User talk:Bonewah

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7

For your information: while you should be careful with consecutive reverts and edit warring, you are not currently over

Your editing at

WP:BRD, which is a strategy and not policy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

7&6=thirteen I thought I had been clear that I wasn't endorsing edit warring with the "while you should be careful with consecutive reverts and edit warring", but apparently I wasn't clear enough, since there was a further revert by Bonewah. Nevertheless, the other user proceeded to revert again and to accuse Bonewah of 3RR breach again, even though Bonewah is still not technically over 3RR, while the other user now is. Therefore I have reported the other user because I don't like to put up with that sort of unjustified arrogance. LjL (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I warned the other editor again. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, i handled that situation poorly. I should have listened to LJL and walked away for a bit. The problem im having here is that there seems to be a consensus for the edit I was re-adding, but Lipsquid keeps reverting it and accusing others of edit warring. If you look at the bottom of the economists poll section you will see that at least 3 other editors agree that this material should be left out, and that is on top of an RfC that i opened in an attempt to resolve this issue which was closed in favor of remove. The edit in question was itself the result of a compromise from supply side economics talk which lipsquid himself agreed to, see my comment here. Clearly edit warring is not the way to resolve this issue, but good faith discussion doesnt seem to be working either. If you have any advice on how to proceed, that would be greatly appreciated. Bonewah (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would honestly not say there is consensus one way or the other at the moment. What does irk me are the continuous claims from Lipsquid that there is consensus for inclusion when that is clearly not the case. But that doesn't necessarily mean there is consensus against inclusion, either. The latest quote he's been adding just sounds silly within the article. But I had recently stepped away from the whole thing, because last time I had reverted Lipsquid, that resulted in him reverting several of my edits on completely unrelated articles. It felt like a way to intimidate me; I reported him on

WP:ANI, but that just put me in a bad light because other people I had had bad experiences with ganged up against me, and nobody would speak up for me. Sometimes things just happen that way, and I don't have great advice aside from "wait and think before doing". Now I'm speaking up about the whole thing again at the edit warring report page, since there is some actual administrator attention. It might be a better time to bring up these issues. LjL (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:CRITICISM) way. This is all just to say... the quote is short and the reader may not even notice it, but accepting it there will inevitably mean accepting more. LjL (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

My problem with all this is that every attempt ive made at a good faith resolution has been thrown back in my face. Again, the edit i was pushing was itself the result of a compromise that Lipsquid himself agreed to, only to change it later without explanation. When i asked what the reason was for the change he ignored me. Im totally ok with editors changing their minds, but i think that a)if you do, you should explain your reasoning in such a way that the other editors involved can meaningfully respond, and b) you should off on editing the article until you have at least tried to reach a new consensus. Neither of those things happened and that, to me, is very frustrating. Bonewah (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I'm afraid that's not a valid unblock request. But you can reply to me just fine here... I have your talk page in my watchlist. I actually much prefer to keep conversations on one page instead of jumping back and forth between two user pages. LjL (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I stress that I respect your good intentions, but find that I object to your extensive revisions, while not wanting to reargue the points again. The incident report is entirely premature to be sure; I hope for advice on how to deal with the general problem of political articles. Best regards, Bdushaw (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Shipwrecks
	I'm glad you like shipwrecks. I love Titanic and mostly World War II battleships like the Bismarck. Dallas G. Spencer (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bonewah. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I just re-launched the

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject . There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bonewah. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! -

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the

Sure ok, i didnt carefully read your canned message on my talk. I cant guarantee that i always will, especially when the edits are smaller than the summary. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few things here: 1, edit summaries are nice, but they aren't required. 2, TWC, you're not the Wikipedia police, you don't get to make hostile and condescending demands on others. 3,

WP:DTTR - Bonewah has been here for a decade. 4, It would be more convincing if most of your most recent edits lacked an edit summary. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow... I've seen people carry grudges, but you wear it like a second skin. Get over it already. Anyway, your point about tenure here is moot. The longer someone is here, the more they should know about such things. Even then, all I did was use the standard ES template. (WP:DTTR is nice, but it is not required). And, if you really think that is "hostile and condescending", then you should take that up on the template talk page (maybe get it changed to something that doesn't upset you so much). Unless you're referring to my second post, where I used "please" and "thank you"...?

