AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) |
→Topic ban violation: new section |
||
Line 457: | Line 457: | ||
::note that oh-so-civil editors KOA and Tryptichon, who smeared honey around Sage's beard [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASageRad&type=revision&diff=695077590&oldid=695075561 on his talk page here] are snipers, when it comes to me (same edit and check KoA's campaign on teh arbcompage for FOF for me etc). That should give you a clue of how ''they'' evaluate my contributions. --[[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]] ([[User talk:Wuerzele#top|talk]]) 11:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC) |
::note that oh-so-civil editors KOA and Tryptichon, who smeared honey around Sage's beard [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASageRad&type=revision&diff=695077590&oldid=695075561 on his talk page here] are snipers, when it comes to me (same edit and check KoA's campaign on teh arbcompage for FOF for me etc). That should give you a clue of how ''they'' evaluate my contributions. --[[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]] ([[User talk:Wuerzele#top|talk]]) 11:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::I think the arbs got it wrong on you wuerzele, while letting some who are disruptive off the hook. I dont normally edit in the topic area, but I am sure I will see you on other articles like Bitcoin. PAG based editors like you are needed. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC) |
:::I think the arbs got it wrong on you wuerzele, while letting some who are disruptive off the hook. I dont normally edit in the topic area, but I am sure I will see you on other articles like Bitcoin. PAG based editors like you are needed. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 90%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Topic ban violation == |
|||
Your statement at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment]] is a clear and unambiguous violation of your topic ban. I urge you to remove it. If you are unsure of the breadth of the ban, I urge you to read the sections at the bottom of [[ Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard]]. You have also violated the topic ban on at least two other occasions since it was imposed. If you leave the statement in place, I will make a request that the topic ban be enforced. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 11:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:43, 18 December 2015
Welcome
Have removed your changes to the article on antibiotic resistance. Not sure what was with the strange numbering of sections. Also introduced a number of other errors. We typically keep section headings sort and they do not contain links per WP:MOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi James, do you have concerns with the content changes, or is it just the number in the section titles which is problematic? John Vandenberg (chat) 23:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken a friendly stab at doing this more gradually, here: Talk:Antibiotic_resistance#A_modest_proposal. -- Scray (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
@Wuerzele: - thanks very much for your thorough, respectful and kind edits on the WP pages edited by the students in my Environmental Disruptors of Development class. Very very helpful! Generous with your time! Interested in conveying knowledge, constructive criticism and facilitating learning. Yay! Very, very much appreciated. Hakeleh (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- well thank you ! now i have to look if we met , Hakeleh , did we?--Wuerzele (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Advocacy ducks
Could you help me understand the nature of your objection? I left an edit summary so "unexplained" is incorrect. The original author even thanked me for changing to the proper template, so I'm puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Silly me....
I thought keeping the word "generation" was overkill, but that goes to show how much I know about that particular topic. [1] Atsme📞📧 20:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Atsme thanks for allowing me to correct you . you know this includes fracking, where dog has been active and reverting environmental concerns for example.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wuerz - I much prefer to collaborate than elaborate for months. It doesn't take me very long to figure something out. It probably could be attributed to things I have actually experienced first-hand. Having said that, if I had believed the revert was not substantive, you probably would have gotten the full monty. (not really, a discussion on the TP would have ensued) Atsme📞📧 20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
DDT carcinogenicity edits
Thanks for your rewrite of the paragraphs summarizing the findings on DDT carcinogenicity. I removed the summary of those two review articles a couple of weeks ago because it blatantly contradicted the findings of the reviews. I meant to go back in and summarize the review articles, but I see that you've done so, and your rewrite is a significant improvement on that section. Thank you! Jinnantonix (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- de nada, Jinnantonix and thanks for your comment.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Time to cut the drama
It's starting to seem that any mundane edit I make where you are involved results in tirades on the article talk page [2], [3]. Doing things like casting aspersions claiming someone is coming in with a particular bias, whitewashing, etc. when it was a mundane edit as picking between two somewhat synonymous words seems to show this problem is getting worse. Please be aware that making these kinds of comments on an article talk page are not welcome per WP:TPG, and we should solely be focused on content there. Attacking editors as you are is disruptive to the project. If you want to comment on editor behavior, user talk pages or other appropriate noticeboards are the place for that, but do be aware you are risking a WP:BOOMERANG if you continue to cast aspersions or make overall uncivil remarks about editors in those venues.
If this disruptive behavior continues, the next conversation will about the appropriateness of a ban (interactions or otherwise), so please just stick to the talk page guidelines instead of prickly behavior in these topics. You might find that people will also be more willing to discuss with you if you aren't starting out conversations with various accusations about editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I´ve seen your so called ¨"discussions" for years. You are a master at rhethoric, veiled threats and generic platitudes. I see you as completely counterproductive on the articles i have seen you edit. You are not welcome on my userpage, for the exact same reason that you pretend to post here´.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Modification of Elias Murr
Hi Wuerzele, thank you for your message and awesome contribution. 2 years and a half contribution on wikipedia is awesome, thus i would be talking to someone who can help and guide about the wikipedia rules. The reason i am removing the spy falciani, is because it is endangering the reputation of Elias Murr where he did not do any wrong but it seems wrong. First, the Lebanese law does not have any taxation rules outside Lebanon. Second, he is a very rich person, which it seems silly to tell people they discovered 42 million which already this company only works in Switzerland you can check www.groupmurr.com. Third, it does not give any more information about him or any valuable news other than trying to ruin his reputation and harm him in a bad way. Please look it at that way as i know it is not your intention Will be looking forward to consider my suggestion Wuerzele. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljoumhouria (talk • contribs) 08:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
2,4 D
Have you seen this? link AlbinoFerret 00:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks User:AlbinoFerret, I am still in Spain and I will be able to see this in 8 days, when I am back, sorry.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Secondary sources
In this edit you used a primary source [4]. Much better to use secondary sources such as review articles. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- oh yeah, really? Man, you seem to get a kick out of teaching me how to suck eggs. What do you know about Chagas cardiomyopathy, or ID , really? Please, get a life.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
You will never gusess what I got today.
