User talk:Ekpyros - Knowledge (XXG)

971:

loaded into a car with Clarence Norris and Roy Wright. The three were handcuffed together in the backseat, while a sherrif and his deputy rode in front. Powell and the deputy got into an argument. The deputy hit Powell on his head. With his one free hand, Powell took a pen knife that had escaped detection during a search out of his pants and slashed the deputy's throat, wounding him. The sheriff stopped the car, got out, and fired a bullet at Powell (who, along with the others, had his hands in the air) which lodged in his brain. (The sheriff and deputy described the incident as an escape attempt). Powell survived, but suffered permanent brain damage. He had trouble speaking and hearing, memory loss, and weakness in his right leg and arm. On the operating table Powell told his mother, "I done give up...cause everybody in Alabama is down on me and is mad at me.""

1031:

practices, to the degree that it's now for the first time considered "sexually transmitted" (if not technically an STI). That seems worth noting—but you're probably better informed than I, and I trust that time will tell and that, as usual, patience will produce the best article! There has undoubtably been an enormous amount of media hype, most of which is unhelpful in encyclopedia-building. But if the estimated 1% fatality rate (for this far "milder" strain) were to end up being accurate, it would be more than twice as deadly as HIV in the US (0.47% as of 2017 and likely less today). But certainly it's important to include that it's in no way exclusively being spread amongst MSM. In any case, I really appreciate you reaching out! Warm thanks,

1252:. Why don't you substantively engage in the discussion on the actual Talk page, rather than making spurious claims about "personal attacks" on my page? So far you've written nothing other than two sentences, neither of which moves the discussion forward at all. In the first, you completely failed to address my detailed response to your reversion, and instead repeated the same claim, thus revealing that you either hadn't read or were unable to comprehend what I'd taken pains to explain. In the second, you abandoned your first argument in favor of the equally nonsensical claim that "other polls give different figures"—again, showing that you still don't understand the edit I made, and haven't even taken the time to read the articles I've cited. 2215:

this number was well over 200 trucks/day when one uses even third party estimates of commercial trucks entering Gaza. This is just to say, there is a convergence of evidence that enough food is crossing Gaza's border to prevent famine since January (perhaps excepting February). Whether or not complete food distribution is being made possible is of course another question. But calling that study fringe is just wrong so I'm glad you are saying something. On the other hand, it's unfortunate its analysis hasn't been published which I think is a more valid reason to treat it cautiously and more like a POV than a finding.

2147:

probably be more prominently acknowledged in your reply about food truck counts pre-war. Pre-war a good chunk (debated how much) of food production was domestic, whereas this is now substantially less. There's disagreement over exactly how many trucks are needed and it's certainly nowhere near 500 (my guess from hunger statistics is around 120-150 which was satisfied since January except for February), but probably best to clarify this in your comment. I know you mention it briefly but probably more balanced/makes it easier to discuss if you emphasize it a little more.

281: 332: 2035: 517:. Seems like your stating positions based on what reliable sources say, and not your opinion. That's the correct way to do it. It's a controversial subject, so we always need to stick to what academia and whatnot say. Plus the editors here are kinda fighting like cats and dogs on this subject, so try and be one of the people who deescalates. More flys with honey, something, something, I got los of flys. 1048: 1784: 1441: 2070:. 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, Knowledge (XXG)’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Knowledge (XXG) administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. 922:"Caffeine, the most widely used psychoactive substance in the world, can have a diuretic effect in extremely high doses, but normal consumption does not produce significant excess urine compared to water. Despite the myth having been thoroughly debunked, many medical experts continue to claim that "coffee is dehydrating", misinformation that may have begun with a 1928 study." 1624: 1278: 2211:- see table on page 10. In fact, this document even tracks specifically trucks that reached North Gaza, where the food shortage was the worst until late April/May. The paper you cited likely uses fuller numbers, but might not reflect food that's realistically distributed and also there is an out-of-proportion revulsion to citing Israeli research on that page. 2172:

I haven't seen any data on the number of trucks required to avert famine, only comparisons to the prior number, along with some disgraceful misinformation such as being propagated on the Talk page. That said, I can only imagine the daily caloric requirements to stave off deaths is significantly lower

1030:

Thanks, Sean! I don't know more than I've read about it, but that has led me to understand that a virus—which is typically fairly hard to transmit and while endemic to Central-West Africa, rarely crosses international lines—has suddenly been popping up in clusters all over the world because of sexual

1144:

Given that, I'd encourage you to consider that wholesale reverting a good-faith edit, which came nowhere near meeting that criteria, with no more explanation than an utterly irrelevant tautology—in this instance, pointing out that a President's record-low approval numbers "might rise again"—not only

1007:

I mean - they may be right, and transmission by other routes than sexual contacts may be quite rare (and thus, without hosts/ infected people with rapidly changing sexual partners, the outbreak would quickly die out). But they may also be wrong. And constantly harping on about "MSM" is going to have

970:

in your recent edit of scottsboro boys, you changed altercation to assault. the source that you cite describes the altercation beginning when the sheriff's deputy hit Powell in the head. here is what the source says: "February of 1936, after testifying at Haywood Patterson's fourth trial, Powell was

1375:

Sorry, I'm having some username problems and don't think I'm understanding correctly. When I hover over my signature, I see my user name—and when I click on it, I'm taken straight to my user page. But maybe it's different for me, since I'm the user in question—do you not see the same when you hover

974:

Powell pleaded guilty to assault, a lesser charge than rape. but this is different from how your edit characterizes it. your source says that the deputy escalated an argument by assaulting the handcuffed Powell. Powell in turn attacked the deputy with a knife. the deputy in turn shot Powell in the

2214:

Further, hunger has declined continuously since a peak in December, with deaths seeming to have a delayed tragic peak of 37 (media-reported) deaths in March before falling off since then to near 0. Since January though there have been well over 100 trucks/day entering Gaza, and by March/April/May

2146:

Hi Ekpyros, thanks for your comment on the independent source in the Gaza strip famine page I appreciated it; I would support your comment there but I don't have extended confirmation yet so oh well (much of that Talk page is very disturbing). However, I did want to bring up a caveat that should

1148:

What's more, I had politely and specifically requested that my edit not be wholesale reverted, and that any reversion please be preceded, or at the very least accompanied by discussion on the Talk page. I even helpfully cited the Knowledge (XXG) guidance that obliged any reverting editor to do

1411:

Please let me know if that isn't correct. I can see that my signature now says "ElleThatBelle (talk)" — but the "talk" isn't showing as a clickable link. Maybe that's because it leads back to the page I'm already on? Again, since I'm unable to post anywhere else, I'm not able to test further.

798:

Hello. I reverted your edit to the TBC talk page as it deleted many earlier comments. I would have pasted a copy of your comment back in after undoing the deletions, but it was not clear where to put it with the deleted material back in place. Just a notice so that you know your comment is

2173:

than the total daily calories available prewar (the combined domestic production plus foreign aid)—but have no way to know whether the drop in domestic production, coupled with the increase in food trucks, was greater than the reduction from prewar numbers to those needed to avoid famine.

895:

of anything. The cited sources are clear that there is no evidence Arbery committed either burglary or theft. Should you again falsely suggest, imply, or state that there is evidence Arbery committed either burglary or theft, I will request that you be topic-banned from this page under

1135:. Based on my understanding of everyday English, asserting that an argument is weak is entirely different from calling its proponent a weakling. But I'm more than happy to reconsider, should you care to enlighten me as to precisely what provision you claim I "very nearly" violated. 1733:

thanks! Any idea how long it takes to be unblocked? Also, now that I'm learning about signatures, I like how yours includes both your user page and talk page in your username. I might try the same, although I seem to be, as usual, a little technically challenged! Appreciatively,

748:

Given that you were employing pseudo-legal justifications to introduce weasel-wording -- and not for the first time -- I'd say it was perfectly justified. If you don't like being informed that you're employing weasel words, you could always stop employing weasel words.

471:, you are welcome to begin a discussion on any of the talk pages of the articles in question in order for a consensus to emerge about whether the content should be included in some form. If you do so, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). -- 446:

Sorry—I'm pretty new to all this, and I guess I didn't fully understand the distinction. I mistakenly thought that by including more specific information from the previously cited source, it would be considered minor. Is there something I should do to remedy that?

1011:

Anyway, I can understand your sentiment in wanting to get relevant info out there (so as to avoid harm) - I feel the same way I guess (and yeah, can be frustrating :/ ). All the best, and hope the article shapes up in a way that seems acceptable to you :) !

1126:

violation? Given that I in no way criticized or disparaged you—and indeed, didn't even include your user name—it's hard for me to understand how you could consider my less-than-perfect phrasing a "personal attack". I'm quite sure I was following the maxim

1930:

I'm mystified, since I certainly don't mean to confuse or "forge" anything, yet I'm unable to find any user named ElleTheBelle. That said, I have done as you suggested. I hope I've gotten it right, finally, and thanks so much for your help and patience!

