User talk:Anythingyouwant/2022/August

Is CO2 a pollutant ...
You've raised a complex question at Talk:History of climate change science This really hinges on definitions of Air pollution as causing damage to future climate, which to a large extent is a social and political evaluation as well as physics. . . dave souza, talk 17:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Which brings up a reminder, as you may have seen on other topics: I got mine long ago, this has prompted me to add an "aware" box to my talk page, the joys of controversial topics. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, thankfully this talk page is not my Curriculum vitae.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

New message from Curbon7
Curbon7 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Question
Dear Anythingyouwant can I ask you a question? RiverMorocco (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If it’s reasonable, sure.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC fixings
Hope you don't mind, but I tweaked your RFC. The 'survey' & 'discussion', have to be sub-sections. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine, thanks. Thought I'd get this done before being hit at ANI with a 2000 page counterclaim.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
Honestly I have to thank you for your investigation and taking care of that page. You did a great job looking info details, you asked if we should keep the story and add it's BS or remove it, I suggest removing it since I wanted in the future to add some actual controversies into that page. If you check my edit history you can see I'm editing into Albanian politics and also beyond that, I could use some help time to time or perhaps I could help you in the future :) Anyway thank again and take care. S.G ReDark (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Kind Regards, &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Also side-note: my replies are placed in a weird format, I'm on mobile perhaps that's the case? How can I fix that? S.G ReDark (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Mandy Rice-Davies applies
Now you seem to be advancing from obstructionism and repetitive pursuit of rejected POVs to outright edit-warring. There was no consensus on talk for the edits of yours that I reverted. Per BRD, it is you who should now summarize your view and seek consensus on the talk page. Your history since returning from your TBAN has been to pursue direct and indirect insinuation and wiki-lawyering to undermine the established longstanding content of various pages in pursuit of your political POVs and obsession with right-wing abortion-related policies. None of this is news to you, nor would you deny it AFAIK. Please self-revert and use the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t appreciate your edit style, where you encounter an edit that includes some material you don’t like, so you just delete the whole thing. How about if you try only deleting the parts you don’t like, and engage at talk page if the rest has already been under discussion?  I didn’t come close to 3RR here, by the way.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:DENIALS" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:DENIALS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Would you please self-revert, as it's disruptive? I am not the only editor who has removed that redirect , nor was I the . Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure what difference it makes, but I have expanded that comment in response to this request of yours.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Coup d'état
Your edit to this article was reverted. It is not directly related to the subject, it is not a widely held view, and it appears to have been inserted in the article to weaken the focus of the page in order to promote your denial of matters relating to the January 6 attack. Please self revert and use the article talk page or NPOVN. If you continue to edit-war politics-related articles, you may be sanctioned. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is extremely well-sourced material, and you have not cited or referred to any reliable source that even slightly contradicts it or expresses a different point of view. Your speculations about motives or plots are irrelevant to Wikipedia policy, this material has nothing to do with abortion either. Please stop roving around Wikipedia and deleting material you don’t like, or material written by editors you don’t like.  I don’t do it to you, please don’t do it to me.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO @Anythingyouwant It’s clearly about time that we file a formal ANI to hold Anythingyouwant accountable for violating the conditions he agreed to when his then permanent TBAN was lifted in the probationary sense of it. AYW … since you are doubling down on being the victim of a boomerang here, I will let you preemptively file the ANI for us so you can address your grievances first in good-faith since your unusual defense from you so far in service of obvious edit warring, forum shopping, POV-pushing and wiki-gaming is based upon your allegations against others that you are somehow being provoked into this behavior, or that we are missing something here. When confronted by your past TBAN, you’ve even double-down on some notion that you did nothing wrong to earn that initial sanction.
 * @SPECIFICO I’m copying you on this because it feels like AYW is trying to scapegoat you, for lack of a better word. But, also, this is simply going in circles and no amount of arguing with the disruptive editor is going to fix this. It’s beating a dead horse.
 * Back to you AYW, @Anythingyouwant I will give you 24 hours to preemptively file the WP:ANI, and hopefully that good faith gesture will inoculate you from any future appearance that you are being “framed” or “unfairly targeted” as you are insinuating over and over again. However, should you fail to do so, then I will simply go forward with the ANI myself which, based upon several incidents I’ve objectively observed, will not end well in your favor. This is a case of WP:ROPE is I have ever saw one. And unfortunately I’m out and about and can’t even properly login to my account to effectively deal with this now. But I will be in front of a computer tomorrow so hopefully by then I can give this the necessary attention, and by then I pray you will use your time effectively mount a proper defense and self-reflect. I really want to believe this is some kind of misunderstanding here AYW, so please us the ANI process as the proper forum to explain why this edit warring and disruptive WP:POINTY behavior is the only way to deal with the rest of us! Otherwise, please don’t complain about being persecuted when I file my ANI in the coming days when you only have yourself to blame for your predictament. Will be watching for your ANI, and please watch for mine sans your efforts to resolve this amicably there yourself— since you’ve left us no choice by this point and have exhausted our good will and faith in you. Good luck AYM! Nothing personal. 75.166.143.100 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you disclose your username, maybe I’ll read what you have to say.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anythingyouwant I’m away from my computer until tomorrow and don’t have my password and login information readily available. It’s better I do so (verify myself) from my account proper. Can do so tomorrow if you’d prefer. In which case the best way to disclose that information will be with the WP:ANI that needs to happen here, and that I will be filing then. In your defense, the other editor on this page you’re quarreling with was sanctioned in the passing days for similar disruptive behavior you’re engaging in currently. This drama needs to stop. Touch base with you in one for or another. Best of luck. 75.166.143.100 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You don’t need to log in to disclose your username.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * With a statement like this [] you give the incriminating appearance of someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia but a POV-pusher with a bone to pick and axe to grind. I’m not going to take the WP:BAIT when doing so could be misrepresented as IP-socking. With the ANI that I will be filing tomorrow I need to cross my Ts and dot my Is. But I only thought it fair to give you sufficient notice and unfortunately I can’t do that with my account as I’m out with family on our mini-break and don’t have my computer, or password information. It is in your best interest to preemptively file an ANI before I do since you are one insinuating that Wikipedia is rigged, not us. And your remedy to this alleged conspiracy against you so far has been to take matters into your own hands again and again. So please use an WP:ANI to explain why you need to take this extraordinary measure. To hold us accountable. Or you really give us no choice but to hold you accountable for trying to rig the system against us with your edit-warring and WP:GAMING—- with you hoping to exist outside the rules as you do.
 * tl;dr version- you will find out my username when I file my ANI against you tomorrow evening when I’m back home in front of my computer. 75.166.143.100 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoever you are, you are hereby banned from this user talk page. Not that that will stop you from coming back here against my wishes, if you are who I think you are.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, since I was pinged here. If you are considering IP's request, I think the better venue would be AE, not ANI where frustrated editors are likely to pile on and derail consideration of whatever you have to say in your favor. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no plans right now to complain to mom and dad about the nasty boys and girls. It usually doesn’t work because mom and dad are on hard drugs or demented. 😊. If Wikipedia would use randomly chosen juries then I might avail myself of that today.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I had no idea you felt that way. Do you really think of the Admins as being dizzy or demented? At least you will not be hearing from the IP again. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of the kibbitzers are not exactly helpful. ‘Nuf said. Madame Defarge would love this place.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI RE: our past conversations
a similar situation.

