Hi NadVolum! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reinstated edits that i had just reverted in order to restore well-sourced, longstanding WP:CONSENSUS content in the Assange article. Please read WP:BRD. I suggest you undo these two edits and present your concenrs on the article talk page. You should also read WP:EW. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not how WP:BRD describes things as working. If you have an objection list it on the talk page now that two people have pointed out it should go. I'm sure if somebody else sees a problem they'll revert it or you can always wait till tomorrow. Get a proper objection rather than just saying "long-standing". NadVolum (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BRD-NOT "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle" and "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing". NadVolum (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's the point. You should not have re-reverted challenged content. Please also read up on the Discretionary Sanctions applicable to that page. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that. Try and contribute constructively. NadVolum (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel at this stage you need to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I have not been neutral or have engaged in advocacy? I agree though I should spend more time elsewhere, the Assange article isn't good for my view of Wikipedia editing and I should limit it. I was thinking of just doing computer and maths edits for a while but I think I'll go with my originl idea of setting up an article that would fall under mathematical economics even if it is outside my usual areas of expertise. Probably would be put under econophysics though the people involved aren't physicists! NadVolum (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Econophysics is quack nonsense. Try something that won't get deleted after you work on it. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At that rate I guess you think stuff like Black Scholes is nonsense too. NadVolum (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of peer-reviewed academic publications on B-S. If you do not understand the difference, you will not be successful. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I view what many modern economists do as akin to Ptolemaic astronomy putting epicycles on epicycles. So yes in Wikipedia terms a Copernican system would be WP:FRINGE, never mind a Newtonian system! As with that theory the proof is in the pudding. NadVolum (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Those pages explain how Wikipedia handles sourcing and article content. Your statement appears to say you are working on an alternative path of trying to use Wikipedia to unduly promote alternative views and your personal theories. If that's why you are here, you can and should be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've alread read those. Don't know where you got 'Unduly' 'promote', and 'personal' from. As to alternative, "For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist" :-) NadVolum (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IN response to your comment as JUlain Assagen, yes the place to leave warnings or discuss you conduct is here, and not there.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the “wikiquote” link to the Assange article – that’s certainly better than nothing. I would have liked a couple of the most notable quotes included in the article but given the current hostile climate on that page that won’t be happening. So best of a bad job it is. Prunesqualor billets_doux 12:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:bludgeon, its clear you do not have consensus now its time to drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People twisting things annoys me but I guess you're right, It's not going anywhere. NadVolum (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you recently contributed and voted in an RFC on the Julian Assange Talk page and showed some support for option F. Another editor has pointed to a difficulty with that wording which I have addressed with the following slightly altered version:

 “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."