In the mail a box came, and inside was a large Fenton, Lotus and dragon shallow bowl. I will have to take a photo and add it to one of my glass articles so you can see it. AlbinoFerret 21:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- AlbinoFerret yeah please do ! I ll look forward to it! Let's have some fun in this serious WP world of COI interest proceedings.... --Wuerzele (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom case
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, -Tryptofish (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Full Reference on General Electric Page for my Contribution
Thanks for your message. I have cited full references for my contribution on General Electric page. -- User:Franklyn.issac (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
Your recent editing history at Kevin Folta 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.
Edits 1, 2, 3 Glen 21:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Glen First link does not exist, if you would correct please. I hope you added this template on the pages of Jerodlycett and all other users that are editwarring, I have no time to check now.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just in case you didn't get the notification. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Kevin Folta. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below I am requesting reconsideration of this block, because multiple aspects have not been considered. I also do not count 4 reversions in the diffs mentioned below. I have filed 3rr only three times in almost 3 years of busy editing and never filed it, if I believed that I violated it.
I offer to walk away from this article, if this is acceptable.
When unblocked, I will continue to help Wikipedia by adding references, copyediting/ grammar spelling issues, expanding short articles, which is my main activity as can be seen from my record.
Behavioral issue: Administrator Drmies posted on the Talk:Kevin Folta page here accusing me of "launch into a personal attack that makes not a bit of sense". I disagreed with his opinion. I had mentioned the word troll, which to me is no personal attack, but a fact-based description of what one can see for oneself in the diffs of Silver seren's immediate bad faith interaction to a newbie of the page, calling my contribution "rubbish", and continuous casting of unfounded aspersions. In retrospect I can see that the word troll is inflammatory and feeding the behavior and I would not spell it out again.
I am responding to the diffs cited by jerodlycett as violating 3rr, which in hindsight, I should have done right away before being blocked:
- [5] This is a copy edit improving the sentence " NATURE alleges...". a journal cannot allege. an author writing in Nature can. I also cut the repeated use of the word allege per WP:ALLEGED. I wrote in the edit summary to write what was quoted on the talk page in order to paraphrase the facts neutrally.
- [6] This edit corrects demonstrably false information, which I laid out in the talk page. It is an incorrect quote of the source, not found in the source. Such a correction is exempt from the 3RR rule "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." There was never any reply to this issue, up to the moment of filing this request.
- [7] Here I reinserted properly sourced info which had been removed by Jerodlycett without explanation. The phrase "amongst them email exchanges with Monsanto" was key to understanding the paragraph and removing it was adding WP:undue weight to the BLP. I asked what the problem with this statement was, asked to discuss and not edit war. He did not discuss this, and there is no evidence on the talk page, that he discussed this issue, despite of his assertions on the 3 RR report; all of his discussions were PRIOR to my arrival on the page. The removal served to keep the name Monsanto out of the beginning of the paragraph, which is detrimental to the understanding of the paragraph titled "COI", since it is the crux of the COI and has to be mentioned, so removal made no sense and seemed POV guided. This edit could be seen as allowable, per WP:BLP rules
- [8]
This diff isnt mine, should not have been listedRemoved POV sentence, because source unacceptable per WP:BLPSPS. WP:BLPREMOVE states that such a correction is exempt from the 3RR rule "Removal of biased, unsourced, contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).." - [9]
This diff isnt mine, should not have been listedthis is a revert and could be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk. - [10] This is inserting a sourced quote, and it is no reversion- this quote still stands as of now, uncontested.
- [11] This is an edit where I marked an unreferenced statement and deleted the erroneously attributed reference. The reference cited did not contain the claim made, as pointed out, and as in[12]. In hindsight I could have just marked it, and leave the erroneous ref in, this could be seen as an unnecessary edit. Nobody replied to this issue on Talk.
The latter 2 diffs should also not be counted as two diffs , because "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Of the remaining 6 diffs 3 were allowable per WP:BLPREMOVE, so the 3 RR rule was not broken.
Comments: I could not have survived 2 and a half years of editing controversial articles in a wide variety of different fields (incl Bitcoin) without these skills and without a block up until today. I do strive for NPOV, and am not a partisan warrior, which I declared on the talkpage, while the editors that reverted have expressed clear POV as I laid out.
- I am aware of what WP:Revert only when necessary#Unacceptable reversions are: I do think that I made one unnecessary edit, as noted in the diffs above.
- I know what allowed reversions are: I did two.
- I am aware how to handle edit-warring behaviors: I did open a talk page section addressing what I saw. editwarring continued and editors in question did not respond to any issues (like user silver seren). I admit that his immediate hostility, innuendo culminating in trollish behavior affected me.
At that point I should have asked for a WP:third opinion or started a WP:request for comments already. This is one thing that I could have done, that I will consider immediately if there is ever such a time.
Context: I do not understand why jerodlycett 's reversion have not been mentioned, not considered, nor been found a violation of WP:3RR. I do not understand how the template on his user page that I mentioned in my comment was not considered in decision making, a template which states
- difficulty with altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them;
- limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page messages or e-mails in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks.
