User talk:Heavy Chaos

Getting Trickle down economics improved

Reverts

Just a friendly heads up, I had to revert your recent additions on trickle down. Opinion pieces are usually accompanied by RS and other balancing views. Only providing one point of view can violate WP:NPOV. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, wanted to let you know I reverted your last edit, it seemed to make a lot of changes down page. I went back and then added in your reference though, so it should be there. Let me know if I missed something. Squatch347 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I was able to get what I was trying to do a few edits later. It was just a ref add, plus a few more trying to figure out a particular syntax error. LOL I must say, I'm happy with the progress. Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger and start editing. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Encouragement

I appreciate your recent post on the talk page. I largely agree with you. You can see in earlier discussions that most editors also agree, but we have one or two very active editors who are pushing a POV. You can also see the long list of wiki policy that agrees that this should be structured as a term in historical use, not a set of theories, but alas those have gone nowhere.

I would support the reorg you mention (as you can see earlier in the talk page), but you'll have to stick to it for awhile or you will just be outlasted. Squatch347 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I had a feeling. Thanks. I'm going to start with some small edits. Clean up, clarity, etc. I should start small, since I don't know the platform nor the conventions. Heavy Chaos (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense with another user about the trickle down economics page

Andrevan's contributions to the talk page really held up a lot of progress on the article. The needle moved hard and in the right direction as soon as everyone else decided we didn't need his permission. He used quite a bit of strongarming on me, a new user, to get his way. But now the artile is much better. See my user page highlighting the progress. See below for Andrevan's contribution. Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Heavy Chaos! I noticed that you have threatened to revert to restore your preferred version. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Andre🚐 00:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours, four editors have been on the Trickle Down talk page, which includes you and me. The other two agree with me. I don't need to revert back to my edit. There's a lot to do on that page. It needs to be at least organized; I can agree to no deletions while I give that a go. If you'll just revert each one, while filibustering on the talk page, maybe I'll just move on to another page. Sad situation. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, if you're going to make statements like You'll have to make this case effectively or I'm going to make the edit again...the encouragement is to edit, not talk over and over again. I do not believe I need to discuss what's already been said on this talk page for years. No, you do not get to just show up as a new account and assume no discussion for your changes is merited. Andre🚐 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

But there is much extant discussion. My freshmanship in it is irrelevant. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It's quite relevant because you made some bold edits to the status quo version and I reverted you, and asked to discuss. You are saying that discussion isn't a requirement that applies to you. If you continue with that, you will find yourself running afoul of guidelines. Andre🚐 00:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Just wondering, do you have any financial interest in terms of paid editing or a conflict of interest with any organization you would care to disclose. You stated that you are a new user. Have you edited with any other account? Andre🚐 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  LOL. No, I don't make any money relevant to "Trickle down economics". Weird question. I edited once or twice about 10 years ago under a different account that I can't even remember the user name. I don't even remember what I edited. I've been an active participate on Stack Exchange since 2013, so I'm no stranger to user-generated contributions. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  OK, well you seem very interested in the topic of trickle-down economics and in corrected what you see as "political smears" in the article, so you should refer to WP:RGW and note that WP:CIR. Andre🚐 01:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Andre🚐 20:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Andre🚐 00:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Andre for the kind introduction. This help info will certainly go a long way with me. Heavy Chaos (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Voodoo economics

Hey, please don't go around systematically removing this wikilink. Whether the article is merged, created, or whatever, you still shouldn't be delinking the contextual valid links to it. Andre🚐 03:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That's the problem. They aren't contextual at all. The authors are linking to it because they know it links somewhere, without regard to what that actually means. But you didn't revert some of them (namely, the clearly not political topics), so I don't think your motivation is purely "administrative/lost hyperlinking values".