By the way... the edits of mine you're referring to are all minor edits, that are marked as "minor" (that's what the "m" is for, it stands for "minor"). Now, are we done here? I don't really see the point the of your reply, but how about moving on to more constructive things? Have a nice day -

^theWOLFchild 17:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

This has nothing to do with a perceived grudge, and everything to do with your general hostility to other editors. I was referring to your bolded text and the implication of your second post that, because you told Bonewah to do something, he is obligated to do it. Do you know that, despite the fact that we can't hear your voice over text, your tone comes through, loud and clear? That is what is hostile and condescending.

Funnily enough, I don't see anything at Help:Edit summary that says minor edits are exempt from summaries. Idiosyncratic readings of something that isn't even a policy are fine and all, up until you decide to try to force others to adhere to them. As for moving onto constructive things, you might have considered that advice before you posted your first message here. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR... but I do hope your day gets better. Ciao! -

Hi, I see you've been updating the infoboxes for several US Navy ships, which is both great and appreciated, but with this edit, I had a couple questions; the "ship compliment" originally stated: "73 officers, 1009 enlisted", which you changed to simply say: "1208". There is a difference of +126, is that based on a source? (again, this is the kind of thing where edit summaries are helpful) Also, why switch to a combined number, instead of listing numbers for "officers" and "enlisted" separately? Was this decided somewhere by consensus, or is it part of a guideline? I only ask because I would think that most readers would find the previous, non-combined way more informative. If you could enlighten me on those two items, it would be appreciated. Thanks -

@

Thewolfchild:, I honestly didnt check either one, i was just making the infoboxes consistent. Ill see what the sources say and update them all. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Added a note on the wasp class talk page. Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep saw that. You only mentioned the troop numbers, not the ship's compliment. (the "1208"). I corrected using the source you supplied (66 officers, 1,004 enlisted for Wasp class). -

^theWOLFchild 14:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your efforts there. You are doing a good job. JohnInDC (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bonewah. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've updated IMF data section of List of countries by GDP (PPP) to 2018. Can you tell me why did you revert it back to 2017 data? Thanks. Techup (talk)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Jorm (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No in fact, i have both let your edit stand while we attempted to reach consensus and offered my own alternate proposal to resolve my objections. You are the one who both ignored the responses at the Fringe noticeboard which all rejected your proposed edits (indeed, your new proposal contains the exact line which was soundly rejected), and then deleted my attempt at resolution. If you read the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page you should note the section entitled "Before starting the process" which reads "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." You have not done so. I dont believe you are editing in good faith. You have gone out of your way to ignore your fellow editors when they disagree with you and are now going out of your way to hide my attempts at an alternative resolution. Bonewah (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not your edit[1]?

talk) 18:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

As for the diatribe at the end of your comment: I started a talk page discussion, and I took it to an external noticeboard. Throughout all these discussions, you outright rejected on every occasion that Laffer advising a presidential administration belonged in any way whatsoever until you decided to drastically flip-flopped as soon as I started a RfC.

talk) 18:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh you took it too a noticeboard did you? And then what happened? Did all the editors who responded to you say that this information should be excluded wholesale? Did you forget that part where you went forum shopping, got rejected and then ignored what you didnt like? Im reluctant to give an inch here given how combative you have been, but the edit you offered at the RFC is radically different than the one you offered up initially. Do you think that maybe its possible that given the changes between the first version and this one, that maybe my problem was with the first edit and not the idea of inclusion per se? And maybe you could also consider that what you describe as me having "drastically flip-flopped" is actually an attempt to find some common ground? Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO, forum-shopping? After whining about how I failed to seek input before starting the RfC, you're now whining about how I in fact sought input on an external board? How about you pick a consistent argument? "Do you think that maybe its possible that given the changes between the first version and this one, that maybe my problem was with the first edit and not the idea of inclusion per se?" Reading this, it's so plain to see what a waste of time it was trying to deal with you: you removed all the content that mentioned that Laffer advised Trump,[2] but now you're arguing that part of the content you removed was actually good and should have stayed. That is what prompted the RfC. How many times was I supposed to try to convince you that advising the White House was DUE content before it would get through to you? How much time was I supposed to piss away? My answer: no more time. That's why I started the RfC.

