| Revision as of 11:59, 11 June 2014 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Questions about deletions: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:21, 11 December 2024 edit undoFreestyler Scientist (talk | contribs)40 edits →Revert by mistake: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| == hello! == | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 6 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:KoA/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |bot= MiszaBot |age= 30 |collapsible=yes}} | |||
| I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit. | |||
| {{Ds/aware|gmo|ps}} | |||
| {{busy}} | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| Hi - pleased to meet you! Nice to meet another science-oriented person on WP. I recently did a quick blast over the ] related articles. They were a big, smeared mess and I separated them out into stub articles and created a main disambiguation page for armyworm (that is what is linked above) but the various articles could definitely do with some bug-expert knowledge. Ditto agriculturally important ] sp and ].... again, pleased to meet you! ] (]) 17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| :Pleased as well {{u|Jytdog}}. I haven't been in the articles you've mentioned much yet, but I saw some other sloppy entomological articles and decided to actually get into a bit of editing on Misplaced Pages finally (although that's rolling out rather slowly since research takes priority over hobbies). I'll definitely be taking a look over them when I get a bit more time. I have lurked in the ag articles that tend to get more passionate edits (e.g., the biotech related ones) as well, so I may pop into those on occasion with edits, but I imagine that could turn into more of a time sink than I could handle pretty quickly given the amount of edits you've put into them. I'd definitely like to clean up some of the entomology sections over time though, so we'll see where that leads.] (]) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| ::that would be amazing! thanks for being willing. ] (]) 18:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| </div> | |||
| Can you provide a reference discussing the new HFMD vaccine? I would be very interested to see it. If it comes from a reliable source, I will be sure to discuss it in the article. Thanks King! ] (]) 08:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1258243549 --> | |||
| ==Tuhin Sinha== | |||
| I saw your message on the talk page. It was unfortunate that the article was recreated without caring about the Misplaced Pages policies. I would encourage you to start an AfD and I will support the deletion. Thanks - ] (]) 05:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi {{u|TylerDurden8823}}. I originally made the edit after browsing through ] and seeing the vaccine listed there. I used the same source from the BBC as on that page, which also links to the original study at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2961049-1/abstract. It's a primary literature source, so it's probably best to stick to saying a vaccine exists at this point, but that in the quick browsing I could find nothing is that commercially available, efficacy on HFMD as a whole (since it's only for one virus), etc. I don't have much expertise in vaccines, so I mainly just wanted to make sure the point was made that a vaccine does exist in some fashion after seeing the discrepancy between the two pages. Beyond that, it seems the currently developed vaccine is still being studied, so it doesn't seem like there's much more to say at the moment, at least from my cursory browsing. ] (]) 16:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Got it, thanks for the clarification. I'll see if I find any citable secondary sources mentioning the vaccine. If not, I'll keep a watchful eye for future reviews mentioning this. Perhaps we'll see a vaccine released to the public in the near future. ] (]) 21:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't had a chance to piece together yet how things compare between the last AfD and what changes were made when the article was recreated. It's possible notability was met, but that's why I was asking since the AfD had such strong consensus for deletion. ] (]) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Questions about deletions == | |||
| == Revert by mistake == | |||
| Hi, I would love to know why you removed "Bayer strongly denies the allegations" citing http://www.britishbeekeeping.com/ and the possible cause of Bt GMO crops on honeybees colony collapse disorder from and ? ] (]) 22:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| You recently mistakenly revert my revert due to: ] ''violation,'' while it was my first revert at all. ] (]) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :On the specific note of Bayer's response, it was out of place after making the other deletions in that section since it was a standalone statement. The other problem is that it's ambiguous what the allegations were, and what was particularly being responded to. Either way, unless there was scientific evidence being presented against something, a group simply denying something without evidence shouldn't have any weight in a section that's describing scientific research. Now if we had proper sources saying a specific claim was made, but another grouped responded saying the methodology was wrong, etc. ''and'' the latter view was shown to be readily accepted, then the former statement would simply be struck. There just doesn't appear to be a place for "group X denies claim Y" type statements in this context as that's not how science is written about. Either there's evidence refuting an idea and we strike the claim, or the claim remains if there isn't evidence. If all we have is a denial and no evidence, it's not relevant here. | |||
| :You've been cautioned already about calling people's edits mistakes when they are not. You clearly made two reverts in a single day, and I suggest reading the guidance you already linked. Your edit was also undone because you are not getting consensus for your edits on the talk page. That is another type of edit warring. My advice in general is not to ] as Bon Courage mentioned or ] the process. If you have specific small edits to make, then propose them on the talk page at this point. Trying to reinsert large swathes of text either by edit warring or on the talk page with problematic sourcing makes any sort of discussion extremely difficult. ] (]) 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :On GMOs, I removed the content from the initial paragraph because that topic was not describing a possible cause per se, but a topic that have been looked at and mostly disregarded or has very little evidence. Basically, it was weighting the intro paragraph to list the main factors that are getting the most attention or have good evidence behind them, while leaving out other things where we say in the actual section that the current evidence shows that factor isn't a concern. It's like how we don't give undue weight to ] as an actual potential cause of disease in an article about ]. The way the current section is written, Bt isn't affecting honeybee health (it's a largely insect order specific protein so you don't get broad nontarget effects like you do with pesticides), so we shouldn't be listing it as a possible cause, but rather something that was looked at and largely refuted. It's mainly a nuance trying to say that it was once something that was looked into as a possible cause, but that research points to it not being an issue. That's why I deleted it from the intro sentence, but left the actual section to describe what research was looked into on the topic. ] (]) 01:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not understand what you call 'revert'. | |||
