User talk:Dustfreeworld

Biomedical content
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). 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 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.


 * 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.


 * Sorry if I have messed things up. I know that schizophrenia is a Featured article, so I've refrained from altering its main content or doing any substantial edits except adding some links. Those links were added because, I read about the relationship between lead exposure and schizophrenia a long time ago (20 years plus?) and is surprised that there's not even one word mentioning that in the schizophrenia page (and yes I overlooked the link to the risk factors page until you pointed me to it, and I believe most people do as well). As for the welding page, I do believe update and expansion is needed for its safety and health section, though I'm not going to do anything about it except two small edits (1138533051; 1144185763).
 * I understand that there are strict sourcing guidelines for biomedical content. However, the links I added to the schizophrenia page are not the "source" to support any biological information or claims. They are just information for further reading, and their interpretation is up to the readers.
 * Furthermore, it seems to me that the WP:MEDRS page did not state that primary sources should never be used. Though it did mention that "Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source..."
 * As for the links I added, this one seems to be an independent secondary review, while this one they mentioned they have conducted a meta-analysis. The second one may not be independent enough though. Please correct me if I was wrong.
 * I think it would be almost impossible for us to find very large scale research on the link between blood lead level and schizophrenia. Due to the special nature of the disease (risks that the sufferers may do harm to him/herself or others), usually patients will be given medication immediately upon diagnosis, especially in developed countries. And the drug used for schizophrenia is very effective nowadays, and FYI they do lower blood lead level by a very large percent too (I read about this information from some peer-reviewed journals long long time ago, but they can't be found anymore).
 * There won't be much studies for exposure during prenatal development either, since research would span over a very long period as one needs to wait and see if those infants wiil suffer from schizophrenia in their adulthood, not to mention that very high blood lead level (which indicates significant short-term exposure) is relatively rare nowadays in developed countries.
 * Therefore the instructions in WP:MEDDATE may need to be relaxed, as mentioned in the page: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published"
 * I do agree that we need to be very careful with information about new treatments or diagnosis. For the causes or risk factors of a disease, I believe there can be more flexibility. After all, telling people to avoid lead couldn't be a bad thing. Also, researchers may get their inspiration from the articles here at Wikipedia to determine the subject of their next paper. If the word "lead" never appear in the schizophrenia page, I think there still won't be much studies about the link between the two 20 years later.
 * Finally, I was able to find two recent secondary reviews on the subject and have posted them on the schizophrenia talk page. Please take a look.


 * Thanks. Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dustfreeworld, I was just cleaning out my To-Do list, 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 ?  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  06:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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) 12:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2)
 * 3) (2020 update: )
 * 4)
 * 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)
 * 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, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Don’t worry, take your time. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So old school ...
 * 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)
 * 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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No hurry; and happy thanksgiving :) -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We last visited this shortly before my friends died and my priorities changed. I have unwatched almost all medical content, except that which I extensively wrote or FAs I have been a large part of, and most of the rest of my watchlist, except Venezuelan content and those articles/issues affected by disruptive bullies, which I will continue to follow. Sorry to disappoint, but I have no intention of using my limited free time to add further to Wikipedia's POV and dysfunction.  Bullies have reigned on Wikipedia for as long as I've been here, and my willingness to use my time to be part of that has waned. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean I don't want to be part of contributing to Wikipedia in my regular area of editing (medical) any more, because Wikipedia is actively used in other areas (eg Venezuela) to harm real people. I am only going to keep watching those areas, or "my" FAs, and not spend my time improving content in other areas, eg medical. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  09:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I understand what you mean. I clicked thanks because I really want to say thanks (for putting that "newcomer task" of mine on your todo list, and bearing that in mind, for so long). I remember I've told you that "there are a lot of things that one can edit besides Venezuela or medical content.. PS of course I respect whatever you choose to or not to do." You are funny ... anyway -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2023
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Green wall, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at 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)

887326010
 * 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:


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * On May 1 2023, you performed four reverts 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)

Construction
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)

ANI comments
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)


 * 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)

Parkinson’s
I presume you saw the talk page discussion? Doug Weller talk 19:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yep :) -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @Dustfreeworld oops. Yes, thanks. Doug Weller  talk 19:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wildfire
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)


 * Please read WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Copyvios are subject to speedy deletion. Crescent77 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It’s OK, just a slight misunderstanding. It happens :) -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Coco Lee
Hi @Dustfreeworld - I've started talk page discussion on Lee's nationality. While you claim sources have no "disagreement" on describing her as "Chinese-American", 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)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

