User talk:Avatar317

Athletes in Action

Hey friend, I am trying to figure out what is causing the mass deletion of information on this page. I feel like enough external sources have been added of third party articles to cite information. Let me know how I can improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C8:1505:A710:D516:60A:61B2:F90E (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's one example. You added a chunk of text describing the "Super Bowl Breakfast", SELF-SOURCED to the organization that runs/provides the event. (superbowlbreakfast.com) The only other source there had only one line briefly mentioning that: "The 2024 Bart Starr Award will be presented during the 36th annual Super Bowl Breakfast on Feb. 10 in Las Vegas", and that source doesn't even say that it is related to Athletes in Action. To have a paragraph about the Super Bowl Breakfast, you need to find some newspaper type source (See: WP:RS and WP:RSP) that talks about Athletes in Action and that Super Bowl Breakfast is their event. Please also see: WP:IS "Although Wikipedia is not paper, it is also not a dumping ground for any and all information that readers consider important or useful." - meaning that not all events/actions that non-profits do are important enough to be included in their Wikipedia article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

ITER

Great work trying to shorten the introduction paragraph to the ITER article, especially citing the relevant guidelines that suggest the four-paragraph standard. The problem is that this paragraph cites work by a journalist who is an ITER sceptic and who is committed to a rival fusion technology, so he is very active about keeping that critical information at the top of the page. I wrote on his talk page that we should transfer it to the Criticism section, but he just deleted my comment. I look forward to seeing how he reacts to your change...

Jeremymarseille (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Housing shortage

I saw your posting on my Talk page a few months ago. I wanted to respond right away, but had not the time. My schedule has been hectic most of this year. Sorry I could not respond to your welcome request sooner. Good that your writing has been posted.

Today I looked at it, your "California housing shortage" article. It is a very important topic, and an interesting one. Many people are severely affected. Everyone on the coastal metropolitan areas are. I have been on both side of the supply and demand equation, personally and professionally.

I will try to read your article this month. In the meantime, one issue suggests itself to me. The 'Great Recession' quickly stopped new construction. Many construction companies made drastic cut-backs on skilled employees, or went completely out of business. Now that California needs a building boom, the housing supply factor is relatively anemic. It should be robust.

A dramatic increase in housing supply is clearly the long term solution. Ironically, short term fixes like rent control work to reduce future housing supply. Yet in the meantime rent control can alleviate some of the pain of the housing shortage, especially needed for low income renters. It's a difficult zero-sum calculus, at best. Studies have shown that rent control does not effectively lower rents over time for a region, but instead benefits certain tenants (who stay put in rentals in favored locations) and increases the rent for new tenants and those in adjacent locations that are not controlled. It also favors some more prosperous tenants, who would not qualify as low income.

It's difficult for government to intervene in the economy in the interests of a sense of political justice, to challenge the supply and demand reality, without serious unintended consequences. Rent control can alleviate today's housing pain, in exchange for prolonging the shortage. Yet sometimes the short-term realities are so abnormal that such intervention is warranted. Rent control is often a blunt instrument, but part of the political-economic tool kit.

Another major factor driving up the price of real estate in California is foreign investors. Obviously, through the influx of funds. But also, many buy homes as investments (for appreciation of their value) and then let them sit unoccupied. In not a few Los Angeles suburbs 10% of the homes are said to be idle due to absentee investors.

I salute your interest, and your contribution to Wikipedia. Elfelix (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Today I read some of your California housing shortage article, the first half of the text and sections of the rest. Generally it is clear, well-organized, and well-sourced. Thank you. Otherwise, at the this time I have nothing to add to the May 1st paragraphs above. Hopefully I can revisit it next week. One thing: you might want to add a "redirect" page entitled "Housing shortage in California". Elfelix (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Elfelix Sorry it took me so long to respond to this.

You are right, CA does have a shortage of both companies doing construction, and skilled workers to do that work, resulting in high market rate prices for construction labor...AFAIK, both these factors are actually true around the nation.

You are right about the problems that arise when governments distort markets. In my opinion, a smarter way to help low-income renters is to use government money to subsidize their market rate rents. Rent-control forces landlords (rather than government) to subsidize rental payments for poor, middle, and rich tenants. Subsidizing food for everyone (rather than just the poor as we do in the US) is what got Venezuela into their current food-supply predicament. Having LOCAL governments pay these subsidies would be a HUGE incentive for them to fix the factors that drove rents so high in the first place.

On your other comment, blaming "absentee investors," primarily Chinese (in the news, not what you said), is just a "blame the outsiders" mentality rather than face reality. (Why is there so much crime in America? Well it must be the illegal aliens committing it all, if we just get rid of them we'll have no crime....yeah, right.) Would this be any different if they were all "local" investors? Also, I've seen no DATA in any of the articles I've read supporting this...only conjecture from interviews with individual real estate agents....anecdotes do not make data.

In a normal functioning free market, more demand just yields more supply. EVERY investment is a bet: if people are buying homes in CA because they think it will be a good investment, they're betting that CA won't solve this housing shortage anytime soon, and that CA's economy will remain strong/improve to keep the demand side up.

Thank you for the re-direct suggestion.....done!

Thanks for your comments and suggestions!!! ---- Avatar317 (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

One more thought on investors buying homes and leaving them empty. *IF* they are doing this, one has to ask "Why are they forgoing the large amount of money they could be making by renting out those properties?" Here are a couple of my theories:

1) If they are buying new or newly renovated homes, maybe the depreciation of a slightly used (and damaged) home reduces the resale value so much that it is not worth the risk of a renter? and they intend to resell the property in a short time frame.

combined with 2) A rental agency (if the investor were to have an agency rent the property for them) is required by CA anti-discrimination law to rent to the first person(s) who can demonstrate financial sufficiency...they are not allowed to look at 20 potential renters and choose the one they think would be the least risk of damaging their property. A landlord can disallow pets in the rental contract, but not children, and children often damage homes more than pets....These factors (essentially risk of degradation of investment) may be why homes sit vacant rather than rented. ---- Avatar317 (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

The "housing shortage" article literally begins with "since about 1970".Qwertyuiop1234567898 (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you, then, what do those articles convey and can we include it in the article? Demand clearly isn't just from national demand. There is not one mention of immigration in the article. I feel this article is a well-intentioned piece which suffers from one-sided perspectives sometimes. If it's more balanced, it will be a great article. Your efforts have nonetheless made a very effective article.Qwertyuiop1234567898 (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the housing shortage article!

I stumbled upon California housing shortage, and wow, thank you for putting that together! I've requested a peer review in hopes of getting a Good Article (or even Featured Article) stamp. Is there anything I can do to help out? I'm pretty good with maps, graphs and research. grendel|khan 01:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grendelkhan Hello, and thanks for the good words about the CA housing shortage article! I'd love any suggestions you have about any ways to improve the article, (or just do them yourself, of course) and I'm writing a reply to your talk page comments now.

Clearly, you have infinitely more familiarity with charts/graphs/data on Wikipedia than I (I have none, so far); thank you for contributing, and for nominating it for GA review!!!! ---- Avatar317 (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Hello,

Per-capita means per person, not per property. I removed "per capita" in my edits. Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy. I have added these relevant facts to the article. I think they help understand that a 0.42% rate does not necessarily imply the locale is getting a giant subsidy. I think that's important for readers of the article to understand--recent money has resulted in SOME people paying much more per property, but longtime residents don't necessarily pay less than the rest of the state does (median property tax in CA is under 3,000 dollars per source 59). Those longtime residents have paid decades of other high taxes that compensated for prop 13 too, and we need an accounting of how much that is (and I don't think this exists).

69Avatar69 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Rent regulation. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

• This is the only invitation you issued to join a discussion. It's generally fine to advertise discussions on WikiProject talk pages, or to various noticeboards, or sometimes the talk pages of other articles. You're on shaky ground when you're inviting hand-picked editors. That can be OK when you notify every single editor in a class, such as every editor who touched an article in the last year. But one and only one editor? The one who wrote "If you haven't studied economics, don't edit this page" in direct violation of the WP:OWNBEHAVIOR policy? That does not look good.

  Please do not canvass in this way again. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I invited the one editor who I've encountered that stated that they had a background in economics, because I figured that an expert in the field could help improve this article. That person had stated: "As someone studying economics at the graduate level, ..."

