User talk:NadVolum

NadVolum, you are invited to the Teahouse!

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)

Alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks

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)

Bludgeon

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)

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

Re RFC on Assange talk page

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)

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)

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

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)

ANI

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)

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

Request denied

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)

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

Coming here

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)

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)

1RR and Consensus Required violation at Assange Talk

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)

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

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

Assange stroke -- Consensus Required violation

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

OK

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)

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)

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)

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)

Link needed at ANI

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You get it…absolutely refreshing.

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)