1185:. Yet, despite my obvious willingness to discuss the actual article on its Talk page—indeed, I was forced to initiate it—you have yet to write a single, solitary word about the article's content since reverting my edit with a 4-word summary. Why is that? 1121:

And while I admit my diction could have been more temperate and sensitive, I don't see how there's anything remotely personal about opining that a reason for a reversion is incoherent and/or idiotic. In what possible way does that "tack very close" to a

890:

There is nothing "contested" here - Ahmaud Arbery committed neither burglary nor theft and was murdered. The "defense attorneys" have no say here - the jury convicted their clients, the end - and what the murderers "believed" about Arbery is not

2110: 501:, so in the eyes of the Knowledge (XXG) community it is nothing more than your personal point of view. Please limit your talk page contributions to comments that are supported by our Policies and Guidelines, not your personal opinion. – 2180:

asserts that from Jan-May 2024, total aid deliveries alone have not only been more than enough to prevent famine, but have resulted in a surplus beyond what's needed to sustain a healthy caloric intake on a per-capita basis (emphasis

466:

I have just reverted a number of your edits, across several articles. All of the reverted edits seemed to engage in questionable use of sources and heavy insertion of your personal point of view into Knowledge (XXG)'s voice. Per

869:

it was completely accidental, and I have no idea how it happened—my apologies to everyone! I assure you my intent was simply to add to the discussion and not to delete anyone's edit. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

1008:

the effect that other people don't reckon they need to pay attention to this (I think the WHO does a better job at this in their assesment, where they point out that transmission in other communities is possible also).

1486: 2185:::"Data from January-April 2024 show... he crude mean per capita per day energy supplied was 3,374 kcal, protein was 101 gr (12.1% of energy), fat was 80.6 gr (21.5% of energy), and iron was 25.2 mg. 1470:. 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 1455: 1289:

in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Knowledge (XXG) with an accurate

2207:

I think even conservative estimates using only UN-counted trucks (albeit still much more reasonable in April than May) have found that there was a surplus of total calories then - see

2101:

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

36: 1286: 821:

entirely accidental, and no idea how I managed to screw that up. I apologize and very much appreciate you reverting it and alerting me. Will try to be more careful in the future!

1597: 1056: 1052: 578:

If the source is Snopes, why in the world would you cite a self-published source like Scribd? You can't use Scribd any more than you can use Facebook or 191.186.98.122. -

1217:

I asked you three questions, yet you didn't bother to respond to a single one. Instead, you're trying to justify your making this personal by citing Wiki guidance. Yes,

2177: 2208: 1696:

but was unable to find anyone with that username. I'm equally unable to find anyone with my new signature, but am sure someone will let me know if I've erred again!

847:

in which you deleted not only your own long comment but several others including those of folks disagreeing with you? Was this simply a slip of the typing finger?

691: 2189:… During … the daily per capita supply of energy was 4,198 kcal, protein was 124 gr (11.8% of energy), fat was 71.6 gr (15.4% of energy), and iron was 30.3 mg." 1059:. Thank you. I mentioned your name not intended as any form of criticism but as you were the only other editor who substantially contributed to the discussion. 2002: 2044: 44: 118: 1945:

Oh, except now it says "User:Ekpyros". Trying again! BTW, is there some way to check if one's signature is too close to another user's? Thanks again!

208: 232: 1959:

When someone posts "Please see ANI thread" on your talk page, it would be highly desirable to click the given link and examine what is there.

1649: 1998: 59:

or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the

1911:

Your signature is still showing as 'ElleThatBelle' - that is too close to the previous, confusing name. Please change it to your username.

1819: 1509: 978:

by framing it as Powell assaulting the deputy, you introduce error into the encyclopedia. your edit as it now stands should be reverted.

493:

As I'm sure you're aware, Knowledge (XXG) is built around reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors. Your repeated argument that

2193:

Do you have any numbers which would contradict those—or help shed light on the issue more broadly? Again, warm thanks for reaching out!

1984: 997:

Hey, I was going to write this on the articles talk page, but then realised its a little too "chatty", so thought I'd talk to you here:

55: 49: 1684:

I believe I've changed my signature—and my intent certainly wasn't to "forge" anyone else's or to otherwise be "disruptive". I looked

1530: 1245:

The guidance is primarily descriptive, not prescriptive—and you're failing to participate in the last leg of the cycle, D(iscussion).