This is the way encylopedias were written before Wikipedia, by experts in the field of the subject they wrote about, and that resulted in the articles all being of MUCH higher quality than the Rent regulation article is now. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Alex Berenson Edits and New Article

Hi Avatar317, I wanted to thank you for all the work you put into the Alex Berenson article and the new article you created about his book, Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness and Violence. I heard his perspective on a podcast called The Argument from the New York Times in which 3 NYT opinion writers (one an anti-Trump conservative, one a left-leaning moderate, and the last quite to the left of the other two) debate controversial issues in a rational and factual manner, often times finding common ground on some points and agreeing to disagree on others. It's refreshing to hear such a reasonable debate about real policy and circumstance, but I digress. One of them did an interview with Alex Berenson about cannabis, and I found his arguments and propositions so filled with fallacies and factually incorrect information that I simply had to check how he and his book were characterized in his Wikipedia article, only to find it just briefly mentioned without any mention of the substantial number of criticisms laid against him and his book.

I wanted to make it clear to any readers that his position is not backed by science, and I really appreciate all the effort you put into reworking that article and creating a new article for the book to ensure that all readers of Wikipedia who may stumble upon his page understand that he is not an expert, nor does he defer to the actual experts, and, at least from my perspective, is trying to push an agenda instead of the actual reality of the consequences of cannabis use. Thanks again. Matt18224 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Matt18224:Thank you for the edit you did to the Alex Berenson article in which you added the sentence: In particular, they describe his book as highly problematic because Berenson infers causation from correlation, .... I don't recall how I came across that article, but that sentence caught my attention, and got me interested to read more. (I think a neat feature of Wikipedia is how info in articles can bootstrap better articles in this manner; I hadn't heard anything about his book until I read that Wikipedia article; without your contribution I likely wouldn't have heard about this at all.)

I do think that we will be better off as a society when more people in the general public understand science and scientific methods, and respectful and rational ways of having discussions/arguments; especially considering that in a democracy, everyone is allowed to vote and is therefore expected (or asked) to give their input on public policies, some of which may be very scientific in nature (climate change and vaccinations).

I wonder whether Berenson started his inquiry into cannabis without a pro/con legalization belief, and simply made the mistake(s) of misunderstanding science, but that once he released the book, and heard the criticism, that he now cares more about "Being Right than Doing The Right Thing", (and selling books) and doesn't want to admit his mistake: that many months of his work and his conclusion therefrom are simply wrong. The book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) was an interesting read on this subject (though I don't agree with every one of their analyses of their case studies). Another way of phrasing this is that people can behave (to varying degrees) like "insecure narcissists", whose egos are more threatened by admitting that they are wrong than the threat of public ridicule from supporting unreasonable/ridiculous/crazy beliefs. It would be interesting/telling to see what his beliefs on cannabis legalization were prior to his beginning the "quest" that lead to him writing this book, that would indicate whether he started with an agenda, or whether my theory above is the more likely case.

Lastly, I don't know if you've seen this site, but I was thinking of asking the author (Tyler Vigen) whether he would open-source one of his graphs for either/both the Correlation does not imply causation and Spurious relationship article(s). See his site here: Title of the first graph: "US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation" Correlation: 99.79% (r=0.99789126) ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Dear god, I had no clue science spending caused suicides! We need to STOP SCIENCE FUNDING NOW!!! (I probably shouldn't give anyone any ideas...) I always try to assume good faith, which, as I'm sure you know, is a common principle here on Wikipedia, and the impression I got from the interview (found here about 2 minutes in) was that Alex Berenson's wife, who is a forensic psychiatrist, anecdotally told him that she saw high numbers of criminals who also happened to use cannabis, which led him down the road of hearing anecdotes of individuals who had bad experiences with cannabis and cherry-picking the limited data and anecdotes that reinforced his belief based on his wife's assertion. I'll have to listen to the interview again to be sure, but I think he said he paid little attention to cannabis prior to his wife telling him her experience. Likely thanks to anchoring, I suspect that was his jumping-off point where he decided that if his wife, an admitted expert in psychiatry, decided cannabis was causing criminal behavior, that confirmation bias kicked in and sent him spiraling down the rabbit hole of "cannabis must be illegal for a good reason."

I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist (actually pretty far from it, computer scientist), but I took several psychology classes in college that didn't contribute toward my major in any way because I always thought the biases and fallacies to which we almost universally fall victim are so interesting, and I felt that understanding how people interpret information would both help me realize when I'm engaging in those behaviors myself and also make me a more effective programmer. I mentioned anchoring and confirmation bias, but what's almost certainly happening with him now is the backfire effect, which is related to, but distinct from, confirmation bias. According to him, his initial view on cannabis was something of a blank slate until his wife, both a trusted source and an expert in his mind, gave him the idea that cannabis and crime are associated, so he probably started looking for information that confirmed that assertion since it was his "anchor." Despite being presented with momentous amounts of scientific evidence contradicting his claims, he felt even more confident in his assertions instead of less, an example of the backfire effect. His argument that there weren't enough psychiatrists who signed the letter to validate any of its claims is a great example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I suspect even if all the signatories were psychiatrists (who are typically clinicians, not researchers, which also means selection bias comes into play since patients of psychiatrists are usually people with pre-existing mental health issues), he would find some reason why all those psychiatrist signatories aren't actually experts.

One thing you pondered was whether he's "in too deep" to admit he was wrong. You essentially described irrational escalation, also known as the "sunk cost fallacy" where, despite an outpouring of criticism of his claims, he's put so much time and money into pushing those claims that he continues doing it because he's gone "all in" on promoting prohibition. He continues to promote the idea that cannabis causes violence, despite science and experts disagreeing with him. I can't say what's in his heart, but I suspect he truly believes what he's pushing and that he simply doesn't realize all the cognitive biases he's experiencing. He thinks the overwhelming majority of "real experts" agree with him, but, according to his words and actions, they're only "real experts" if they agree with him.

With regards to that graph, the author mentions the data source, and since it's from the US Government, the data should be publicly accessible in one way or another. I have some experience with graph design, and I'll definitely look into acquiring that data and creating a public domain version showing that surprisingly high degree of correlation between the two entirely unrelated phenomena. I'm surprised the Correlation does not imply causation article doesn't have a graphic demonstrating the phenomenon, since such a graph would make it very easy for individuals who are just skimming or who are better at understanding concepts through visualizations instead of reading giant blocks of complex, jargony text like the ones present in the article to grasp the gist of what the article is trying to say. I'll see what I can do. Matt18224 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Recent Edits to Alex Berenson Article

Hey Avatar317, thanks for fixing the Alex Berenson article after it had been maliciously altered. I got my email digest showing the anonymous removal of information and immediately went to revert it, only to pleasantly discover that you had already done so. I geolocated the IP address, and it's suspiciously in the exact same area of New York where Alex Berenson lives. The editor also added information about Berenson's pet, with quite specific, unsourced details and poor following of the Manual of Style. While I have no definitive proof, the anonymous editor's seemingly visceral reaction to the content in the article debunking Berenson's claims, as well as Berenson himself being publicly annoyed by any criticism of his works, leads me to suspect that Berenson himself altered the article. He removed every bit of properly-sourced, reliable information in the article that was critical of his book, while leaving information simply stating what the book is and what he claims in it.

It may be necessary to keep a close eye on this situation, including potentially requesting an IP ban from an admin, if he continues to remove unfavorable, factual information, since this would be a blatant violation of WP:AUTO. I know you've put a lot of work into improving the article (as well as the topic overall), and I wanted you to know I'll staunchly back you up if it ultimately comes to a conflict. I strongly suspect other editors will also support the inclusion of that information in the article, since its inclusion objectively improves the quality and breadth of the article and is not "slanderous" or "partisan" as the anonymous editor claimed. Matt18224 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Matt18224: Thank you for also keeping an eye on this; I do think it may be an article which might see other edits like that one. I looked at Wikipedia's policies on page protection, (WP:Protection_policy) and it says that a page cannot be prophylactically protected; but after repeated vandalism, protection can be asked for:

Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has made at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. This level of protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sock puppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. An alternative to semi-protection is pending changes, which is sometimes favored when an article is being vandalized regularly, but otherwise receives a low amount of editing.

So WP:Pending_changes might be the best thing to ask for if this starts recurring, since these two articles don't seem to have had that many edits.

I also did the IP-geolocate to see the same info as you, though I didn't know what area of NY he lives in, but I do also suspect him of being that editor, as you said, based on the edit summaries and other info added. I agree with you about the ridiculousness of (and similarity to his current statements) the claim of "...purely slanderous and partisan non-facts." All the sources used to reference those statements are listed as "Reliable sources" here: WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, and I specifically include quotes so that editors and readers can have reasonable confidence that the article is appropriately paraphrasing the reference.

Lastly, thank you for the good psychological overview in our last discussion of some of what you suspect is going on here, and thanks again for also keeping an eye on these articles!!

