User talk:KoA

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

I'm sometimes online sporadically, although typically at least once a day unless it's around the weekend. I'll usually respond pretty quickly to any questions, but real life takes priority, so I may not always be the quickest to respond. Thanks for your patience if I'm offline for a bit.

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

Reverted your reverted merge

After pasting a number of messages on my talk page well after the fact of the merge, I note that you reverted it.

I followed due process from the beginning, taking pains to show what was wrong with the source article and that at its heart, the very title was an issue. I had patiently gone through the entire edit history of the article from the beginning before forming this view.

I made two detailed cases, including a major literature review, and did not receive a comment on the substance on those proposals. The second was the outcome of a whole day's work. Rather, what's on record is a minor and misleading guess at my imputed motive after I first laid out my view of things.

You have now made me aware that this subject is contentious, but it doesn't mean that editors with good faith motives should be blocked from moving things forward in compliance with policy, and transparently, as I have. That is why I have re-enacted the merge.

I do note two things, one from your self-descriptor in your bio:

"...an entomologist who has worked with various agricultural pests at a university. I'm mainly an ecologist trained in integrated pest management."

Please be aware that this places you at a clear risk of COI when you use tactics that could be seen as seeking to stall a remedy, and when WP:COI may point to the covert grounds for the objection. I also see you repeating, above, the use of the 'battleground' tag that you put on my page. It's not something I was familiar with until you cited it, but note from your assessment of it in context on your page that it seems to be a rather hopeless tool for exerting pressure in debates. I hope we can find more co-operative ways to work around things. Astral highway (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from my drafted comment at Talk:Monsanto:

It would be casting aspersions to continually make allusions to the idea that I "directly contradict[ed]" something without specifically identifying the comment where I had done so [and identifying which sentence within a long comment where I had done so], but not so if you directly quoted or clarified where I had done so. I appreciate you finally replying to my request to explain how I "directly contradict[ed]" the retraction source. If I am misrepresenting a source, by all means comment on that with specific explanation - because that is a content issue. Interpreting our sources is directly content relevant. Making continual claims that someone is misinterpreting a source with no further explanation is a WP:FOC violation. Katzrockso (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I understand that you're relatively new (to active editing at least in the past few months), but you really need to slow down and turn down the heat in how you're approaching things, especially in a designated Controversial Topic. There's more leeway to talk about behavior here than an article talk page like you ran into. Someone else made a comment about WP:BLUESKY to you recently, and you're really making a battle of a lot of things that should not be and also misunderstanding or misapplying various policies and guidelines I've mentioned to you previously. Editors that have been around this topic for a long time sometimes see new editors come in hot and kind of bowl over behavioral expectations. You're going down that path and lashing out instead when you're running into issues with your edits/comments that you should be able to discuss with less heat.

Please be mindful of WP:NPA policy when it comes to misrepresenting editors, especially me in this case in your opening sentence. You did claim that something actually in the source wasn't in the source, and I quoted you on that previously too (and later that what the source highlighted as a key thing somehow wasn't DUE). That's a huge problem we've already gone over, documented, etc., and the WP:BADGERING/sealioning on the article talk was not ok from a WP:FOC perspective. You could have just said something like, "Oh I missed that it was in the source." and moved on to where current content discussion had landed. You'll take my advice above as you will, but given the tone of your comment, I don't think it's going to be productive to discuss your behavior here further, so I'm closing this discussion to focus my limited volunteer time on content. KoA (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.