1138:

While on the subject of guidance—at least as I understand it, the first principle of Knowledge (XXG) reversion couldn't be clearer:

299: 2209:

https://www.ipcinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ipcinfo/docs/documents/IPC_Famine_Review_Committee_Report_FEWS_NET_Gaza_4June2024.pdf

141: 773: 56: 1155:

Why did you willfully ignore the polite request in my edit summary to, at the very least, discuss any reversion on the Talk page?

159: 1864:

Fixed issue with signature. I was directed to add this to the bottom of my page—hope I'm doing it correctly! Apologies to all!

1505: 940: 1642: 1479: 338: 113: 1255:

Please, please, please—try to work with me to improve the article. And in any case, stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

213: 50: 1814: 905: 237: 1385:

I think I figured out what you meant—adding a direct link to my Talk page in parenthesis? Testing to see if this works!

1312:

This was obviously a bogus charge—my edit summaries described their changes precisely. The editor making the accusation

1637: 1632: 164: 1491: 1791: 1158:

It appears that while reverting me, you failed to make even the most rudimentary attempt to follow the guidance in

522: 487: 564:

Scribd is not the source, it's the host of the file. Snopes, which is an RS, is the source, and there are others.

371: 852: 309: 188: 108: 103: 2220: 2152: 1397:

Oops. I think I have it now? Sorry for all the testing—since I've been blocked, I'm unable to use the Sandbox!

901: 1467: 1131:—and am having a hard time fathoming how what I wrote could be construed as meeting any of the definitions in 242: 476: 1992: 928: 193: 2117: 1915: 1676: 1208: 1101: 804: 2216: 2164: 2148: 2106: 1249: 1093: 248: 198: 1833: 1177:, I would note that you've come to my personal Talk page to complain about a supposed near-violation of 518: 498: 71: 1560: 1556: 1350:, I agree with Drmies above. Please add a link to your user page, talk page, or user contributions per 1331:

It took me a while to connect your username to your signature. Please consider being more transparent.

666: 254: 136: 1541: 1020: 864: 848: 331: 1983:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited

1449: 1351: 1167: 932: 1364: 1064: 983: 936: 838: 505: 2194: 1946: 1932: 1897: 1865: 1797: 1757: 1749: 1735: 1713: 1697: 1463: 1413: 1398: 1386: 1377: 1347: 1317: 1258: 1191: 1163: 1032: 956: 925:

is unnecessary as the entry should really only have the true statement and none of this context.

871: 822: 779: 631: 598: 565: 448: 2132: 1964: 1603: 1583: 1566: 1302: 1294: 1000:

Personally, I think the ECDC is overemphasing the sexual transmission / MSM aspect (or they know

472: 437: 315: 2051: 1712:

Sorry for all the experimentation above—I've never tried to change my signature before. Thanks!

1132: 429: 2047:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles 2018: 1925: 1912: 1728: 1673: 1290: 1204: 1152:

Perhaps, as a far more experienced editor than I, you can help answer three questions I have:

1113: 1097: 816: 800: 1475: 1293:. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 1200: 1182: 1145:

doesn't help build an encyclopedia, but actively frustrates the constructive editing process.

1086: 1661: 1498: 1336: 1178: 754: 311: 280: 60: 1478:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1471: 1218: 1159: 1123: 1089:

it is down to you to get consensus for inclusion, not down to others to get for exclusion.

1079: 952: 897: 538: 468: 1537: 1016: 418: 1693: 1648:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge (XXG)'s

1995:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1118:

it seems my blunt phrasing hurt your feelings, and for that, I very sincerely apologize.

1356: 1203:, both of which a clear, yo make a bold edit, and if it disagreed with it is reverted. 1060: 979: 502: 392: 362: 2034: 1689: 2128: 2009:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1960: 1887: 1298: 1282: 615: 582: 548: 433: 203: 2113:. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the 2014: 2010: 1988: 1313: 744:

There was no need to refer to me as "Perry Mason" and accuse me of "weasel wording"

1440: 2066:

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as

1707: 1657: 1332: 750: 799:"missing" and if you want to repost it you will have to copy it back in again. 1096:, using language like "idiotic and incoherent "reasons"" will not achieve it. 1233:

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page

715: 2094:

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

1685: 1623: 1141:"Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." 625: 612: 592: 579: 559: 545: 356: 1580:

As you have refused to correct this issue, I will be raising it at ANI.

1482:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1277: 1055:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is

313: 1459:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

376: