User talk:Irishkevin3

September 2019
Hello Irishkevin3. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Mount Vernon, New York, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Irishkevin3. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. ''Your single purpose for editing appears to be to add information about Mount Vernon. Please disclose any connection you have to this article or place. Thank you.'' Magnolia677 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor, nor do I have any financial interest in the topics I have been writing about. Therefore, I have not been compensated, directly or indirectly for any of this material. Irishkevin3 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor, nor do I have any financial interest in the topics I have been writing about. I disclosed this on my userpage. I am a resident of Mount Vernon and have been following this story closely. -Irishkevin3 Irishkevin3 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Continued editing of Mount Vernon, New York
Hi! It appears you are new here, so welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for responding to 's question above regarding paid editing. However, your continued editing to restore the deleted content at Mount Vernon, New York regarding the Mount Vernon Charter Revision Commission is not appropriate. As Magnolia677 and I have explained in edit summaries, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and articles must demonstrate a neutral point of view, including in determining whether a subject is receiving due or undue weight. You were invited to discuss further on that article's "Talk" page. Unfortunately, I have not seen any substantive response from you, other than to acknowledge that the content "is trivial but very timely at the moment. If you don't mind, please leave this in place. I will delete in ten days." As I mentioned in my following edit summary, that does not really address the concern. If anything, it underscores that this content does not belong on Wikipedia.

I do not believe it is productive to continue reverting this page back and forth, as we will soon fall into an "edit war". As you will notice on that page, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to being blocked from further editing.

The three-revert rule states: "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. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."

Because you are new, I assume you are likely unaware of this rule, but I note that you made exactly three reverts in a roughly 28-hour period from September 8-9. That certainly gets close to violating the spirit of the rule, if not the letter. I hope you will consider the feedback you have received about whether this content is appropriate for Wikipedia, review the relevant policies, and discuss your questions, concerns, and other points on the Talk page as needed.

Thanks, and once again, welcome. --EightYearBreak (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the feedback. I should have explained my position a little more eloquently. I don't think it is trivial at all and is important information for residents to see brief, summarized recaps of important press accounts of an important and unfolding issue. I have cited a newspaper article and actual documents to support what I wrote so it should not be viewed as a one-sided version of what is happening. I am new so appreciate your tolerance. I won't touch the article again but would appreciate some flexibility here to at least keep the section up for some period of time. Wikipedia articles should evolve over time and if this one evolves, I am fine with others making changes as long as they don't delete it, making unfair judgments as to whether something is trivial or not. Irishkevin3 (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You write that it is "important information for residents to see". The Wikipedia article about Mount Vernon is not written for the residents of the city.  This isn't the city website, local newspaper, or community Facebook page.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the Mount Vernon article must comply with the policies which Wikipedia's editors have reached by consensus.  Please take a moment to see WP:USCITIES, WP:NOT, and WP:UNDUE.  Thanks.  Magnolia677 (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I like to think about it as important information for the common good and would appreciate it very much if the information was not deleted again but am OK placing this in the hands of "the powers that be" to decide. If you are one of the people granted the authority to decide what is trivial and what is not, then so bet it. Irishkevin3 (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. It looks like you already deleted it. Oh well. I guess you are one of the designated individuals who gets to decide. Again, I am willing to trust the process. Irishkevin3 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Pesticide topics
Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above, as the message also states, is a standard notice that the area of pesticides has additional editing restrictions. The main one is that editors do not edit war or try to reinsert new content after it's been disputed without gaining consensus.


 * That said, please be much more careful with sourcing. You've been repeatedly reaching for very low quality sources in a controversial topic, especially things pushed by lawyers involved in litigation on the subject. We also need to be wary about editorializing or WP:OR, which is why some of your initial edits were removed. If there are specific questions about content, they are best dealt with on the talk page, but the area you are getting into is getting into what we call WP:FRINGE material or at least WP:UNDUE when it comes to those trying to claim glyphosate or related products are major carcinogens. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. The New York Times is typically not considered low quality, in my opinion, though I recognize you might have a different opinion. Irishkevin3 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading WP:MEDRS. News-type sources are generally not appropriate for scientific content. Generally, we stick to high quality sources like peer-reviewed non-primary sources, statements by respected scientific organizations, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look, find better sources and revise. Irishkevin3 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you be OK with me adding back some material about the same topic only citing the New York Times? I'd hate to do it if you are simply going to reverse the edits. By the way, do you have any financial interest in the topic? Certainly editing material written by others ought to be covered by the same standard. Irishkevin3 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's best to use the specific article talk page for content discussion, but the NYT is not MEDRS, so you would be edit warring if you restored it again. You're at the point where you shouldn't be making similar edits, but gaining consensus on the talk page for what you want (e.g., WP:ONUS or WP:BRD). Also because it's a frequent problem, I highly suggest reading Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms. In short, you don't even ask about COI of editors unless there's actually evidence. So to answer your second question, no. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. You say "you don't even ask about COI of editors unless there's actually evidence" yet that's exactly what you did. I'm going to really dig in on the rules to be sure that I don't deviate but I believe that the EPA is conflicted on Monsanto and it is a view that is supported by the facts. Therefore, to leave in material citing the EPA's view on glyphosate without mentioning the fact that the EPA is accused of being conflicted on glyphosate or to refer to the fact that the Roundup formulation has been cited to be much more toxic than glyphosate on its own is misleading. Monsanto acknowledged in a 2003 internal email that “you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.". That statement remains true through 2019. I will come back to you when I have my ducks in a row on the rules and have the specific sources that isn't considered low quality. Irishkevin3 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was speaking specifically of editors (e.g., WP:FOC, WP:NPA), and that should not be conflated with analyzing sources as WP:INDEPENDENT when it comes to source COI. Overall, we stick to what high quality sources like the EPA say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough but there's actually good evidence to suggest that the EPA is conflicted on Roundup/Glyphosate. For example, as was laid out in this Rolling Stone article, you'll see that at least one EPA official (Jess Rowland) seemed to go out of his way to kill potential studies of glyphosate by other agencies. If it was so safe, why would they be discouraging further study? Irishkevin3 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC) https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/monsanto-cancer-710902/
 * If there are WP:MEDRS sources discussing the EPA's decisions, which Rolling Stone definitely is not, then that belongs at the article talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll research the guidelines in detail and come back with a properly sourced and cited revision to the article that sheds light on why a reasonable person might believe: 1) that the EPA is conflicted on glyphosate and 2) that Roundup, when combined its surfactant POEA, is likely very toxic to humans, animals and the environment. Irishkevin3 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)