I know you disagree. Just FYI that others make a similar connection. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can’t you bring me pictures of kittens or chocolates or something?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being completely taken over by agenda-driven POV-pushers
Just a general observation. And this hasn’t happened by accident, the structure of Wikipedia allows and encourages it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand exactly what you mean. Basically, there are three kinds of editors on Wikipedia:
 * 1. Those who are here to build a knowledge-conveying encyclopedia.
 * 2. Those who are here to promote a specific political or social viewpoint, or a commercial product.
 * 3. Those who are here to build a knowledge-conveying encyclopedia, but have specific political or social viewpoints that they feel compelled to support, in the belief that their viewpoint constitutes correct knowledge.
 * I think these types can be reasonably identified by the proportion of their editing time that is focused on promotional activities. What we do with that information, I do not know. I would expect that to maintain a neutral body of work, we would find some way to lend more weight to the opinions of editors who are clearly not here merely to promote a specific political or social viewpoint. BD2412  T 22:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Clear rules and juries are the answer. Vague rules and the coliseum don’t work.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Unequal enforcement of standards has been a major demotivator for me. And you are right, it does seem encouraged. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I vote Aye on the jury part. Just peers, no Friends v. Enemies, nice and randomlike. I have Mixed Feelings about "clear rules", in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Less unclear then.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The new clear option, eh? Let's just say it's "on the table". Further research is needed! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to focus “on the jury part. Just peers, no Friends v. Enemies, nice and randomlike.” Will we have to get Musk to buy Wikipedia for that to happen?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we could nab a prettier penny from a government treasury. Selling it to a chosen state in particular would open a huge Can o' Worms, o' course, so we should Google "random country selector" and go with the first result that seems halfway competent for our intents and purposes. As our latest proclaimed representative (LPR), I've elected to go first and thus present...Guinea! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The U.S. Congress could pass a law saying “use juries.” That wouldn’t violate the First Amendment because it’s content-neutral.  And Congress has power to do this, not because Wikipedia engages directly in interstate commerce (it doesn’t) but rather because Wikipedia uses interstate telecommunication.  So, I favor that over letting Guinea take it over!&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your editing skills apparently are matched only by your capacity for legal analysis. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO thrives with the status quo. You’re such a conservative SPECIFICO!&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * After some (not quite due) diligence, it seems Guinea truly might not be the most "appropriate" or competent owner and operator. Maybe the US isn't, either. But however we get our juries, our hypothetical defendants should get two peremptory challenges, too (I don't need a reason to not trust a specific couple of power users). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, seriously. We have achieved local consensus.😁 Any thoughts User:Jimbo Wales?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)