- If you are here because I reverted an edit of yours it's likely by accident or because your edit damaged enough, that I assumed you made a mistake. Feel free to undo my revert if you fix what was messed up.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuerzele (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 September 2015 strike outs and corrections added, because I had erroneously retrieved wrong diff by manual entry of the raw diff number. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were clearly edit warring and in this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I'm not going to respond to all of your points except to express some astonishment at how little understanding you have about policy. But your rebuttal of each of the reverts is worth a short response. First, overall, all of the them are reverts and none is exempt. Second, #10 and #11 are yours. I have no earthly clue why you say they are not. Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into a point by point wikilawyering discusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Re "no earthly clue..." : The two diffs are for the action of ANOTHER editor, not my action.
- Re "wikilawyering": The protocol for unblock requests contains a template for discussion of diffs, so the term wikilawyering (which nobody has ever accused me of!) appears uncalled for. what exactly are you criticising?
- your reply so far is unhelpful to me, as my points are unanswered, eg why Jerodlycett's 3RR was completely dropped and what mixed message his template is sending. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I should really give up on this, but I'm curious. The two diffs that you say are of another editor. When you look at those diffs, who is the other editor? BTW, Drmies is right. If an administrator acts on your unblock request, they will most likely look at this discussion, which is what you want. If it were I, I might say something slightly different like "Please look at the points I make below this request." Otherwise, they may focus only on the diffs issue. Just a thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Bbb23Thank you for your comment, which made me go back and look at these 2 diffs once more. I looked at them in a different way by clicking on this page, which showed, that previously I had erroneously retrieved the wrong diff by manually entering the raw diff number from the draft page, which created the wrong diff. So thanks for your persistence.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I should really give up on this, but I'm curious. The two diffs that you say are of another editor. When you look at those diffs, who is the other editor? BTW, Drmies is right. If an administrator acts on your unblock request, they will most likely look at this discussion, which is what you want. If it were I, I might say something slightly different like "Please look at the points I make below this request." Otherwise, they may focus only on the diffs issue. Just a thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a lot of points, but I noted one salient point, about the word "troll"--thanks. Now, this block should be over shortly, and when it is I look forward to your response on the talk page about that Novella blog. A policy question, sure, but with a slight twist--context. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies Please clarify: who is the reviewing administrator for the unblock request? Per my information "any review will be carried out by another administrator (not the one who blocked you)."--Wuerzele (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is no unblock request that I see, Wuerzele. The way to go about it is via Template:Unblock. If you're really asking why Bbb responded, it's because some of your comments were directed at them. But it's quite usual for a blocking admin to respond or comment. Wait, now I see it: you're "requesting reconsideration of this block". Yes, you'll need to use the template, though by the time you get this your block is probably over. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies, thanks for pointing out the missing template. I had it originally, but it got lost and I have e never seen such an unblockrequest before. Does this format look ok/conform to the rules or should I have pasted the whole discussion into the template ? (I followed the guide minutely)--Wuerzele (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure--I think not having all that in there is acceptable, I think. I'd certainly make sure I'd follow the "below" marker. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies thanks for the reply (since "thanks" in view history mode is disabled). I do not understand though, why when I did post the template below, you mentioned "I'd certainly make sure I'd follow the "below" marker", as if I hadnt. (?)--Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- "If I were the administrator reviewing this unblock request I would read the word 'below' and look underneath for further explanation of why the editor thinks they should be unblocked, even though those reasons are placed outside the block template whereas usually they are placed inside." Drmies (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies thanks for the reply (since "thanks" in view history mode is disabled). I do not understand though, why when I did post the template below, you mentioned "I'd certainly make sure I'd follow the "below" marker", as if I hadnt. (?)--Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure--I think not having all that in there is acceptable, I think. I'd certainly make sure I'd follow the "below" marker. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Drmies, thanks for pointing out the missing template. I had it originally, but it got lost and I have e never seen such an unblockrequest before. Does this format look ok/conform to the rules or should I have pasted the whole discussion into the template ? (I followed the guide minutely)--Wuerzele (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on Wuerzele's revised unblock request, his statement that diffs #12 and #12 are consecutive edits is correct. However, just to be clear, that means that they should be counted as one revert, not two. That doesn't change the conclusion that he breached WP:3RR, just that instead of seven reverts, as listed at AN3, there were six. Although I reviewed all this before I blocked him, I actually just satisfied myelf that there were at least 4 reverts. Without re-reviewing the diffs again, I cannot say with absolute assurance whether there were 4, 5, or 6. I don't intend to re-review the list.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom
Thanks for your statement mentioning me! Which are the diffs you found most compelling? FYI. A couple of minor revisions for things said about me: My last name is spelled "Tornheim" rather than "Thornheim" (a common misspelling). Jytdog took me to AN/I twice, but not to COI to my knowledge, despite numerous allegations of being an Single Purpose Account, etc.:
He took DiPiep to AN/I ostensibly for behavior, but more likely because DiPiep disagreed about content (the second case above was retaliation for trying to keep DiPiep out of trouble by warning him the group would take him to AN/I without a second thought and win for behavior that is tolerated on other pages):
There was an early case where Canoe got into trouble by this same group:
Those are the only cases I have handy. I remember seeing a case against Viritidas about name-calling towards the group, but I have not found that case or I would give it to you. Perhaps someone else has seen it and can refer to it.
Also I believe Gandydancer stopped editting GMO articles because of this group, but may work on pesticide articles. (However, I think the way you worded it in your statement is close enough, especially given the word count constraints.)
So I hope you revise your statement for accuracy about both spelling of my name and that it was AN/I for me rather than COI. Thanks again for your statement and positive comments about my work.