September 2019

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- Frood (talk!) 22:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just to show my appreciation for your edits. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

qedk (t 桜 c) 07:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing self-sourced

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Calvary_Chapel_Fort_Lauderdale&oldid=prev&diff=964690561 and others, no, it's not advertising, but I’ll leave it as it’s not vital to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: From my experience, every medium to large church also has an attached school, and other programs like daycare, marriage counselling, feed-the-homeless, community relations, etc. ....that don't belong in a Wikipedia article (aren't IMPORTANT enough to be mentioned) unless those programs have been mentioned by Independent Sources like newspapers. If someone wants to know about a church's programs, they can visit that church's website. If the church has a program that others than the organization itsself thinks are important, Independent Sources will cover that program/school/mission.---Avatar317^(talk) 21:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You did not even read what you removed. You only left the school. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: So you have the arrogance to CLAIM you KNOW what others did and did not do? I read everything I remove carefully. The school has its own wikipedia article, all the things I removed were sourced by websites created/owned/run by the church, and had no linked wikipedia articles. (I have not checked to see whether the school's article is notable enough to exist or should be put up for AfD...maybe I should check that now.)---Avatar317^(talk) 22:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I make no such claims. I simply responded to your statement that "every medium to large church also has an attached school", yet that's what you removed. I saw that you removed the self-sourced content but did not remove the only thing without a source. I don't care what you do and don't read, I care about sources. Don't ping me again. I have no interest in discussing this further with you. WP:SPS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For vigilant reversal of whitewashing on pages about anti-vaccination groups. Discredited theories are not "innovative research" and those groups are not "vaccine safety advocates". Thank you! Robincantin (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding citing non-independent sources on Trace Amounts

Hello,

I'm curious about why you say that the film itself and its website aren't reliable sources for supporting statements about what the film and its authors claim – surely they're as reliable as is possible? They are obviously not independent, but I feel it's still relevant to cite them per WP:V.

— Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

[Copied this to the talk page for the article, because that is a better venue for this discussion which will allow other editors to give input] Re-publishing on Wikipedia the claims of the film itself and the film's website amounts to re-publishing their propaganda (in my opinion). I feel that it is the same as publishing an organization's mission statement or motto, and I would support this essay WP:MISSION being a policy. In my opinion, an organization/movie/person should not be allowed to frame the discussion about itself/themselves. ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: Judy Mikovits: Opinions are not sources

Hi

Can I ask why you reverted my edit on. I removed the word 'false' as the citations listed are not recognized medical sources. In fact the people writing those articles are not even doctors, but journalists. Thus they form no more than a journalistic opinion. Markbanin (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

First source at the end of the sentence where you removed the word "false" is this article [1] in the magazine Science (journal) (Science, also widely referred to as Science Magazine,[2] is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science[3][4] (AAAS) and one of the world's top academic journals.) author: Martin Enserink [2] Martin Enserink is Science’s International news editor. Based in Amsterdam, he coordinates and edits news from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. He also writes stories, primarily about infectious diseases, global health, and research policy. Martin received a master’s degree in biology from the University of Groningen and worked for various publications in the Netherlands before joining Science in 1999. He was a reporter at the magazine’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., for 5 years and became the Paris correspondent in 2004. Between 2011 and 2018, he was Science’s European news editor. Fascinated by emerging diseases, he covered outbreaks on four continents, including the 2001 anthrax letters in the United States, the global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. He also wrote about basic research, epidemiology, ecology, and drug and vaccine development for diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and influenza. In addition, he has written extensively about research funding, scientific publishing, research ethics, and scientific misconduct. Martin won the Communications Award of the American Society for Microbiology in 2004, 2008, and 2012, each time with a different Science colleague, for stories on SARS, malaria, and a suspected link between a virus and chronic fatigue syndrome. His story on golden rice was included in Best American Science Writing 2009. He was a mentor to four African science journalists in a program run by the World Federation of Science Journalists and wrote an online course, Covering Ebola, with Helen Branswell. In November 2019, Martin's story about the eradication of yaws, a disfiguring bacterial disease, won the Communications Award from the American Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene. - Seems like a VERY Reliable Source WP:RS written by a very qualified journalist to me, and that's just the first of FIVE sources for that statement. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

References

October 2020

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Marcus Lamb, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: You should pay more attention to who ADDED a source before accusing me of adding copyrighted material. I merely reverted an edit[3] which removed the material because it was claimed to use bad language, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. That material had been in the article for some time, and was NOT added by me.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317, you added it in this edit Elizium23 (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: NO, I RESTORED deleted content (reason for deletion being offensive language) without carefully checking whether the sources for the material were acceptable. Like I said above, this content had been in the article for some time, and was not originally added by me.---Avatar317^(talk) 00:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Avatar317, added or restored, the onus is the same for you to verify you are not violating copyright. Elizium23 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 California Proposition 15

I saw there’s been a lot of back and forth on the Calif. Prop 15 article especially in the lead section. In an effort to avoid stepping on any toes, I'd like to get your input on some minor adjustments. Your most recent change was an improvement to illustrate the "split roll" piece so I agree with you there and I think there could be some additional fine tuning to A) avoid the repetitive language, and B) more clearly define that the underlying change comes from a reassessment of property values:

Current version:

The 2020 California Proposition 15 provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" property tax system that increases taxes on large commercial properties by taxing them at market value, without changing property taxes for residential properties.

Suggested changes:

The 2020 California Proposition 15 provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increases tax revenue from large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties.

Alternatively, we could use "by assessing them at market value instead of their original purchase price" which even more clearly illustrates the change. But the above version also keeps it simple and to the point. Do you have any objections to this modification? Thank you! PureFuLT (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@PureFuLT: How about this:

Your version with a minor change:

The 2020 California Proposition 15 provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increases tax revenue from es on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties.

My main issue is this: the sources and the ballot wording all say that commercial property taxes will INCREASE: ("A YES vote on this measure means: Property taxes ... would go up"), and in my opinion to obscure this fact as "increases tax revenue" is misleading (it is possible to raise tax revenue withOUT raising the total "fees" paid: by re-allocation of who gets what...for example look at "fees/taxes" on water and electric bills). The simplest, clearest, and most honest way to state this is that taxes will go up (increase).

I'm ok with more details, I just want the "taxes will increase" in the first sentence, as that is necessary to balance the earlier phrase: "provides $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding"

One could argue that by listing the funding first and tax increase second, is biased for the initiative, and that to mention a tax increase first and revenue second would be biased against the initiative, but it needs to be done one way, and I'm fine with the spending phrase first and tax increase second.

Thanks for discussing this, and thank your your other edits on this article! ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Avatar317: This seems fair to me. It's a bit tricky to make sure it all remains easy to understand, concise, and as neutral as possible, so I appreciate your help with this. Will go ahead and make that change, thanks! PureFuLT (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Valproate

The reverted edit you did was very wrong. Yes it's unsourced, but I'm just letting you know: You have removed information that is obvious to many demographics. Yes I understand it's in all of our natural instincts to remove unsourced info, but in the future when this keeps popping up, you know why.Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your productivity, patience, diligence, and helpful teaching. Hephestus-1964 (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Gender Pay Gap

It's not about finding sources that say what I want them to say, it's finding an accurate way to summarise the plethora of sources that are out there on the subject without ignoring them. The bottom line is that there are lots of good sources out there showing one way or another that the gap has either stalled or is/could be outright declining in recent years, from here to here to here to here to here to here if you don't want to use the Forbes articles, which I totally understand. But the bottom line is that the sources don't reflect a consensus that COVID-19 is the sole cause of the widening or stagnating gap, and the ones that do link it to COVID don't just link it to daycare centers and schools being closed in particular, hence the wording needs to be more encompassing. I prefer my wording but if you really want to include COVID then perhaps we could combine the two and say something like "Since 2018 however, there are signs that it could be widening again, with the COVID-19 pandemic largely attributed to the reversal." Or something. What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: 1) It's not "what sources I want to use", Reliable Sources are determined by consensus: See: WP:FORBESCON and you can see the listing for Forbes contributors. 2) Any statement added to Wikipedia must be supported by the sources YOU INCLUDE as sources, not some grouping of other sources you've read. 3) The first three sources you list are acceptable (CNBC, NPR, and CNET), but the others are not news organizations reporting on an issue, and wouldn't be considered Reliable Sources: beckershospitalreview.com talks ONLY about physician salaries, this is NOT generalizable to everyone; the kent source is a comment article, and the diversityq is an advocacy organization.

I'll add one sentence to the article using the CNBC and CNET sources, and leave the COVID statement intact, now also supported by the CNBC source. We can't OVER-generalize from sources which only talk about small segments of the labor market to everyone. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just had a look at your added sentence and while I appreciate that you've incorporated some of the sources I previously introduced, your wording of 'since 2018, the gender pay gap has not decreased' is not NPOV and not reflective of the source describing it. The source uses the language "no progress has been made" in its title and then is critical of the stagnation multiple times throughout its body, so I'm gonna rephrase it to reflect that.

