attached paper in the morning. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. I have sent you an email. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Normally I try to be resourceful with finding online copies, but it looks like this one is fully paywalled. I won't post it here for that reason, but send me an email and I can reply back with attached paper in the morning. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Corn
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I resopnded to it there.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Your tables
Thanks for compiling them. I'd like to suggest moving Seralini affair to the main table, as it seems pretty core to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Tryptofish. In retrospect, that one is entirely focused on GMOs, so that's a good one to move to the core. Here's the updated version.[2] Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
PD talk page
I think you aren't allowed to comment in my (or anyone else's) section of the talk page, so you should probably move your comment to your own talk section, before a clerk gives you grief over it. But, thank you for the helpful additional information. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah I didn't notice the notice at the top of the page just assuming it was like the other talk pages without any particular setup. I'm not going to worry about adding it back under my own new section though, so you're welcome to include the sections in your own if you feel it necessary. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to just leave it as is. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Mosquito
Hello, thanks for requesting protection on the article, I didn't get around to it until now. I'm going to start working towards GA with it too. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm probably not going to be around much this week (winter season projects picking up), but I'll be happy to take a look at the article if you want another set of eyes before the nomination. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please do. I think your input will be valuable to the improvement to this article. I have also notified Corinne about it, so she can also add her input. I am working on Cockroach as well, but it seems it will be a collaboration with other users. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I note that I have begun to work on Cockroach with another user. Additionally, a third editor may express interest. So if you want to take a look at the progress, please feel free to. I will work on Mosquito once cockroach is done. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please do. I think your input will be valuable to the improvement to this article. I have also notified Corinne about it, so she can also add her input. I am working on Cockroach as well, but it seems it will be a collaboration with other users. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi Kingofaces43. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Templates
I made one edit. Don't tag-bomb the regulars. Your own POV is showing Montanabw(talk) 01:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Montanabw, your one edit was extremely blatant edit warring, hence why you got the warning template. Regulars get warnings just like newbies when they behave poorly so they can change the behavior. Especially with the case just closing, no one is going to have patience for such edit warring behavior at the article or inflammatory comments directed at editors like you just did. Please disengage from such things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree; an edit was made citing NIH, the person who reverted it declared it was not a reliable source and made accusations of POV-pushing; I looked at the source and it met WP:RS in my view, so I restored it. I saw nothing at the current talk page about a consensus one way or the other. I made one edit, one time, to what appeared to be a bad faith deletion. I don't edit that article much, but it appeared that the reverting editor was doing precisely what you are accusing me of doing. I made no inflammatory comments, and I do not appreciate your mischaracterization of my edit. I would agree that there won't be a lot of patience, particularly if you go around attacking other editors the way you are doing it... in my case, the first post of the ds template wasn't a problem, and that alone could be viewed as a courtesy; it was your second post -- when I had not made any other edits to the article -- that was inappropriate. I also see you then templated the editor who made the good-faith addition as well. That was also rude and inappropriate. Montanabw(talk) 02:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- You engaged in edit warring by doing as you described above by both ignoring edit summaries and the talk page. Both you and the other editor ignored the request for WP:BRD, looking up the relevant talk page conversations, or even asking on the talk page for more clarification to start discussion. Doing those things instead, is what's expected of editors following policies on building consensus and not edit warring. With all of that context, engaging in a revert war instead is blatant edit warring and there is no way around that. The best thing for you to do at this point is slow down when you have been alerted there is previous history on a specific edit and use the talk page. Editors