User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive August 2018

Edit war warning
You are already of course aware of DS on BLP and PSCI.

Your recent editing history at Ben Swann shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

gold sheen sapphire
Thank you for this information. I didn't know or understand why people keep changing that page back to false facts within hours. It seems one needs to know how to use wikipedia because there are many rules and these rules require a lot of reading to know about. I am new to this. The facts about the false citation are true by the way. There are no URLs to quote. This is a world cover up. Speak to Brendan Laurs chief editor of Journal of Gemmology on the phone or email. We are in possession of private witness statements (signed by registered companies.) To check if Tanzim Khan is selling goldsheen sapphire - do a web search and you come across his shop "Genuine gems and jewelry", Bangkok and thousands of references to gold sheen. http://www.bkkgems.com/exhibitor_detail.php?id=386  There are thousands of references to Tanzim Khan selling gold sheen, especially at trade fairs.Locusmt (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Why is not a company's TV ad not a reliable source? Sorry I dont know how to edit sources. I just wanted to provide up to date and accurate information that I researched upon investigating mnvos(?)
 * An ad may mislead or exaggerate the benefits of a product to encourage people to buy it, and is therefor not reliable Tornado chaser (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Scott Cawthons Birthdate
February 31st doesn’t exist therefore it cannot be his birthdate on the wiki page
 * Your right, I have removed it, there is no need to say "dosen't exist" next to false info, if it's false, just delete it. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ur email
You’re correct when you see I created two different pages. Well, I created two different pages, for two different clients, with two different accounts. I set them up for them and they have taken over. Anything else? FreshThedj (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you mean by clients? There are some rules about paid editing and business accounts. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Beans
Do you understand now what I meant with beans? Others point to Streisand effect. The answer, BTW, is yes, but I had to email around for it--thanks for noticing that, I hadn't looked there at all. Learn something new every day! Drmies (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * yes, it took me a minute but I figured it out, that is why I deleted your original beans massage, so that there would be nothing to draw anyones attention to the issue. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right on. Yeah, sometimes we just can't be more specific, and you'll just have to take on faith that we admins aren't completely crazy. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry my dude
Facts are facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C1:0:AB40:C066:2C76:7810:7DA9 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Bertha Palmer
Thanks for your email. I can see where some of the language could be perceived as "advertising." However, I don't think all of it was and am disappointed that every single word was removed from the entry. I am going to try again to provide some additional historical information about Mrs. Palmer's time in Osprey, FL. I suspect you are policing an enormous amount of the entries, but hope you or one of the other people reviewing content can provide some specific feedback the next time an entry is deleted. Appreciate what you are doing to keep the content of Wikipedia appropriate. Thank you. Darrell Ayers


 * Ok, I will let you know why I think something is wrong if I delete more of your edits, feel free to ask me if you have any questions. I do have 1 question for you, is this a personal account or a company account? thanks. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit scarlet heart
Sorry but I just thought that it was a negative and unnecessary info for people who want to watch this drama...


 * OK, just remember in the future to use the articles' talk page to discuss you planned edit before you delete stuff, feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits of Scout_MLG
Thanks for the reverts. Could you treat this one : ? --Le Petit Chat (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

response to you
i know im right


 * even if your sure your right, you can't put your opinion in article, nor can you put in info without referencing it. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfguig (talk • contribs) 00:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Alexander the Great in the Quran
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Alexander the Great in the Quran&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. PiCo (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC) PiCo (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

WT:BLP discussion
I fully understand your position as you have repeated it many, many times.