The source also discusses other reasons for why gender wage gap growth has fallen off through the pandemic, for reasons other than the one explicitly and specifically focused on within the page text, including that women have been disproportionately impacted by furloughs and because they hold jobs in fields disproportionately shrunk by the nature of the pandemic. Yes we shouldnt over generalise at times or from some of the sources I provided before that focused on particular fields but from the ones linked now, they discuss multiple angles for the gap stagnation/rise and that should be reflected rather one of the reasons in one of the sources focused on in an extremely specific way. Davefelmer (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Your reasons for this change should be discussed on the Talk page FOR THIS ARTICLE, not on my Talk page; while your reasons are valid, your edit should be one which ADDS to the explanation as to why this is happening, rather than giving the reader LESS information and no idea of why the gap might be increasing. Also "stagnated" does not accurately describe what happens as well as "not decreased". ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise you had already transferred our initial conversation onto the article talkpage! But I've seen it now, migrated the rest of our conversation over and replied there! Cheers, Davefelmer (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Birth control darts

Birth control darts are a thing.[4] --Countryboy603 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Countryboy603: Sure, for deer. How is it that you did not notice that the Birth control article is about contraceptives for HUMANS, not veterinary medicine? ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouting

Thank you for reminding that Forbes contributors on expert sources are allowed in narrowed contexts. However please do not use capital letters in the edit summary, in a way that can be considered shouting and incivil. I don't take offence, however you may encounter editors that do, so remember the civility policy the next time an edit upsets. GeraldWL 03:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: It is not meant as shouting, it is meant to emphasize certain points in a text field that does not allow bolding. SHOUTING WOULD BE AN ENTIRE SENTENCE OF ALL CAPS!!!! :-) ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your patience, wit, and helpful teaching, it's much appreciated! I look forward to working on the issues and recommendations mentioned. Best, Hephestus-1964 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleting think-tank sources

I don't understand your stance on think tank sources from your edits in Minimum wage in the United States. You link to WP:RS, but reading over that it seems to say the exact opposite of your stance. It has no stance on think-tanks in general, but it does have a stance on "biased or opinionated sources" (which would seem to include think-tanks), and states that "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". Seeing that, I have no idea what your justification is for deleting all think tank sources. The only doctrinal page I could find even mentioning think tanks was Wikipedia:Articles with a single source which merely prohibits taking the sources from a think-tank as a way of effectively copying a think-tank.

Considering the article quotes several individual people directly (who are also by no means reliable sources) to present the range of opinion on the topic, singling out think tanks seems like an unjustifiable position.

I'll drop this if it's a doctrinal thing for Wikipedia for some reason, but otherwise I will attempt to/call for reverting all of your deletions following this line, or ask that you revert those deletions yourself. Considering I don't have a Wikipedia account (and am not planning on getting one), I'm not signing this, idk if that's rude, but I'm not trying to be. I'll check back to this page within a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.10.3 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Please spend more time familiarizing yourself with Reliable Sources. It is one thing when a think-tank is ATTRIBUTED and used as a source for an OPINION, it is quite another when it is being used to support "facts." Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in balance with others as presented by Independent Sources WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, thought that simply making it clear it was from a biased source could possibly enough, but I forgot the doctrinal distinction between opinion and fact on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.10.3 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Videos as texts

Hi Avatar317; regarding your ES here; yes, videos are regarded as "texts" in academic contexts (see Content_analysis#Kinds_of_text). I was trying to avoid using the term "video" to refer to both pieces together since we've defined one as a "video" and the other as a "film". I understand your point though; maybe "productions" would be a better way to collectively refer to them. I'm not too fussed though. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I just think that most readers (laypeople) might be confused by an academic term, and tried to choose the word (that I think) is most easily understandable to most people given the context. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Of course articles should be as clear as possible, so that's fine and I've no problems leaving it alone. This c/e is quite complex so I'll be active there for a couple more days; feel free to chime in. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 22:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Good catch

Good catch on Minimum Wage in the United States. However, I am still skeptical as to whether it is necessary to include the information in the lead because very few polls show support for a $15.00 minimum wage being that low. I am not familiar with this area of Wikipedia all that much, but I intuitively think it would be best to include more polls in the lead. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: I think that if we had multiple polls in the article then we could summarize them with a single statement in the lead; this article only has these two recent ones in the lead, and some older ones in the "Polls" section, complicated by the fact that from all the polls I've seen, there is greater support for increasing the min wage slightly (to $10 for example - supported also by many economists) and reduced support for larger raises ($15 - not generally supported by economists), and the level of support also varies rather significantly between different political leanings and demographic groups. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent change in article Lancet MMR autism fraud

Hello,

This is regarding the changes that I made in the article Lancet MMR autism fraud calling the published paper fraudulent, that was reverted by you. The paper was fraudulent as stated in the MMR vaccine article. The word fraudulent is defined as "obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception." As stated in the article , the lancet editor-in-chief said that the journal had been deceived into publishing the paper and wakefield's conflict of interest and manipulation was undisclosed/unknown.

So the paper was fraudulently published. I did not revert back to my edit because I didn't want to engage in an edit war, and cause any inconvenience. So I thought It would be appropriate to talk to you directly.

So please considered restoring my version.

Thank you.2409:4042:2E13:BF34:788A:1077:B6FB:D77F (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I restored your version; thanks for discussing this and pointing that out.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Appreciate all your solid work around here! Marquardtika (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Acceptable" edits

Please take care when describing your actions in edit summaries or within a discussion on Wikipedia that you do not suggest a limit to an editor's editing privileges. In the Troy Newman article, you incorrectly reverted my edit, then told me "You could do minor grammar edits separately, those are acceptable." Wikipedia determines what edits "are acceptable." You do not. As a professional editor for more than 35 years with hundreds of published works, and as a Wikipedia editor for more than 11 years, I am quite familiar with what constitutes an "acceptable" edit. I don't like to mention my professional experience, but since you have sought to restrict the "acceptable" areas in which I may edit, I feel it is important for you to understand that this isn't my first rodeo. To answer a question you asked of me, yes, I did read the article. I am happy to return the language of Newman's removal from Australia and agree with you that it is an appropriate part of the intro. I choose to believe that you mean well in your actions. However, your language is unkind, unprofessional, provocative and does not abide by Wikipedia's principle to "always assume good faith" (WP:FAITH). Your language also inhibits the collaborative spirit which should be observed in Wikipedia. I am eager to work together with you to bring this bloated article up to the highest possible standard, but I must insist on professionalism, good faith and a collaborative atmosphere in keeping with the standards established by Wikipedia. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

1) Per WP:BRD, when your first change to a stable article was reverted, YOU should have initiated a Talk page discussion, which you did not. You redid your identical edit (a removal); you later admitted (above as well) that the part I mentioned in my second reversion about the Australia visit IS in fact sourced in the article. Meaning that about half of your first removal and RE-removal was not appropriate.

2) I apologize for quickly choosing the word "acceptable" rather than "non-controversial". My use of that word was in response to you stating that my reversion of your initial edit also reverted a one word British-->American English change, so I was recommending that if you did grammar changes (minor edits that no one would contest) SEPARATELY from content edits, than only the content edit would be reverted. (You should know by now that no one is the King/Queen of Wikipedia, so I can't tell you (or anyone) where you can/cannot edit, only the community has that power.)

The important part is that the article is now slightly improved thanks to (in my opinion) both your and my changes. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

DS alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Factitious disorder by proxy

Hello! In regards to the edit at Factitious disorder by proxy, my main concern is that the article text says that the neurologist stated that the parents encouraged her to be sick. In the actual article, it's a bit more nuanced than that - he said that he wanted them to not encourage her to be sick, but to act like a normal teenager. As reported in various news sources, other doctors did believe her to have mitochondrial disease, and the actual person involved in the case seems to still believe so as well. I think it is controversial to say with certainty that this is a case of factitious disorder by proxy, especially given the attitude of the person concerned in regards to the matter. Is there a way you can think of to rephrase the section so that it is more accurate to what the neurologist in the source article actually said, and perhaps make it more clear that it is merely suspected rather than confirmed in this case? Thank you, Feather Jonah III (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Feather Jonah III: See my recent change to the article. I found three more sources which updated it with the results of the trial. I also restated the neurologist's statement to what the source said. Thanks for bringing this up, it got me to look more at this than I otherwise would have. Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

About Columbia International

About the Columbia International University de-edit, are you serious? [5] They DO have an athletics program, and those are the current sports the school sponsors. What else do you want? jlog3000 (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You have apparently never heard of one of Wikipedia's core principles WP:V?---Avatar317^(talk) 22:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Core principles? I was just posting something that's true or a fact, but also using my own way to express words in regards. And I mean, what I posted wasn't even fake nor false. Which I don't know why it had to be removed. jlog3000 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