I would be very grateful if you could let me/us know if the changed wording meets your approval so I can substitute it for the existing F option. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nad – Sorry to bother again – I now have explicit approval from all of the other editors who voted F for my tweaked version (above) – if you explicitly let me/us know if the new version meets you approval I can then ether substitute the wording in the RFC for the new one – or look into other options. Thanks. Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay have noted there I'm fine with that. NadVolum (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Nad I have now changes the wording at the top of the RFC Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have not reported you for pedaling conspiracy theories, bit for violating wp:pointy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the crap pun section title. Re: this I'm inclined to do the direct opposite of what an ex-CIA director tells people to do, no matter how politely they ask. Read Philip Agee; believe Michael Isikoff; try drugs at least once. :) Cambial foliage❧ 10:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, never tried drugs and not going to start now! ;-) NadVolum (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured what I was going to say fit better here rather than at ANI as its not about anyone in particular and is as much about myself as the next. I believe we all have a COI and we are all biased to a point and in varying degrees. Not all biases are an evil or destructive thing. Some people like squash, others don't. On a somewhat benign level that is a bias. If you and I start having a discussion about squash, say you don't like it but I do, in fact I grow it, my point of view is in conflict with yours. I refer to that as a conflict of interest. I know they have different meanings for it but at its base level that is how I view it. My opinion being in conflict with yours may keep us from eating the same vegetables but it should never enter the arena of such import as to diminish our ability to agree or come to a consensus that squash is a healthy vegetable that is liked by many around the world. We just have to establish that common ground which is so illusive today where every atmosphere and every topic is politically charged. --ARoseWolf 17:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in fact I've never really seen squash as something I'd like to eat - so when I ate a rather nice soup made from it once my feeling was more on the lines of gosh they're amazing making this soup from that, rather than that squash is good to eat! Biases definitely have a real effect. Worse than bias is what happens when people get evidence they're wrong, if they get something good about someone they view as bad they see it as a low cunning trick and more evil in some way, something bad about a hero and it gets forgiven and the person is seen as more human as everyone is fallible. NadVolum (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice reverted my closure of the Yahoo clippings thread on the Assange talk page after @Basketcase2022: undid your first revert. Your second revert violates both of the Discretionary Sanctions page restrictions. Please self revert. In general, if a revert has merit there will be some other editor who will pursue that line of thinking. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go and complain then. NadVolum (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might like to check first you're not misquotiung policies again? NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NadVolum, I reverted the Assange stroke report by Morris and stated a valid rationale for omission. You should not have reinstated such content without consensus on the talk page, per Discretionary Sanction "consensus required". Please self-revert and present your thoughts on talk where we can hash this out. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my edit, you didn't remove the other edit saying the same stuff that I pointed out to you. And I went and changed that a bit. As I said you can always remove that and then I'll set up an RfC to put in something about that as I really don't think you would accept the result of straightforward discussion and consensus. NadVolum (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way IAmBecomeDeath and 2601:681:8500:75b0:418b:5861:ac4f:cb5c put in the versions and I edited them. NadVolum (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of the IP. But the way this sanction works, it does not matter who made the initial edit. The sanction described at the top of the talk page says Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.. So once the content has been challenged by removal (and with what I believe is a valid reason stated in my edit summary} no editor is permitted to reinsert that content or similar without first getting consensus on the talk page. Please self-revert and then, as you say, you're free to start an RfC or other talk page engagement to try to get consensus for your version or for the content in any other wording. Thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that way WP:ANI is thataway. Otherwise remove it and I'll start an RfC. Don't waste my time. NadVolum (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood. The reason I came here and explained the issue to you is so that you could do what you say and we, and the community, can avoid a needless enforcement discussion. Yes, please go ahead and we can figure this out on article talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever makes you happy. I see no reason to remove an edit I didn't put in and which I agree with. NadVolum (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a new section in the talk page about it. Can't say I have great confidence in it getting you to change your mind but who knows, strange things can happen? NadVolum (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please also per the above, self revert the content out of the article until any consensus is reached to include it. You might consider an RfC, which would attract more uninvolved editors to the discussion, but that is up to you. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No reply, everything already said. NadVolum (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you. Please be careful about this. The sanctions are not always easy to follow, but I can tell you that, having edited in several areas subject to a variety of different page restrictions, that folks try their best to follow them and generally are ready to cheerfully revert when they inadvertently violate such restrictions. That's the reason for a note on the user talk page rather than escalation. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and this from someone who thinks 10,000 less than 1% of 1% of 1% of the word's population is a significant number LOL, and you people talk about the Plutocracy HA HA!. Hell we even have people now saying that Honest Jul Assange (or at least the creators of the artwork) bid up their own work to inflate the price (a crime). HA HA, odd you left that out.

See we can all mock, its why we don't do it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was pretty pathetic. Do you actually believe that is rational rather than just constructed silliness? I can see it is unfair to mock you. NadVolum (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the reference to 'you people talk about the Plutocracy'. Is that because of my interest in how stocastic calculus can be applied to analysing the distribution of wealth in society? The term I'd normaly apply oligarchy which is what the literature uses but plutocracy might be better. By the way Oxfam say just 8 people own the same as the bottom half of the worlds population. Try doing your 1% or 1% on that. Or figure out the percent who own 30% of the wealth in the US. They don't even appear in most government statistics because they're such a small percent of the population. NadVolum (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to substantiate your accusation against me at ANI. See here. If this turns out to be a false smear, it is a serious matter. Please respond at the ANI thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted there nothing so direct but comments like the following from Archive 36 certainly give that impression

Consensus requirements don't mean that every editor has the veto power over the changes they don't like. On this page the overwhelming majority of the editors support adding this information and provide arguments why it's due. WP:RSN is not a right place for such an RfC so there is no point in waiting for feedback there. Alaexis¿question? 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I was endorsing your own suggestion for a proper RfC here on talk. Sooner it starts, sooner we can resolve this. SPECIFICO talk 08:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