Neither I, nor anyone else in Wikipedia, can read for you. If you are incapable of reading and understanding diffs you cite, there is nothing I can do about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

How is this "User:SlimVirgin you asked here for an example. I will be happy to bring some examples. In the meantime I await for your identification of the BLP article you worked on. Please identify it.  Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)" not saying that you will be happy to bring examples of where an SPS is needed? sometimes people misinterpret each other, and it is much better if the one being misinterpreted clarifies what they mean when asked, rather than implying the other person can't read. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S, I am actually open to adjusting my position if shown a case where an SPS is the only way to debunk something, I was simply asking for an example of where this was needed. Tornado chaser (talk)
 * Please read the entire diff. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The only possible misinterpretation I see is that you could have been saying that you will provide examples  only if SarahSV discloses the BLP she was editing, could you clarify if this is what you meant? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I fixed the quote above, which previously said "Example text" Tornado chaser (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you used the template incompetently. If you do not understand the phrase "in the meantime" I cannot help you. SlimVirgin and I have a ... difficult history, and you are butting into that interaction in a way that is approaching trolling, and I will seek an IBAN if you continue. It is remarkable that you pinged her here, which reinforces my hunch that your interaction with me is not in good faith. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my mistaken ping, I just copied and pasted without meaning to ping her, and I know nothing of you and SlimVirgin's issues. I am only trying to engage in good faith discussion of an important wikipedia policy on the talk page for that policy, and I have no desire to get involved in any personal issues you and her may have.
 * I would find it helpful if you posted an example on the BLP talk page of a case where an SPS is needed in a context implicating BLP, and I take your comment to SlimVirgin to mean that you know of examples, thats all. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have no desire to get in the middle then stay out of it, and stop citing what i wrote to SlimVirgin. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All Im trying to do is ask for an example of a case where an SPS is needed in a situation that implicates BLP, since you are proposing a change to policy based on such a scenario, but despite extended discussion, nobody has given a single example of such a situation. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * see Sealioning. I will proceed accordingly by ignoring you. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Chaminade High School content removal
Hello Tornado chaser, Looking over your recent removal of content from Chaminade High School it appears that sources for some can be easily found. In other cases a 'citation needed' or 'dead link' tag will be more helpful to improving the article than removing the content IMO. For now I've restored things so I can work on the sourcing issues without having to find all the removals and paste them back in. Gab4gab (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Go outside
Bro get a life and enjoy some sunlight. You’re a fish too. I only speak the truth. Rudumbbb (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Lol Rudumbbb (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

hello! gud evng?
i am samat hajji ameria, ~=\"/=~    **U** a man was sent 2 go n greet his wife-in-law today's aftn after reaching wea da girl was, he then turned da mind by huging he 2 da extend ov kiss her when even da wyf was seeing! If u were that wuman, wat wud u do??


 * 1) to wum it may concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.155.143 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

re: hypertonia
yes, the linked translation says "hypertonia", but that's a mistranslation. if you find someone who speaks german, or if you click through to the english version from the pubmed link, you'll see it's talking about arterial hypertension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.9.211 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, then it is fine if you move it. P.S. its probably best to avoid "fuck it" in edit summaries. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Go outside
Dude leave the internet alone and enjoy life. Get a beer or something. You take this way too serious looool. Don’t be mad I state facts. Rudumbbb (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Consider tracking down usages when you delete link anchors
Back in November 2017 you deleted a section Dust devil with summary "unsourced section".

Unfortunately there were usages of just that section name, such as in Operation Mosaic (in today's DYK), where it wants to describe willy willys, which happened to actually have a cite in the section you deleted.

Deleting an entire section whose name may have references from other articles should mean you take on the responsibility to find and fix those articles, I would think. Shenme (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For some reason I never thought of this, yes, I should check for links to the sections I delete, thanks for pointing this out! Tornado chaser (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Updates to Uptowncharlybrown
Dear Tornado Chaser,

I made the changes to the Uptowncharlybrown page since it was not updated since 2010 and had out dated information on the page.