are going to run afoul of ArbCom sanctions quickly if that doesn't happen. That's why I've been trying to engage you now to get that straightened out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree; an edit was made citing NIH, the person who reverted it declared it was not a reliable source and made accusations of POV-pushing; I looked at the source and it met WP:RS in my view, so I restored it. I saw nothing at the current talk page about a consensus one way or the other. I made one edit, one time, to what appeared to be a bad faith deletion. I don't edit that article much, but it appeared that the reverting editor was doing precisely what you are accusing me of doing. I made no inflammatory comments, and I do not appreciate your mischaracterization of my edit. I would agree that there won't be a lot of patience, particularly if you go around attacking other editors the way you are doing it... in my case, the first post of the ds template wasn't a problem, and that alone could be viewed as a courtesy; it was your second post -- when I had not made any other edits to the article -- that was inappropriate. I also see you then templated the editor who made the good-faith addition as well. That was also rude and inappropriate. Montanabw(talk) 02:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- You might want to take a deep breath and notice that I made ONE AGF reversion with a non-threatening statement. You might be confusing me with someone else. I saw the edit summary claimed it wasn't an RS, when it appeared to be (particularly as it's already used twice in the article), and I didn't see any discussion in the current threads (with a lot of archives particularly when something four months old is already archived, it's not really useful to search back through multiple pages of talk, hence my suggestion for an FAQ). It looked legit and the reversal looked like whitewashing. But it's now under discussion, so all is well. But two templates at my talk was rude. Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The single revert itself was inappropriate regardless of your statement. I may have missed exactly what your thought process was, but either you only looked at the edit you reverted and not the previous edit summaries, or you did see as far back as my edit summary (which I am assuming here, though either case ends in edit warring). At that point, you didn't see any current talk page discussion and didn't look in the archives, so the next step should have been to ask on the talk page. The template became appropriate when you chose to revert instead. Remember that having a revert available doesn't make it not edit warring. Some people don't like templates, but when something silly is done such as reverting (or continuing previous reverts) when a previous edit summary says this has been discussed already and please employ BRD, regulars sometimes even need a template. Is that making sense? I'd rather wrap this conversation up here, so I guess the short of it is that people really need to respect the spirit of consensus such as BRD, and avoid reverting after the very first revert instead continuing the revert wars. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- You might want to take a deep breath and notice that I made ONE AGF reversion with a non-threatening statement. You might be confusing me with someone else. I saw the edit summary claimed it wasn't an RS, when it appeared to be (particularly as it's already used twice in the article), and I didn't see any discussion in the current threads (with a lot of archives particularly when something four months old is already archived, it's not really useful to search back through multiple pages of talk, hence my suggestion for an FAQ). It looked legit and the reversal looked like whitewashing. But it's now under discussion, so all is well. But two templates at my talk was rude. Montanabw(talk) 05:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey, KofA, please let me give you some advice. From this point forward, please use template warnings only for brand-new editors, editors who have few enough total edits to count on one's fingers. From now on, zero templates to experienced editors, no matter how bad things are. You are becoming the focus of the kind of attention that Jytdog attracted, and you don't want to be there. Seriously. Just notify editors if you have to take them to ANI or AE, but assume that they know everything about sanctions, even if they don't, or let someone else warn them. The pages are now under 1RR, and it goes straight to AE, not 3RRN. But please don't give them any more ammunition to call you the person who templates the regulars. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- First, thanks for the advice Tryptofish. I see where you're coming from seeing the comments at the ArbCom noticeboard. I don't see people complaining about me warning people for edit warring going very far at all though once it's looked at with some scrutiny. Some of those other comments probably would have been said regardless simply because I responded to the original edit I reverted more or less by the book. What I've seen from some editors is that any response to other's behavior issues at articles, even if handled as reasonably and disengagingly as reasonable, will still result in claims of battleground editing, etc. I'm definitely on the lookout to minimize such opportunities that are actually reasonably preventable.