My point was that the content that is supported by current consensus should not be removed pending the outcome of this future RfC. Alaexis¿question? 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You would need an uninvolved close to declare consensus. That is how WP works. Launch the RfC. Lets get this done right and with a firm resolution. Otherwise, per WP:ONUS and BLP, we can't include it. SPECIFICO talk 09:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You made a direct accusation at ANI attributing words to me that I never wrote. I asked you to provide a link to avoid what looks to me like a sanctionable false statement. I came here to reiterate the importance of evidence for such an accusation. If you are unwilling to provide it and you instead choose to leave that false allegation intact, it's fairly likely you will be blocked. You need to provide a diff to back up your accusation or I suppose you could strike it with some sort of explanation for the false aspersion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like you asked I replied at ANI, you could have bothered to look there first. As I said above 'as I've noted there'. I do wish you'd give up on the silly threats. Nobody has even bothered to have a look there I think they've given up on the article or they would have given you a topic block ages ago. I was really surprised when you brought up an actual citation with a possible relevance at the latest RfC instead of your usual irrelevant alphabetic soup. NadVolum (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a diff that shows where I said what you accused me of having said. That's how such statements need to be documented on this site, otherwise they are, as I gave you the link, [{WP:ASPERSIONS]] and are sanctionable behavior. I came to this talk page as a courtesy because you are an inexperienced contributor, and I assume one who's trying in good faith to learn the ropes here on WP. Your unwillingness to either document or retract your accusation is disappointing and I may go forward to recommend you be blocked. Sorry you chose this route. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind or something? Look at the ANI. Or juast go ahead and waste your time asking for me to be blocked. You've never had any courtesty so stop making out you do and just go ahead and try whatever it is you want to do but this is just a waste of time for me. NadVolum (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if I had worded my responses in a similar, common sense, straight-forward manner as you did, the issue would have been put to bed months ago! Thank you for participating!!! Atsme 💬 📧 19:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you repeatedly fail to sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes recently. Please review your recent messages and add your signature with the original time of the post. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. NadVolum (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you fair warning: You have a very extensive record of snarky, accusatory, and dismissive personal remarks on talk pages and edit summaries. At some point, an editor may refer these to a noticeboard for Admin scrutiny and you may wish to consider whether that's something you wish to avoid by moderating your tone and collaborating more collegially. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You talking about collaborating when you can't be bothered to do a simple Google search? How about going and checking the messages where you thought I had put them in and not signed them? NadVolum (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NadVolum. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Asset exchange models, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah better have a look and rescue it. I've had a very bad year with things happening and it is also a bigger task than I thought. NadVolum (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That draft has quite a number of irremediable flaws. It's full of WP:OR and claims to be about an area of economic inquiry and theory when in fact it's about physicists misapplying their mathematical framework to topics in which they do not understand or incorporate the past 100+ years of economic research and analysis. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to come under “the pseudo-Scientific American”, “physicists” complaint. NadVolum (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA WP:ESDONTS "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

Im tired of you making accusations because you dont like the way I phrase something or you misunderstand. Its not okay.

I try to find a middle ground and phrasing that works for both of us, adding citations, and you accuse me of "making stuff up" - that is not okay.

If I insulted or offended you, Im sorry. Ill definitely be avoiding you Softlemonades (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have complained in the David Leigh article about you making up reasons. That's because you did and when I removed a made up reason you just went back and did the same thing again. Don't you think it is much better now you've actually looked up what he said and stuck in his actual excuse instead?

As to the Siguder Thordarson article how about actually checking what I said rather than taking it as a personal attack? I do find it a bit much when people go at lightning speed repeatedly sticking biased stuff in againt the policies and guidelines but I believe I explained clearly what the problems were. As it is I think the various newpaper responses would be better out of the lead but I am going with what you seem to want - it would just have been against weight to have just that one newspaper rather than also including the other three as well which are equally reliable as far as Wikipedia reliable sources assessment.

