| Revision as of 20:15, 26 December 2014 editKoA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,883 edits →Editing a lot: 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 | |||
| {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | |||
| |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. | 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 == | |||
| ==Honey== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| Thank you for looking at my changes! | |||
| <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. | |||
| My question is regarding the article about honey and the statement: | |||
| 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> | |||
| "Some allergy sufferers wrongly believe that raw, local honey can help build tolerance to the pollen in the air." | |||
| </div> | |||
| Which cites this page as a reference: | |||
| </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) | |||
| http://www.webmd.com/allergies/features/does-honey-help-prevent-allergies | |||
| :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) | |||
| In examining that page, it turns out that the article is essentially a summary of an interview with a single, little known allergist in Pittsburgh and what he had to say. It doesn't seem to be presented as actual medical advice by WebMD, only as a recap of an interview. Additionally, the statement on the website: "No. The theory that taking in small amounts of pollen by eating local honey to build up immunity is FALSE." was made without being peer-reviewed (no other allergists examined the statements), they are actually contradicted by one known study, and the reasoning contains contradictions and falsehoods in itself, which a well-known expert on pollen and horticulture points out in this article: | |||
| == Revert by mistake == | |||
| http://www.foodsmatter.com/asthma_respiratory_conditions/hay_fever/articles/local-honey-ogren-11-14.html | |||
| You recently mistakenly revert my revert due to: ] ''violation,'' while it was my first revert at all. ] (]) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is the webmd article valid as a reference simply by virtue of it being hosted on webmd.com? For instance, is a "letter to the editor" on webmd.com also a valid reference? | |||
| :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) | |||
| Summary: This doesn't look like a very reliable article from WebMD, and I put in changes with several references pointing this out -- so readers can decide for themselves -- which were reverted by someone because they didn't follow a particular rule. At the same time, when I removed the line above because it didn't follow that same particular rule (the article was not actually peer-reviewed by another allergist, only by a general practitioner, and was written by a freelance journalist after interviewing a single allergist), it was reverted as well. For some reason, the rules aren't being applied consistently. | |||
| ::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 | |||
| ] (]) 01:15, 24 November 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) | |||
| :I'll respond to this on the article talk page since this is about content. In short, the WebMD article isn't the greatest source, but it is at our minimum threshold for MEDRS. There's not a strong reason to remove it under there. The study you mentioned in a primary study, so we don't mention it at all unless a review article says it's valid. ] (]) 02:30, 24 November 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) | |||
| ==Merge of Emerald Ash borer "Infestation" with Emerald Ash borer== | |||
| :::::I realise that it was a revert and I'm sorry for the bothering. ] (]) 14:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Kingofaces43, the formation of a separate page was necessary at this time because many of the subject facts covered in second page regarding Human actions induced by EAB does not fit the first. Eventually both might be merged into a streamlined example such as one completed about Dutch Elm disease. I think you would agree one of the most prevalent items making up today event is the unbelievable amount of misinformation continually supplied to the public Consciousness about this subject, including unproven theory from the best of tree Experts. So my goal is to utilize scientific peer review and field studies, along with other proven facts to correctly educate. Including successes and failures along with details about control through treatment also. Or are we supposed to produce a unique wiki page covering facts of how scientists properly apply insecticides. Yes even some facts seperatly belong within their specific wiki pages, like possible extinction of American Fraxinus placed on Fraxinus page. Or each page for 43 individual arthropods co-extinction caused by loss of ash. Separate "Infestation" page would have been central location where temporally collected items regarding main subject could be kept. Lets work together, thanks. ] (]) 01:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi ]. First off, please remember to put new sections on a talk page at the bottom (this is done automatically by using New section). That and other things are outlined at ] and help make sure things stay ordered. For content on the EAB page, there's a bit behind all those edits I made awhile back, so stick with me so I can make sure I try to cover the bases: | |||
| :I realize a lot of stuff I condensed was your previous work, but right now everything seems to fit together well. The merging was mainly based on parsing things down, but also how we deal with scientific content at Misplaced Pages. It's definitely the ideal for Misplaced Pages articles in general that we summarize what the scientific consensus is on topics such as this. If you haven't already, I highly suggest reading ], which gives a good outline on what we should be trying to do with scientific content. Essentially, we're striving to summarize what other reliable sources say for an encyclopedia. That means pulling from review articles since they do that for us. However, part of that is because we don't generally regard primary sources (i.e. research articles) as reliable because those are communications within the scientific community. That's because those articles are intended for other researchers to evaluate, and the general public (e.g. Misplaced Pages editors) are not qualified to assess whether the study was valid. For us as Misplaced Pages editors, we cannot assign what we call due ] to an idea or specific study until it's put in context through other researchers commenting on it or giving it validity (e.g. review articles). Now an introduction section can count as a mini-review article, but we generally don't need that in this topic since we have a few review articles to pull from. | |||
