User talk:Pynotic

January 2022
Hello, I'm FormalDude. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Russ George have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. –– FormalDude  talk  08:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Russ George. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. –– FormalDude  talk  04:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Russ George, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Please stop your disruptive editing. Every edit I make is simply adding important relevant true facts. Please tell me what is wrong with this obviously important testimony from the leader of the Haida: "John Disney, President of the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation, made this statement on October 19, 2012: “Our project has generated a great deal of media attention both nationally and internationally. I want to tell you about  the project, what we did, how we did it. This project was not entered into lightly. And we have complied with every necessary aspect of the ocean governance before undertaking the work. I want to make very clear: we do not consider micronutrient replenishment of a naturally occurring substance to be pollution. We are using this for restoration purposes, to restore the salmon back to their rightful place in the the Old Massey economy. We have creating a great team, working to develop the knowledge that will allow us to have a sustainable future, and that is the guiding principle of the company. As President, I am very cognisant of all of the requirements of the scientific and legal nature that applies to this project. I’d like to say that at this time that the international media and national media seems to have focused on Russ George who we brought in as our Chief Scientist. I want to make this emphatically clear: Russ George did not, I’m saying did not come to us to dupe us or sell us a bill of goods. We approached him, and we based that on ten years of work with him in other fields. I’ve know Russ for over ten years and I’ll you something that is very rare: he has never once lied to me, he’s only told me the truth, he has a great integrity, and he’s never let us down. And every time he’s told me something that I thought was unbelievable I’ve checked it out and he’s always been right. And I challenge anyone else in the corporate world to come up with that about a person. Russ has one aim in life: he wants to try and make the planet a better place. That’s it. I don’t care what else you read.” Pynotic (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your edits, however, have seemingly aimed to turn the page on Russ George into exactly that. This is one example of it. Snippets of this quote could be used in an article; however, you're using it as evidence to support a claim (namely that Russ George is a good person). This reads more like the conclusion to an argumentative essay than to an encyclopedia article. Ending the article with "That's it. I don't care what else you read" in particular undermines Wikipedia's neutral point of view.
 * Your edits have routinely given undue weight to one side at the expense of the other, condensing one side to a few sentences and then refuting that side in a long block quote. Whether or not your edits are adding "important relevant true facts," these quotes have the net effect of making the article more like a puff piece.
 * The term "Ocean Pasture Restoration" seems to be used only by George and his associates to describe their work. Iron fertilization is the common name for the procedure, used by several reliable sources, and repeatedly editing this article to change the name will not change that fact.
 * If you are to edit the article, please do not do so in a manner that impairs Wikipedia's objectivity. That should be left for one's personal webpage. Generalissimo Store (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. There is plenty of negative weight in the article now. Indeed, without my edits there would be almost nothing positive, I was only restoring the balance. And of course the statement by the native leader is crucial to the objectivity. Also, this particular process of restoring this ecosystem was developed mostly by Mr. George, so we should consider respectfully how he names it. Moreover, the term "Iron Fertilization" has taken on a false pejorative connotation, perhaps conjuring something like Monsanto's dangerous "Roundup" fertilizer, as people try to make the OPR process seem like toxic dumping which it is 100% not at all. In fact, “Fertilization” is not even an accurate term because:  Iron can never be correctly called a ‘fertilizing’ agent in this context. In the iron depauperate ocean regions where iron is deplete, there is a relative abundance of ‘fertilizer’ chemicals, nitrate and phosphate. Iron, in fact, results in the consumption of the ‘fertilizers’ in these regions when it is replenished to historic levels by Nature (volcanoes, dust storms) or by humankind via OPR. Humanity’s industrial CO2 emissions have indeed diminished the amount of iron-rich mineral dust existing in the ocean pastures, and, consequently, this has resulted in the increase of fertilizer in vast regions of the world’s oceans. So, in that this is the present state of ocean pasture nature, replenishment of iron with OPR is actually ocean de-fertilization - but it is indeed Restoration of ocean ecosystems. Furthermore, I maintain that the article was terribly negatively biased before my edits, and my edits are intended only to restore this article back to the wonderful objective spirit of Wikipedia, which I love very much. Pynotic (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)