The side question I have here now is, have you put my contributions page on your watchlist or something? You are reverting/replying/etc on virtually everything I do, in unrelated places. Maybe, just a thought, you could let the people actually watching those pages engage me there, if they have any problems with my edits, instead of jumping in so quickly. I don't need you following me around, and I don't think wikipedia needs it either, and I'd prefer the opportunity to engage with a variety of editors. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The clearly not political ones are valid (e.g. this one [1] which seems fine and that entire article should probably be deleted) But the other removals are not valid. and you're also advocating to change the status of the page. I'm not following you around, but if you are making systematic, automated changes without consensus and someone asks you to stop and discuss, you must do so. Andre🚐 04:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear what my problem is, you stated you wanted the redirect voodoo economics to be deleted and instead of waiting to see if that should be the case, you are just going around delinking it. That's not proper. So please stop it. Andre🚐 04:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If you'd bother to read the context of those, virtually all of them are "so and so said 'voodoo economics'". That's not cause to link to reaganomics. Half of those ones aren't even in reference to reaganomics. They are nonsense links. Any reasonable click through would be surprised about where it takes them, except political adepts of the 80s and 90s going "oh yes, Bush Sr. said that about Reagan." And you clearly are following me. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not following you, it's entirely reasonable when I saw you were going around removing every link to voodooo economics in valid articles such as Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign and 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries. If voodoo economics is used in those articles it should be so linked. It doesn't need to go to Reaganomics, but it would make total sense if it did. Andre🚐 04:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about the reverts. I accept it as part of the process. I am complaining about you. When you "saw [I was] going around removing every link to voodooo economics"... yeah, you follow all those pages, and the talk pages where you're so quick to reply to my first message there? Didn't think so. And it was how long between my edits and your reverts? 5 Minutes? I don't quote this lightly, but wp:hound is something you are approaching, I think. You could have at least waited half a day to see what the regulars of those pages actually think. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Um, no, it's not hounding you if you are systematically, without consensus, removing all wikilinks to a valid redirect without a reason why that redirect should be deleted. I don't have all the pages you removed it from on my watchlist, but when I saw you removing it I checked out the other pages. In case you forgot, you are a new editor, right? And I've already reported you to ANI for personal attacks. So how about this, why don't you report me to ANI for hounding you and see what the admins think about your stealth deletion of the voodoo economics redirect and accusing me of hounding when I came here to ask you to seek a consensus for your large-scale removals of wikilinks. Andre🚐 04:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The process starts with edit. That's why there's an edit message, which I filled with my reason. If someone has a problem, they can change or revert. I've already said I'm fine with that. In fact, I might have reverted in a few days, since I know I could find them in my contributions page, based on how things go. My contributions so far show pretty great improvements, so I'll leave the decision to SLAPP somebody up to you. But that might start to look like high maintenance. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that you are entitled to make a bold edit and I may revert that and ask you to discuss that major change and get a consensus. You dissembled, argued, offered more invalid rationales and accused me of hounding you. Now you are saying you might have reverted your own edits yourself. Well, I guess that would certain resolve the issue. But until you had done that, you would be doing an end-run around the merge or redirect/deletion or creation discussion that you had started. I am more than happy to discuss the issue civilly, but you insist of accusing me of wikilawyering, now I guess you are accusing me of tendentious editing. You are a new editor, when you have made a total of 175 edits, you should not be tossing around serious allegations so haphazardly. I suggest you start a discussion to gauge support before embarking on any other major changes. I also suggest you stop throwing around accusations of impropriety. Andre🚐 05:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I was getting information (do other users, not you, care and how much) and attention on the issue (who cares and will they engage on the talk page). If you shadow me it can't happen. I expected most of them to be reverted. I didn't expect you to revert them all in five minutes. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Don't make edits you expect to be reverted. Discuss first. Thanks. Andre🚐 05:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

My expectation could be false. It is false often enough that I don't use the word synonymously with "belief", but with "hypothesis". Indeed, if the edits weren't reverted for some long time, then what would be the problem? The process would still be respected, since people watching those pages would have presumably made a decision to leave it alone. And whether they were or were not reverted, I still would be planning to delete the redirect by the process you showed me in the reaganomics talk page, because it still exists regardless. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You're not "planning to delete it," you're planning to PROPOSE it for deletion. It will likely be kept, and your deletion discussion will be unsuccessful. Either way, you must wait until you actually get it deleted before you go around delinking it. Andre🚐 05:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You're editing messages after I'm replying to them. If I'm clearly "in the room" you need to commit to the first submission of your messages. You can't change them after the fact. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not do so, please provide a diff that you believe I did that. Andre🚐 04:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Here. I'm "in the room", so I've read and started a reply less than a minute after you. You can't edit in these situations. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not an edit after you've replied. The talk page ettiquette is that I may amend my message if nobody has yet replied to it. Also, your reply was to my 2nd message and several minutes later. Andre🚐 04:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely you can see how an edit in this situation might be missed? I'm not saying this makes you dishonest, or that this edit changed the meaning of your message, but I didn't see it before my reply. It was missed, somewhere between me reading the initial version and starting my reply. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The reply tool has a popup that it pops up to tell you to get the new messages. The reply tool is a relatively new thing to Wikipedia. We used to have to write replies by editing the wiki source by hand. Either way, if you look at the diffs below, your message had several minutes and replied to my 2nd message when my 1st message, the amendment, and 2nd message were already on the page Andre🚐 04:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If the problem is not clear to you, I don't know what to say. I already told you I missed it. It wasn't noticed, in the three minutes between 1st and 2nd version. If you had meaningfully changed the message, it would have looked dishonest. As the editor, this can only make you look bad. I can deal with it if a quick edit surprises me. Heavy Chaos (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them WP:TALK#REPLIED Andre🚐 05:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, wiki lawyer. I've asked for a conversational courtesy, not a recitation of "the rules". You're clearly not willing to do that. Fine, I'll remember it. Heavy Chaos (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

As you said yourself, my edit simply added a link for additional clarification and did not change the meaning. I am not wikilawyering but just informing you of policies, conventions, and common practices since you are a new editor. It would be best if you would consider that I am simply telling you useful information instead of taking offense. Andre🚐 05:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] [5] Andre🚐 04:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Another personal attack