My name is Joerg Hoffmann, Vice President of Uptowncharlybrown Stud LLC and C-Owner of Uptowncharlybrown

You referred to including sources, well i'm the source of that information together with my partners. i'm running the official UTCB STUD LLC web site, please check under www.utcbstud.com, as well as the face book page

We are not promoting anything on wikipedia we just want the information to be correct

I would appreciate if you put my changes back on Wikipedia

A source to verify my information is www.equibase.com, this web site is used by everybody in horse racing and breeding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joerghoffmann1209 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback is appreciated

thank you Joerg

Joerg Hoffmann VP UTCB STUD LLC (732) 766-4507 jhoffmann1961@icloud.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utcbstud (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not accusing you of promoting anything, the problem with your edits was that they did not cite a source, Wikipedia gets vandalized a lot, and sometimes vandals or misinformed people add stuff that looks ok, but is false, so we generally delete anything that doesn't cite a source to prove it's true, feel free to make your edits again as long as you cite a source, I am a bit uncomfortable doing this edit myself because I know little about horses or racing. But feel free to ask me if you have any questions about editing wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP
Hi! I agree with your comments at BLP Talk - in the end that distinction will be key. I suspect that if an RFC happens it will need to be raised, though, as my understanding of the gray area that needed clarification was on the use of a third party SPS to criticize someone's beliefs without separately establishing that they are held. The intimidate trigger for the current BLP discussion was an editing dispute over Ben Swann, where I removed an SPS which I thought had been added by CaroleHenson but was reverted, and this goes back to David Wolfe, where we had a similar dispute in regard to an SPS. These cases seem to fall under both what your wording prohibits and my reading of BLP as it currently stands. I guess we'll have to wait to see what is proposed, though, and whether or not it prohibits or permits those situations. - 02:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing the above mentioned BLP vios. When you say "in the end that distinction will be key" could you clarify what distinction you are referring to? P.S. you mean "immediate trigger" right? (you typed "intimidate", but that looks like an autocorrect error.) Tornado chaser (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * . Tornado chaser (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, immediate trigger. :) My concern is that I don't see a lot of conflict in regard to BLP and PARITyY (if "concern" is the right word here) as PARITY is about using less reliable sources to talk about theories, and BLP is about using high quality sources to talk about people. As I'm sure you're aware, we've handled it to date by a combination of removing third party SPS sources and replacing them with BLP compliant sources and/or primary sources from the subject; rewording text to be clear that the third-party SPS is only talking about the author's opinions on the subject; or by using the SPS to criticise the theory once it has been established to be held by the subject via a BLP compliant source. Thus I don't see much of a need to change BLP - unless the intent is to use the third party SPS to make direct statements about the subject. Which is why I agree with your statement that any proposal should make it clear that we can't use an SPS to make such claims - only to comment about the author or about the theory. This distinction between commenting on the theory and commenting on the subject is the distinction between PARITY and BLP, and is the part that I think we need to ensure we keep. Anyway, I guess we'll see where it goes. - Bilby (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Pox Party: "this is SYN, the sources cited say nothing about pox parties"
The citations I provided establish that the diseases in question are "dangerous". That is all that is needed or should be needed. A particular discussion of the /means/ by which the infection is caused (i.e. pox parties) are entirely superfluous, and do not constitute "research" or "POV". Quite the contrary, the wording of the intro section prior to my edits was functioning as advocacy by ignoring the fundamental purpose, intent, and function of vaccination and vaccines (at least in the introduction).

Your comment and justification are in error. Please revert your edit of this text.

Regards, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwfen (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

This particular edit was made in response to a semi-automated complaint about missing references. I provided the reference, and expanded the text to reflect the specifics missing from the original text. Please do the appropriate diff on and my original text. If you don't like my solution to the problem, feel free to *improve* it, but as your edits stand, you've simply deleted a passage that was there in the past, and that you may have read may times before without complaint (since you've edited this page many times).

Your statement that, "the failure to identify chickenpox did not make it take 120 years longer to make a vaccine" is unsupportable, and contrary to physical causation, and should not constitute a reason to delete the whole passage.

Regards, Paul


 * Thanks for explaining why you reverted my edits. I made this edit because WP:SYN says you cannot draw your own conclusions from a source, so a source that says "these are the complications of chickenpox" is nat a great source for the sentence "pox parties are dangerous", I don't think you are pushing any POV, I just thought the sourcing was poor, and calling pox parties dangerous didn't really seem necessary when the next line says they are discouraged by health officials.