| :With all that said, it is not our goal to describe what the primary research is. That's why I cut down a lot of the content as it was reading more like a journal than an encyclopedia (see ]). It's very different writing content for say an academic paper than it is for a Misplaced Pages article. From what I've gathered about your edits, you're very interested in generating very detailed information, which is perfectly normal for someone just getting their feet wet on scientific content here. However, the general goal of an encyclopedia is to have summarized information with references that lead to the more detailed information. A lot of the edits you're probably interested in including still largely fall under that question of due weight such as whether we even include the content or how much detail does it get. It's a learned skill, so I'm happy to explain things further at the EAB page is it's directly related or here if it's more general (i.e. Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines) if you have questions or something isn't clear. ] (]) 02:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::And again, I apologize for the length. I mainly wanted to make sure we were on the same page as to where I'm coming from as it can be a lot for folks to swallow that haven't dealt with it all here before. If anything, ] summarizes a lot of how the content was handled by me before. ] (]) 02:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thank you Kingofaces43 for your concise expertise on this subject. You explained everything better than I hoped for. My request to also include chronological details about how event progresses within local regions was a selfish reason on my part when attempting to produce valid reason why Cities treatment program statistics like Chicago & Milwaukee should be allowed. Filling the page with what each individual town is doing after dating EAB's arrival, and numbers of tree losses or how many are being treated would fill a phone book. Thanks' for dose of reality. Even when I Knew beginning new category on talk page continues below, faulty reasoning had me insert it above all others, just in case you do not normally check back to your talk so it could be noticed. I now understand about peer reviews validity. Scientists have learned more about our newest invasive, than any other in history, and within shortest time. I have been lucky to observe good theory become fact, and now understand at what level they become valid enough for Wiki inclusion. Every detail was helpful, and not too much for me to swallow. Also thanks for taking effort to correct my and other users entries, rather than just revert/remove. I will bring future questions to you about EAB page structure and flow. Scottie Ash seed ] (]) 03:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No problem. I have the EAB page watchlisted, so if anything comes up, I'll be there. ] (]) 04:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == SYN == | |||
| Study ] carefully. You have no idea how it works. ] (]) 05:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ], I'd suggest scrolling down to the Related Policies section below that. NPOV is framed within the context of original research there specifically with, "But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." I know you're not fond of particular things in fringe topics, but content like we're discussing is a pretty standard product of Misplaced Pages's content policies and guidelines. I'd suggest just taking the time to slow down a bit and read some of those policies and things as not as contradictory here as you might think. Personally I'm going to sleep on it, so I'd suggest taking a breather as well. ] (]) 07:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == CCD == | |||
| I've also got a question/comment about this, regarding a recent removal of an image on ]. All information on the image is properly sourced and the synthesis of the information does not imply any new arguments. As per ] and ], since there is no new explicit or implied conclusion not explicitly contained in the sources, this image is fine. Also see ] Care to justify/explain? Waiting for your response before undoing edit, no need to start an edit war. :) ] (]) | |||
| :There are a few things going on with that one, but that's better left for the article's talk page. ] (]) 15:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the clarification. I'll be sure to point the author (who I know irl) to your helpful comments. ] (]) | |||
| :::], as I mentioned on the author's talk page, most of my comments are meant to address using the image on Misplaced Pages. I tried to keep my comments on their own user talk page strictly to things that would help more with it as a class assignment, so that's why there are some difference between my comments on the article and user talk pages. I will say I do like seeing students doing maps on topics like this from an instructor standpoint though. ] (]) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Editing a lot== | |||
| Its no secret, but I am tired on posting this where there are a lot of eye's on it. I am disabled, I am trapped in my house and need assistance if I leave just to go to church or a doctors appointment. One of my distractions, to keep my sanity, is to edit wikipedia. Especially during the day, game shows and soap operas bore me to death as does most TV. I seriously doubt most people would trade places with me to be able to post more. This isnt an excuse, but reality, I wanted you to know this because of your comments on me posting to much. ] 18:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :], I'm not sure what other folks have said, but having time like that is fine and dandy in terms of Misplaced Pages. They key distinction I'm trying to point out is that even though you have the opportunity to use that time, it doesn't mean you always need to use it in certain manners. Sure, you could comment whenever you see an opportunity, but one of the better skills to hone over time is deciding when not to comment and see where the conversation goes instead. Sometimes commenting too often throughout the conversation stifles it, so knowing when to just watch a conversation or just occasionally chime in can keep things from running smoothly. That's mainly where I've been going with my comments at ANI. | |||
| :In a similar case, I'm sometimes online a lot while I'm at work. I'll be doing lab assays that are just mundane enough I can do a bit on the nearby computer, but require just enough attention I can't do more involved projects either, so I often use those little blocks of time on here instead. I have times when there are conversations happening on my watchlist where I technically could comment on every thread in the conversation because I have the time. I know that temptation to want to comment whenever I can, but I avoid it for the reasons I mentioned above. Sometimes that's an article talk page where I'm usually heavily involved where I might be expected to comment more. Other times it's a noticeboard conversation where I've already said my piece and it's not really going to do much good commenting on other editors' thoughts there. Basically, it's not editing a lot in conversations that's an issue, rather the amount of presence that someone has throughout a conversation and whether it's an appropriate level for that specific venue (articles, noticeboards, etc.). All in all, I'd say knowing how to step back and ask yourself if you really should make a comment is just as important as being able to write a comment you think is important. | |||
| :Also, since you do have time on your side, I highly suggest diversifying the articles you work on. It not only has the benefit of helping remove the appearance as seen by others of being an ] or being focused on a POV, but it also helps detach yourself from the drama of a contentious topic so you can edit with a clearer head and maybe pick up some things a long the way in simpler topics. Even though I pop up at ANI sometimes, I'm generally looking for ways to help editors on behavior topics when I can, so I'm happy to talk more on this if it helps. ] (]) 20:15, 26 December 2014 (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)