See WP:5P3 about other editors editing what you say. I see you as a reasonably good editor with potential despite what I said above but you're going to get burnt out pretty quick if you keep treating others' responses to your edits as personal attacks. And making it personal stops rational thought. There's far far worse people than me around if you think I'm some sort of ogre! They have agendas and don't mind what they do to achieve their aims. NadVolum (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say you were an ogre or anything like that. I just asked you to not make comments about me. Softlemonades (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What comments about you did I make that you are annoyed about? NadVolum (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ones above. Reread my response and understand it was only a reply to the words "if you think Im some sort of ogre"

As far as Im concerned this thread is closed Softlemonades (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Ill definitely be avoiding you". I don't know how else you expect me to interpret that. NadVolum (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You're at 3RR with reverts that apparently make little sense to other editors. At any rate, please use the talk page. Even if you believe you are "right" 3RR is a bright line to prevent disruption. Thanks.
SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NadVolum,

I see you have been warned about reverting other editor's contributions too much. You don't want to take a trip to WP:ANEW so please watch yourself and don't indulge in reverting every edit you disagree with. I know you utilize talk pages and that's where we advise people to take their disagreements. In an edit war, typically both parties get blocked so maybe take a break for working on this article for awhile. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about checking your facts first. I did not find WP:ANI of any use coping with WP:DE being used as a playbook but I seem to be able to cope using RfC's where necessary. NadVolum (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NadVolum: FYI, this kind of revert after an edit has been challenged, particulalry for BLP issues, is not constructive.@Liz: SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take me to ANI then. Or discuss on the talk page why you want bits messed up and duplicated and use a newspaper involved in a dispute without attribution. For Liz SPECIFICO is referring to changes to David Leigh (journalist). NadVolum (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in a noticeboard discussion for a straightforward article content problem.

Now, I see that, after my post here 10 minutes ago, you went back to the article and made another edit that makes the BLP problem worse. The article text needs to to tell our readers in clear language that Leigh was not aware that the hacks would be placed on a BitTorrent site and that Wikileaks had agreed to remove them from the internet long before the publication of the encryption key. How you word that is open to discussion. In fact I asked for help improving the wording in my initial edit of that section. But these repeated reverts without constructive engagement are not helpful. I am not going to undo your revert at this time but will instead ask you to undo your most recent revert and use the aritcle talk page@Liz and Softlemonades:.

Jeez why can't you do something yourself? You put in the same basic thing three times in one paragraph., once where it put two things separated in time together in the wrong order. Just start a discussion yourself according to WP:BRD instead of spending all your time on irrelevant WP:TLAs attacking other editors. Do you really think this silliness is going to get you anywhere? NadVolum (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making personal remarks and attacks on Wikipedia article talk pages, such as you have recently done on the David Leigh article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well you did three of your attacks and I thought what I said in response was pretty tame. You have been warned before for that sort of thing. Here's an interesting one where Slatersteven accusing me of disruptive behaviour turned into a discussion of your canvassing. Please do stop it and try and find some content related policy and guideline reasons for changing the article in whatever way it is you want. NadVolum (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO can you provide some diffs of NadVolum making personal attacks at the talk page? It's a serious accusation and I hope you can substantiate it. All I could see during my review was you casting aspersions at the editors of the Assange article, but that's quite normal and expected at this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. May I request that you sign your posts, via placing your signature after it, rather then under it. Placing your moniker under your posts, creates visual confusion, as to whether it is your post.

• Example (this is right)
  Hello. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Example (this is wrong)
  Hello.

GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd only put my signature underneath if I was quoting something or putting in exact text I'd like for consideration, I think it would be wrong for me to stick a signature within things like that

What particular edit of mine had you problems with for example? NadVolum (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at 00:47 today, at WikiLeaks' talkpage, concerning BLP issues. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a quote just before my signature. I really don't think I want to stick my signature at the end of a quote. The quote has quote marks around it and is indented compared to my text. I believe it is normal to indent a quote. So no sorry I won't do as you say unless you can give a better way of doing things. NadVolum (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. It might be best that you not appear on Specifico's talkpage, while he's blocked. Particularly if it's about his block. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Had no intention of saying anything else anyway, but in case something comes up and I get the urge I'll suppress it! NadVolum (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

