User talk:KoA

I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit.

Tuhin Sinha

I saw your message on the talk page. It was unfortunate that the article was recreated without caring about the Wikipedia policies. I would encourage you to start an AfD and I will support the deletion. Thanks - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to piece together yet how things compare between the last AfD and what changes were made when the article was recreated. It's possible notability was met, but that's why I was asking since the AfD had such strong consensus for deletion. KoA (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert by mistake

You recently mistakenly revert my revert due to: WP:1RR violation, while it was my first revert at all.Mentioned reversion Freestyler Scientist (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You've been cautioned already about calling people's edits mistakes when they are not. You clearly made two reverts in a single day, and I suggest reading the guidance you already linked. Your edit was also undone because you are not getting consensus for your edits on the talk page. That is another type of edit warring. My advice in general is not to WP:LEADBOMB as Bon Courage mentioned or WP:BLUDGEON the process. If you have specific small edits to make, then propose them on the talk page at this point. Trying to reinsert large swathes of text either by edit warring or on the talk page with problematic sourcing makes any sort of discussion extremely difficult. KoA (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand what you call 'revert'.

I've made two edits, first was reverted, then discussed. The second was edit added without all parts mentioned as problematic. Including deletion of minor part of text, and the part that were mentioned as LeadBomb, and sourced with articles with COIs

The second edit was reverted without reason, so I WP:Obvert. And it was the single reverts. I want to mention: Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Freestyler Scientist (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this wasn't a 1RR violation - the first edit was not a revert. There are probably other justifiable reasons to revert, but 1RR isn't. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The first edit today[1] clearly said in the edit summary they were restoring reverted content from removed content two days prior.[2]. That technically wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, though is a type of slow edit warring. The second edit today[3] is what clearly crossed the 1RR brightline, and other reasons were given for the reversion on the talk page (mostly repeated what they had already been told). KoA (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There are huge differences between first and second edition. I exactly amended or deleted all the parts to which there were objections in discussion. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I realise that it was a revert and I'm sorry for the bothering. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

On a wiki-break for awhile

This slowdown has already been in the works for a bit already, but just a heads up for my talk page watchers that I probably won't be available much for proactive editing or checking up on related science topics in the coming months. With the repercussions from the US federal government impacting science and scientific integrity, it's taking up so much energy to deal with the first-hand impacts of that in real life that there really isn't anything left in the tank when it comes to getting work done here.

It's especially tough for us university critters that are supposed to be helping farmers or the general public with serious issues only to have so much federal infrastructure that was meant to address those things being hobbled. That's while still being tasked with trying to address those problems with even fewer resources while even being attacked because a grant includes the word biological "diversity". There's a lag effect really priming up where those of us who work with the feds a lot are dealing with the problems arising first-hand, but others like farmers or especially the general public may not notice the full impacts of that right away until it starts compounding. I can't say much more except that there is a serious crisis brewing now even with the agencies I've worked with over the years (without even getting into agencies related to broader areas like health). Those of us who remain in that public sphere are already having to deal a lot behind the scenes that really doesn't make the news or social media. During COVID in 2020 was the time to really look out for those in healthcare. If you know of anyone who works as a scientist in the public sector online or IRL, now is a time to look out for them as well.

I'll still be glancing at my watchlist on occasion, but if anything comes up that would be worthwhile to focus on a bit in the science realm, feel free to ping me. I imagine the need for that here, especially in fringe areas, is only going to increase, but I hope we don't lose to many other editors to dealing with that in real life. KoA (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear that this is affecting you. Jeez, biological diversity as DEI. I'm glad that I'm retired. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)