- Referred to or possibly interested in this post: Jytdog, Kingofaces43, Viriditas, Canoe1967, Second Quantisation (fka Irwolfie), Gandydancer, DePiep, SlimVirgin, Petrarchan47
David Tornheim (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I mixed you up with SageRad, after reading your talk pages a little too late in the night....I revised my statement accordingly- couldnt ni do it earlier because of my first block (admin Bbb23). I did email you, because i couldnt post, but think you didnt open/ see it? let me know. maybe this means that the email doesnt work when one is blocked? let's hope arbcom is starting soon. cheers --Wuerzele (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Kevin Folta Mediation
I have asked for mediation in regards to Kevin Folta. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Kevin Folta". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 September 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Kevin Folta, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Kevin Folta
- Editors involved in this dispute
- Jerodlycett (talk · contribs) – filing party
- Wuerzele (talk · contribs)
- 2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk · contribs)
- Silver seren (talk · contribs)
- SageRad (talk · contribs)
- Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs)
- kevinfolta (talk · contribs)
- Articles affected by this dispute
- Kevin Folta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
Issues to be mediated
- Primary issues (added by the filing party)
- Is a lack of evidence of any connection between Monsanto et al and Kevin Folta evidence of a lack of any connection.
- Is there a smear campaign brought against scientists, specifically Kevin Folta, supporting GMOs as being safe.
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Why would Wikipedia take it upon ourselves to decide whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence when Folta's university has already conducted an investigation and unambiguously stated that there is no misconduct? Surely second-guessing external sourtces is the very definition of WP:OR and is doubly unwise on a WP:BLP. This is not something to mediate, it's something expressly forbidden by policy. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediation
- Agree. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, though I don't know if it'll do much good. SilverserenC 18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral. I'm not seeing specific content mentioned here that's really needing mediation at this time for issue 1 or 2. Nothing on the talk page makes that apparent to me right now, so I think it's better to have a conversation on focused content at the talk page and other noticeboards prior to this option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral. My willingness to participate wasn't high to begin with. Evidence: I'm still an IP user. I've initially uttered some thoughts about NPOV on the article's talk page, and those issues were quickly resolved by very capable editors. But now I'm finding myself being dragged in a fruitless debate on very basic principles, which I normally assume as granted. I don't even want to go there, sorry. --2A02:8070:8883:CA00:20E9:98C2:7B69:41CF (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. I just wandered onto the Kevin Folta article today while looking at the recent history of another editor, and then made a couple comments on things that seemed to be very biased to me, but i am somewhat up on the recent controversy regarding Folta and Monsanto and USRTK, and i am willing to participate in this, i suppose. SageRad (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment, with apologies if I put this at the wrong place on this page. ArbCom is on the verge of accepting a case whose scope includes the dispute here, and MedCom may wish to be aware of that fact when deciding whether or not mediation is appropriate at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Decision of the Mediation Committee
- Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." The "GMO articles" case pending at ARBCOM constitutes a related DR proceeding. If there are still issues outstanding when that case is closed or rejected, this may be refiled here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)
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)
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
Chronicler
Thank you for expanding Mankell! I added two references, from Chronicler of the Winds, - where you might find more, + there's more plot in German. I am with friends and have no time, - a lead for Mankell would be great ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, thanks to you, as well. Lede: you're completely right, but reflecting meager body.
- myself, am distracted by harvest and Arbcom evidence... which i suspect you are aware, without GregJack's presence, alas.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't watch arbcom if I don't have to, miss Greg and ... and ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Stuttgart
Hey Wuerzele, just wanted to stop by and let you know we were almost very near each other at one time. I was only a week away from beginning school in Universität Tübingen when I fell off a cliff, and sort of had to make other plans. I still don't know who took my dorm room that semester. I had already paid the rent. My one way plane ticket is all that remains of that great (almost) adventure. I had planned to graduate and then make my way to the Trans-Siberian train and then to Asia, finally resting in Bali, where at the time one could live on $5 a day.
Thanks for the reminder of lovely Southern Germany. Tschüss ~ petrarchan47คุก 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- thank you for this. Petrarchan47, you are making me very curious now! why Tübingen ...what were you wanting to study....of course you dont need to out yourself... coincidentally, I always dreamt to study in Tübingen, but never could. in retrospect a blessing in disguise maybe.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it's beautiful there. I was finishing up my last semester of school, so my studies in Psychology were pretty well behind me. I was simply fulfilling a desire for adventure (and had a boyfriend who lived in Heidelberg, that's what I was actually studying). petrarchan47คุก 06:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Petrarchan47 wow! and heidelberg isnt exactly near...what years are we talking about ? --Wuerzele (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that's the part that verges closer to OUTing than I'd like ;) petrarchan47คุก 06:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reason, you may not want to answer... but are you still in Stuttgart? petrarchan47คุก 07:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Petrarchan47 wow! and heidelberg isnt exactly near...what years are we talking about ? --Wuerzele (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it's beautiful there. I was finishing up my last semester of school, so my studies in Psychology were pretty well behind me. I was simply fulfilling a desire for adventure (and had a boyfriend who lived in Heidelberg, that's what I was actually studying). petrarchan47คุก 06:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Wuerzele,
weißt du, wie man Sooty mold auf Deutsch nennt? Bist du dir sicher, dass die Berostung / Fäulnis beim Harolson auf einen Pilz zurückzuführen ist?
Viele Grüße,--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Kopiersperre, thanks for the message. nein den deutschen ausdruck kenn ich leider nicht ! Aber ich bin mir sicher, weil ich habe das vom agricultural extension service gelernt. papers habe ich auch rausgesucht. - habe ich sie nicht in sooty mold zitiert? gibt wirklich genuegend papers darueber. wieso fragst du? hast du auch einen Haralson?Wuerzele (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hallo,
- sooty mold müsste auf deutsch der Rußtau sein. Dieser siedelt auf dem Honigtau der Blätter.