| ::I've made two edits, first was reverted, then discussed. The second was edit added '''without all parts mentioned as problematic.''' Including deletion of minor part of text, and the part that were mentioned as LeadBomb, and sourced with articles with COIs | |||
| ::::I was under the impression that honeybees are insects. What are the sources you determined rule out Bt GMOs as a possible cause of CCD? To what extent do you believe evidence of corporate astroturfing, when it exists, should be included in pertinent articles? ] (]) 02:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The second edit was reverted without reason, so I ]. And it was the single reverts. I want to mention: ] ] (]) 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that this wasn't a 1RR violation - the first edit was not a revert. There are probably other justifiable reasons to revert, but 1RR isn't. ] (]) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tps}} This discussion belongs on the relevant article's Talk page. EllentCT. With respect to Bt, see ]. (yes bees are insects but as Kingofaces just told you, Bt does not kill every kind of insect; it only kills some kinds -- some "orders" -- of insects; this is what he meant when he wrote "it's a largely insect order specific protein so you don't get broad nontarget effects"). EllenCT, I would suggest that if you want the article(s) to explicitly discuss alleged corporate astroturfing, please bring that up on the article's talk page, or boldly make edits to the article, and let the community react. ] (]) 11:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The first edit today clearly said in the edit summary they were restoring reverted content from removed content two days prior.. That technically wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, though is a type of slow edit warring. The second edit today is what clearly crossed the 1RR brightline, and other reasons were given for the reversion on the talk page (mostly repeated what they had already been told). ] (]) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are huge differences between first and second edition. I exactly amended or deleted all the parts to which there were objections in discussion. ] (]) 19:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I realise that it was a revert and I'm sorry for the bothering. ] (]) 14:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:21, 11 December 2024
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit.
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Tuhin Sinha
I saw your message on the talk page. It was unfortunate that the article was recreated without caring about the Misplaced Pages policies. I would encourage you to start an AfD and I will support the deletion. Thanks - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't had a chance to piece together yet how things compare between the last AfD and what changes were made when the article was recreated. It's possible notability was met, but that's why I was asking since the AfD had such strong consensus for deletion. KoA (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Revert by mistake
You recently mistakenly revert my revert due to: WP:1RR violation, while it was my first revert at all.Mentioned reversion Freestyler Scientist (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- You've been cautioned already about calling people's edits mistakes when they are not. You clearly made two reverts in a single day, and I suggest reading the guidance you already linked. Your edit was also undone because you are not getting consensus for your edits on the talk page. That is another type of edit warring. My advice in general is not to WP:LEADBOMB as Bon Courage mentioned or WP:BLUDGEON the process. If you have specific small edits to make, then propose them on the talk page at this point. Trying to reinsert large swathes of text either by edit warring or on the talk page with problematic sourcing makes any sort of discussion extremely difficult. KoA (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you call 'revert'.
- I've made two edits, first was reverted, then discussed. The second was edit added without all parts mentioned as problematic. Including deletion of minor part of text, and the part that were mentioned as LeadBomb, and sourced with articles with COIs
- The second edit was reverted without reason, so I WP:Obvert. And it was the single reverts. I want to mention: Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Freestyler Scientist (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this wasn't a 1RR violation - the first edit was not a revert. There are probably other justifiable reasons to revert, but 1RR isn't. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The first edit today clearly said in the edit summary they were restoring reverted content from removed content two days prior.. That technically wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, though is a type of slow edit warring. The second edit today is what clearly crossed the 1RR brightline, and other reasons were given for the reversion on the talk page (mostly repeated what they had already been told). KoA (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are huge differences between first and second edition. I exactly amended or deleted all the parts to which there were objections in discussion. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I realise that it was a revert and I'm sorry for the bothering. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- The first edit today clearly said in the edit summary they were restoring reverted content from removed content two days prior.. That technically wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, though is a type of slow edit warring. The second edit today is what clearly crossed the 1RR brightline, and other reasons were given for the reversion on the talk page (mostly repeated what they had already been told). KoA (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this wasn't a 1RR violation - the first edit was not a revert. There are probably other justifiable reasons to revert, but 1RR isn't. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)