User talk:Stonkaments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please continue to participate in the optimization of the TSLAQ page as it clearly has several ongoing disputes - some more legitimate than others - and we need more voices to be heard. QRep2020 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Stonkaments, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Stonkaments! 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 Naypta (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 23:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

“U. S.” In basketball and American football infoboxes.

These infoboxes don’t use US after City, State unless the subject’s nationality is something different (e.g. a German citizen born in New York City). The parameters for infobox person don’t extend to every infobox. The template documentation for Template:Infobox basketball biography states this. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the heads up. Stonkaments (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, we typically dont have separate links like [[Merced, California|Merced]], [[California]] per MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Anyone who clicks on the city page can get to the state page, if needed. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Tesla, Inc.

Hi there, tread carefully with the Tesla, Inc. edits. Can you discuss the edits first on the Talk page? QRep2020 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Why do you think it's important to discuss the edits first? Other editors have recommended me WP:BRD, rather than discussing every proposed edit beforehand. I'm trying to be fair and thoughtful with my edits, and I didn't feel that any of them might be controversial--they were all straightforward, well-sourced factual corrections or removing obvious promotional and biased content. Springee, I see that you've been active in related discussions - do you have any thoughts? Stonkaments (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

BRD works best with focused chunks. I'd stop attempting edits for now and instead go on Talk: Tesla, Inc. and address the changes you want to make for each section. The process can be slow and annoying, but at least this way you record what you think the article should say and then if no one addresses particular points, you can keep harping on them so the other editors look as if they're trying to distort the dialog. QRep2020 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I fully understand your concern. Are you worried that I'll upset editors who are pro-Tesla, which would potentially make future editing more difficult? So far all of the edits I've made have been accepted without any controversy (except one quote I deleted that seemed overly promotional, and there we seem to have found consensus by removing the most promotional and irrelevant sentence and leaving the rest in). I'm focused on making minor edits to improve the article's quality and neutrality, so it seems like that should be ok to continue, and discuss any reverts or disagreements if/when they come up? Stonkaments (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved Martin Tripp content to TSLAQ

Feel free to supplement the new section I created. QRep2020 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

How do we determine the market capitalization of Toyota versus Tesla?

Hi Stonkaments,

I see you reverted my addition to the Tesla, Inc. wikipedia page with the comment: "Undid revision 961809225 by ReferenceMan (talk) - Toyota market cap is ~$216 billion, cited source is wrong."

What are your sources for Toyota's correct market capitalization?

How do you know your sources are correct, and the cited source is wrong?

I see two different sets of numbers. One set supports the $185 billion number:

• Yahoo Finance: $185 billion https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TM/
• Fidelity: $185 billion https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/evaluate/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=TM
• Morningstar: $185 billion https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/tm/quote
• Wall Street Journal: $184 billion https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/TM
• Macro Trends: $184 billion https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TM/toyota/market-cap

A different set supports the $215 billion number:

• Google: $215 billion https://www.google.com/search?q=toyota+market+cap
• Bloomberg: $214 billion https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/TM:US
• CNBC: $214 billion https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=TM
• Tokyo Stock Exchange: 23,147,704,208,248 yen = $214 billion at today's exchange rate. https://quote.jpx.co.jp/jpx/template/quote.cgi?F=tmp/e_stock_detail&MKTN=T&QCODE=7203

The only phone number I have found for Toyota's Investor Relations is in Japan, and the recording on that phone number is in Japanese, and it's too early for them to answer yet. ReferenceMan (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To interject here, it looks like different "schools" of valuation are at play. Why not mention this fact about the opposing valuations in the article and then wait to see if one or the other is accepted globally? QRep2020 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The ~$215 billion set is correct.

You can calculate it yourself, per Toyota's official website, they have 3,262,997,492 common shares outstanding - https://global.toyota/en/ir/stock/outline/

3,262,997,492 times closing price of 6905 yen = 22,530,997,682,260 yen, which at current exchange rates is >$210 billion.

Ah yes, sorry, I missed the marcap part, how I can't say. Stonkaments, I would make the edit again and leave a note about it on the Talk page. There are always issues with these "moving target" facts. QRep2020 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK leaving the article as it is (no reference to Tesla being larger than Toyota). I believe the $215 billion is the correct market capitalization based on going to Toyota and Tokyo stock exchange websites. But I am curious as to why there are two sets of numbers. I have spoken with a Toyota Investor Relations person in Japan, and have sent him an email. He will research why there are two different market capitalization numbers, and get back to me when he has more information. I suspect there are preferred shares or some other set of shares which are not available to the New York Stock Exchange. ReferenceMan (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is behind paywall, but it looks like the most in-depth look at the market cap question - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-15/so-is-tesla-bigger-than-toyota-or-not-well-it-s-complicated - according to the preview, it sounds like it has to do with whether you count "treasury shares" (Toyota owns 14% of its own shares, worth ~$30 billion). Stonkaments (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Article says: "As of 11 a.m. New York [on June 15, 2020], Toyota's $171 billion valuation less its treasury stock trailed behind Tesla’s $175 billion valuation." So, yes, it appears treasury shares is select factor. QRep2020 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's probably the treasury shares that makes the difference. Yesterday (June 15), I received an email back from Toyota Investor Relations person: "We've been conducting investigation since last week, but please wait for a while for an answer. Probably it seems that there is a difference in whether or not to count treasury stocks, but there is a point to check a little more. We'll get back to you within a few days, so thank you for your understanding." ReferenceMan (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I heard back from the Toyota Investor Relations person. He said:

"Market capitalization is calculated by multiplying the number of shares by the stock price, and the difference in market capitalization displayed on each website is considered to be due to how the number of shares is handled. When calculating the number of shares, two patterns are often used; 1) the total number of common shares issued, and 2) the total number of issued common shares minus the number of treasury shares. We assume that the email you sent uses $215 Billion for 1) and $185 Billion for 2). It should be noted that the slight difference in 2) is probably due to different detailed definitions such as the timing of the numerical values used (quarterly, year-end, etc.).

"Each vendor calculates the market capitalization daily based on the data provided by the stock exchange and the published materials of each company. It seems that the 1) group calculates based on the market capitalization based on the definition of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the 2) group independently calculates the treasury stock. Regarding 2), it is based on publicly available information, and it seems that there are cases where treasury stock is not deducted due to disclosure systems and business practices of each country. For example, even for Bloomberg, one of the vendors most used by investors, 1) for Japanese companies and 2) for US and European companies are used in the calculations. In other words, Bloomberg calculates the market capitalization of Japanese companies daily based on the data obtained from the Tokyo Stock Exchange in 1).

"It can be summarized that it is not absolutely correct to use either 1) or 2), but the calculation method changes depending on the disclosure system, business practice, etc. in each country. On the other hand, for the purpose of calculating corporate value such as valuation as so-called acquisition value, it is likely that market capitalization is often calculated at 2). With respect to the reason for deducting treasury stock, it is not necessary to evaluate the treasury stock as a company value because it has no voting right or dividend right and is deducted from the net assets section of the balance sheet in accounting, it is thought that, etc. is in the background.

"In Japan, the acquisition of treasury stock was restricted until the Corporate Law was revised. Therefore, in Japan in the past there was virtually no difference between 1) and 2), so it is not necessary to consider treasury stock in the calculation of market capitalization, and the practice of calculating by the method of 1) continues (there is a possibility)." ReferenceMan (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Protesting Tesla employee

Hi there. Have you seen any follow up information pertaining to the gentleman who got the termination notice from Tesla and thought it had to do with his protesting? Is he still employed? QRep2020 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

He tweeted that he was fired - https://twitter.com/S3LFL3SSALLDAY/status/1273399064793513984

I haven't seen an update anywhere else. Stonkaments (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

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-1932 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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 17:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

• News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine

• Community view: Community open letter on renaming

• Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd

• In the media: Part collaboration and part combat

• Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals

• Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow

• Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation

• Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths

• News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice

• Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking

• Interview: What is wrong with rebranding to "Wikipedia Foundation"?

• Humour: Cherchez une femme

• Opinion: Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news

• On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?

• In focus: Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Planet Fitness".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 04:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Black Lives Matter seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your post put a swing on what happened that doesn't reflect what the Mayor has said since. It's your responsibility to make sure that you are using up to date information. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Black Lives Matter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is your fourth revert today. Also, it is not "original research/biased language", it's straight from the source which says: "In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. ".

Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Black Lives Matter. Template:Z189 Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What vandalism? I removed a single unsourced claim that detracts from the article. Stonkaments (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit. You removed a very well-sourced comment that didn't hew to your views. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Where does your source say that right-wing commentators used the study to attack Black Lives Matter? And how does that fact add to the article, given that the next sentence already goes on to say that the authors retracted the article due to its "careless" conclusions being misinterpreted by the media?

Please stop with the profanity and ad hominem attacks. Stonkaments (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of the cited article is that right-wing commentators were misusing the study. The whole reason for retraction by the authors was that right-wing commentators were attacking BLM in a way that was not supported by the study. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions one conservative political commentator, Heather MacDonald, citing the study. That does not support the claim that the study "was used by right-wing commentators to attack the Black Lives Matter movement." Stonkaments (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It's all verifiable, satisfying WP:V. This source says Mac Donald comes from "right-leaning" Manhattan Institute. She's a hard-line police authoritarian and she's fighting against BLM which makes her anti-anti-racist, so where do you think that puts her on the political spectrum? Right. And the PNAS study was cited many times by others after her. Science Mag says "The finding was picked up by major media outlets and rebounded across the internet". Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I still disagree with your characterization of MacDonald and other right-wing critics using the study to "attack" BLM. That isn't supported by the source, which only says "MacDonald pointed to the study as evidence that Black people are not more likely to be shot by police due to racism".[1] Maybe we can say something like: "The study was used by right-wing commentators to dismiss claims made by Black Lives Matter of systemic racism by police."?