talk) 19:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

If you consider seeking consensus to be a waste of time then you should pick a different hobby. I am, in fact, arguing that given the additional sources you provided that a compromise edit is possible. If you are uninterested in that, then you are the problem here, not me. Bonewah (talk)

The RfC is an attempt at compromise and resolution. There's limit to how much time can be wasted away on trying to convince a single editor.

talk) 19:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. Sadly, i disagree as to who is attempting to compromise and who is wasting time. Bonewah (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Per your previous commentary on the same subject matter. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:CaradhrasAiguo Can you be more specific? I see two things i might be interested in. Bonewah (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Horse Eye Jack thread. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it may be a good idea to make your Laffer Curve !vote clear with respect to the specific RfC question. My read is you said "no" but it may be overlooked without a Oppose or similar. Just my 1/50th of a dollar. Springee (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hi! I see you are a contributor to the Wikipedia article "Milton Friedman". I must notify some users of my nomination. Thank you! Please take a look if possible. If not, no worries.BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 23:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

QRep2020 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TE_by_Bloodofox Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

If you want to undo your edit or not is up to you, I trust your judgement and can only observe that the article is a complete mess anyway. 'Pauloroboto (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"according to me" is not how we determine valid article content. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'A science' vs 'the science' isnt something im going to put a lot of effort into unless i have to. I note that we (currently) dont claim it is the only science which does those things. Also, im suspicious that 'a' vs 'the' is what is really going on here as you scare quoted "science" and "studies". If this is just a stalking horse for claiming that economics is a pseudoscience, then, fair warning, you are going to have a really hard time getting me to go along with that. Bonewah (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding that this is not something one should have to a lot of effort into. It just a hard fact that it is not the discipline for studying these things. That's disinformation. You can think that economics is in fact a pseudoscience or not, that does not really change anything here.

Kind regards Pauloroboto (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously cited a author who nuanced the definition by professor Roger E Backhouse, but that did not stop someone from changing it back. So my take on this does not merely amount to "according to me". But in hindsight I should have expressed myself more eloquently to stop someone from making a interpretation like this. But on another note. I would kindly like to ask you to stop wikihounding me. @SPECIFICO Pauloroboto (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's your own words above, "according to me" -- your insistent POV editing on numerous pages is now being noticed by an increasing number of editors. This usually ends in a topic ban or site ban. If you can't take feedback and work within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the ultimate outcome is quite predictable. Nobody is rejecting you wholesale, but you have never really taken account of the advice and reactions of other editors or conformed your own work to WP norms. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through all the social sciences listed in the lede of Social science, i see that they all are described as 'the' scientific study. Examples Anthropology "Anthropology is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior, human biology, cultures, societies, and linguistics, in both the present and past, including past human species.". Archaeology "Archaeology or archeology is the scientific study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture." Etc. I understand your point, but i disagree that any change should be made along these lines. Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hi @Bonewah, I restored sourced material you removed with your recent reverts on the Todd Rokita article and invite you to reach consensus on the talk page. Ushistorygeek (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I really hope you don't make a habit of misrepresenting what others have said in discussions. It's a problem. Bon courage (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not misrepresent you. You clearly stated that

WP:PSCI is the section on Pseudoscience. Bonewah (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

NO it's not, it's just a (badly chosen) shortcut name. The section is explicitly not just about pseudoscience. Did you not read it? Bon courage (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The section titled "Fringe theories and pseudoscience" isnt about Pseudoscience? The section that contains the advice "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." and "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." isnt about pseudoscience? Nearly every sentence in that paragraph contains the word 'pseudoscience'. If its not about pseudoscience, what, in your view, is it about? Bonewah (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I must conclude you either lack competence to understand English, or are trolling. Bon courage (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]