- Sooty blotch ist auf deutsch die „Regenfleckenkrankheit“ (Rußflecken / Fliegenschmutzkrankheit). Sooty blotch and flyspeck (SBFS) wird von Pilzen aufgelöst, die die Wachsschicht (cuticula) der Früchte verschiedener Obstarten besiedeln.{{A New View of Sooty Blotch and Flyspeck doi:10.1094/pdis-08-10-0590}}
- Beides sieht aber nicht wie das Schadbild auf deinen Äpfeln aus.--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Kopiersperre Hmm. danke fuer deine infos. dann sind meine infos vom agricultural extension service falsch? bist du ein botaniker, phytopathologe oder ...? ich hatte die anderen beiden seiten, Sooty blotch und Sooty blotch and flyspeck uebrigens auch gesehen und finde die unterteilung fragwuerdig.
- hast du bilder ? wenn ja wieso nicht einfuegen? ich werde/du kannst das bild entfernen wenn du dir sicher bist, dass es nicht korrekt ist. gruss,--Wuerzele (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ich bin kein Akademiker, meine Eltern sind lediglich Obstbauern. Bilder könnte ich erst nächste Saison machen.
- Vielleicht hat dein agricultural extension service auch recht. Ich bin aber dafür, einen weiteren Experten zu konsultieren.--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Kopiersperre, stimm dir zu. von wegen "lediglich": es macht doch nichts woher einer kommt. fuer mich ganz im gegenteil, fuer mich bist du lebende autoritaet. mikrobiologie ist eins, erfahrung mit dem makro-lebendigen ist ein anderes. ich habe ein foto von einem apfel gemacht,bei dem ich den "Russ" abgekratzt habe. du kannst sehen, wie der Russ darauf waechst, und nicht teil der schale ist. bilder könntest du "erst nächste Saison machen": heisst dass bei euch keine aepfel mehr am baum haengen, echt? hmm bodensee oder eher norden?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Ich bin aus dem Alten Land. Was du auf deinen Äpfeln hast, kenne ich von Streuobstbäumen – in unseren Anlagen, in denen der Schorfpilz regelmäßig bekämpft wird, findet man so etwas aber nie. Und: Wir sind auch immer noch am Ernten.--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Kopiersperre danke. was du sagst ist genau das was ich in den artikeln gefunden und im ueberarbeiteten sooty blotch and flyspeck artikel zitiert habe. ich kenne das alte land leider nicht, hab aber einen kollegen aus Buxtehude, der hier im mittleren westen wo ich wohne, seinen garten voller apfelbaeume gepflanzt hat, "nur so"!
- Hallo Wuerzele,
- ich komme aus der Nähe von Buxtehude. Wo in den USA hast du dich eigentlich angesiedelt?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Wuerzele. I've reverted your edits to the WIkipedia:Twinkle page. I appreciate that you're trying to help, but maintenance tags, citation needed tags, and the like are meant for articles, and this page is not an article; it's a documentation page for a feature of Wikipedia. It's not subject to things like the requirement for citations or a restriction against unencyclopedic language, because it's not actually part of the encyclopedia; it's part of the manual that sits beside the encyclopedia, and so there are different expectations and requirements for it. That's not to say it couldn't be improved, but you shouldn't approach it the way you'd approach an encyclopedia article, and in particular, putting maintenance tags on it is of little help. Thanks for trying to help, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Writ Keeper appreciate the message.
- Re: "not actually part of the encyclopedia...and the like are meant for articles.. " actually, that may be your impression (ref?) but it is not quite true. even wp pages underlie a certain standard. I suggest you look at other Wikipedia pages, to see where things have been going lately. maybe the standard of the twinkle page just is (has always been ?) low.
- ok, looks like you got the message: the page needs improvement.
its ironic and proves my point of twinkle users in a way-:) you reverted every one of my edits, even constructive edits BTW ! --Wuerzele (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)- I doubt it could be considered ironic, since I didn't use Twinkle to do so. ;) I reverted you by hand, and with an appropriate edit summary. Also, while I don't doubt that your edit was in good faith, I must beg to differ on whether it was actually constructive. There's nothing wrong with reverting good faith edits, as long as you have a good reason for doing so and explain that reason in the edit summary.
- Seriously, though, you're welcome to suggest improvements, and I'm not saying there aren't standards for Wikipedia pages, but specifically the act of putting maintenance tags on a non-article is not helpful. For one thing, those tags are designed for article space, and don't function properly outside of it; it won't put a non-article space page into the appropriate maintenance categories. The fact that they are specifically designed this way should be telling. As inclusion in those categories is a major part of the functionality of these templates in articles (otherwise, nobody would ever come along to fix the issues), the templates lose most of their meaning outside of article space. You can see in Wikipedia:Template_messages that the cleanup tags are all listed in the article namespace section; the templates that are applicable for the Wikipedia namespace are quite different. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- thank you Writ Keeper for replying, and specifically, the page for Wikipedia:Template_messages that I had not seen! i also struck my remark on irony because you didnt use twinkle. okay one last {small) thing i want to mention, but then I fold...
- Re "There's nothing wrong with reverting good faith edits": say some (and ive certainly lived by that), but others argue WP:EDITCONSENSUS, Wikipedia:STATUSQUO, WP: TALKDONTREVERT say that reverting is mostly appropriate for vandalism. I do agree with that after years of pretty intense editing, maybe am having a change of heart, because I think a revert is unnecessarily aggressive on a busy page and, when someone has shown their willingness to discuss. ( in an unbusy page and when I se a user has a pattern of frive by flagging I agree a revert may be ok. fyi I had started a talk section, before my edits. I told you how much I appreciate your message, so your aggressiveness was definitely cushioned in non-aggressive language and the little discourse (maybe should have been on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle ?) was helpful, for me at least, dont know about you.