- I'm aware of the protocol with 1RR, AE, etc.; I just used the 3RR template because it is the general edit warring template too. I posted the templates expecting less escalation than if I just went straight to AE and for at least a chance to try to fix the issue before going there. While a little rough, the conversation with MontanaBW above was productive and something along the lines of what should happen when editor conduct comes up from a warning to try to sort things out first. That all being said, I don't really plan to engage current editors with warning templates in this topic in the future. I mostly used them as a last reminder immediately after the case for editors that could potentially be approached reasonably (mostly for reduced escalation), but there's an increasing number of editors I wouldn't take such action with myself anymore and just defer to sanctions and enforcement instead to avoid interaction when it would only makes things worse.
- On a more meta note, I consider the idea of Don't template the regulars silly in many cases, while people should be reminded of the sister essay Template the regulars a little more. Regulars can have behavior issues too, and sometimes a formal reminder of both expectations and consequences in a template as opposed to personalizing it is the least escalating. A lot of people just aren't ever going to react greatly to a warning in any fashion too, and I feel like most of the don't template sentiment is based in that. There's obviously a point when overtemplating an editor becomes a problem, but I do have some lines I'm watching out for to avoid a Jytdog-type situation as much as possible while still acknowledging some things I mentioned in the first paragraph will probably happen no matter what. A lot of thoughts here, but I am trying to approach things carefully and with nuance with an eye for reducing certain claims whether warranted or not. Thanks for the advice. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, you are very welcome. But about templating the regulars, it's just a fact of Wiki-culture that it is widely regarded as obnoxious. Regardless of your personal view, it's a sure thing that it will be seen by the powers that be as a strike against you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Let me put it this way; best not to template a regular twice in 16 minutes like you did with me when I made a single good faith revert. Montanabw(talk) 23:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- As I described above, the single good-faithed revert was still an extremely poor choice that should not have happened given the context of previous edit summaries. That was the deciding factor in my decision to use the edit warring template vs. saying nothing. I'm not going to re-hash that further though, so as I said before, probably best to leave this be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The best way to deal with something that is good faith but that you consider a poor choice is to discuss it on the article talk page. A template is a bad strategy in that situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Template aside, the problem that comes up there is that discussion about behavior issues don't belong on the article talk page, but rather the editor's talk page. In this case, I kept the discussion of content (aside from a quick procedural note on what's expected instead of edit warring) to the article talk page, and discussion of behavior to editor talk pages. I'm moving on from the template thing now though. I'm not likely to post more of them at this point in the GMO topic at least as situations where I find templates to have value for regulars have more or less been exhausted. I just want you to know though that I've thought a lot about the idea of templates for regulars and care needed for it, but for me to expound on that is probably best left for another day. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- The best way to deal with something that is good faith but that you consider a poor choice is to discuss it on the article talk page. A template is a bad strategy in that situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- As I described above, the single good-faithed revert was still an extremely poor choice that should not have happened given the context of previous edit summaries. That was the deciding factor in my decision to use the edit warring template vs. saying nothing. I'm not going to re-hash that further though, so as I said before, probably best to leave this be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Let me put it this way; best not to template a regular twice in 16 minutes like you did with me when I made a single good faith revert. Montanabw(talk) 23:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant idea
I agree with your arbcom recommendation for a Tryptofish FoF and I wish Trypto would reconsider. He's too risk averse, IMO, but that's his prerogative. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Viriditas, please do me a favor and let me know when you start discussions about me on other pages. I do not think I am risk averse, but rather, realistic and not interested in being unduly pointy. Let this drop, please. But I do, again, thank KofA very much for thinking of the idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- But how else can I get you to read everything I write? :-). No worries, I won't do it again. But don't be surprised if I have fun with the pings.... Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- All good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- But how else can I get you to read everything I write? :-). No worries, I won't do it again. But don't be surprised if I have fun with the pings.... Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.
2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.
11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed
Please comment on Talk:CobraNet
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CobraNet. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Deleting other people's comments
Stop deleting other people's comments. You have no right and that is a basic Wikipedia premise. You don't delete other people's comments:
You're not the judge, jury, and king of the world. This is a space in which a lot of people work together. You don't decide everything. Agent Orange is not an agricultural chemical. It's a warfare chemical. Sorry buddy but this is out of scope of the ArbCom case.
