User talk:Bowler the Carmine

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If I have been active and have not yet responded, please place {{Talkback|your username}} on my page as I may have missed your response.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. If I notice that you have been active but have not responded, I may place {{Talkback|Bowler the Carmine}} on your page in case you have missed my response.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

This user is a regular and doesn't mind if you template him.

Larry Novak[edit]

Every bit of what was added [and then shortsightedly and erroneously removed immediately afterward (which proves how little you know about the subject, or you would have realized it was all factual)], was privileged, insider FACTS that enriched the page and provided more information to the reader about its subject. Why don't you fact-check BEFORE brazenly removing such privileged, FACTUAL information??? Ridiculous. 2600:8801:350E:C400:6C15:D29C:76DD:654C (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We have a policy of talking about our subjects neutrally, and avoiding words like "tremendous" or "incomparable". In addition, we have a policy prohibiting original research, as we require that all our information comes from reliable, published sources. You are welcome to add the information again, as long as it is backed up by a published source and it is written from a neutral point of view. If you require help, you are welcome to make a request at the Teahouse. Lastly, I highly recommend you read the talk dos and don'ts before proceeding further. Thank you. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 22:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:2600:8801:350E:C400:6C15:D29C:76DD:654C. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 23:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis[edit]

Hi Bowler the Carmine. I see that you have reverted nine times on this article to reinstate the unreferenced "Controversy" section. There are a few issues with this. First and foremost, it's a violation of our BLP policy, as it's contentious (and negative) material about a living person that is completely unsourced. In this case, policy dictates that such material should be removed immediately and that it's up to the editor who is seeking to restore the material to provide the reliable sources to merit inclusion. In these cases where our articles can have real-world impacts on living individuals, it's not okay to just revert, slap an {{unreferenced}} tag on it, and move on. Second, the constant reverting without any discussion on the talk page from anyone is basically an extended edit war, even if it's not three reverts within a 24-hour period, and your reverts don't qualify for any of the edit warring exemptions (I would actually say that the editors removing the material qualify for exemption #7).

Due to the BLP concerns, I am going to remove the section. If you want to include it in the article, I strongly recommend looking for reliable sources first, and perhaps it would be more appropriate to integrate the content within other sections rather than a stand-alone controversy section. As this is a BLP matter, I'm also going to leave the following notice – it's not a sanction (not even a warning) and doesn't imply wrongdoing, it's a standard template used to let editors know about certain areas where policies may be enforced more stringently.

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout In all seriousness though, thank you for the reality check. I'll refrain from keeping that section up and review all relevant policies. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 16:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

Please read the guidelines for Wikipedia:Signatures and update your signature. There is literally nothing readable except the popping colors. Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from Talk:2022 Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election#RfC for adding party switch by non notable politicians into the Background section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ensured that all colors had a suitable contrast against various light mode backgrounds. Are you using dark mode? Bowler the Carmine | talk 01:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is a color gradient from blue to green, not your [user]name. The text is not visible at all — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My signature uses the background-clip CSS property, which is supported on all major browsers. The issue is with the browser you are using, Brave Browser, so I will not change my signature. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am using Chrome, a major browser. Your signature is completely undreadable. DaxServer's description of your signature is exactly the same as what I see. Please change your signature. -- Whpq (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out a solution. How is this signature? Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can read it now. Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that Blink-based browsers support background-clip, but only the prefixed version. I had to replace it with -webkit-background-clip for it to work on Blink-based browsers. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD1[edit]

You requested an RD1. While a well-formed request includes the range of IDs to be reverted that's not an issue here; I can figure it out. However, you identified the following site is the source of the text: https://htaba.com/art-autism-all-the-benefits/

That site doesn't work for me S Philbrick (Talk) 00:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20221027184841/https://htaba.com/art-autism-all-the-benefits/ Bowler the Carmine | talk 01:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what the copyvio is? I have used Earwig on it, I've eyeballed it myself, and I've used sentence fragment searches; I see no copyvio or even close paraphrapsing. I've declined the revdel and restored back to the version added by Efalwell. -- Whpq (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support your restoration. While I didn't look at it as thoroughly as you, I'll note that it did not trigger a report at CopyPatrol. S Philbrick (Talk) 12:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I first encountered that section, I compared it with the source and found some similarities in wording and structure that seemed suspicious to me at the time. Looking at it again, I agree that the similarities probably aren't enough to warrant removal. I withdraw my request. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Love of Corey. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Colorado Springs nightclub shooting, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Love of Corey (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added with citation. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags - without offering support[edit]

Why are you putting maintenance tags without offering an indication of what need to be corrected? What aspect of that section is "close paraphrasing? And if you believe that the section needs correcting, why haven't you fixed it, especially when you are basing your opinion on something that is not wikipedia policy? AgntOtrth (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] AgntOtrth (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect my preferences for replies. I will answer on your talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your request. However, you re-instated a maintenance tag, without explanation. I created a "talk" on the article and requested that you point out what need to be fixed. It has been about 3 days, and you have not responded to the talk page as to why you re-instated and then re-re-instated a maintenance tag without offering suggestions/ideas on what needs correcting.

And so while to acknowledge your request, it would be more helpful for you please go to the article's talk page and provide some insight as to what needs correcting. Thank you. AgntOtrth (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated that I do not want to continue the discussion here. Respect my preferences and continue the discussion on your own talk page. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you wish to discuss article content and the need for maintenance tags; please use the article talk page, so that a consensus can be reached. And yes, I know you did not place the tag; but you re-instated it with no explanation. I had removed the tag and provided a thorough explanation as to why I removed it - @wikiwikiwayne did not provide any insight as to what needed correcting. So again, please use the article's talk page to discuss content in the article. Thank You. AgntOtrth (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economics page[edit]

You reverted my removal of content that is weakly sourced and fails our WEIGHT section of NPOV. Simply asserting in your edit summary that it is good content does not satisfy the standard we set for article inclusion.. In the many centuries of economic thought and the many tens of thousands of peer-reviewed sources on the subject, this content is simply not encyclopedic. If you feel strongly about this, you are welcome to make a case for this content on the talk page, where I and others will discuss with you. Meanwhile, please self-revert your reinstatement of this content. Thanks and best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it doesn't constitute criticism of economics as a field. I overlooked that rationale in your edit summary, and I won't be reverting @John Maynard Friedman's reversion back to your edit (the fact that if I reverted it, I would be out of line anyway notwithstanding). However, the content you removed was adequately sourced on its own, and I'm concerned you're letting your opinions cloud your judgement here. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is questioning that the material is properly supported by RS citation, because it is. The problem is that this is the wrong article for it. The classic particular/general problem. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I overlooked that when I reverted it, and I support its removal on the grounds that it is too specific. I do however take exception to SPECIFICO's second rationale for removal, which was that it wasn't well-sourced. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my edit summary, there are hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on various topics in economics and economic policy. Just because you find one or five of them does not make it representative of a significant mainstream view - even a significant minority view. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Lack of Civility[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in a lack of civility WP:CIV in the talk page of Killing of Tyre Nichols and in an editors own talk page. In the articles talk page you have made personal attacks/disparaging comments about another editor. Please review the Wikipedia:Five pillars. We do not need to agree, we can at the very least do our individual best to help the content of Wikipedia be informative and reliable. Thank you AgntOtrth (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]