User talk:KoA

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

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

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Robert McClenon can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Who do you think you are to monitor and stalk me? This is not the first time. Mind your business, otherwise there will be actions you don't want. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EpicAdventurer, I've been trying to help you so that you don't get blocked for the battleground behavior and sniping at editors. That's because I do think you're in a position where you can course correct and focus on editing articles instead. I noticed that when I first posted on your talk page when you were new.[1] When I looked at the AfD (which I did not participate in), it's very clear you're having continuing issues with comments like This is manipulation on your part., Are you speaking honestly?, How do you rate? Do you understand what you are doing?, or I'm fed up with this "encyclopedia". It has turned into a authoritarian community not a cooperative one. often in response to those trying to work with you.

Meanwhile, many editors there are giving you good advice on what would be needed for an article while being very tolerant of your sniping. Remember that when I was talking to Robert McClenon, I was saying they were being very even-handed. No one is voting to delete that article you made, they're mostly just saying it's not ready yet, but could be someday, hence draftify. That's not a bad outcome at all and definitely doesn't warrant the responses you've been giving.

The whole point I've been getting at with you in past discussions is that Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Simply just knock off the personal attacks and you'll be fine as you learn the ropes and discuss things civilly on talk pages. Lashing out at editors like you've been doing, especially when experienced ones give you basic advice about policy that you dismiss as nonsense,[2] does not help anyone. I'm taking time here hoping you recognize the problem now so you can steer away from it. KoA (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you undid my work on the glyphosate article for the 2nd time (25 hours after the first—nice.) the main basis you claimed for doing so was that my revert went "against the expectations of 1RR" on the page.

It did not.

My original addition was 23 hours and 51 minutes before I undid your revert, but it is not the "1 modification rule", it is the 1 revert rule. (also: even if there were such a rule, invoking it to delete four hours of research, writing, and citation work over a 9 minute discrepancy does not scream "good faith".)

You've clearly been at this long enough that you should know how all this works, although I understand that you're probably used to edit warring with people on pages like this, so I will gladly forgive the mistake. Please undo your 2nd revert, as I will not be baited into actually violating the 1RR by undoing yours before 24h have elapsed. (Don't think I don't see you.)

As an aside: I hope you understand my skepticism about your intentions when you try to demand talk page "consensus" before any future edits, given that my addition was specifically about a case where a consensus by supposedly independent contributors turned out to be the result of an elaborate, unconventional, and undisclosed corporate campaign to control the narrative around this compound.

For the record, I don't believe glyphosate is a carcinogen—at least not directly. I do have a hunch it might inhibit some isoforms of 1-deoxyxylulose-5-phosphate synthase in addition to EPSP synthase, but that's neither here nor there. WhichDoctor (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content itself is already discussed on the talk page including what Silver seren recently mentioned.

On behavior, the expectations of 1RR include avoiding WP:GAMING by adding content then reinserting it after it's been disputed. 1RR had to be put in place in part because editors often would not follow WP:ONUS policy, much like you did when reinserting your content the second time. Arbs were clear on that when 1RR was imposed. What is supposed to happen is if you are bold and an edit is reverted, you go to the talk page to get consensus if you want to restore it, not edit war and force others to have to deal with the problems that causes. Please also keep in mind that WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior like you're exhibiting in these comments has no place on Wikipedia, especially in contentious topics like this or saying you're skeptical of someone's intentions. KoA (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]