- I will make simple edits - ping me if you reply there plse, because my watchlist is (too) long for me to see changes more than once every day or 2.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, yeah, I suppose my posts here did come off a bit aggressive; I'm sorry for that. Still, though, reverting in and of itself is not an aggressive act. In fact, your first link does acknowledge that "If rewording does not salvage the edit, then it should be reverted." After all, it's not like there is any way to reword a template! Reverts happen, and they're not necessarily bad. (also, I did reply on Twinkle's talk page, but I forgot to ping you. I'll just let this be the notice.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Drmies, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your post.
- I knew that you two administrators were close: one got involved and attacked me, and then the other one takes the 3RR case and turns it against me, blocks me.
- If I posted the above on your user page (plus diffs of course), plus telling you to "detach and feel the world for a while", would you call that harassment?
- You think you can really attack a fellow wikipedian , calling a sourced post "blatant harassment" and threaten me ?
- Arent you going a bit too far, administrator Bbb23? --Wuerzele (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) with Bbb23. Your post on Drmies's page comes across as an attack, even if you didn't mean it that way, and that's a really bad thing on the page of a user on break. You see several respectable users have removed it, because it sounded like an attack to them. Don't put it back again, or you may be blocked for edit warring and disruption. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC).
- look, I am sorry you see my post as an attack, administrator Bishonen.
- facts: I was attacked by Drmies on 9-15, as can clearly be seen from the diffs I provided. ( nobody ever told him to stop!!)
- It had far reaching consequences for me.
- Later I saw how emotional Drmies had been, overwrought.
- today i noticed mies changed his userpage with a head in the sand cartoon. and i put 1 and 1 together. he's overwhelmed !
- today people posted niceties on his page. and I posted what I remember about him, facts with diffs,PLUS that I hope he detaches and feels the world a bit. - and you come here call that an attack.
- first say, whats your involvement with Drmies?
- I dont know you. at least you are using no template!
- as far as throwing the "respectable users" out at me, about users i also dont know: why should I believe you, who calls me attacking when I didnt? scolding me then demanding respect is a bit fear inspiring, besides being a bit non-factual.
- when someone supplies diffs, you know where the wind blows: content. good evening administartor bishonen, if you'll excuse, i have to go.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am in complete agreement. Your behavior here is a really bad idea, and I encourage you to stop now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree that reverting several times on any page isn't a great idea. I think the timing could be better too; this issue should be handled at AN, rather than a talk page, IMO. Perhaps Wuerzele felt this was a last chance to set the record straight, and anyone can understand that if a past block was inappropriate (I don't know the story, but have a lot of trust in Wuerzele, so tend to assume this has merit), there might be a feeling of urgency. I also think we should trust that Wuerzele did not see their words as an attack, cultural differences and all. Wuerzele, there is an unwritten agreement here that we verge on the side of caution when our words could be seen as grave dancing, and when we are in an open ArbCom case ;) You can be forgiven for not knowing these things. We all step on toes once in while. petrarchan47คุก 02:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech
Hello! Wuerzele,
There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
|
Tox
I wonder if I could get the benefits of your POV at WP:BIOMEDICAL. So far, this has been written with the general idea of, "If I were writing an article about a typical disease, then..." One of MEDRS's important weaknesses is its failure to deal with toxicology in any sensible fashion. The "must have this" sources simply don't exist in toxicology. (Don't cite any studies in mice!) I'm extending the standard offer: post your ideas on the talk page or boldly edit the page if you want, whichever you like. The worst that can happen is that I'll revert you, and we'll have a nice long chat about it. I really do need someone who knows something about toxicology to help us address that subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- well hello ! Thank you for considering my opinion. are you a mindreader? it never occurred to me to go to medrs with this- I had posted my ideas on the chemistry page instead, see 'template should contain sections on toxicology and environment'. lukewarm response there.
- i' m winding down after a long day -I only looked up Hans Mommsen who died today, and saw your message- will write tomorrow. this is something that truly interests/concerns me.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:There is no deadline for this. I've been writing that page for almost a year, and thinking about it for several. Take your time. Getting it right is much more important than getting it done. I've got your previous post open in a tab now and will hopefully read it before long. I'm determined to get caught up with the mess at WT:MEDRS tonight, but that may be all I manage now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at the archived discussion at WT:CHEM. It looks like one of your interests is changing the outline for the pages (e.g., WP:MEDMOS#Sections, only for chemicals rather than diseases and such). That should be achievable, especially if you can show two or three well-written examples of what you'd like to see done. (We want people to think, "Oooh, I want my favorite article to have one of those shiny sections, too!", and they're more likely to think that if they can see how shiny it is. ;-)
- Do you know whether the GHS information is available on Wikidata? User:Leyo might know, if you don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Few Wikidata items contain GHS information, see d:Special:WhatLinksHere/Property:P728. However, all chemboxes in de.wikipedia have this information, except for cases where no such data is available. --Leyo 10:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think that information from chemboxes could be imported into Wikidata by bot. From there, it can be called back to templates in the Wikipedias (with real-time updates) or used to construct a simple prose section that could be used to expand to any article. Are you confident in the integrity of the data on de.wp? (It doesn't feel like the kind of thing that would get vandalized very often, but you know better than I.) Are there sources included? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, WhatamIdoing let me reply to the things you brought up:
- Re: "The "must have this" sources simply don't exist in toxicology." I do not agree. what makes you say so?
- Re "page I have been writing for a year": which-WP:MEDRS or WP:Biomedical?
- Re "It looks like one of your interests is changing the outline for the pages (e.g., WP:MEDMOS#Sections" Sorry i dont know what you mean by that. I dont see toxicology or environmental fate sections in WP:MEDMOS.
- Re "only for chemicals, not the diseases": I am not sure where you are coming from (physician?), but in environmental health it makes sense to start with the exposure (chemical, physical, biological) and then one could work towards the disease. from a clinical perspective one could write a separate article only for the big 10 topics, eg lead poisoning, mercury poisoning etc. but for the vast majority of toxicants this is impossible, so human health issues aka toxicology and environmental fate (linked to human health obviously) should be at a minimum on the page of the chemical/toxicant. so again, i dont understand what you meant.
- Re GHS statement data: it would be a start, but if you read chemistry page post i am not interested in the chembox, but in two sections, toxicology and environmental fate. I saw that James Hare (NIOSH) has been working with Tobias1984 on an import of NIOSH's Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. Of course occupational exposures are a subset of environmental exposures and it's unclear how NIOSH's statements harmonize with the GHS statements.
- Thanks leyo. i counted 39 chemicals in the wikidata w GHS hazard statement database. maybe half of them have references in the form of a raw link to the sigma-aldrich ctalog. (!) I agree with WhatamIdoing if all chemboxes in de.wikipedia have GHS information, cant the GHS be imported by a bot that assigns a parameter to a particular GHS statement which then matches with the corresponding english translation? maybe there are too many parameters? (I wonder how Sigma does it, harmonizing english and german info in their catalogue...)--Wuerzele (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Numbered to keep track:
- MEDRS deprecates non-human studies—but have you ever seen an LD50 study in humans? I haven't, and I don't expect to. The kind of sourcing that works best for diseases isn't the kind of source that works best for toxicology and environmental fate.
- WP:BIOMEDICAL. I've been active at MEDRS for much longer, but I started BIOMEDICAL last December.
- The fact that toxicology sections aren't in WP:MEDMOS (even for drugs) is IMO a problem. The fact that the word doesn't appear at all in WP:PHARMOS is a bigger problem. WP:CHEMMOS gives it two sentences, which may not be good enough.
- MEDMOS is written for human diseases. It's got some other stuff in it, but it's really about diseases. Chemicals need a different approach, especially non-drug chemicals. CHEMMOS is the most relevant page. One way to get these sections created consistently—eventually, over the years—is to have the relevant MOS pages recommend them as normal/desirable sections.
- If you have standardized information, it can be put into a template. But it can also be put into a standardized description, using sentences and paragraphs. Take a look at Mulberry, Kansas#Demographics: That was all "written" by a script that looked up the numbers and transformed it into sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- i understand now. you see everything through the MEDRS lens ! try taking the glasses off: "must have this" sources, which i read as reliable tox sources, do in fact exist. now tell me whats more fundamental: the real, existing source or the wikiprojectmedicine claim that a reliable source doesnt exist, because it disapproves such a source in its doctrine? this to me is folly. thats why I am not in the wikiproject medicine, which I see thinking it knows everything.
- thank you.
- tox is interdisciplinary. can we agree that toxicology and, BTW ecotoxicity sections (you seem to leave that out all the time) need to enter MEDMOS, CHEMMOS, PHARMOS? ecotoxicity is important to educate about additional exposure/ contamination pathways (air, water, natural products used) for all disciplines involved, ie medicine (+vet), pharmaceutical sciences/pharmacology and chemistry.
- thank you for pointing out the CHEMMOS as the go-to-point. I didnt know about it. i can draft a proposal and would like your input/support, so it doesnt end up as on the wikiproject chemistry page.
- standardized tox information? may be a future focus. of course there are, but it is fragmented, like 40 detailed profiles here and 275 files there, and further fragmented depending on the particular angle CDC (toxicity) vs EPA (ecotoxicity) and others for toxicogenomics for example come to mind. (i am unfamiliar w canadian, UK or australian repositories) we can talk about it. -i've seen the machine written demographic sections, of course, and think they are horrible, cannot imagine them for oral reference dose, inhalation reference concentration, cancer descriptors, oral slope factor and whatnot, but thats just me!--Wuerzele (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- My goal is to keep the lenses on, and to fix the lenses. MEDRS (which does not belong to WikiProject Medicine anyway) needs to be expanded to explain what an ideal source is for toxicology information.
- You're welcome.
- I would start by adding tox and ecotox into CHEMMOS. It's easier to change one guideline at a time, sort out any "bugs" in the wording, and then propagate it when we can plausibly claim that it's already accepted.
- Post your proposal at WT:CHEMMOS, and feel free to {{ping}} me. Generally speaking, changes that seem smaller are easier to get approved, so I recommend thinking in terms of baby steps (or camel's noses and tents ;-).
- Standardized tox information is probably better than no information, and a variation on Cunningham's law might help us: the fastest way to get good tox information into articles might be adding incomplete, simple, automated (but accurate and sourced) information to them, and then letting people expand and improve upon it. With the help of a few well-written examples, we might be able to inspire improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing Thanks for your response above. What am I doing? -haven't forgotten about the above, what i consider a "project" - just need to gather some strength.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Numbered to keep track:
- Thanks, WhatamIdoing let me reply to the things you brought up:
- I think that information from chemboxes could be imported into Wikidata by bot. From there, it can be called back to templates in the Wikipedias (with real-time updates) or used to construct a simple prose section that could be used to expand to any article. Are you confident in the integrity of the data on de.wp? (It doesn't feel like the kind of thing that would get vandalized very often, but you know better than I.) Are there sources included? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Few Wikidata items contain GHS information, see d:Special:WhatLinksHere/Property:P728. However, all chemboxes in de.wikipedia have this information, except for cases where no such data is available. --Leyo 10:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
A few months ago I wrote a proposal for writing about toxicology. Feel free to work on it. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- James, I wonder if you have thought about how to integrate tox information directly into CHEMMOS. I'd also like to have a good list of things that editors could/should include. For people who aren't experts in the area, but who are good at looking up individual facts, then having a list of individual facts that could be included might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the GHS issue: A large fraction of the GHS labelling data in de.wikipedia was taken from the GESTIS Substance Database (see Template:GESTIS). This includes substances that have harmonised classification (and labelling) according to Annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation). The reason is that the minimum classification is found in Annex VI of CLP Regulation. This gap is filled by GESTIS based on additional information/test and safety data sheets by the companies. --Leyo 23:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Leyo, that sounds like a good basis for importing it to Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I do not have the technical skills to do that. BTW: It might be a good idea to move this discussion, e.g. to d:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Chemistry. --Leyo 00:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Spanish and Santa Monica-Malibu environmental problems
Hi! Do you know any people who speak/write Spanish who can add info to es:Distrito Escolar Unificado de Santa Mónica-Malibú about the environmental problems? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking. interesting idea! i thought it was a school for the rich white and famous and not hispanic families... (?do you know?) i can take a crack at it and send one of my many bilingual friends to check.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome! I believe they do have a lot of wealthier families (especially in Malibu) but there are also enough Hispanic families to the point where they publish documents in Spanish such as this one http://www.smmusd.org/complaints/UniformComplaintFormSP.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Somebody had started a Spanish page on the high school es:Escuela Preparatoria Malibú. I also found the Spanish handbook for SMMUSD http://www.smmusd.org/StudentServices/pdf/HandbookSP.pdf - Also the district's welcome letter is in both English and Spanish http://www.smmusd.org/superintendent/pdf/SLtoParentsWelcome091514.pdf and the Samohi profile is in Spanish http://www.smmusd.org/SARC/SARC2014/SAMOSARC14SP.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! If you have a friend who wants to do proofreading you can ask him/her to do some edits. Alternatively I can help you look for an ESwiki editor to do proofreading if you'd like. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- yes, please do, WhisperToMe by all means. it took too long for my impatient self to wait for my friends so i took a crack. why are you asking me ? i mean you are as good an editor as I... wishing you a good rest of Armistice Day (boldly assumming you are in the U.S.)--Wuerzele (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Griswold v. Connecticut
Hi,
First off, thanks for the offer of help you made to my talk page. I was curious what gave you the impression my recent edit to "Griswold v. Connecticut" was a test edit and therefore in need of reversion. I just made a simple fix (which was explained in my edit summary) to make the header for a section agree with the section's content.50.157.104.147 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- thanks for writing. you are right, 50.157.104.147, I made an error and am sorry. reverted myself. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi Wuerzele. 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)
Summaries
I will continue to use edit summaries when they are necessary; that's been working fine for the decade I've been here. —Swpbtalk 23:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) —Swpbtalk 23:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Swpb since you didnt in that instance you are telling me you deemed it unnecessary. but an edit summary facilitates working through one's watch list a lot. It's a simple form of paying respect to others. seniority has nothing to do with it.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I did deem it unnecessary, and I still do. If you want to talk about respect, start by not templating the regulars; that's never going to get you what you want. —Swpbtalk 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps a quick reading of the section in the norms and practice document titled always provide an edit summary is order. It's linked on Wikipedia:Etiquette, among many other pages related to editing guidelines. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks 208.81.212.222 for pointing that out. I dont think that Swpb did though. Three more things I noticed: he doesnt follow other forms of netiquette, like indenting his comments or informing someone of a reversal by cut paste and finally he edit warred (reverting a revert )... 4 red flags .... lost cause? but i tried.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that anyone is ever a lost cause. Some are just a lot more work. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks 208.81.212.222 for pointing that out. I dont think that Swpb did though. Three more things I noticed: he doesnt follow other forms of netiquette, like indenting his comments or informing someone of a reversal by cut paste and finally he edit warred (reverting a revert )... 4 red flags .... lost cause? but i tried.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The Good Heart Barnstar | ||
You may be new, but at the root, you're trying to improve Wikiedia and educate other editors. Keep up the good work. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC) |
Arundhati Roy page
Hello, Explain on talkpage ,why have not you re-reverted the DOB edit.I have given sites as sourcing. 2How to know copyright violation..i did not understand why that is copyvio... Thanks Happy sage (talk) 08:10, 22 November 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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Be careful when using automated tools to revert
I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to do what you did here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:35, 3 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
- I have commented elsewhere regarding this, and while I am not familiar with you it appears this topic ban was an injustice. We have lost some good editors in this GMO issue, and I hope you will stick around. I did not have your Talk page watchlisted and have now done so. Jusdafax 09:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- thank you J. you likely dont know me, because i dont amply write on talk pages like our friends sageRad, Petra, ATSME, DrChrissy, so i dont get a condolence section like this.
- rather than watchlisting me check my contributions- i know its more cumbersome; but thats how i learn to know and follow editors. besides now that I am GMO-banned i dont expect activity on this page. i've said this on the arbcompage: King and trypto are WP:not here if you look at their contribs.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- note that oh-so-civil editors KOA and Tryptichon, who smeared honey around Sage's beard on his talk page here are snipers, when it comes to me (same edit and check KoA's campaign on teh arbcompage for FOF for me etc). That should give you a clue of how they evaluate my contributions. --Wuerzele (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think the arbs got it wrong on you wuerzele, while letting some who are disruptive off the hook. I dont normally edit in the topic area, but I am sure I will see you on other articles like Bitcoin. PAG based editors like you are needed. AlbinoFerret 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Topic ban violation
Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment is a clear and unambiguous violation of your topic ban. I urge you to remove it. If you are unsure of the breadth of the ban, I urge you to read the sections at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. You have also violated the topic ban on at least two other occasions since it was imposed. If you leave the statement in place, I will make a request that the topic ban be enforced. Looie496 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)