User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive November 2018

Research Project
Hi Tornado Chaser

I'm an anthropology student doing an online research project on wikipedians and their motivations and ideals for writing and editing wikipedia pages. I was wondering if you would be interested in answering a few questions I have - sort of like a small online interview.

Best Karoline Husbond (Student at University of Texas Austin) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karohusb


 * Sure, I just won't answer anything about my real life self. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! and sure, it's only questions on you as a wikipedian. These are the questions, and please feel free to correct me in my questions, if you feel they are completely off - I'm very new to the community. Also if you prefer to, you can send answers to ka28456@utexas.edu
 * - How long have you been editing on wikipedia?
 * -Since May 2017 (although I didn't edit at all for a period starting in January 2018 and ending in July 2018). Tornado chaser (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - How would you define your define your position on wikipedia? (new user, administrator, or something else)? and what are your primary activities on wikipedia (editing, creating articles etc)?
 * - Not new but not highly experienced yet, not an administrator, there are plenty of experienced users who are not admins. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - What is you guiding ideals for editing and writing wikipedia articles?
 * -Here is a description of how I approach neutrality issues on vaccine related articles, a topic I often edit. (this is part of my unfinished essay on vaccine issues, but much of it applies to other neutrality disputes)

Bias, and misguided efforts to eliminate bias, are common problems on vaccine-related articles. Wikipedia articles must state facts, as determined by reliable sources. For example, medically reliable sources say that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, so wikipedia should state as fact that MMR doesn't cause autism, this is not pro-vaccine bias, as the effects of any given medical intervention are a matter of verifiable fact, not opinion. Some people do not believe the scientific consensus on MMR and autism, but pretty much none of these people are experts in the area, so Wikipedia must not give their misguided views equal weight by saying things like "some think MMR doesn't cause autism and some think it does"

It is important to note that just as fact may not be stated as opinion, opinion may not be stated as fact even if most experts share the same opinion. An example would be vaccine laws, the large majority of doctors and medical experts believe that vaccines should be mandatory for schoolchildren, but unlike the safety or effectiveness of vaccines, whether they should be required is a matter of opinion rather than a verifiable fact, no matter how sure you are that advocates for vaccine exemptions "hate their children" or that mandatory vaccination is a "human rights violation", there is no scientifically verifiable way to say what is a human right or what the proper scope of government control is. Wikipedia must not take a side on whether to mandate vaccines or any other matter of opinion, but wikipedia can debunk errors of fact being used to justify opinions, for example "vaccines shouldn't be required because they cause autism" is an error of fact being used to justify an opinion. Wikipedia can talk about who has what opinion, but must not take sides on what opinion is better, this includes implied taking of sides, like saying "despite the fact that vaccines are safe and effective, senator X voted no on a bill to eliminate nonmedical vaccine exemptions".

Speaking of opinions, if a person or group is objectively wrong (eg they say vaccines cause autism) their belief should be described as false, but they should not otherwise be described with wording that carries extra negative connotations, like calling a pro-vax organization an "activist group" but an anti-vax group that engages in similar activities a "pressure group" Tornado chaser (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * -Articles should be accurate and verifiable, and neutral. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - How do these ideal shape your activity on wikipedia?
 * -I try to make articles accurate and verifiable, and neutral. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - What does it mean, to you, to live up to the ideal of neutrality in writing/editing on wikipedia?
 * - How do you ensure that you live up to this ideal?
 * -I try to make articles accurate and verifiable, and neutral. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again thank you so much!! Karohusb (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem
Hello I would like to report the fact that someone had been paying their respects and you deleted in that is quite rude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.123.87.78 (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You added unsourced and incomprehensible text, something that is not rude to delete. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk
Hello ? Why was my Teahouse edit reverted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocket blastoff (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I did that by mistake, as soon as I realized what I had done I undid my revert, so your comment is still there. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft
I had creating my page but listing as a draft. What mean by that? Thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizzabeth Ray (talk • contribs) 01:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion
Hello Tornado chaser.

I'm Rebestalic.

I've seen your Teahouse post about an unnamed editor that always assumes bad faith. In many cases, I would say that they are most likely to be:


 * 1) An unassuming minor who has not yet gained full control over themselves.
 * 2) A person who has extremely powerful feelings.

That's okay. Just ignore them.

Thank you, Rebestalic [dubious—discuss]  04:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, but this isn't just someone who can't control their emotions and rants, this is an experienced editor who understands policy and has more than once used bogus accusations to threaten to get people they disagree with in trouble. Also, I am not reporting them now, but will if they cause problems in the future. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Wikipedia could do with a think tank! I'll reply to you tomorrow, hopefully with another idea. If you think I'm being bothersome, please tell me.


 * Rebestalic [dubious—discuss]  05:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello again Tornado chaser.
 * I think you should:
 * 1. Log out from your account. This will ensure that the user has no prior knowledge about this "unknown" IP account.
 * 2. E-mail or create a new section on the user's talk page. Be extremely careful about your words, so that they sound very courteous and polite. However, they should not sound as if you were intentionally doing so or you were mocking them. You should send your proposed words to someone other than you, because they'll read differently than you do.
 * 3. Observe how they behave towards you. If their reply is rude and cocky,
 * 4. Report them.


 * Good luck,
 * Rebestalic [dubious—discuss]  06:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the advice, but per WP:SOCK purposely editing while logged out to get someone in trouble is actually a good way to get yourself in trouble, I think the best plan is to do nothing now, but report them if they use threats to chase people they disagree with out of discussions in the future. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You're right. Let's just go with the flow. Ignore.
 * Rebestalic [dubious—discuss]  19:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: please do not remove the "Locations" section of the "Andronico's" page
Hi,

The solution is not to remove the entire section. Please don't. Citations will be forthcoming.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C458:6E40:C521:5543:A7E4:6E2E (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

PBK edit
Sorry I didn't leave an explanation. The segment I deleted about 276 chapters in the year 2007 seemed unnecessary and perhaps confusing to readers, given that in both the "Chapters" section of the article and the summary box at the top, the number of chapters noted is 286. 65.79.148.95 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirect help
Hi,

How am I able to delete a re-direct and post information instead? The re-directs don't make sense for the purposes intended.

Thank you Icscc (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Click "edit source" and then delete the redirect code and replace it with the content you want to add, let me know if you run into any issues with this. Tornado chaser (talk)

Redirects
Thanks for the help. I thought I was doing that but maybe I wasn't deleting the redirect word.

Icscc (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It does look like you weren't deleting the redirect, just make sure you delete everything before you start typing. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

2nd warning
Your "intervention" here was unwise and you misrepresented my behavior as I noted here.

This is a second warning, following on the one last month. You are digging a hole for yourself. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Why did you leave me a message?
I don't think I've edited a Wikipedia page in years. Is this a mistake of some sort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.82.94 (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see any messages on your talk page, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Now you are reverting even the attributed content. For pete's sake. Your recent editing history at David Wolfe (entrepreneur) 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) 03:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)