"Are you being obtuse" is not acceptable discourse. Cut it out, or I'll open a new thread on ANI about your issue with civil discourse. Andre🚐 07:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, are you though? Seriously. You keep repeating the same things. Or refusing common sense like "voodoo x is a slur". Hiding behind politeness, insisting on endless debate, and repeating the same invalid arguments is called sealioning. Maybe there's a WP rule on it, but I can't find it. Heavy Chaos (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

So you're again accusing me of trolling or harassment when I confront you about personal attacks. What part of, you are not allowed to ask me or imply I'm being obtuse, do you not understand. You have to engage in good faith, agree or disagree with what I have to say. My arguments are valid, and you know very little about Wikipedia policy or guideline. You don't get to show up, accuse harassment, and have everything your way. Andre🚐 07:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If "Are you being obtuse" is not a valid question when confronted with repetitive arguments and refusal to even concede common sense, I'm not sure what language I can have? Civil is what I expect too. Sealioning is not civil. And if you say you're not doing it by intent, it sure looks like you're doing it in fact. Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sealioning in any way. You were making drastic changes without discussion or consensus, doing an end run around the process, and when confronted you make outlandish claims of hounding, harassment, and trolling. Your behavior is not compatible with collaboration. When confronted with someone who disagrees with you, you need to consider that they might have legitimate points to make. We can discuss, and if I'm really wrong, you'll get your way. But we haven't discussed. You showed up to the article, made major changes and then claimed that discussion wasn't necessary because it happened already and was settled. But you weren't there, if you are a new editor. So you need to spend the time and discuss it or stop accusing others of being obtuse, of being dishonest, of trolling or pretending good faith, with absolutely 0 evidence. Andre🚐 08:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

All you do is veto and demand things get cleared with you first. Does that sound like collaboration? Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to have been there at the time you posted it. It's all still there, in exactly the way you posted it the first time. Everyone else's messages too. There's no initiation to start editing, and there's certainly no need to clear it with you personally. wp:own much? Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I never said to clear it with me personally. As we did before we had a discussion and a posting on the NPOV noticeboard and some editors agreed with me, and some agreed with you. I do not own anything nor am I acting like I do: you made bold changes and I reverted them. That is 2 editors. Neither of us gets to call all the shots. Andre🚐 08:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andre🚐 07:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for systematically removing links to a redirect in an end-run around process and consensus, and repeatedly making unfounded accusations against other editors who disagree with you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The text of your message on the ANI board is

Blocked for 24 hours. Consider that a shot across the bow. Removing the links is disruptive enough for a stern warning but the repeated unfounded accusations against other editors, including in this very thread, is absolutely not on.

Is the block for "disruptive editing" or "uncivil" interaction? Both? At 24 hours, I won't request unblock either way. I appreciate you look so far, but my problem with Andrevan is widespread behavioral, not momentary. I do contend that Andrevan is close to harassing me, per wp:hound (i.e sealioning, which I conceded that he could be acting in earnest, but he is doing it in fact by following me a around and demanding I engage him on tedious complex levels, even for minor reasons). He also demonstrates a lot of wp:own by incessantly demanding discuss before anything, which is not the process ethic, per wp:bold. On several occasions where I say this, he'll agree, but only minutes later tell me I can't make edits until I talk to him. Which leads to the very frequent quoting of WP policies, which are suspect and misapplied about half the time, I would say, giving us the WP:lawyering problem, especially WRT a lot of "consensus" talk but never accepting when he's in tiny minority and letting it go. Then, finally, in all my effort so far you can see he's been present, but has consistently resisted any editing (anybody's and especially mine), and there is plenty of evidence in the quality of my personally made improvements and others that, when dealing with Andrevan, we're going to have to WP:IAR eventually if we want to do anything. Additionally, this high maintenance behavior is evidenced by multiple accusations that I intend to, not have actually, editwar and am on the battleground.

This isn't necessarily meant for you to take action against him. After all, you can see the message above where I already committed to not make an ANI against him. But it is a defense of my frustration, where I did ask if he was being obtuse. Maybe that's rude to ask, but, where I'm from, if someone is asking that, it's because they suspect you are already being rude yourself. Heavy Chaos (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Both. You're entitled to disagree with other editors but you can do so without unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct. You're entitled to disagree with a redirect but the place to raise that is WP:RFD. If you want to complain about Andrevan's conduct, you can do that at ANI but you'll need to present evidence, not just accusations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell Thanks. I understand about the links and how that looked like circumvention. But there is a reasoning I made in the edit summary of each which is applicable to the individual instances. That reasoning didn't apply to some links, which I left alone, and neither to other links, where I gave different reasoning for an edit. Andrevan even agreed with some of them and didn't revert, and I explicitly state above to him that I embrace that process. My problem is specifically with Andrevan. If this continues, I'm afraid I have to submit an ANI. Heavy Chaos (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)