Regarding concerns
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)


 * 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)

Good article reassessment for Mercury (element)
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)

Season's greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Dustfreeworld: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;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) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Season's greetings
 ~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

'' Hello Dustfreeworld: Enjoy the  holiday season &#32;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) ''
 * Yes - many thanks for the greetings and very best wishes to you for the New Year --Iztwoz (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Michael Okun
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)


 * 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 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)
 * Thanks anyway, I completely understand. Doug Weller  talk 14:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox for manganism
Hello, I'd just like to know why you changed the infobox in the way it is now. I know there might've been problems with sources, or something (I'm not that experienced with this), but I think my infobox structure was more informative and readable. Instead of deleting it, couldn't it have been better to find better sources for the text? This was my edit. Sorry if I missed something obvious, I'd just like to know. Gedditor (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, . My apologies for not having explained it better :-)
 * When I (partially) reverted that edit I didn’t notice that you provided a “source” in the “Further reading” section. We seldom do it that way ...
 * Also, information in infobox is better supported by text and sources already present in the body of the article. Further, StatPearls seems to be a disputed/suboptimal source that may not be fully compliant with our sourcing guidelines for biomedical content (in general we need reviews/systematic reviews/meta-analyses from reputable non-predatory journals published within 5, at most 10, years, as indicated by Pubmed; we also accept sources from reputable government bodies, and textbooks used by medical schools, etc ). And, while I agree that Manganism is caused by Manganese poisoning, I don’t think they are synonyms (although currently the latter’s WP link is redirected to the former, this needs fixing but I don’t have the time yet).
 * Actually I like the infobox content you added. Please re-add them with the appropriate source(s) (better yet, with supporting content in article’s body) if possible. And please don’t be discouraged by (my) reverts, as you will know, it’s part of the “normal editing process” here ;-) Happy editing, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC); 17:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I'll revisit it when I have time. Gedditor (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Temple as a source of air pollution
Hi Dustfreeworld, you had temple back in the See Also section of the Air Pollution article and excluded Incense for being less toxic than joss paper. I cannot say anything about Incense, but I think, the Temple link is redundant in a such situation. It is obvious that the real source of air pollution is people, but we are not going to put them in, for ethical reasons. The same is applied to temples, in my opinion. Please review the issue from this point... Tosha Langue (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tosha Langue. I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean people who are burning certain types of joss paper in temples and polluting the environment with toxic substances, harming the health of others are unethical? Anyway, I’ve edited the article to address your concern. [Just to clarify, (in my edit summary) I don’t mean incense must be less toxic. It can vary with places and other factors. I mean the amount of incense burnt (and thus the ash and smoke produced) is likely much less than that of joss paper.] Thanks and happy editing, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC); 10:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits, Dustfreeworld! I meant it would be unethical to mark, for example, (here, on Wikipedia) people as a source of air pollution, albeit it is truth, because it may end with a conflict and potentially generate more air pollution... and it would be also against the Wikipedia rules (WP:ADVOCACY)
 * Tosha Langue (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I still am not sure I understand what you mean ... I don’t think temples are “people”. (BTW I’ve never heard that saying anything that’s true would be “advocacy”.) There maybe language barrier here. Anyway, I’m glad that you are happy with my edits. Thanks  -- Dustfreeworld  (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

ANI discussions (WMrapids vs NoonIcarus)
I figured it would be more appropriate for me to respond to the ANI discussion here, but yes I have engaged in WikiLove (If this counts?) Regarding Sandy, I respect them as a user because they have always been frank (sometimes too frank haha) and they are very detailed with their edits. While I have had some heated discussions with them, they have made me better regarding sourcing and BLP articles since I was inexperienced before. Their recent comments about my behavior are a little disheartening and I think they are being too particular about some of my edits (especially about copying within Wikipedia), but I haven't faced any dishonesty from them as I have with NoonIcarus. Hopefully this clears things up somewhat and ask me anything else if you have other concerns! WMrapids (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi WMrapids; to be frank, I know nothing about the previous disputes that you have with the other users in that discussion and am not interested about that either. I’m just curious about your response towards a “stay well” message (and I’m a member of the WP:Kindness campaign and WP:Editor retention projects). Anyway, thanks for dropping by, though I don’t really enjoy having discussions scattered everywhere ... (have to check 3 venues just to interact with the same user for the same issue) ... And it’s good to know that you weren’t sending barnstars by email .. Regards, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Curiosity
You used to have a link about the health effects of power tools. Now I'm curious: aside from cordless drills getting much heavier since the 1980s (I can't think of any other plausible explanation for why I have more trouble with them now...   ), what health effects do they have? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Brunsviga (draft)
Hello Dustfreeworld, I got your message yesterday and I just wanted to thank you !