On a more serious note, please do not vote in deletion discussions that are already closed, as you did here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any questions about the real nitty-gritty of the dossier, feel free to ask on my talk page. I write this because the article is not complete. Some key information is deliberately kept out by some Trump supporters, so just reading the article can give an incomplete picture. Some of the "unconfirmed" allegations are believed to be likely true by some very important subject matter experts and leaders of U.S. intelligence agencies, but their opinions are not allowed in the article, contrary to our policies. Trump supporters have a stranglehold on the article in this regard. Long discussions of this are discouraged on the talk page but can occur on personal talk pages. So if you have questions about specific allegations, feel free to ask me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't post your opinions about news reporting on the article talk pages, as you recently did on Steele Dossier. You can write a manifesto in user space or off-wiki. SPECIFICO talk 14:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No manifesto needed! There's an article on Wikipedia about it at Media bias. Perhaps you'd like to try and delete that as fringe if you think they don't do spin. NadVolum (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For your to-do list, please add reading what we mean by WP:FRINGE and how we treat such content. It's best to use such words in ways consistent with their defined meanings and related policies. Otherwise, editors will not understand whatever you are trying to convey. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We clashed a bunch before and you were right that it was my fault with things like the Steele dossier. But Im trying to be a better editor and better to edit with, so if we can start over Id like to Softlemonades (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have clashed because I thought you were doing some things badly wrong, not because I have any particular feelings about you. As far as I can see you're trying to do a good job but having problems listening to others because as far as I can see you take criticism as a personal attack, not as something to be evaluated dispassionately. I am not looking for friends on the web. I am only interested in Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. And even if I seemed to get on well enough with someone on Wikipedia on some sort of personal basis I would be very careful to try and make sure I was not swayed by such feelings in dealing with matters on Wikipedia. And I don't have much time for Wikipedia at the moment because of real life anyway. HOpefully I'll be getting back to it more but there's only so many things one can do in a day. NadVolum (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see you're trying to do a good job but having problems listening to others because as far as I can see you take criticism as a personal attack, not as something to be evaluated dispassionately.

Im trying to do better with that sort of thing, but when I asked for specifics and constructive criticism about the draft you first didnt respond and then said I was asking for you to have to go around arguing why the merge should not be done when that wasnt my intent. When you gave something specific like the lead, I immediately agreed and did a bunch of edits on it and agreed to compare the body line by line (still planning to do that when I have time)

Im working on the things you pointed out

HOpefully I'll be getting back to it more but there's only so many things one can do in a day Not trying to rush anything, just dont want us to clash over old stuff when we run into each other Softlemonades (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. Well all my life I've had trouble trying to convey anything despite my best efforts so I suppose I should just chalk this up with the rest. NadVolum (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yeah I feel like we keep getting stuck in different conversations from each other. Its my fault too

Anyway Im trying not to take things personally like you said. I didnt mean to argue with what you said. I just meant Im trying Softlemonades (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NadVolum. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Asset exchange models".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the lede. I was moving a bit too fast and didn't include the clarification. Thanks! Squatch347 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you need a reason but do you have one for removing this text about two months back? i.e. if the factored part of N−1 and/or N+1 is larger than the cube root of N, then N can be proven to be prime. It was on Pocklington primary test. Justanother2 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember doing anything like that and can't see why I would! NadVolum (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard action when for edits from a blocked user, there is no point inspecting their edits. As t this it s just a random observation without a citation. NadVolum (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was without any merit and contrary to Wikipedia principles. Personal attacks on me don't fix that. NadVolum (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please link what you feel is a personal attack. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like to point that out to your friend with the specious arguments too thanks or do you just do it to people who disagree with you? NadVolum (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ecrusized (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging in discussions about the Arab/Israel conflict with editors who are not extended-confirmed. They are prohibited from back and forth discussions, and will end up blocked if they try. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and look out for them. NadVolum (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's difficult to keep track of, but IPs and red-linked talk pages are a good indicator. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am again asking you to please stop engaging with editors who are prohibited from editing the ARBPIA topic as you have done here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a warning, stop engaging with non-EC editors as you did here. You're encouraging them to engage in discussions that they are prohibited from having. Please just remove these with an edit summary noting WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that but they have made useful edits in the last two years to Wikipedia so I thought they deserved better than being ignored, I'll say any such response to their user talk page if I deem it worthwhile. NadVolum (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also {{welcome-arbpia}} which gives a softly worded explainer about why they've been reverted and how they can engage in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. NadVolum (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet again engaged in discussion with an editor is prohibited from discussing the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Sorry. NadVolum (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand that such discussions can get heated very quickly in this area, but perhaps this as well as this and this are not the best way to have such a discussion.

Would you please consider doing it differently in the future?