Suggestion

As a new editor you need to be careful around some topics. I do find that at times some Wiki editors are very quick to label something as a heretical idea that's the end of the discussion. I don't know what was said on the BLM page but much like the Trump page I suspect that is a page where many good editors fear to tread. In general on such pages it's always best to propose an edit on the talk page before changing the article. Be VERY cautious about reverting. No one can fault you for a good faith WP:BOLD edit. They can fault you for repeating the same edit once challenged. Certainly some editors have strong opinions and I've certainly seen cases where edits from some editors appear to be to vilify/sanctify vs provide a wider range of opinions on a subject. That's just part of Wikipedia. If you charge headlong into a fight with what it is you will be shown the door. If you accept and work with the system (it helps to just ignore the current, hot politics articles) then you are likely to build some knowledge and understand how to help make things better. Springee (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the advice. That makes a lot of sense. Mostly I was upset to see that valid, civil discussion and argument was deleted from the talk page (for being "white supremacist talking points"). That type of censorship feels like a much larger problem than just a biased edit, which is why I felt it warranted a dispute. Stonkaments (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest letting semi-sleeping dogs lay here. Part of editing here is to know when to drop it even if you don't agree with how others are portraying your actions/intents etc. Springee (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it, will do. In the future, do you mind if I contact you if I come across issues I could use advice on? Where's the best place to reach you, just on your talk page?

(I brought up this issue with the BLM talk page on the Wikipedia-help IRC chat, and they actually advised me to file the dispute - which I can see now was ill-advised, and I trust your judgment more.) Stonkaments (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask. I'm not an expert and as you found, sometimes the advice you get may not be ideal. I think the best advice I have is make an effort to improve some non controversial articles. That will build both experience and credibility. Also, even if you think the other editor is acting like a jerk (or worse) focus on the content (wp:foc). If you don't break editing rules then it's very unlikely you will ever be penalized even if editors assume the worst. Content disputes happen and are expected. Most non-content disputes start as content disputes that stopped focusing on content. Also, it never hurts to reach out to those with with whom you disagree. Sometimes they will be real jerks. Other times you will reach an understanding that helps smooth things over. Springee (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

More heavy-handed, biased editing of the BLM page today by the usual suspects.[2][3] Stonkaments (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

• Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?

• COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money

• News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin

• In the media: Dog days gone bad

• Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy

• Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom

• Traffic report: Now for something completely different

• Gallery: Photos of threatened species from iNaturalist

• News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users

• Recent research: Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia

• Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project

• Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil

• In focus: WikiLoop DoubleCheck, reviewing edits made easy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Good show with the External Links section and on figuring out how to get the TSLAQ cashtag link on the article as I kept running into difficulties. That said, I am not sure the link to TeslaDeaths.com will hold under scrutiny from other editors. We shall see. QRep2020 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice quotes

The one about the barking dog is my favorite Username31113690 (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

• News and notes: The high road and the low road

• In the media: Storytelling large and small

• Featured content: Going for the goal

• Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way

• Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax

• Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics

• News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online

• Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles

• Arbitration report: A slow couple of months

• From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?

• Obituaries: Marcus Sherman, Jerome West, and Pauline van Till

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rindermann et al. 2016

You don't appear to have edited the race and intelligence article previously, so I thought I should let you know what NightHeron is referring to in his edit summary here. A different paper by Rindermann et al., published in 2020 (not 2016), was discussed at the RS noticeboard in April. That discussion did not reach a consensus about whether the 2020 paper is reliable or not. The 2016 paper that you cited in your edit has not been discussed at the RS noticeboard at all, as far as I know.

You can do like you like with this information, but I think you have the right to not be deceived by NightHeron's misleading edit summary. If you want to add the 2016 paper as a source to the article, I recommend opening a discussion about it at the RS noticeboard, because that is the only way to establish that it's a reliable source. 2600:1004:B167:2E9C:2D8C:B38A:3134:2404 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Since it is my understanding that this editor is still topic banned from race and intelligence, I have raised this comment at WP:ANI. That thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Race and intelligence block and ban issue. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware that this IP-editor 2600... has a history of making false accusations against me. In this case my edit summary about consensus was a reference to the RfC on Race and Intelligence, see [4]. In it Rindermann's so-called "surveys" were discussed at length, and both his 2016 and 2020 papers were referred to. In fact, Rindermann was the main source that was repeatedly cited by those who claimed that the belief that some races are genetically superior to others in intelligence is not fringe. Rindermann's name was mentioned more than 80 times in the course of that discussion, and evidence was presented that Rindermann has a strong racialist POV that renders his survey work unreliable. The conclusion of the RfC was that a consensus exists that the belief in a genetic relation between race and intelligence is fringe. So, by consensus, Rindermann's survey is not RS for the claim that such a belief is not fringe. That's the full explanation of my edit summary and my reason for reverting. NightHeron (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Basic Income

Hi, I see you are an editor of the page universal basic income. I was wondering if you wanted to join or help Wikipedia:WikiProject Basic Income? The project is currently inactive so it could really use some participation by new members to kick-start it again.

