Hi, Dustfreeworld. I see you are editing numerous articles with biomedical content, so wanted to give you some information regarding our sourcing guidelines in that area, and how to write citations for most medical articles (depending on WP:CITEVAR).

• WP:MEDRS explains Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for biomedical content; typically, primary studies are avoided and secondary literature reviews are used.
  • See also WP:MEDDATE.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches is a bit dated, but still provides a useful overview of important information about how to find the MEDRS-compliant sources
• Once you have a PMID from Pubmed, you can plug that PMID in to this tool to get a correctly written citation.

Also, I see in your archive that someone alerted you in the past to the importance of discussing edits to gain consensus when editing a Featured article (eg schizophrenia and welding). You can propose and discuss additions on article talk when you see the bronze star in the top right corner of an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia. Thank you for the useful information about citation tool, and thanks for adding the three new sources you've found to the risk factors page.

Thanks. Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dustfreeworld, I was just cleaning out my To-Do list,[1] and realized this was still there. I'm so sorry; it was a rough summer here for both good and bad reasons. And now I can't remember what the issues were at Schizophrenia. Is there something I should revisit, or have we moved beyond <whatever it was>? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope you are doing well and safe, Sandy. It’s so nice to see you here :)

As to Schizophrenia, I think there are increasing number of promising research on the relationship between air pollution and SZ (and other mental disorders) in recent years. Some of those are likely compliant to MEDRS and it would be great if the information can be incorporated into the article.

1) "Air Pollution's Impact on Mental Health". Psychiatry.org. 12 Apr 2023. Retrieved 18 Nov 2023. 12:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

2) Song R, Liu L, Wei N, Li X, Liu J, Yuan J, Yan S, Sun X, Mei L, Liang Y, Li Y, Jin X, Wu Y, Pan R, Yi W, Song J, He Y, Tang C, Liu X, Cheng J, Su H (January 2023). "Short-term exposure to air pollution is an emerging but neglected risk factor for schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis". Sci Total Environ. 854: 158823. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158823. PMID 36116638.

3) Attademo L, Bernardini F, Garinella R, Compton MT (March 2017). "Environmental pollution and risk of psychotic disorders: A review of the science to date". Schizophr Res. 181: 55–59. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2016.10.003. PMID 27720315. (2020 update: "M239. ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION AND RISK FOR PSYCHOTIC DISORDERS: AN UPDATE - PMC".)

4) Attademo L, Bernardini F (2020). "Air Pollution as Risk Factor for Mental Disorders: In Search for a Possible Link with Alzheimer's Disease and Schizophrenia". J Alzheimers Dis. 76 (3): 825–830. doi:10.3233/JAD-200289. PMID 32568207.

I’ll leave it to the more experienced users like you to decide which ones are MEDRS compliant. The references used in #1 may worth a look as well. #2 looks good. #3 looks a bit dated but they have an update in 2020, and they seem to have a mention on heavy metals. I can’t access the full-text of some of them. I hope it helps. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at those sources took me into a deeper dive into multiple other conditions, but like you, I can't access the full-text of all of them, so want to do more work on this. I may have access at a research library tomorrow, depending on how my day at the clinic goes, so give me a few days. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Don’t worry, take your time. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the clinic now, the research librarian is out and the assistants acted like pulling up three articles was beyond their ability, so I left the list, and the librarian will allegedly snail mail the articles to me. So old school <sigh> ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So old school <sigh> ...

Best of luck with everything that lies ahead.[[File:Cat mailing a postcard Here's Luck!, artist signed Lawson Wood (NBY 17881).jpg|thumb|left|Here's Luck!]] 12:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; that's so nice of you. Because of the Thanksgiving holiday in the US, I have no idea when I might expect these articles to arrive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No hurry; and happy thanksgiving :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Green wall, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I can see there's already been discussion on your page regarding issues with sourcing. Reverting my edits which were to remove unsourced content is not appropriate. Please read WP:REFB for a guide on how to properly add inline citations. Mr.weedle (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Mr.weedle (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr.weedle. As I mentioned in the edit summary, the content you removed is SOURCED, which was added by User:Sharksa99 in 2019 and had stood there for over 4 years:

887326010

You can find the sources (general references) he used in the section "Sources". I had added the tag More footnotes needed to reflect this as well. As per the template,

This template indicates that the article cites a sufficient number of reliable sources, but uses an inappropriate combination of inline citations and general references. All material in articles must be verifiable, but outside of featured articles and good articles Wikipedia does not require the use of inline citations...

Please check again. Thank you. Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General references are not necessarily used to support giant paragraphs of information, but are used the support the general article itself. As the content has been removed it’s also considered challenged, so please review [[Wikipedia:MINREF]].

You should be striving to add content as if it was a GA. Paragraph after paragraph of no inline citations makes it impossible for readers to understand where each paragraph is sourced from. It’s highly uncustomary, and not in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve on this encyclopedia.

if every statement can be supported, please add the inline references. Mr.weedle (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to WP:MINREF. In the page it says: "If you can't find the source of a statement without an inline citation after a good-faith look, ask on the talk page, or request a citation." Have you done that?

It also says: "Editors are expected to use good judgment when determining whether material has been challenged. For example, section blanking may be considered vandalism, rather than a demand for inline citations". Not just section blanking but removing some sections completely (-3,128 bytes), what you have done here (May 1) may be considered vandalism rather than a challenge according to WP:MINREF. Please don't try to confuse people that I'm vandalizing by "adding uncited content enmass". Those sourced content was added by User: Sharksa99 four years ago. I noticed that you removed a large amount of sourced content (3,128 bytes), which wasn't challenged and had remained in the page for over 4 years (an action which may be considered vandalism per WP:MINREF), and so I undid your action (May 6). That's it. Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please also review WP: PRESERVE, WP:3RR, WP: ROLLBACK and inline cleanup tags and consider undoing your last edit at Green wall. Thank you. Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding unsourced content in considered a valid reason for 3RR (which I don’t think was violated, please read it closely). As adding uncited content enmass is considered to be vandalizing the encyclopedia, rollback use is also justified.

If we had to go and manually cleanup poor edits, we’d be outpaced 10:1 with edits and vandals. I’m sorry if you feel this is personal, I promise it is not, it’s just a fact of this being on the open internet and run by volunteers. We have limited resources, and keeping the encyclopedia in check can be a constant, fast paced struggle. Mr.weedle (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On May 1 2023, you performed four reverts[2][3][4][5] on the Green wall page (history), reverting good faith edits made by other users (not by me). According to WP:3RR, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". Yes there are exemptions to the 3RR rule:

4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

But I don't think the exemptions apply to the reverts you made.

On May 6 2023, I noticed that you had removed a large amount of sourced content from the page (May 1) and so I undid your edit and added a tag to ask for more inline citations. And these edits were reverted by you using rollback later on the same day (May 6). As per WP: ROLLBACK

Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed.

I didn't go into details about all these in my previous posts because I appreciate your work in fighting true vandalism and I hope those are just careless mistakes or mistakes caused by misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy. IMHO, we all make mistakes, and leaders are those who will admit it when they've made a mistake, correct it, learn from it, and move on. Lastly, I believe retaining good faith editors and preserving their efforts are as important as fighting vandalism. Again, please review WP: PRESERVE, WP:3RR, WP: ROLLBACK and WP:MINREF and consider undoing your last edit at Green wall. Thank you. Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sick building syndrome, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Dustfreeworld. You recently reverted a change I made to keep safety within a section about characteristics of of the construction industry. You assert "Safety is not a “characteristic” of the industry. It’s a big problem caused by and also affecting the construction industry."

Previous edits of the construction article have created a logical hierarchy of four main headings: History, Sectors, Processes, Scale and characteristics. The latter's subsections included Economic activity, Employment, Sustainability, and (until you removed it) Safety. I do not share your view that this should be added to a main section of its own. Indeed, arguably, (a lack of) sustainability is an even greater problem with causes by and impacts upon the construction sector. I think the change you made warrants further discussion on the construction Talk page with other editors to establish a consensus for your move. You clearly have a strong interest in air and dust pollution-related matters, but, in my view, your focus on these areas is potentially skewing the construction article by making safety more prominent than other issues (WP:Undue).

I propose to revert the change and invite you to discuss it there on the article Talk page (I have left a message there). If there is a consensus for a separate section, all well and good, but if not, safety should remain within the Scale and characteristics section. Thank you for reading. Paul W (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vacosea (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a word of friendly advice, an administrator has already commented on ANI saying that you did nothing sanctionable and no case should have been brought against you at ANI. Just stop posting there, the only way any sanction can be taken against you is by you talking yourself into trouble. You aren't being at all careful with your words, which is understandable as this situation has obviously got under your skin, but you need to stop using such emotive language. Just take a breather, and maybe strike out the Goebbels stuff and the sentences where you use the word "liar".

All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am just about to strike out some of that. I’m not really that angry, although what they have done are in fact more than what’s been pointed out at ANI. Yes you are right I should be more careful with my words. I’m really too new there. And English level and cultural backgrounds (and I really don’t know much about that G.. .) maybe problems too. Thanks so much for the friendly advice :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I presume you saw the talk page discussion? Doug Weller talk 19:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good photos but are you sure they aren't copyright? The source says they are.

I'm hoping that that Michael S. Okun will have new images we can use sometime very soon. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Doug Weller. This is the source.

At the bottom of the page:

“© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).”

And at the top if you click on the words “Open access”: “All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess”

I think the license they use is CC BY 4.0. Is that OK? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dustfreeworld oops. Yes, thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:COPYVIO. You recent addition to Wildfire appears to be copied directly from the article. Please summarize the relevant info in your own words, or if neccesary, use quotations. Crescent77 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Copyvios are subject to speedy deletion. Crescent77 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn’t say you are wrong. As I’ve said in my edit summary, “I’m just about to fix it but just want to let others check for source to text integrity first. You are really fast though. BTW after undoing my edit, the page contains wrong information (“80 percent”)…) Thanks anyway.” I’m going to fix that old maybe-copyvio introduced by others. Wouldn’t it be nice if you’d helped adding that little quotation marks, instead of leaving two consecutive posts on my talk page in 2.5 hours? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no excuse for copyright violations. Please don't copypaste material from copyrighted works into WP at all, unless it is a direct quotation. Crescent77 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s not “excuse”. I didn’t notice it when I pressed the Publish button (since it’s NOT introduced to WP by me). When I noticed it I decided to “let it be” and wait for some time to let others check the source-to-text integrity before fixing it. My apologies for blindly copying other Wikipedian work and not being more careful before pressing Publish, but please assume good faith. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right on, I do think you are doing good work in good faith here, I apologize if anything I said made you think I thought otherwise.

For your reference, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Crescent77 (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s OK, just a slight misunderstanding. It happens :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Dustfreeworld - I've started talk page discussion on Lee's nationality[6]. While you claim sources have no "disagreement" on describing her as "Chinese-American",[7] many sources say the opposite and vary all over in how to describe Lee (including from Lee herself). Clear Looking Glass (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for adding information and sources to Industrial Fasteners Institute. I originally wasn't confident that we could find many sources for, but I'm so glad that we were able to improve the article. I love the fun detail you added about the Titanic disaster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! WhatamIdoing, that’s very kind of you!! Much needed, and it’s my first! --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have nothing to worry about. I thought the study of 4.4 million Swedes was relevant enough to be written that way.

Regarding the economic theory, I thought that that was relevant for Dependency theory because of:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/abs/populism-in-place-the-economic-geography-of-the-globalization-backlash/98ED873D925E0590CB9A78AEC68BB439 and https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/abs/rising-inequality-as-a-threat-to-the-liberal-international-order/4CDE05DEB3AB076CE338E1AA4A9C8087

Regarding the page Deregulation: I think that that's inevitable as the pro and con sections are both incredibly short. I noticed that you left the undue weight template standing even after the texts from Populism were removed.

Regarding your suggestion to trim the theory down to three sentences or so, I will see what I can do. Lau737 (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lau737, I didn’t reply because I’m not sure I understand fully what you mean except the last paragraph. And I also don’t understand why you choose to address the concerns I raised at your talk page here at my talk page. Anyway, I appreciate that you said you would consider trimming your edit. As most articles you edited aren’t in my main editing field, I’ll probably leave the issues for others to deal with. Just a word of friendly advice, if you continue your style of editing without listening to the opinions of other Wikipedian (not just me, but the many others who have complained on your talk page), you are putting yourself into trouble, sooner or later. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mercury (element) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Dustfreeworld, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 15:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas3)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Dustfreeworld: 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, Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

many thanks for your xmas wishes, all the same to you Boynamedsue (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Dustfreeworld: 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, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes - many thanks for the greetings and very best wishes to you for the New Year --Iztwoz (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Dustfreeworld: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Happy New Year elves)) to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been hanging on to an email from him he'd like to be used for his blp. I've had it for weeks and feel guilty about doing anything. I would say I'm losing my hair trying to know what to do and get the energy to do it, but I'm actually losing my hair - a lot - due to chemo that I hope will extend my life a few more months. Any chance you could take a look at it? It's far too long which is my basic problem. I can email i to you but if you don't want to, no problem. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Doug; so nice to see you here :) Thanks for thinking of me. I’m not sure if I’d be able to help much; the only biography that I’ve contributed a lot to is now tagged with grammatical problems [8] and I have no idea at all how to solve it … There are many editors who are much more experienced. I would be more than happy to help adding references or making some minor edits though. If links to reliable source are available perhaps they can be added to the article talk page, so that others can help too? Anyway, RL is more important than Wikipedia, and I’m sure Michael won’t want to see anyone losing hair. Always take good care of yourself. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks anyway, I completely understand. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, we have a discussion on the talk page of Minneapolis and I'm hoping you would participate in it. Thank you. Cleter (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dustfreeworld,

I've closed your filing at ANI. You've received good advice from two other editors about how to make an effective post at ANI; I think it is unfortunate that you chose to argue with them rather than take their comments onboard. Please view my closure as without prejudice, and feel free to open a new thread that presents direct evidence of a continuing user conduct issue.

Happy editing, JBL (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for closing it, JBL. That discussion is getting long and off topic. I still don’t think every filer must become the “detective” though. It’s strange to me that many newcomers are blocked just because of one problematic edit (sometimes even without any warning), but users with continual conduct issues can stay with no action taken for so long. IMO perhaps it’s time for us to have rules like “user who has been warned by different administrators for more than _ times within a certain period will be blocked automatically” (I think that can even be implemented by a bot). Or maybe we already have similar rule just that I don’t know about it? Thanks again anyway. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To build on my point there, I suggest you get a stopwatch and then (yes really) go through the links of your ANI filing turning them into actual diffs of problem editing. It will take you a while, and sometimes the edit in question will not be clear. Say this activity take an hour. Then multiply that by the (dozens?) of editors who would need to repeat that activity to arrive at the same evidence as you, if that ANI report was to go anywhere. Considering that editor time is the most valuable resource on Wikipedia, can you see the issue? Bon courage (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. May I reiterate:

I suggest you or others get a stopwatch and then (yes really) go through the links of your my ANI filing turning them into actual diffs of problem editing. It will take you or others a while, and sometimes the edit in question will not be clear. Say this activity take an hour. Then multiply that by the (dozens?) of editors who would need to repeat that activity to arrive at the same evidence as you them, if that ANI report was to go anywhere. Considering that editor time is the most valuable resource on Wikipedia, can you see the issue? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe WP is a collaborative project. BTW, I’m suggesting that a bot to to the work to save *everyone*’s time. Anyway, if you still can’t see the issue, no need to reply then, because I totally concur with you that “editor time is the most valuable resource on Wikipedia”. Respectfully, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a volunteer Project. The work cannot be done by a bot (if you did the work, you'd know that). Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People warn other people all the time. For example, I estimate that there have been at least 10 warning templates added to my user-talk page in its last 500 edits (a bit over 2 years), as well as a number of non-templated messages that were similar in meaning. Many of these were meritless, others were well founded but concerned minor points, and a few reflect the genuine fact that I can be more abrasive or aggressive than is ideal (and this has resulted in my being blocked occasionally) -- but there is no way for anyone to judge that without the context of each warning and my broader editing behaviors.

If this person is genuinely a problematic editor, you should demonstrate that by producing evidence of their behavior being problematic (in the sort of chronic, intractible way that ANI is intended for), not by producing evidence that some people have complained about their behavior at some point. You can view this admonition a la Bon courage (that it is rude and time-wasting to expect other editors to do the work of providing evidence for your complaint) or as purely practical (that if you want people to act on your complaint, you should make it as easy as possible for them to see the validity of the complaint), but either way it is a description of a cultural/behavioral norm at ANI that I encourage you to respect. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry we got into conflict yesterday. I'm sure there are lots of things we agree on and both of us are here in good faith to improve the project. I was actually trying to help you yesterday, after I saw you'd started arguing with Bon Courage and SMcCandlish. I was hoping we could quickly extinguish this no-hoper of a disagreement and move onto trying to summarise the RFC as WAID wanted.

Some advice.. you were disagreeing with very experienced editors. Lecturing them, like you did to SMcCandlish, about what policies and essays they might like to read, in order to be as wise as yourself, is really going to piss people off. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars for a similar concept. Repeatedly linking to civility polices like WP:AGF or this link you pushed twice, can be interpreted as hostility and really best avoided unless you are absolutely certain the folk you are disagreeing with are heading for an ANI block. Doing that in a discussion where folk simply disagree firmly with each other can come across as game playing... it's the sort of tactic that POV pushers employ to threaten people rejecting their POV pushing. Yes SMcCandlish's post was too long, but replying with TLDR, unless clearly in jest or light hearted, is going to be interpreted as rude, hence the hostile reaction. Bon Courage spends much of his time deleting shit others have added. Your suggestion that a vital policy section used to achieve this was in fact saying the opposite was not likely to be well received. Again, telling people that longstanding policy actually means something else is such a frequent game by POV pushers, that you doing that just pressed buttons. Please, if nothing else, never link to Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users to suggest the person you are firmly disagreeing with is such an editor. There are indeed trolls and vandals on the project, but I don't think anyone in that discussion is one, and posting that is equivalent of calling a colleague an asshole to their face. I don't think you meant that at all. Perhaps you thought linking to such civility essays might get others to cool off. It only ever has the opposite effect.

I'd have posted this by email but you don't seem to have this enabled. You are welcome to delete it if you want, I won't mind. -- Colin°^Talk 11:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you only wrote the first paragraph (without the rest), I may still think “Colin is a great person.”, even with the previous conflicts. But now ... sorry. All I can say is I’m really disappointed ...

You come here to suggest that I’m /can be interpreted as /am going to be interpreted as /... an editor who “piss people off, with hostility, game playing, threaten people, POV pushing, rude, POV pushers, ..equivalent of calling a colleague an asshole to their face”, etc. I see cause and effect (and right and wrong) are being confused to save face.

If linking to this with a notion that “I don’t believe you are one of those, Colin” and a edit summary of “Not as keen as you think. Pls AGF ...”), in response to your statement that “Dustfreeworld I think you misinterpreted ... you are so keen for policy to be otherwise that you thought it said differently”, is causing you such a reaction (as well as your escalating reactions in that discussion), I’m sorry about that. Perhaps I really shouldn’t have linked to that page, but besides that, IMO none of your accusations are valid (BTW, have you ever think that those accusations can apply to you?)

No, I don’t think I’ll delete your post. People who read it can judge by themselves (see this discussion for the conflict mentioned). Citing AGF again is obviously useless. I really can’t understand why asking people to assume good faith can be interpreted as bad as being “hostile”. You may want to read [9][10]. Thank you.

(N.B. I didn’t argue with B.C., we are understanding each other and building consensus; and you posted 26 hours after SMcCandlish had posted; I don’t know why you said you was trying to help after you saw I’d started arguing with them). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC); 02:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me try again. I am not saying you are trying to piss people off or game playing or POV pushing, etc. I'm saying you are unconsciously doing some of the things that people who do deliberately do that also do, and you are inadvertently doing things that will piss people off, like all your links to civility essays and policies in the RFC. Stop doing that.

You wrote "I really can’t understand why asking people to assume good faith can be interpreted as bad as being “hostile”" Don't take my word for it, see Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith and WP:AOBF. I'm glad you've accepted my advice never to link to Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users, especially the way you did it to SMcCandlish That's as explicit a personal attack as possible and doing that to the wrong person could have you dragged to ANI.

I see from your edits that you are really keen on helping newbies from being attacked by uncivil regulars. Do that by setting an example, not by lecturing the regulars and posting to civility policies during discussions. Yes, I'm not perfect, and maybe that helps me facepalm when I see others making mistakes I do to. Doesn't stop my advice from being right. -- Colin°^Talk 11:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If people who have never had any conflicts with me come to offer advice as third person, I’d be more than happy to discuss with them further, but sorry, it seems you are not one of them.

I see you mentioned “personal attacks” and “ANI” (in addition to mentioning “rude ... etc.” in your post further above); I would like to reiterate your comment with some amendments: “I'm saying you are unconsciously doing some of the things that people who do deliberately do that also do, and you are inadvertently doing things that will piss people off, like all your links to civility essays and policies posts/links here and in the RFC. Stop doing that”

I still see cause and effect (and right and wrong) being confused.

I asked the other user in the RfC to assume good faith because they mentioned something like “bad-faith assumption” in the RfC discussion. I don’t see any problem with my request. I don’t think it’s appropriate to (repeatedly) discuss another user on my talk page (I don’t think they’re difficult though. At least they didn’t come to my talk page).

I see you are linking to civil policies in your post.

I never said I will never link to whatever links you mentioned. What I meant is “perhaps I shouldn’t have linked anything (in *that* particular post in reply to you) if I knew that people could be irritated *that* easily”.

No one in this world is perfect. If one wants is to prove that one is right, that can be done on her/his talk page, but not here. Better yet, do so by setting an example as a long-term user, not by lecturing semi-newcomers and posting links to civility policies and mentioning ANI (… etc.) on user’s talk page or during discussions.

As I might have told you before, I really don’t enjoy time-consuming lengthy discussions. So no need to “try again” again. Thanks.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC); 06:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Please do not reply to this discussion anymore. Thank you.)