First my previous post being removed, now this?: [6] How the hell is that against "core principles", and how do you expect me to verify? I swear that there are people that are against athletics histories of current and former institutions for purposes of education and understanding. Again I was expressing as part of my own words, because I genuine believed that there is no need for a reliable source; unless that is proven from a website that explain otherwise. Like this sample: [7] Which I had to summarize it to avoid a 'copyright violation issue' cuz most of its history does come from a website, like this: http://www.crossroadsleague.com/f/History.php Any other ideas?. jlog3000 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Your: "I genuine believed that there is no need for a reliable source;" is simply WRONG and against Wikipedia's Verifiability principle WP:V. Now, per WP:SPS it would be acceptable to source things like their athletic programs to the website of the college itself, as long as it isn't overly detailed or promotional (saying how great their teams are - that would require Independent Sources WP:IS like newspapers.) To say what sports they participate in/field teams for and what Division they play in would be fine, sourced to the college's own website. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Then what else did I do wrong in such terms? Like in the case of Columbia International's, I only listed the sports the school has actively sponsored (and they are still currently), which are true based on that school's athletic website. But then, I tried to list the sports a former institution sponsored before that school either dropped its athletic program and/or closed the school altogether, like in the case of Patten's, before that got removed oppressively. Any ideas? jlog3000 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to use the and when the argument of Berkeley's zoning code being a model for other single-family zoning codes is weakly or never made in the sources in this article. There is also the section of the lede which states that single-family zoning "both increases the cost of housing units and decreases the supply." Though I do not doubt that this is often true, I also find it inappropriate that this statement is offered without qualification in the lede, especially when the source does not provide much direct information on whether single-family zoning increases costs or decreases supply outside of one example in Washington DC. In fact, that the source for this statement is much more careful about its language supports the idea that this article's lede should similarly refrain from making such unsupported and unqualified statements.

...zoning rules like building height caps and minimum lot sizes often limit the financial feasibility of developing new housing.

— Jenny Schuetz at Brookings

In light of this, I believe my version is better supported by the sources in the lede, and I will restore it.

As a form of exclusionary zoning, it can have the effect of increasing the cost of housing units and decreasing their supply; single-family zoning can also be used as a way to keep members of minority groups out of white neighborhoods. In many United States cities, 75% of land zoned for residential uses is zoned single-family.

I look forward to discussing questions or issues about this page or my edits in the future. LawClement (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC) le

Maintaining neutral point of view in the lede for Single-family zoning

I haven't been editing on Wikipedia regularly since before the @-function, so I'm not sure of the ettiquette around it, so I'll add this to your talk page as I added it to the SFZ talkpage.

There are a few points regarding NPOV that I sought to remedy with an edit I made yesterday in the lede (without being signed in), which was later reverted by @Avatar317 with the memo "Restored sourced statements".

One is that the lede should specify the time periods and locations that are being discussed in regard to single-family zoning. "Recently" will not have the same meaning in ten years, and "the nation" will not have the same meaning for reader. In my edit I added a {{when}} tag to the "Recently" portion and changed "the nation" to "the United States" in order to support a NPOV. Reverting this part of my edit has nothing to do with restoring sourced statements.

The issue that seems more contentious is the part of the lede which states that single-family zoning "is a form of exclusionary zoning" and "was created as a way to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods". These unqualified statements are supported by sources name the 1916 zoning code of Berkeley, California as the first example of single-family zoning in the United States. Because of placement of these statements in the lede, whose purpose is to introduce and summarize the following content, I find that its use of Wikivoice to attribute intentions of the creators of Berkeley's zoning code to the creation of single-family zoning in general to be inappropriate, especially when other sources used in the article include other motivations for single-family zoning, and when the argument of Berkeley's zoning code being a model for other single-family zoning codes is weakly or never made in the sources in this article. There is also the section of the lede which states that single-family zoning "both increases the cost of housing units and decreases the supply." Though I do not doubt that this is often true, I also find it inappropriate that this statement is offered without qualification in the lede, especially when the source does not provide much direct information on whether single-family zoning increases costs or decreases supply outside of one example in Washington DC. In fact, that the source for this statement is much more careful about its language supports the idea that this article's lede should similarly refrain from making such unsupported and unqualified statements.

...zoning rules like building height caps and minimum lot sizes often limit the financial feasibility of developing new housing.

— Jenny Schuetz at Brookings

In light of this, I believe my version is better supported by the sources in the lede, and I will restore it.

As a form of exclusionary zoning, it can have the effect of increasing the cost of housing units and decreasing their supply; single-family zoning can also be used as a way to keep members of minority groups out of white neighborhoods. In many United States cities, 75% of land zoned for residential uses is zoned single-family.

I look forward to discussing questions or issues about this page or my edits in the future. LawClement (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

References

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

• From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function

• News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan

• Section 230: Twenty-six words that created the internet, and the future of an encyclopedia

• Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos

• Special report: Legal status of Wikimedia projects "unclear" under potential European legislation

• In the media: Furor over new Wikipedia skin, followup on Saudi bans, and legislative debate

• Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter

• Opinion: Study examines cultural leanings of Wikimedia projects' visual art coverage

• Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour

• Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles

• Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea

• Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

• News and notes: Terms of Use update, Steward elections, and Wikipedia back in Pakistan

• In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage

• Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?

• Essay: Machine-written articles: a new challenge for Wikipedia

• Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK

• Featured content: Eden, lost.

• Gallery: Love is in the air

• Traffic report: Superbowl? Pfft. Give me some Bollywood! Yours sincerely, the world

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!

• Cobwebs: Editorial: The loss of the moral high ground

• Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

• News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?

• Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy

• In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?

• Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter

• Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

• News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate

• Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians

• In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences

• Featured content: Way too many featured articles

• Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA

• Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

• From the editor: Some long-overdue retractions

• News and notes: Sounding out, a universal code of conduct, and dealing with AI

• In the media: Twiddling Wikipedia during an online contest, and other news

• Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" case is ongoing

• Featured content: Hail, poetry! Thou heav'n-born maid

• Recent research: Language bias: Wikipedia captures at least the "silhouette of the elephant", unlike ChatGPT

• From the archives: April Fools' through the ages

• Disinformation report: Sus socks support suits, seems systemic

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

• News and notes: Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo hands in the bits, and graphs' zeppelin burns

• In the media: Contested truth claims in Wikipedia

• Obituary: Remembering David "DGG" Goodman

• Arbitration report: Holocaust in Poland, Jimbo in the hot seat, and a desysopping

• Opinion: What Jimbo's question revealed about scamming

• Op-Ed: Wikipedia as an anchor of truth

• Special report: Signpost statistics between years 2005 and 2022

• News from the WMF: Collective planning with the Wikimedia Foundation

• Featured content: In which we described the featured articles in rhyme again

• From the archives: April Fools' through the ages, part two

• Humour: The law of hats

• Traffic report: Long live machine, the future supreme

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

• News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU

• In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics

• Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions

• Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!

• Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion

• News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation

• Special report: There Shall Be Seasons Refreshing – Stories from WikiConference India 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

• News and notes: Golden parachutes: Record severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

• In the media: History, propaganda and censorship

• Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"

• Recent research: Create or curate, cooperate or compete? Game theory for Wikipedia editors

• Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles

• Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs

• WikiProject report: Wikipedians Convene for Queering Wikipedia 2023: The First International LGBT+ Wikipedia Conference

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

• News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea

• In the media: Section 230 stands tall, WP vs. UK bill, Miss Information dissed again

• Featured content: Poetry under pressure

• Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

• News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing

• In the media: English WP editor glocked after BLP row on Italian 'pedia

• Featured content: Content, featured

• Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

• News and notes: Online Safety Bill: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK launch open letter

• Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia

• In the media: Journo proposes mass Wiki dox, sponsored articles on Fandom, Section 230 discussed

• Featured content: Incensed

• Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?

• Humour: United Nations dispatches peacekeeping force to Wikipedia policy discussions

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

• News and notes: Big bux hidden beneath wine-dark sea as we wait for the Tides to go out?

• In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia

• Obituary: David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) and Ingo Koll (Kipala)

• News from the WMF: ABC for Fundraising: Advancing Banner Collaboration for fundraising campaigns

• In focus: Are the children of celebrities over-represented in French cinema?

• Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)

• Recent research: Wikipedia-grounded chatbot "outperforms all baselines" on factual accuracy

• Humour: New fringe theories to be introduced

• Cobwebs: If you're reading this, you're probably on a desktop

• Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!

• Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-sequitor

Your recent editing history at Gavin Newsom shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Hello. I am writing because you have reverted a number of changes that I have made to the current Governor of California articles. You are re-adding a non-sequitor point to the article which has been moved to a more relevant section of the article. Thank you for your help and now your point has been added to the relevant section. Take care Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

- Hello, I am writing to you again to request that you please ensure that you add the requested sentence your are attempting to add to the relevant section of the article. Please be respectful.

- I am writing you again because you went into my profile and tagged me with this same tag, and had wikipedia send me a warning, after I tagged your profile here. However, as you can see you were wrong in what you were doing. The very fact that you have not gone back and re-added that ridiculous sentence is an admission of this. We don't want your kind of dishonesty here on Wikipedia. You don't have good intentions. Go blog or something. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

• News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server

• In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change

• Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!

• Obituary: Donald Cram, Peter McCawley, and Eagleash

• Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!

• Humour: Does Wikipedia present neutral perspectives?

• In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia

• Opinion: Are global bans the last step?

• Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July

• Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

• News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects

• In the media: An accusation of bias from Brazil, a lawsuit from Portugal, plagiarism from Florida

• In focus: 2023 Good Article Nomination drive is underway: get your barnstars here!

• Special report: Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still from 2005?

• Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them

• Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing

• Opinion: Copyright trolls, or the last beautiful free souls on this planet?

• Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether

• Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed

• Humour: Arbitration Committee to accept case against Right Honorable Frimbley Cantingham, 15th Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire

• Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

• From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online

• News and notes: You like RecentChanges?

• In the media: Taking it sleazy

• Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia

• Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties

• Humour: The Dehumourification Plan

• Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia power sharing – just an advisory role for the volunteer community?

• In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?

• Obituary: Nosebagbear

• Serendipity: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no paywall, for thou, Wikipedia Library, art with me

• Featured content: Catching up

• Concept: Strange portal opened by CERN researchers brings Wikipedia articles from "other worlds"

• Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Purdue University Global on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published

• In the media: History is written by whoever can harness the most editors

• Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"

• Featured content: By your logic,

• Concept: Wikipedia policies from other worlds: WP:NOANTLERS

• Poetry: "The Sight"

• Traffic report: There shall be no slaves in the land of lands, it's a Bollywood jam

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kfar Aza massacre on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

• News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?

• In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the original collaborative writing

• Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images to make massive improvements

• Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!

• Traffic report: The calm and the storm

• News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes

• Humour: New citation template introduced for divine revelations, drug use, and really thinking about it

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Terrorism on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

• Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015

• In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man

• News and notes: Board candidacy process posted, editors protest WMF privacy measure, sweet meetups

• Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk

• WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023

• News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia

• Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades

• Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.

• Wikidata: Evaluating qualitative systemic bias in large article sets on Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

• In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup

• News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health

• Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads

• Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom

• Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I see what they're doing...

By claiming the article is only about the "surge" and therefore should not include the disinflation period, then since any news articles that come about later in time will be about how the inflation stopped, then that means that they'll be able to claim that those articles are irrelevant to the current article, thereby keeping their narrative on the article intact.

It's genius. Completely evil. But genius.

What do you say about making a 2023 disinflation article? Fephisto (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right, that's why I wanted to name the article "...high inflation period"... I think that might be better, because it would continue. I don't think that "2023 disinflation" is a topic or term that is being used in the news... I'll think more about this, though. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Question about latest edit to lead of Abortion

Hi! First, thanks for your edits to that page, which, among other things, have caught some deficiencies in my edits and fixed them. I do have a question about the sentence "The most common reason women report for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing". Isn't that always the reason for an abortion, that is, doesn't it include all the other reasons given? Perhaps that reason is intended to include only not being ready to have a child (rather than reasons such as a deformed fetus or danger to the health of the woman), but that's not clear and it would also would include several of the other reasons given. So I'm questioning the logic of referring to postponing or stopping childbearing as the most common reason. NightHeron (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that the sentence I questioned is taken directly from the Guttmacher source. But I still don't see the logic of it. Postponing or stopping childbearing is what an abortion does. Saying that that's the most common reason for abortion is like saying that the most common reason employees call in sick is to not go to work that day. Maybe the sentence could be paraphrased, or it could be omitted, and then for the other reasons we could say "Among the most common..." NightHeron (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so that source also says in the "Conclusions" section: the decision to have an abortion is usually motivated by more than one factor.

And: Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns

The "postpone or stop childbearing" could be for reasons OTHER than the socio-economic ones, like birth-timing, or like maybe (not mentioned in this source) but I've seen in a US poll: "so they can spend more mothering time with the children they already have / to be a better mother to the kids they already have", but it is NOT economic constraints.

Also, from same source: Timing births and controlling family size. The desire to postpone a birth or to stop childbearing is a very common reason given by women seeking abortion. In almost half of the 23 studies (in 20 countries) with this information, about 50% or more of women gave the birth-timing and family-size control cluster of reasons as their most important reason.

Essentially, if you read this section in the source it explains that in detail: "Underlying Reasons for Abortion".

Maybe it would be better paraphrased as "The most common reason women report for having an abortion is for birth-timing and limiting family size."? ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I like the paraphrasing in terms of birth-timing and family size. That removes the apparent incongruity of the other less clear wording. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, you are right, my original phrasing basically uses many words to tell the reader nothing, like the previous wording of that sentence, sorry about that. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

15-minute city

Please remember to remain WP:CIVIL on discussion pages such as Talk:15-minute city. All-caps WP:SHOUTING is unlikely to help you make your case when other users have disagreed with your proposed changes. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I use those to emphasize certain words, shouting would be using all caps. I guess I could use bolding instead. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

• News and notes: Beeblebrox ejected from Arbitration Committee following posts on Wikipediocracy

• In the media: Turmoil on Hebrew Wikipedia, grave dancing, Olga's impact and inspiring Bhutanese nuns

• Disinformation report: "Wikipedia and the assault on history"

• In focus: Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged

• Comix: Bold comics for a new age

• Essay: I am going to die

• Featured content: Real gangsters move in silence

• Traffic report: And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain

• Humour: Mandy Rice-Davies Applies

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

you should not have started an edit war here

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=2021%E2%80%942022_inflation_surge&diff=prev&oldid=1189496682

I recommend you self-revert pending Talk resolution soibangla (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You started the edit war by reverting my change (of your misrepresentation of the NYT source) of YOUR ADDITION. You could remove your addition and we could discuss that. ---Avatar317^(talk) 17:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Found something

This may be of interest. Polygnotus (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you prefer, you could combine all those sources in 1 footnote, so that the article just shows a single ^[a] with the templates {{efn}} and {{notelist}} Polygnotus (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

• Special report: Did the Chinese Communist Party send astroturfers to sabotage a hacktivist's Wikipedia article?

• News and notes: The Italian Public Domain wars continue, Wikimedia RU set to dissolve, and a recap of WLM 2023

• In the media: Consider the humble fork

• Discussion report: Arabic Wikipedia blackout; Wikimedians discuss SpongeBob, copyrights, and AI

• In focus: Liquidation of Wikimedia RU

• Technology report: Dark mode is coming

• Recent research: "LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less" with Wikidata

• Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

• Comix: Lollus lmaois 200C tincture

• Crossword: when the crossword is sus

• Traffic report: What's the big deal? I'm an animal!

• From the editor: A piccy iz worth OVAR 9000!!!11oneone! wordz ^_^

• Apocrypha: Local editor discovered 1,380 lost subheadings in ancient Signpost scrolls. And what he found was shocking.

• Humour: Guess the joke contest

• BJAODN: Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Avatar317: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congrats for entering Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000! Keep up the good work! Timothytyy (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

• From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!

• Special report: Public Domain Day 2024

• Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit

• News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!

• In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate

• In the media: What is plagiarism? Oklahoma Disneyland? Reaching a human being at Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine

• Obituary: Anthony Bradbury

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023

• Crossword: everybody gangsta till the style sheets start cascading

• Comix: Conflict resolution

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification: Feedback request service is down

Hello, Avatar317

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

• News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail

• Opinion: Until it happens to you

• Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry

• In the media: Katherine Maher new NPR CEO, go check Wikipedia, race in the race

• In focus: The long road of a featured article candidate, part 2

• Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"

• Comix: We've all got to start somewhere

• Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Housing Inequality

Hi there. I know this is ironic as my username is not a robot, but I can vouch for DaniaHernandez, Abigail Kingston, and Kedmon 10. You may be right that they didn't cite well (I don't know because I can't see what they did), but they are real people. We're in a digital writing class together and we were assigned a project where each group has to edit a Wikipedia page based around a social justice issue. Bear with them as they learn the editing process, most of us have never done this before. Thanks, friend :) NotaRobot5000 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@NotaRobot5000

Thank you. We appreciate this. I know I messed up the one citation, I didn't get a chance to go back and correct the error. We are new to the Wiki community. I apologize for the learning curve we are experiencing. 98.101.109.21 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers

• Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?

• Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to touch grass to dramatically improve images of flora and fauna

• In the media: Speaking in tongues, toeing the line, and dressing the part

• Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?

• Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football

• Crossword: Our crossword to bear

• Comix: Strongly

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment, and at Talk:Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) and Talk:Israel–Hamas war on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Genital modification and mutilation on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"

• Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"

• In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record

• Obituary: Vami_IV

• Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday

• WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Un-dam the Klamath

Thanks for thankyou. I guess the article is drawing to a close now as the dams come down, but the restoration is worth following. The people on the Yurok Tribe condor cam message board (where I became involved with condors' plight) liked it as it shows their efforts to save the salmon that their society is so tied to. I will try to keep an up-to-date section on habitat restoration on their article page which I have started working on and especially the food culture section.Richard Nowell (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You got an email address?

I can send you some sources if you like (you can use https://relay.firefox.com/ for privacy). Polygnotus (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

• Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year

• Interview: Interview on Wikimedia Foundation fundraising and finance strategy

• Special report: 19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles

• Op-Ed: Wikipedia in the age of personality-driven knowledge

• Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors

• News and notes: Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter ratified

• In the media: "For me it’s the autism": AARoad editors on the fork more traveled

• Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune

• Humour: Letters from the editors

• Comix: Layout issue

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:J. K. Rowling on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Brothers of Italy on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

• In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics, and another wikirace on live TV

• News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law

• WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)

• Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users

• Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

• News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections

• Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?

• Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24

• In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis

• Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure

• Comix: Generations

• Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023

• Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade

• Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor

• In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say

• News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024

• Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies

• Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth

• Featured content: We didn't start the wiki

• Essay: No queerphobia

• Special report: RetractionBot is back to life!

• Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer

• Comix: The Wikipediholic Family

• Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox

• Concept: Palimpsestuous

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Bolsa Familia Social Program in Brazil

Hi Avatar317, Revision history on the article "Bolsa Familia" shows you deleted my edit of 16th May 2024 as coming from an unreliable source. I'm not sure whether you do indeed understand the topics you censor or just apply a set of rules, but my edit is very much true and reliable. Please find below the link to a Youtube video where President Lula da Silva makes the statements I faithfully quoted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTMckO9i53A I trust you will undo your deletion after watching the original video (from the year 2000), and allow my paragraph to be featured at the page, offering readers very relevant context on the issue. Thanks 2A02:8308:317:BE00:F92E:3A5A:96A8:C3CE (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, when you added the paragraph I removed: [[8]], you didn't list ANY source. But Lula's speech is what on Wikipedia is considered a WP:PRIMARY source. We generally want editors (us) to use WP:SECONDARY sources so that we editors don't pick and choose which parts of the primary source to represent or talk about or interpret. Interpretation or choosing which lines to quote from a primary source is what we are supposed to let reporters (who have journalistic training) do. They are trained to tell the WHOLE story, from a balanced point of view. Cheers! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

sorry for the trouble

Sorry for any trouble I caused joining in editing yesterday. I think all of us were trying to make the article better. I don't know how it ended up as an administrative issue. BasketOfDucklings (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

• News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates

• Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board

• In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators

• Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna

• In the media: War and information in war and politics

• Sister projects: On editing Wikisource

• Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan

• Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion

• Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos

• Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections

• Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares

• Humour: A joke

• Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn

• Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps

• Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Environmental impacts of artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KQED.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linear no-threshold model. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

What the HELL are you talking about? ONE reversion against ONE editor is not edit-warring. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Responding to your query on my talk: 3RR is not an entitlement. You were warned for restoring a contested edit in violation of WP:ONUS rather than joining the ongoing discussion on the talk page, which already involves more than one editor. Angelfire should be obviously recognizable as failing WP:RS in any context to any experienced editor. Also review WP:CIVIL, please and thank you. VQuakr (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

How about you be civil and not LIE about edits. What sort of BULLSHIT is this comment? "You were warned for restoring a contested edit in violation of WP:ONUS". Where did you make any comment about my edit being against consensus or non-consensus on the Talk page; that discussion seemed to have no real conclusion, and you never even mentioned it when reverting me, nor did the editor I reverted make any edit summary about the Talk page subjects. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"no real conclusion" means there isn't consensus to restore the contested content per WP:ONUS. And the responsibility to check the talk page is yours (though a more thorough check on your part may reveal that I did in fact mention the talk page): you, and no one else, is responsible for your behavior. Please review WP:AGF since you seem to have some issues with that along with civility. Kind regards. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

And you CLEARLY have problems with incivility and inability to admit when you are wrong. Instead of making such a rude and obnoxious comment in your edit summary: "use talk page, and no one should need to explain to you why angelfire is not a RS!" - where you must be referring to how you stupidly removed THE ARCHIVE LINK but NOT the source itsself, and you ignored the THREE OTHER SOURCES I was referring to, and then continue to be even more uncivil by this ridiculous post about edit warring here on my talk page.

You COULD HAVE used an edit summary like: "Those sources were discussed on the Talk page and decided to be poor sources; if you feel differently, please discuss on the Talk page."

And if YOU were civil, you would apologize for starting this conversation in the first place with an inappropriate Edit War warning. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If you have any concerns about my alleged incivility I'd be happy to discuss those concerns at ANI. Beware the boomerang, however. Enjoy your weekend! VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving that you are an insecure narcissist who lacks the ability to admit when you are wrong. Now could you please stop TROLLING my Talk page, or must you as an insecure narcissist get the last word? ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

And please add WP:NPA to your burgeoning reading list. Maybe take a walk, touch some grass. Hope you feel better soon. VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: It seems I got caught in a crossfire between you and VQuakr. I see that you are both big contributors to WP, so I don't doubt anyone's good faith in this debate over LNT, but I am frustrated that VQuakr seems to be nitpicking over the rules, rather than the substance of the debate. I understand that WP is not a forum for ongoing discussion, so I linked to a more appropriate forum for that purpose. He deleted my link, calling it spam. That seems like censorship, not just avoiding topic debate on the article's talk page. I see from your other contributions that you do have some expertise relevant to this topic, and I will welcome your participation in the discussion. Please contact me, if you are interested. macquigg at gmail. David MacQuigg 09:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I think you have the right side of this debate. The UCS anti-nuclear view should be left out until there is "consensus". But I worry about VQuakr's lawyering skills, arguing that his version has "long standing" status. However, if you look at the articles edit history, the "long standing" version should be the one where I had a good balance between the two sides. [9] That version stood for four months, before a massive deletion by WritKeeper. At that point I gave up. Does my failure to challenge the bias at that time, constitute acceptance of a new "long standing" status? David MacQuigg 04:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Thank you for enduring this long acrimonious debate and getting a fair resolution. The ThorCon article is still nowhere close to what it should be, but I'm not willing to spend time fighting for every inch of improvement. Other experts have the same feelings about WP, a "bottomless rabbit hole" one called it. However, we are willing to help, if you need technical backup. Are you getting these messages? David MacQuigg 16:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am. If you can find any of what Wikipedia calls Reliable Sources WP:RS about ThorCon and post them to the Talk page there, I and others can add content from those sources. I found this chapter from a 2024 book, [10] but the two authors appear to both employed by ThorCon. Often simply FINDING sources can be the hardest problem. I don't have access to the many academic libraries/publishers which are paywalled; if you have this type of access, those types of sources are generally very good, as long as they talk about Thorcon, and not just MSR's in general. Thanks!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have free access to that book, as I am now retired from the University of Arizona, but if it is important, I can pay the $31.50 they are asking for the chapter on ThorCon. As for sources that satisfy WP:RS that is going to be difficult, since the only people who really know the details of this reactor are the engineers who designed it. My experience in trying to dig up sources for WP is that nothing will be good enough. On the ThorCon design, I tried to cite their filing with the IAEA. See the discussion on the talk page for how ridiculous the opposition gets.

Citing sources is a lot easier at Citizendium. I showed that UCS complaint to ThorCon and got an immediate response. The complaint and response go together on our Debate Guide page, and I'm done, until someone on the anti-nuke side wants to challenge it, then we may have to dig into the IAEA filings to verify what the ThorCon engineer said. That kind of challenge rarely happens. What I get is flimsy rationales, defending the UCS report: Their statement that all MSRs require on-site chemical fuel processing (introducing a risk of diversion) is true because collecting the gases that bubble off the reactor is "chemical processing". This is the kind of BS we save our readers from having to endure.