I have also opened a move request on its talk page here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basic Income#Requested move 22 October 2020 - to request that it be re-named to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universal Basic Income. If you could please spare a minute to leave a respond to this request on the talk page there it would also be much appreciated.

I look forward to hearing from you. Helper201 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

• News and notes: Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking

• In the media: Murder, politics, religion, health and books

• Book review: Review of Wikipedia @ 20

• Op-Ed: Anti-vandalism with masked IPs: the steps forward

• Discussion report: Proposal to change board composition, In The News dumps Trump story

• Featured content: The "Green Terror" is neither green nor sufficiently terrifying. Worst Hallowe'en ever.

• Traffic report: Jump back, what's that sound?

• Interview: Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner

• News from the WMF: Meet the 2020 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: OpenSym 2020: Deletions and gender, masses vs. elites, edit filters

• In focus: The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Deceptive edit comments and disruptive editing by Stonkaments. Thank you. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you help me understand why you felt the need to start an ANI, rather than bringing up any of your concerns with me directly? I really don't appreciate being accused of deceptive and disruptive editing, when I've made all of my edits fairly and honestly, in good faith, and have led to a positive resolution of the challenged text. Stonkaments (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

At the article talk page, nearly a week ago, I pointed out that you deleted material and its citation while calling it an “unsourced claim”. You had nearly a week to respond. You did not. Then you started reverting completely different editors who restored the material, even after one of them added an additional citation. This is not an innocent misunderstanding.

If you simply ignore the talk page and keep deleting cited material, that's a problem requiring admin intervention. You had a week's worth of WP:ROPE, and more besides. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 09:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't respond, but what response were you expecting? The source that was cited did not support the contested claim, hence "unsourced claim". You unfortunately failed to address my request to provide anything from a reliable source that directly supported that claim, instead providing disparate facts that were WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and have now managed to antagonize three different editors on that talk page. I'd suggest reflecting on your own actions, as it may help understand why I might not have felt interested in continuing an unproductive back-and-forth with you. I happily continued the discussion when other editors weighed in. Stonkaments (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice try at pulling a WP:DONTGETIT, but the “unsourced” sentence fragment you deleted attributing a list of specific U.S. racial disparities as the result of overt discrimination and unconscious bias relative to the general population is cited to an article in the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review (the citation you simultaneously deleted and had a week to verify while the content you object to wasn't even in the page) which says, of the exact same list of fields in which disparities are present, recognition builds of the many ways that racial inequality manifests both explicitly and implicitly.

The response of an editor acting in good faith would have been to acknowledge this, to retract OR and SYNTH claims (notably SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages anyways), and to not revert two editors other than myself who restored the content—the editors you “happily continued the discussion” with after reverting their cited additions of content to the article with a completely different WP:SHAMCONSENSUS claim, knowing very well that the material was neither unsourced nor did consensus support its removal. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, your reading of that excerpt is wrong—in no way does it support the contested statement. Note that it says ...the many ways that racial inequality manifests [emphasis added] both explicitly and implicitly. That is an affirmation that these inequalities indeed exist, and manifest themselves in myriad ways, but it makes no claim about the causes or origins of the inequality. The article goes on to talk about the ways in which racial inequality manifests itself in the criminal justice system through disparities in arrests, sentencing, etc. It makes one mention of unconscious bias in relation to NYC's infamous stop-and-frisk policy, and notes that Drug War-era policies were racially motivated, but besides that it refrains from making any claims about the causes of the racial inequalities it highlights. And those two isolated mentions are nowhere near enough to support a broad claim about the causes of racial inequalities across "education, health care, housing, imprisonment, voting rights, and wages", be it overt discrimination or unconscious bias or any other.

I would please ask that you at least consider the possibility that you're wrong here—about what exactly this source is saying, specifically, but also about my editing and my intentions more broadly. I'm still fairly new here, and I'm sure there are plenty of things that I can improve. But I don't take accusations of dishonesty, deception, and acting in poor faith lightly, and I would appreciate an apology.

(It's my understanding that an extended back-and-forth on the ANI page can often be unhelpful, so that's why I prefer responding here.) Stonkaments (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)