My draft should be soon reviewed I guess, as it has been posted since nearly 3 months.

I'm always happy to learn how to improve, which is a guide in my historian work and job.

Best regards Thémisté (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. wound theology ◈  20:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted
The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Dustfreeworld. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dustfreeworld Regarding your statement and subsequent responses to @Tgeorgescu at WP:AE, you should note that you are limited to 500 words unless you are granted permission by an administrator to exceed this limit. It does not appear you have requested or been granted permission to exceed the limit and your statement is currently 1000 words long. You may wish to edit your statement for now and request permission, otherwise an administrator may remove or shorten it. See the "Important information" box at the top of the page for further details. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 03:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips :) I didn’t scroll up and didn’t see the “Important information”. I’ve edited my statement as suggested. Where do I request for permission to exceed the limit? On that same page or on talk or elsewhere? -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually sure of that. I'd ask an administrator on their talk page. If that's not the right place, they can always tell you where you should be posting it. Adam Black  talk &bull;  contribs 13:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

 * @ScottishFinnishRadish; I have taken a deeper look at the topic ban imposed and noted some inadvertent potential procedural issues. The discussion at AE was closed in less than 24 hours (started: 19:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC); closed: 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)).
 * Per Arbitration_Committee/Procedures, "“Requests and appeals at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may not be closed with a 'rough consensus' or 'clear consensus' outcome without at least 24 hours of discussion.”"
 * Without at least 24 hours of discussion, only “restrictions in the standard set of contentious topic restrictions” can be imposed, by a single uninvolved administrator. Per Arbitration_Committee/Procedures,
 * "“Single administrators may only impose restrictions in the standard set of contentious topic restrictions. A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard('AE') may impose any restriction from the standard set and any other reasonable measures ...”"
 * "“Standard set... the standard set of editor restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:sitewide and partial blocks,topic bans and page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic) ...”"
 * This means that the AE request against me (with less than 24 hours of discussion) can only result in “the standard set of editor restrictions” - “the sitewide and partial blocks, topic bans and page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic)”
 * Currently my restriction is “indefinitely topic banned from medical topics, broadly construed” and it does not conform to closely align with the AE procedures mentioned above. Therefore, I propose that the topic ban be either removed or reduced. Since the non-conforming ban has been in effect for over a month, with the potentially unjust / negative consequences and the stress it brings, and as “the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant”, I would expect  suggest a complete removal of restriction.
 * Wrg to the reasons given in the AE discussion that lead to the ban, I totally understand and agree that I should have been more careful in determining whether the community agree on removing certain contentious words. I also admit that my edits are too hasty and would like to apologise sincerely for that. OTOH, I believe there maybe misunderstanding about my edits. As I only removed the many repetitious instances of the term “pseudoscientific” in the article, but had left the first mention (“the pseudoscientific or magical belief that people can manipulate ...”) in place, and also now that the term “quackery” has been removed from the article by someone else *after* my ban , the whitewashing claim against me does not hold water seems not very appropriate . That said, in the future, I will be much more careful (and go slower) with my editing, listen to the community more carefully, and I plan to stay away from any medically-related contentious topics. I have never been sanctioned before this ban, I believe the ban is no longer necessary as I will no longer edit the contentious topics that lead to the ban , and I hope I can continue to make useful contributions like before , especially in other medical related topics which I’m now restricted to, with its  the restriction's removal.
 * Regards, -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC); -- Dustfreeworld  (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want I'll reopen the discussion and we'll end up with the same result in six hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , this is probably of interest to you as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Future collaboration
Hey, how's it going? My best wishes, this message has been overdue for some time. I think I recall seeing some articles about environment that you wished that are created. I have many projects in mind and an ongoing to-do list, but I wanted to say that I'd be happy to help in that regard, particularly if by any chance you need translations from Spanish. That being said, many thanks for your support once again :) I hope you stay safe. Kind regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A friend in need is a friend indeed! :-) -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)