If you want to improve the WP article, take a look at what we have on CZ. Surely some of it could go on WP without challenge. Or you could join us at CZ and write articles without having to spend half your time fighting with people who abuse the rules to suppress information they don't like. David MacQuigg 21:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317 You said on my talk page that you were "interested in pretty much everything in the nuclear subject area". Are you interested enough to help us develop these articles in Citizendium? Many of them could be ported to WP, if there is someone like yourself willing to defend them. David MacQuigg 00:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia's policies would not allow Citizendium articles to be "ported" to Wikipedia, and I don't have the power to individually make policy. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not have said "ported". Is there any information in Citizendium's ThorCon article that might be useful in Wikipedia? Do you agree with me that CZ's articles are far better than WP for anyone interested in understanding the new technology? This was originally a WP article, then "ported" to CZ, where it was more fully developed, then "ported back" to WP, where it was "longstanding" for a few months, then someone did a massive deletion, claiming it was all "promotional". If you are interested in improving WP coverage of nuclear power, there are a lot of things that could be done. You might, for example, restore the earlier version of the WP article, then demand that the anti-nukers justify each deletion. This is going to be a lot of work, but if you are willing to battle the rule-bots and anti-nukers, I will do what I can to get better sources from experts on our panel at CZ. David MacQuigg David MacQuigg 14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

• Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo

• News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation Board resolution and vote on the proposed Movement Charter

• Essay: Reflections on editing and obsession

• In the media: What's on Putin's fork, the court's docket, and in Harrison's book?

• Obituary: JamesR

• Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword

• Humour: Joe Biden withdraws RfA, Donald Trump selects co-nom

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A mixed-use apartment building for you!

	The upzoner's award
	For your insight, which led to a major improvement to the lead sentence of YIMBY movement. — Jruderman (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:EW

You were already warned about edit warring in a section just above. Next step is AN3 since this hasn't abated with your latest violation at [11]. As a reminder, 3RR is not an entitlement. Do not edit war. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Avatar317 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For defending Wikipedia against those who are NOTHERE! Polygnotus (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

• In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

• Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

• In focus: Twitter marks the spot

• News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.

• Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

• Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing

• Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird

• Humour: I'm proud to be a template

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

• News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

• In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?

• Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

• News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election

• Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024

• Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year

• Traffic report: After the gold rush

• Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

YIMBY/NIMBY

Hey. No problem, I was just trying to match the antonym's article, which mentioned its antithesis in both the lede and the See Also section, lol. Doesn't bother me much though if they're different.

Although if "YIMBY" were removed from "NIMBY"'s see also, it would make the columns even, and then my OCD would be soooo happy. But I'm sure that would get reverted too, so why even bother right? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 23:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

POV issue

I don't understand your worry about POV issues involving new citations and source verification fixes in MMT. If for some reason you don't feel like discussing it on talk, I am confused about your position. I was trying very hard to be neutral and don't have a dog in that economic school. Poorly written and confusing articles just bother me 98.118.249.192 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Basem Al-Shayeb on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

• In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"

• Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus

• Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics

• Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing

• News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?

• Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia?

• Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors

• Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

• News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

• Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

• In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

• Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

• Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

• Book review: The Editors

• Humour: The Newspaper Editors

• Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

user@ EXAMPLE.com

Dr dharwesh karwan and suns@ Gmail com. 2404:3100:1445:6720:1:0:D6BF:3D94 (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DaveApter (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

• From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

• In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

• Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

• Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

• In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

• Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

• Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

• Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

?

What was going on here? jp×g🗯️ 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/History and geography on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Banaras Hindu University on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

• News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases

• In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names

• Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions"

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024

• Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Link

[12] Polygnotus (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Dilation and evacuation (abortion) dispute. Seeking resolution and civil dialogue.

Hello, @Avatar317,

I hope this message finds you well. I’m writing to address your reversions of my recent attempted edits to the Dilation and evacuation article. I thought it would be worth a shot to attempt to resolve these concerns and this dispute mutually and without unnecessary, prolonged drama. My intention here is to foster a constructive dialogue, address any misunderstandings, and explore how we can collaboratively improve the article.

In your reversion of my edits, you stated that my changes constituted "POV pushing" and cited my editing history as evidence of bias. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of my edits, and I’d like to explain why.

1. The changes I proposed were grounded in reputable sources, including medical textbooks and training manuals that describe the procedure in detail. Specifically, the use of terms like "dismemberment" and "decapitation" are used to describe the abortion procedure in Dr. Warren Hern's "Abortion Practice" textbook, a reputable and widely cited manual on abortion procedures that is still used in training today. They are not intended to push a narrative. Instead, they reflect the terminology and descriptions used in reliable sources, such as Dr. Warren Hern's textbook, which is widely cited in the medical field. You can also read "Dilation and Evacuation" [13] from Medicover Hospitals to read more about how the procedure is performed. The terms "dismemberment" or "decapitation" are not terms of "pushing a certain point of view," they are medically accurate and factual terms that describe the procedure.
2. My intention in editing the Dilation and evacuation article is to add clarity and detail to the Surgical procedure section, which is currently, in my opinion, vague and undetailed. For instance, the phrase "uterine contents are removed" lacks specificity and does not fully inform readers about the nature of the procedure. Including the medical steps and rationale, such as the use of forceps to extract fetal body parts and the importance of ultrasonography, provides a more accurate representation of the procedure as described in medical literature.
3. I am very familiar with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and I always strive to uphold it. Looking at many of your edits on abortion-related topics as well, and some of your conversations above in this talk page on similar matters, many of your edits and reversions appear to have been motivated from a point of view that is in favor of abortion access. However, I am going to assume good faith, and I would appreciate if you would do the same for me as well. It is my editorial view that the article should specify that the abortion procedure is "generally safe to the mother" instead of calling it safe altogether. By broadly calling the procedure safe, you are blatantly endorsing a pro-abortion-rights perspective, because no anti-abortion person (nor many pro-abortion-rights scholars) would consider the procedure to be safe for the embryo or fetus. You implied that I tried hiding that edit in the edits I attempted to make, when that's not true. I believe that the article is written in a way that completely ignores what happens to the fetus during the procedure, and that generalizes the procedure as safe in a way that, in WikiVoice, completely erases the fetus from consideration.
4. I recognize that discussions around abortion articles can be highly charged, and I appreciate the need to guard against bias on all sides. However, your edit summary referenced my editing history and implied that I am "not here to improve Wikipedia." I’d like to address this directly. I have a wide variety of contributions on Wikipedia, and any honest look at my editing history would reveal that I spend time working on a variety of different articles and topics, including abortion. I am a biology student who has a very deep interest in embryology, and my goal is to help improve and expand articles on Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if concerns about individual edits were addressed on their own merits rather than attributing a generalized intent to my contributions.

To move forward, here are some ideas on how we can resolve this issue and improve the article:

• I’m happy to provide the specific pages and context for the sources I used, including Warren Hern’s textbook, if you'd like wider ranges of context.
• I'm open to working with you to see how we can keep the article in a way that does not take a perspective on the abortion debate, but simply portrays the facts.

While I disagree with many of your edits and your decisions, I do respect the time and effort you’ve put into contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope we can work together to improve this article for the benefit of all readers. Please let me know your thoughts or if there’s a preferred way to proceed. I hope we can have a civil dialogue regarding this.

Kindly,

DocZach DocZach (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your failure to WANT to understand (WP:IDHT) that your edits like: "generally safe to the mother" are not POV pushing is YOUR problem. ZERO readers assume that during an abortion a fetus will be removed from the woman and implanted into another woman or artificial uterus to be then gestated to term.

EVERYONE understands that the fetus will die, just like bacterial cells die when we use antibiotics, but we don't list antibiotics as "safe for humans, but not bacteria." ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're being disingenuous here. A fetus is an individual human organism, a bacteria is not. When we are referring to safety in terms of medications or procedures, we are usually referring to the safety of humans. A fetus is not safe during a dilation and evacuation abortion, because they are dismembered and subsequently deceased. You wouldn't call a boxing match "safe" for both participants if one is knocked unconscious, even if the match is conducted under strict rules and the referees ensure the other fighter isn’t harmed. Similarly, calling a dilation and evacuation abortion "safe" doesn’t apply to the fetus, as its death is an inherent and inevitable part of the procedure. The term "safe" in this context only refers to the pregnant woman, not to the fetus. By calling the procedure "safe," you are inherently taking on a pro-abortion point of view, because you are implying that the fetus is not a human being and does not possess any consideration in the discussion.

Secondly, my most recent edit that you reverted did not even include the statement "generally safe to the mother." My most recent edit added to the article information about the frequency of the procedure, and the details of the surgical portion of the procedure. You still have not addressed how describing the procedure (the use of dismemberment or decapitation) is "POV pushing." DocZach (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

• News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes

• Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5

• Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited

• Op-ed: On the backrooms by Tamzin

• In focus: Are Wikipedia articles representative of Western or world knowledge?

• In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial

• Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody

• Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)