If you want to raise the issue in a forum where many people can weigh in and discuss together whether this is in the scope, then go for it. Otherwise, leave people's comments alone. SageRad (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- SageRad, you have a broadly construed topic ban on agricultural chemicals (i.e., pesticides). Edits by topic-banned users can be reverted by anyone. Seeing as Agent Orange consists majorly in part of an agricultural pesticide, posting there is in violation of the ban. A broad topic ban means to stay absolutely clear of anything related to the topic ban. I simply reverted your post as a reminder instead of opening an enforcement case (also because you were pinged there). I suggest asking an admin about topic bans in general or clarification from ArbCom if it isn't clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's quite clear to me that Agent Orange is not an agrochemical even broadly construed. It's a chemical warfare agent. If you wish to bring this to community arbitration, then do so. I feel very confident that Agent Orange does not fall under the topic ban. SageRad (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't the kind of behavior to engage in SageRad. If you want your topic ban lifted, you need to stay away from these topics. Broad means to stay away from anything even somewhat related to pesticides. Trying to find the edge of your ban and editing there will only make things worse for you. Do realize I'm taking the time to try to help you here, but this point additional edits to such are only going to make things worse for you at enforcement if you end up there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- You're in no position for me to think you're ever in good faith toward me or actually wish to "help" me. You're not trying to help me. You're trying to silence me. Agent Orange is not under the topic ban. SageRad (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- You'd be at enforcement instead right now if I wasn't more interested in helping you deal with your ban. I understand you aren't happy with it, but I'm not going to engage you further on this. Please respect your broadly construed topic ban, and ask admins you may not react to in this manner to about topic bans. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- You're in no position for me to think you're ever in good faith toward me or actually wish to "help" me. You're not trying to help me. You're trying to silence me. Agent Orange is not under the topic ban. SageRad (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't the kind of behavior to engage in SageRad. If you want your topic ban lifted, you need to stay away from these topics. Broad means to stay away from anything even somewhat related to pesticides. Trying to find the edge of your ban and editing there will only make things worse for you. Do realize I'm taking the time to try to help you here, but this point additional edits to such are only going to make things worse for you at enforcement if you end up there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's quite clear to me that Agent Orange is not an agrochemical even broadly construed. It's a chemical warfare agent. If you wish to bring this to community arbitration, then do so. I feel very confident that Agent Orange does not fall under the topic ban. SageRad (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
See article where earlier comments were left
Have a look at Lytta vesicatoria (Spanish fly) and see what you think about how it has evolved. Please be patient with tags, because majpr re-write is in process. RSVP here? Merci. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for you work, I've definitely been noticing. I haven't had a chance to look over the fine details of your edits, but I've been meaning to split up Spanish fly/canthardin and the species for awhile now too. I've got a few other things on my to-do list, so I'll probably check out the article with a finer comb in a week or two. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
An article that needs help
I know your interest is not necessarily in livestock diseases so much as ag pests and such, but I found an article that is in desperate need of some serious help from a scientifically-trained editor, if you could be so kind to pop over there and take a whack at it. It's Peruvian horse sickness virus. I took one look and ran screaming. Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hourses and mossquitoes, oh my. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: perhaps you too would have expertise on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Livestock and mosquitoes aren't bad at all. Other insects interacting with livestock (e.g., myiasis) is one of the reasons I'm glad I'm not a large animal vet. Myiasis and rabies are about the only biological topics that I lose my desensitization I get from being an entomologist to things that normally freak people out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm actually a member at WikiProject Vet Med because of my background in farming and livestock of the four-legged kind before leaving the farm (also because honeybees are technically a type of livestock too). I've been meaning to get back into some more traditional livestock topics, so I'll take a look later tonight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- THANKS! WIkiProject Veterinary medicine needs a lot more people to help; there are many major articles that are in pretty sad shape; some because they need attention from expert editors, but others because they were - apparently -written by people who had a medical dictionary handy, but are in such jargon that they are gibberish to the average reader of wikipedia (and in the horse articles at least, this is often a 10-year-old girl, so...). I have a lot of the livestock articles watchlisted (and pretty much all the horse ones, of course) so would be glad to add a management perspective, but I'm not a vet (I just call one every few months for some damn thing or another) the articles management matters such as worming and vaccinations probably also need work, there is pretty much near-universal agreement that large livestock need vaccinations, wormers and fly control. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I got a start on some behind the scenes prep, so I'll see how it it shapes up in a day or two. Seems manageable, but definitely a bit to sort through. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- THANKS! WIkiProject Veterinary medicine needs a lot more people to help; there are many major articles that are in pretty sad shape; some because they need attention from expert editors, but others because they were - apparently -written by people who had a medical dictionary handy, but are in such jargon that they are gibberish to the average reader of wikipedia (and in the horse articles at least, this is often a 10-year-old girl, so...). I have a lot of the livestock articles watchlisted (and pretty much all the horse ones, of course) so would be glad to add a management perspective, but I'm not a vet (I just call one every few months for some damn thing or another) the articles management matters such as worming and vaccinations probably also need work, there is pretty much near-universal agreement that large livestock need vaccinations, wormers and fly control. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, I've done what I could, but it's looking like we won't have much more than a stub. At least that makes it much easier to read now and get to the point as far as what's relevant for an encyclopedia. There was actually quite a bit directly copied from sources, and a lot of stuff about the virus coating, etc. was way too much detail not really relevant to readers. There's just not much information out there on the virus aside from really technical information for other researchers. Unfortunately, I can't get access to the one or two other secondary sources that might be helpful, but since we've got researchers saying directly in a source that much isn't known, there probably won't be much more to add to the page until more research is published. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's good enough. What matters is that what is there is accurate. Of more concern to horse owners in the United States right now is the reemergence of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEE), if you want to peek at that article too.It's horribly outdated and the stats are awful. (and might be copied in part from here Though it last hit the USA in 1971 (in Texas) it's highly fatal when it hits, and it hit central American in the 1990s. An article that notes in passing the reemergence concerns and a quick summary is here, and a more thorough USDA article is here.) WEE and EEE are of routine concern to horse owners in the USA, but VEE is the one that scares them shitless when it is rumored to be around. Montanabw(talk) 23:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll take a gander at that one too. It looks a bit better than the previous one at least. I might not get to it right away, but it's on my to-do list. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Glyphosate
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Glyphosate. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
New content from Termite, but I'm conflicted with it
There seems to be new material on Termite that I'm questioning over, but I'm not entirely sure if it should be removed or just needs attention (see here). The first paragraph is uncited, but in a way I'm convinced that it may be included in the source that the editor provided. The source is from 2015 and I'm not sure if it's actually a primary source, so I thought I'd come to you and see what you think about it. I should note that some of the new content is probably redundant with existing statements, as some of it has been briefly discussed. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'd honestly just revert it. It is indeed a primary source, and for something to be important for inclusion the termite article, it really should be in a secondary source. I'm less picky about using introductions of primary sources in articles like termite, but the concept in the paper appears to be pretty recent. The main reason why I'd remove it though is that is appears redundant with other parts of the article. There have also been problems with this editor writing swathes of unneeded introduction to biological concepts related to reproduction on taxonomic pages in a WP:COATRACK fashion. It looks like they're still doing it across other articles, and I've been meaning to look into their edits again . . . Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think a topic such as that deserved its own subsection anyway. It seems Chaya has been doing this for awhile and has no intention to stop unless he/she is warned again, but we will need to keep a close eye on the user. I'm sure it's somewhat out of good faith, but unfortunately they may be dong more harm than good. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)