Sincerly, FortunateSons (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean say something like yes I see Professor Mystero has pointed out problems with spherical earth hypothesis which indicate it is false, that's very interesting and even though another professor has pointed out errors in his work and it is published in a fringe source we need to put the flat earth thory in the lead sort of thing? NadVolum (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps avoiding any or every of those will be productive:

it is trash statistics used for propaganda. The rest is nitpicking by people with no qualification and in unreliable sources

We don't have bits saying that Israel cook their statistics or resurrect the dead because of that.

since any professional statistician wouldn't make a mistake like that. There's no need for gish gallop. Do you actually believe Professor Wyner wrote some actual good statistics rather than writing a propaganda piece for Israel that any beginner in statistics can see through

Putting in a number of bad arguments in the hope that the quantity bamboozles people is the essence of Gish gallop

an obvious propaganda piece

Hatchet job? It is fairly elementary thankfully, he wasn't trying to fool experts.

The article has about his saying there are problems with the correlation between men and women but He simply should not be in the lead at all. That's like saying in the lead about a drug that a study showed no problems but somebody wrote there might be some problems with it. Especiallly when that somebody didn't do any checking with the people who wrote the study or anyone independent. That is pretty standard on X or TikTok but it is not what Wikipedia does.

The lead was referring to Wyner's article which is trash.

The Tablet stuff is straight prpaganda with twisted statistics by professor Wyner.

Even ignoring issues with stating such things about media written by living people, it's also contributes to heating up a discussion when it doesn't have to be. Do you think that my position regarding this is not reasonable? FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trying to defend trash statistics. NadVolum (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let’s add an AGF issue to our conversation about tone and NotForum.

I’m not familiar enough with this to hold an opinion on the statistics. I am familiar enough to hold a strong position on the conduct. FortunateSons (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about AGF yourself? You say you don't know enough statistics to assess his analysis but you want me to treat him like he acted in good faith when it is obvious to me he didn't? NadVolum (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue of conduct, not content, including assuming good faith of other editors and being appropriate when describing living people and their actions.

Me being familiar with the original numbers, but not familiar enough with the response by the other academic to evaluate their relative merits to consider their inclusion into a specific article is not relevant to know that the statements above are inconsistent with policy. Particularly considering that this is not a one-off problem.

Why are you opposed to slightly cutting down on the heat? Is there something that will be lost if you choose more civil language and make an effort to stay on the specific point without turning to conduct covered by NotForum? FortunateSons (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who have I been uncivil to? NadVolum (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trying to defend trash statistics is an unusual way to express consideration and respect. FortunateSons (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would you prefer it phrased? NadVolum (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any other way, even ignoring that mixing conduct and content disputes is generally a bad idea. You might have noticed that I specifically didn’t join those discussions or made this criticism there, but came here and referenced specific behaviour, not the arguments made. The purpose was to keep it on conduct as much as possible, instead of having it devolve into a discussion which content position I agree with. FortunateSons (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for the heads up. NadVolum (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this even with the later change isn’t great either FortunateSons (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty good reply, but in the future can you leave out interesting by, um, should I call them a self-hating Jew? It's going to draw attention away from your point and lead to more unproductive arguments. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right. I should be a bit less pointy. NadVolum (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harrowing 649-page document names every Palestinian killed by Israel in Gaza amid 'genocide denial' if you haven't seen it already. Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm surprised they've managed to identify that many of the dead. NadVolum (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the ACLED data! Have you explored it? It is voluminous but gives very detailed breakdown of casualties. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I've not looked at it in detail. Thanks. I don't put a very great faith in casualty reports from soldiers - they tend to think they're successful when they're not - but on the other hand they tend to forget to fill in forms like that. So sort of could be either way but at least a good starting point. NadVolum (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes me question the casualty figures at Rafah offensive. I'll start a discussion and tag you there, but I was wondering if there are ways to get such information from their data, like "how many people were killed in Rafah area between May 1 and Sep 30"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult enough to get overall figures to within a few thousand! NadVolum (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm notifying you that I have listed your name at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Evidence#Seven proposed parties as being among the most active editors in Palestine/Israel noticeboard disputes, and I have proposed that you participate as a party to the case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No food or dancing unfortunately so not my type of party! 🥗🍗😋🕺💃 NadVolum (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would love to continue the conversation on the Israel-Hamas War talk page, but unfortunately, I think people are going to revert my edits because I do have not reached the 500 edits required for the extended protected pages. Have a nice day! PotatoKugel (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry there's no point I can imagine in discussing those figures. NadVolum (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree :). We can discuss again when I have 500 edits. PotatoKugel (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]