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.

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: [1], 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]

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]

@Thryduulf you replied to my comments and our exchange has been "pushed under a rug" so that it may be less visible. It is appropriate? I was mentioned several times in the discussion and my comments (and yours) were definitely not just "off topic". At the very least this should remain within the discussion and more impartially titled (if it needs to be "hatted" at all which I don't think). I also find it somewhat ironic that someone proposing another admin was too WP:INVOLVED in an administrative review performed this action. It feels very persecutory. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was inappropriate for the forum it was placed in, for the reasons I explained in my reply. If you have issues with the hatting, you need to take that up with the person who did the hatting. If you have continued issues with KoA then you need to deal with them in the appropriate forum. I am not involved in the dispute, and have no desire to become involved in the dispute so pinging me about it is waste of time. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don’t want to drag you into this and totally understand if you want to stay out of it. I just wanted an uninvolved third opinion to know if I was over reacting as I find this action unnecessarily aggressive and intimidating. In any case thanks for the clarification on that thread. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) "Persecutory", and now "aggressive and intimidating"? One more dig at Doug Weller, who was kind enough to not totally remove your misplaced post on the Admin Action Review page, and I'll block you for harassment. And why are you wasting people's time by irrelevantly repeating a lot of it at a request concerning Leyo's use of admin tools at WP:AE? What's it all got to do with the price of tea in China? Bishonen | tålk 18:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Gtoffoletto, I've been looking back at the history of an old block, which was lifted on 24 August 2020 on condition that you didn't contact or interact with me.[2] I can hardly blame you if you had forgotten, three years later (I had). Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt, I just want to clarify that now that I've spoken to you, of course there is no longer any requirement that you don't speak to me. Feel free. Bishonen | tålk 01:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Gtoffoletto. Thank you for your work on Flame deflector. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hey there! Hope you're having a great day. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia with your article. I'm happy to inform you that your article has adhered to Wikipedia's policies, so I've marked it as reviewed. Have a fantastic day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @SunDawn. Any suggestions on how to improve the article are appreciated! Have a nice day. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Valve on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Project Weber/RENEW on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pesticide Action Network for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pesticide Action Network, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesticide Action Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]