User talk:Micahrob

Regarding edits to Scott Sumner page
Hello! I wanted to reach out to you in regards to your edits on the Scott Sumner page, specifically, the criticism section. You have highlighted a number of blogposts he has made where he has stated opinions which may be worthy of highlighting, however, your edits to the section by and large lacked non-primary sources, and failed to demonstrated that any of his statements have "been widely criticized" or does so "without any evidence". I think it would be a great service to the page if you rewrote the section to back up your claims with sources, and rewrote it to be from an objective, rather than subjective standpoint. As it stands right now, even with the quick-fix edits I have made, the section is still subpar, and may need to be edited extensively, or have large segments of it removed. -Amtoastintolerant (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Explaining my reversion of your edits
Hello, I wanted to reach out to you again regarding your edits on the Scott Sumner page, as I do not think you saw my previous edit explanations. You did not cite the claim "Some of the deleted messages were links to articles published in the medical journal Lancet. These articles were contrary to the views of the prevailing orthodoxy.", nor did you provide any information as to what views the article put forth, on what topics they covered, and what prevailing orthodoxy they countered. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated why this would be relevant enough to include on this page, which I think is justified. Relevancy is also an issue with the specific content the commenters in question have posted. Is the specific name and content of the documentary of a couple of banned commenters relevant to this page? However, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and the chance to support these claims by simply reverting to the previous version, instead of deleting this portion all together. I assure you I have deleted no factual information, in fact, this reversion does not even remove the unsubstantiated claims you are making, it simply leaves them there with the citation needed and clarification needed tags. Please adjust your edits to clarify and substantiate your claims. If you feel that "we can go through each blog post individually", please just do so in your edits. Don't leave readers and fellow editors guessing where you are getting this information from. Furthermore, "right-wing" is not a "subjective attack", but rather highlighting a common theme which may in fact be prompting these comments you believe are worth including in this section. I would greatly appreciate it if you provided more rationale for your edits, and were more careful when making them, as they are still filled with simple misspellings and incoherent syntax. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)