User talk:Gtoffoletto

This is Gtoffoletto's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Depp v Heard recent edit

The section I edited is called (Closing Arguments) and it already includes several qoutes from all their lawyers made during the closing arguments. How can it be inappropriate for me to add more qoutes from the already cited sources, qoutes that were said during the closing arguments, to the (closing arguments) section? I dont understand. And what was the problem with my edit to the (Comments by juror) section, u deleted that too. RSH7 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RSH7! Let’s keep such discussions on the article’s talk page so others can participate. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up

Hello Gtoffoletto, just to let you know, I've removed [1] some stuff you added to Depp v. Heard in July 2022 [2] and April 2023 [3].

I'll explain the latter first, it is plainly obvious that Lisa Bloom does not understand the verdict, if anyone were to properly read and understand the lede of Depp v. Heard, one would see that there is no contradiction: jury says it was false that Heard roughed up penthouse as part of hoax, and jury says it was false that Depp perpetuated sexual violence and domestic abuse, different things. There are tons of commentary about this case, we do not need the single worst take in the room. Plus, this is sourced to Vice, and WP:RSP says: There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.

Now, the former, on legal commentators criticized..., I'd like to particularly object to the second source (TODAY.com) quoting Heard's lawyer Elaine Bredehoft, while the third source (NPR) quoting both Heard and Elaine Bredehoft. I view the use of these cites to support legal commentators criticized... as extremely careless. As for the first source, it is Vice, and again, There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.

So, the Lisa Bloom comment, I'm objecting to it totally. The legal commentators criticized... content, I think if you find a proper reliable source, multiple is better, can be re-added. starship .paint (exalt) 14:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Let's keep article discussions there so others can participate. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket family

SpaceX Starship (rocket family).--Please let the discussion know, if that is non-ambiguous title, or desirable title.--For now, i sort of feel that it is a stretch, to call "Super Heavy" and "Starship (spacecraft)" - a "family". However, I have not had my eyes on relevant sources. 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:DDDC:CA43:1CDD:DA72 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

KoA (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @KoA thanks I am aware of this. Please note that I haven't done a single revert on that page. Only new edits and each with clear edit summaries. On the other hand you seem to be mass reverting all my editing without any discussion. Let's try to find consensus on the talk page (I already started a couple of discussions before your last revert) and please try to limit reversions to specific edits with clear motivations so that we can address your feedback. Those massive reverts can be quite disruptive to the editing process. See you on the talk page! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto, the above notice specifically cautions about attempting to game the system, and when we crafted the original sanctions at ArbCom, we frequently had issues with exactly what you're trying to do in gaming 1RR. Instead of WP:NOTTHEM, I would take the advice of your previous blocks like Bishonen gave about being disruptive in topics and what was essentially WP:CIVILPOV pushing at best. When your content is disputed, that is not the time to lash out as you did at editors trying to deal with issues you are bringing into the topic. Instead, it is time to full stop and get consensus for your edits. KoA (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits to a page you evidently didn't like. Which is absolutely fine. You reverted them with clear reasoning (and I agree with many of them). The ones I didn't agree with we are discussing on the talk page. That's exactly what WP:BRD dictates. So stop trying to turn this into something that isn't by referencing unrelated blocks from years back. I really don't like the way you are trying to turn a normal content discussion into a personal issue at all. At this point I will ask you to please leave my talk page alone and stick to the content discussions on the talk pages. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you think it's ok to post on their talk page after being asked not to. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffoletto, I suggest you avoid future mention of potential COI in the area of GMOS/Agrichemicals. At least 5 editors have been blocked or topic banned in the last few years for suggesting other editors have connections to major agribusiness. I would not want you to be the next to receive such a ban.Dialectric (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion @Dialectric. I've shared my thoughts, my goal was simply to encourage transparent discussion, not to accuse or attack anyone. I would like to think that our community should be able to question itself constructively. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, I have said this: [4], at KoA's talk page, and I want to make you further aware that I said it by posting here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imidacloprid

Hi Gtoffoletto. I noticed your recent addition to imidacloprid. I'm not so concerned about its actual content as I am about the fact that all the addition was in the WP:LEAD of that article. As I'm sure you know, the lead is supposed to summarise what the body of the article says, so I'm always a bit worried when the citations in the lead are not mentioned anywhere else in the article: indeed, very many of Wikipedia's best articles don't have any citations at all in the lead. Perhaps you would reconsider the placement of your text. I also note the same issue at thiamethoxam. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike, I totally agree. Help would be appreciated expanding the article's body! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair bit in the relevant sections already. If you go ahead and make the changes you think might help, I'll take another look tomorrow (I'm a bit pressed today). Thanks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the news today but will try to add more content as soon as I have some time. No rush! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for casting aspersions and disruptive behavior. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 21:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gtoffeletto, you have been bludgeoning at Talk:Environmental Working Group, where you accuse KoA of stonewalling (4 times), a very serious and bad-faith-assuming accusation - I'm assuming you have read WP:STONEWALLING, which you link to every time you use the word - and filibustering. I can't see any basis for these accusations, or for other assumptions of bad faith. Now you have moved on to making aspersions on KoA's talkpage, accusing them of not being transparent, etc. I see that User:JoJo Anthrax has said "you are now tripling down on implied bias against another editor, under the false claim that transparency is needed, in an apparent attempt to gain advantage in content disputes." I have therefore blocked you for a week. I also note that you have been told about the ArbCom case and what it says about aspersions and the tactics used to get our content to criticize glyphosate. This one week block should give you an opportunity to reflect upon your actions and comments. If your behavior doesn't change, User:Tryptofish may not have to take you to AE as I will probably just go ahead and topic ban you. Your choice. Doug Weller talk 21:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatted your inappropriate response to a close Administrative Action Review

You were right in thinking that posting to a close Administrative Action Review might be inappropriate, so I've hatted it. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]