 * I deleted some text here because it seemed to be saying chickenpox was not discovered until 1875, so a vaccine wasn't developed until 1995, an odd conclusion that is not in the source (although my edit summery was a bit confusing). Tornado chaser (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion one of the things that makes this article a little more tricky to write than a straight-forward definition is that the intent/definition or perhaps function of a pox party has changed with time from pre-vaccine days to the present. This discussion is relevant to that history. Unless you know the history of virology and vaccine development, it might be surprising that 1875 is an important date relative to 1970 (The chickenpox vaccine was developed in the 1970's, not in 1995). This was less than two decades after isolation of the virus. Similarly a "classical" vaccine (i.e. the way it was done before the discovery of viruses in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, think smallpox) for chickenpox was impossible because all "pox" diseases were considered either the same thing or part of some amorphous swarm of phenotypes by physicians until the middle of the 19th Century or later. The corresponding delays for the first vaccines (smallpox) are centuries even after a rational approach to medicine arose.


 * As far as the word "dangerous" goes, I was a bit surprised by removal. The diseases involved in pox parties cause fatalities, and if you ask people about a 1:1000 chance of dying in any given week (this is "definite death in 20 years"), I would be surprised if most people objected to calling death at age+20 years in a non-old population "dangerous". On the other hand this calculation is for measles, and death rate is lower for chickenpox. In the name of simplicity, it is probably best to leave the phrase "dangerous" out. Pwfen (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pox_party&oldid=857000776
You made an edit with this revision. The text I inserted is a descriptive, factual assertion about the motivation for Pox Parties (i.e. pox parties are a means to avoid vaccination). You edited the article to assert a non-sourced (and quite frankly an unsupportable assertion in the professional public health world) that infection at a young age is less- or non-serious. This constitutes advocacy for Pox Parties by assuming the risk-analysis basis of the anti-vaccine crowd: that the reasonable, or even correct, basis to make a risk comparison is between late-age and young-age infection. There is in fact a three-way decision surface here, and ignoring the third option (which is what you implicitly did with your edit), consitutes advocacy (intended or not).

I have reverted your edit immediately.

Regards, Paul


 * Your probably right that it was a mistake to do this edit without a source. However, this is not advocacy for pox parties (which I think are a dumb idea) nor was I implying that vaccination is not a option, I left in the part that says health officials recommend vaccination instead. You say "You edited the article to assert a non-sourced (and quite frankly an unsupportable assertion in the professional public health world) that infection at a young age is less- or non-serious." but the CDC says that chickenpox is more serious in adults than children and measles is more serious in people over 20 . Tornado chaser (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I made further edits to the intro of the Pox party entry that should address the discussion here by removing any mention of age. The reason: "more serious in adults" is a useful phrase, but the complementary phrase "less serious in children" is a harmful phrase. N.B.: All-causes mortality rises for 2 years following "recovery" from measles infection. Something like 1:8000 pediatric cases of measles go on to develop subacute sclerosing pan-encephalitis (SSPE). A reasonable candidate for the worst possible death for a human being. Similarly - and as noted in the chickenpox article - the disease caused ~100 fatal/year in the pre-vaccine US pediatric population. These are the types of facts that caused me to write "unsupportable". The best course is to eliminate age-dependence from the intro. Pwfen (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pox_party&oldid=857000564
You assertion that "With the introduction of a smallpox vaccine, inoculations of wild smallpox virus fell into disuse." does not belong in the Pox Party entry is an interesting one. Do you view this information as relevant to another article? It is certainly important for the development of the history of pox parties and of vaccines. As currently written the historical role of pox parties is somewhat submerged --- down to just a few lines in the current version. Thoughts?

Pwfen (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I did this because this was about the history of vaccination, which is already discussed in other articles, and not about pox parties. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fighting vandalism !!!! Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)