This is an archive of past discussions with EllenCT. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Economic growth. Your edits have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. On two occasions ( July 1 & December 16) you have added the same material to the article which is not supported by the reference. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply

This sentence you added was really out there, "On the other hand, without interstellar colonization, accidental collisions with dangerous astronomical objects could bring a halt to human growth until a space-fairing civilization finds sufficient anthropological evidence with which to reconstruct a simulation of it." Were you making a joke to see if people picked up on it? Mattnad ( talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

No, it is replaced with sources. EllenCT ( talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Nobody is hounding you despite your claim in your edit summary here [1]. Note that another editor promptly reverted you again. You are boderline into an edit war over this. You've been warned. Mattnad ( talk) 05:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Per WP:TALKNEW, talk page headings should be neutral. Your addition here does not meet this requirement. Please revise. Also, I suggest you move the section into the "Discussion of Bayer-funded source" section as a subsection. Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I see you have renewed editing today. Would you please resolve this talk page heading issue. Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 00:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Can you suggest a rewording that you feel would be neutral? EllenCT ( talk) 00:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes. Make it a subsection of "Discussion of Bayer-funded source" and name it "Further comment". The heading is my only concern. No change to content is suggested. Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

The words "further comment" do not convey a great deal of information. Can you think of a neutral way to word the subject? EllenCT ( talk) 00:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

The heading is not the place to convey a lot of information. It is simply provides a hook to hang discussion on. The place to actually convey a great deal of information is in the commentary you provide. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Please seek dispute resolution if you believe there is a more neural way to phrase the subject. Please refrain from further posting on my talk page. EllenCT ( talk) 01:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Notice re WP:NPOV thread

I have started a discussion here. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

After more than a year of stalking my contributions and trying to pester me about the finer points of the smallest inconsequential details, you have ignored my instruction to refrain from posting on my talk page. You could have used the ping template. EllenCT ( talk) 03:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Please join me in asking S. Rich to refrain from further WP:HOUNDING. EllenCT ( talk) 03:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Shock Doctrine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC) reply

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I am hounding you. But there are overriding reasons for me to take a look at your edits and to respond appropriately. (E.g., your edits are not, in general, constructive.) Any irritation, annoyance or distress you may experience is an unfortunate side effect of my comments and reverts, but it is not my intention to cause such side effects. You know full well that a certain number of editors are not happy with what you have said in different forums. And you have seen various editors revert your changes in various articles. So, when you make inappropriate edits, please expect me to correct such errors. When you make inappropriate personal (NPA) comments, please expect me to respond. In other words, I (and others) hope you will look at your own behavior. Indeed, the comments of several other editors should prompt you to consider. If you feel that I am behaving inappropriately, please post on the RFC/U. (I will be interested in seeing who supports you.) Or, if you wish, post on the ANI. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Srich, this sounds like a classic hounder's denial. Once the other editor has heard all of your concerns repeatedly and in detail and has repeatedly asked you to lighten up and back off, there's nothing to be gained by your doubling down with further ineffective assertions of your guidance. Whatever the issues concerning content or behavior, it's not your sole burden to promote and enforce your preferred remedies. Over time, where there's a problem, other editors will participate in the process by which it can be resolved. It's not your sole burden and there's absolutely no reason to ignore EllenCT's discomfort with your behavior and her clear requests that you drop the stick. Threats and challenges to mount a battle of the RfC/U's is bizarre and counterproductive. Please consider taking a break from the areas of EllenCT's activity and check back in 60-90 days. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

You have recently created several problems with your edits on Economic growth. Most memorable is regarding your post about Planetary boundaries and space colonization, which is science fiction and not economics.

Most recently you have been reverting all of my edits related to productivity. You have also been over promoting income inequality, which I don't even recall being mentioned in one of the best books I've read on economic growth.

The last bad thing you did was post a notice about one of the most solid references on economic growth as needing peer review or else being fringe. This shows that you know nothing of the reference, which says a lot about your lack of qualifications to edit this article.

If you do another ill informed or improper edit of Economic growth I will report you to a problem editor noticeboard. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

There is an ongoing discussion about the several disputes that have arisen in the past few days at Talk:Economic growth#Undue weight-Income inequality. EllenCT ( talk) 17:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Phmoreno, an ANI report is not going to decide issues related to article content disagreements, but is very likely, per WP:BOOMERANG to scrutinize your personal attacks on the article talk page. You don't appear to be responding to other editors' concerns in the discussion of sourcing and content there. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I was advised to start the discussion first, so disregard this until then. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hello, EllenCT. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 05:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC) reply

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC) reply

07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

08:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Economy of Pakistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

07:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Renewable energy sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you had both extensive experience with Wiki and a highly-credentialed background. I also noticed that you recently edited "Income Inequality in the United States". Would you be able to assist with an entry? I have an economics background (B.A. / M.A.), but am lacking in Wiki skills (apparently) and am slightly intimidated by the process. A week or so ago, (August 6) I posted some new information in the article "Income Inequality in the United States". I added a criticism section to the article, because the page seemed to be unilateral in perspective and needed some balance, particularly after I read several sources (Wall Street Journal, Congressional Budget Office, etc.) that differed with the wealth analysis of Thomas Piketty. Admittedly, my skills in writing Wiki text is not the greatest, however, the information that I presented was extensively footnoted and from reputable sources. The following morning after I posted the information, an editor named CJ Griffin struck the entirety of it on the grounds that it excessively criticized Piketty, stating that 'there had been no previous criticism of his work in the article'. That was precisely why I added it. He made other comments about supposition, etc., and I asked if he would be willing to assist in helping in that area. Instead, he was insulting and obviously protecting the article 'from significant criticism of any kind'. There seemed to be an agenda at work here. Here is his bio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.J._Griffin . Although I attempted to discuss the issue with him, he became combative and slammed me several times. I left a message at Wikipedia, apparently he was immediately informed of this contact by them, because he ripped me about it. From what I have seen in the article history, he may be one of the original authors of the article (so perhaps he has motivations to protect its contents). My question to you is, could you review the posting that I made (August 6) and determine how to post the legitimate criticisms in such a way that it helps the discussion and accuracy of the article? In no way am I asserting that income inequity does not exist, but I am making the point that certain decisions were made not to include information, thus overstating the data and results. I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolinjr ( talk • contribs)

@ Tolinjr: You are referring to this deletion, right? The problem is that it's written like an editorial, making sweeping, judgemental statements in Wikipedia's voice. I guess you need to read WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NPOV. A lot of that text is not specific to the U.S., and some of it is about Piketty's data on Europe. However, I think some of the criticisms are worth including, but probably on the article about Piketty's book. Have you tried editing there? You will have better luck if you summarize the salient points very brief and to the point, instead of expounding prose in lengthy essay format. Another thing to keep in mind is that article, most of its sources, and its summaries have existed since long before the publication of Piketty's book, so it doesn't make sense to have more than very brief descriptions of the book's criticisms in it. Hang in there, you'll figure it out; we all have to deal with what seem like terrible injustices before the benefit of time, perspective, and reflection. If you're just getting started you need to have extra patience. Have you tried the WP:TEAHOUSE? There are people there who have very good experience giving writing style tips. EllenCT ( talk) 19:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I noticed you were in the past an active contributor to WP:ECONOMICS. At the moment it seems rather inactive. Would you want to help me to make it more active again? NotYetAnotherEconomist ( talk) 19:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@ NotYetAnotherEconomist: Sure, what do you want to work on? There is a long-running dispute at Progressive tax about whether the effects of more progressive taxation require less total taxation to accomplish the same government spending goals. Do you know of any sources for that issue? EllenCT ( talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes. That is the so called Laffer curve. On one side an increase in taxes will increase the revenue everything else equal. But increased taxes will also lead to lower wages and people will be more likely to prefer leisure to work, which will lead to decreasing tax revenues. In theory there exists a tax rate maximizes the former and minimizes the latter, but no one really knows on which side of the Laffer curve we are on. Conservative think tanks regularly argue that we are at a point on the laffer curve where a decrease will lead to an increased propensity to work (like here: http://news.heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/15245.pdf), while liberals argue for the opposite (for example here: http://www.epi.org/blog/tax-cuts-pay/ ). Economists also have an opinion in this debate, but it is much less political. I would for example include the recent JEL article about this issue: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jel.50.1.3 . NotYetAnotherEconomist ( talk) 23:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I am referring to holding the tax rate constant, but changing the Suits index (a measure of progressivity), not changing the tax rate. Is that what Saez, Slemrod, and Giertz discuss, or are they changing both the total tax rate and the marginal rate simultaneously? (update: found the full text and reading it now]) EllenCT ( talk) 00:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

07:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ellen, would you mind taking another look at the lead of Global financial system? I have tried relentlessly to reduce the length of the lead and have thus far shortened it by 1,957 characters. I've long known I needed to shorten it, but had put it off. I think it still needs some work, but perhaps you'll agree it's remedied enough to at least warrant removal of the longintro tag? Each word removal feels like a stab wound at this point lol. John Shandy` • talk 00:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISO 8601. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC) reply

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Zim Integrated Shipping Services. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi EllenCT,

Given your edits, I think you have a chance to win this academic writing contest:

http://factfrontier.com/economics-contest/

Masalih ( talk) 18:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Aww, thank you! I have become so discouraged lately. I don't think most wikipedians care about the truth anymore. There are just POV pushers and wiki-lawyers these days. It's so depressing. Thanks again for your kind words. EllenCT ( talk) 07:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, I'd like to compliment you on your recent work on Income Inequality. While a bit of it was rolled back, I think it was well written and sourced. The article has improved with your contribution. Mattnad ( talk) 20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence says "...an equity, where your decision is involved, superior to a multi-sector fund of a wide diversity of low grade debt?" In my experience (stock market, not academic economics) the difference between "equity" and a debt fund isn't just "your decision". Equity means stocks, debt means bonds, and they aren't the same at all. Perhaps you meant to ask: "Why would someone buy an individual security instead of an index fund?" Most people shouldn't; I have often read that most people lose by trying to outguess the market. So perhaps the real question is "Why would a professional trader buy an individual security, if the market already values it fairly beyond his understanding?" You're right, sort of; of course there are market inefficiencies that professionals like me can take advantage of (thus limiting those inefficiencies). But if your question is why conservatives don't let our all-wise politicians make such decisions for us, then you have much more confidence in their knowledge, and more importantly their good intentions, than I do. Art LaPella ( talk) 01:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Art LaPella: my misplaced faith certainly isn't in politicians, it's in the credit ratings agencies. But seriously, I no longer believe that particular rant makes any long-term financial sense. I just leave it there because it was cited at arbitration as proof that I am biased in some particular way I never really understood. So anyway, if professionals can take advantage of inefficiencies, why have hedge funds been severely underperforming equites? EllenCT ( talk) 04:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I'd trust credit ratings further than politicians, but not further than the market, which usually moves before the ratings do (ratings didn't warn us about Enron for instance, until it was already way down). Of course there are inefficiencies; preferred stock from the same corporation can go in opposite directions from each other, not because one security is better, but just because Mr. Big is selling one issue or buying the other, and I've supported myself since 1986 that way. I don't have direct experience with hedge funds, but I'm guessing that graph would look positive if the hedge fund management fees were subtracted; I've heard they're huge. Most people should use index funds. Art LaPella ( talk) 05:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You made some odd edits at Plutocracy. The edit summaries seem at first glance to be deceptive, since the history doesn't show such deletions in the recent past. At first glance I'm inclined to accept your additions because they seem to be RS. This content was just dropped there, with spaces (now fixed) between the refs (a no no), without any context, just United States ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}

What did you intend to say? You need at least a sentence. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for pointing out my typo and formatting mistake. All of the things I replaced were found in this diff. Which was what I got when I clicked on the current diff link from the last version that didn't have a green dot in my history. EllenCT ( talk) 01:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

From that diff I can see that you have basically restored a whole bunch of diffs which you at one point had restored, and which were then deleted by User:Collect. I don't know what's happened since then. If there has been no edit warring over it since then, you are now making a Bold (BRD) attempt to restore the content. Hopefully no one will Revert it.

Part of the problem now is the placement. It was originally located in the Examples section, but you have seemingly dumped it in a random section. It needs to return to its original location, or in the United States section. It's just not working where it is. Please do something or it will get moved or deleted by someone else. If it gets Reverted (BRD), you'll have to start a Discussion, per BRD. You may be up against some very powerful forces when you try to document corporate and 1% control of American society. They don't like it and may try to delete it. Censorship (sometimes funded by the Koch brothers) happens at Wikipedia. Good luck and let me know what you do. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

{{|BullRangifer}} the United States references got moved from the Examples section to their own parallel section because of the controversy involved with suggesting the U.S. could be anything less than a shining example of egalitarian democratic freedom and free market apple pie production. I have no idea whether they will be objected to in their current location. I will wait and see. In any case, I am much more interested in the reasons you have to believe that the Koch brothers are funding censorship here. I have similar but some substantially different information. Would you please drop me an email with whatever you have, so I can reply with what I have and we can compare notes without exposing our discoveries? EllenCT ( talk) 05:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

If there's anything of a confidential (BLP) nature, then email it to me. Otherwise what I mentioned is very public information. It was publicized and a whole nest of sock puppets, all working for a firm paid by the Koch brothers to whitewash their activities, was exposed here. They were blocked and some of them unblocked upon promising to follow policy. Look at these links:

• Koch Industries Employs PR Firm To Airbrush Wikipedia, Gets Banned For Unethical ‘Sock Puppets’
• Thom Hartmann: Are Koch Brothers sock puppets rewriting Wikipedia?
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer/Archive
• User:BullRangifer#Opinion: How Wikipedia is misused to censor real world information

So, if you have anything else, please email me. -- Brangifer ( talk) 06:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Wow, this is all very new to me. I wonder how I missed it. I have some potentially WP:OUTING-related (not identifiable BLP though) info that I want to send you, but give me a few days with the article editing summary and user comparison tools to see what the overlap is with that nest. EllenCT ( talk) 06:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll be waiting. -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@ BullRangifer: I may not be allowed to say everything I want directly, but am exploring communication via editing. EllenCT ( talk) 19:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

You can safely communicate with me by email. -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Talk:Climate change mitigation ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• 108.73.115.29 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 108.73.114.210 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello EllenCT. You have not made a well-formed AE request. It would be better if you remove your comment from AE and ask User:Arthur Rubin for more details. If you are not satisfied with his explanation and believe the IP comment should stand, you can raise the matter at ANI. The first of the two IPs listed above has been blocked one year as a sock. The second IP is presumably the same person. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 09:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Income Inequality in the United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 24 September 2014.

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Boxcar. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi! Does the "CT" have to do with the U.S. state of Connecticut? WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@ WhisperToMe: yes, it used to, but not any more. EllenCT ( talk) 04:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Ok. Do you know Wikipedians who are still in Connecticut? There are some photo requests I have in Greenwich and Milford. WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@ NickCT: and @ Jehochman: can you help? EllenCT ( talk) 19:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@ WhisperToMe and EllenCT: - Sorry. I've cut most my ties with CT. Has this request been posted at Wikipedia:Requested_pictures? NickCT ( talk) 20:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@ NickCT: I have used the template at Talk:Subway (restaurant) and Talk:The Japanese School of New York (Greenwich, CT). Ellen, thank you for notifying your friends! WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I may be able to help next time I am in that part of the state. Can somebody leave me a reminder on my talk page? @ Pharos: might be in the area too. Jehochman ^Talk 02:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi! I know this is being discussed in a couple of other places, so I just wanted to check separately if you agree that this edit is using a primary source to relay information that the source itself does not contain. The source's objective was "to assess the relationship between household proximity to natural gas wells and reported health symptoms", so at most it could only be used to relay what those reported health symptoms were; not to state (e.g.) as fact that "people with clinically significant skin problems increased from 3% to 13% over the same distances". But more particularly this is a primary source and so should not be used for health information, particularly if it goes against the grain of better sources (as it does). I noticed a recent thread at AN/I about your editing and that the closing admin said "lessons can and should be drawn". I dispute the neutrality of the article as it now stands. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 07:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't think you understand the survey's conclusions or their caveats, so I have asked at WP:RSN#Health effects of fracking in hopes of resolving this dispute. EllenCT ( talk) 07:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks, though I'm not sure yet another forum for this is needed (it's already at WT:MED). This is more an issue of neutrality than reliability since any source is reliable for an attributed statement of what that source says. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 07:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 19:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Which diffs do you think are edit warring? EllenCT ( talk) 19:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC) reply

This was already explained at WT:MED. You are now edit-warring again today by repeatedly re-instating your preferred version of the text. You are also knowingly misrepresenting a cited source by removing text it supports, as I have explained on Talk. This is a serious problem and in my view is behaviour that needs wider examination. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 05:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Again, to which specific diffs are you objecting? Please see WP:DR for guidance on how to resolve disputes. EllenCT ( talk) 06:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

As you know, PMID 24119661 states: "no sound epidemiologic study has been done to assess the extent of exposure-related adverse health effects among populations living in areas where natural gas extraction is going on" and this is still so. By removing mention of this key fact you are misrepresenting the source. I do not think this is a content dispute, as there is no doubt in my mind how policy applies here. I am concerned with your behaviour in editing however. A WP:RFC/U may be an appropriate dispute resolution step? Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 06:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

You are well aware that there are several other MEDRS sources which reach strong, specific, and prescriptive conclusions, including that a ban on drilling in the New York City water supply watersheds is appropriate, and that there are several toxins present in sources of groundwater contamination from fracking. In which diff do you claim I removed the quote to which you refer? I have opened a request for moderated dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. EllenCT ( talk) 06:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I am aware of no good sources giving a contradictory view specifically on health effects. There is no dispute toxic chemicals are used, but there appears to be a debate over whether that risk can be managed. In this edit you removed the text "there is little evidence from which to draw a conclusion" which was a key finding of the cited source; this is not good. I do not think you should have started a DRN case since you have already got active threads at WT:MED and RSN (where the policy aspect here has been reaffirmed by other editors). It looks a bit like WP:FORUMSHOPPING which is also not good. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 06:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Why do you claim that the review stating that a ban on drilling in the New York City water supply's watershed is not good? Why do you claim that the several other MEDRSs with strong conclusions in agreement are not good? EllenCT ( talk) 20:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nofel Izz. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The 
request for formal mediation concerning Income Inequality in the United States, to which you were listed as a party, has been 
declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the 
mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the 
Chairman of the Committee, or to the 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see 
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Thank you for your contributions. Nicholas Stern is the Vice-Chair of the Global Commission for the Economy and Climate, for example

• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/science/earth/fixing-climate-change-may-add-no-costs-report-says.html
• http://newclimateeconomy.net/content/global-commission

(",) 99.112.215.81 ( talk) 07:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Please contact me by email. EllenCT ( talk) 19:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't think blocked IPs are permitted to contact editors by Email. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC) reply

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:TotalBiscuit. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC) reply

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Principle. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC) reply

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I re-removed the link to the courtesy copy of Hajek, et Al's paper on Talk:Electronic Cigarette. Wiley, the journal publisher, requires permission to be granted before content is reused. I looked on the courtesy link and the tobonline website and I couldn't see anything indicating that such permission had been granted. Therefore, I removed the link per WP:COPYVIO as it's better to err on the cautious side. If tobonline has permission to reproduce the content, please point it out to me and I'll happily self-revert. Thanks! Ca2james ( talk) 18:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Ca2james: just out of curiousity, (1) what brought that link to your attention? (2) do you intend to do the same to every reference which has a courtesy link to copyrighted content, and if not, why did you choose to do it to my comment? And (3) do you have any way to tell whether the authors retained a transferable right to redistribute their paper when transferring copyright to Wiley? EllenCT ( talk) 04:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

In answer to your questions: 1) I have both electronic cigarette and ani on my watchlist. 2) I'm not going to patrol for these links but if I come across courtesy links like this then I will try to determine whether the link is allowed under the publisher's copyright. If not then I will remove the link. I didn't know before the ani post that such links may not be allowed; I'm still fairly new and copyright is complex. If I had known about the links I wouldn't have added one myself in a deletion discussion. That discussion has been closed so I don't think I can remove the link now or else I would. 3) No, I have no way to tell. I would hope that there would be some sort of documentation allowing the site to publish the paper. I chose to act on the cautious side and assume that there was no such permission. Was that wrong? How would I know if the authors had given their permission?

I apologize if I acted hastily. As I say, this is new and I was trying to do the right thing. I wasn't targeting you in any way. Ca2james ( talk) 12:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC) reply

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators. Thanks. — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 21:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC) reply

19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply

17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 ( talk) 12:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC) reply

16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Renault. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC) reply

16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That was some post. I don't know how to respond exactly except that it was a nice thing to do. Formerly 98 ( talk) 19:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I've had a rough time with paid advocacy and am planning to re-focus in my core competencies of political economics and measurement of tax policy. It wasn't until I saw [299] today that I understood the extent of paid advocacy editing on both sides of the e-cig issues. I'm glad the article has been fully protected until March, and I don't intend to ever edit it again. I look forward to reading the literature reviews in a few years when they have had time to report on all the cessation and harm reduction studies presently in the works. EllenCT ( talk) 20:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC) reply

There is no evidence of paid editing. [300] [301] We must assume blind faith. Sigh. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree that the whole thing needs to stop, and I previously raised this issue on Anna Frodesiak's talk page a while back. She attempted to discuss the problem with the IP user, but he was incredibly rude and intransigent. Anna can point you in the direction of the discussion, as it took place in multiple locations. After witnessing that, I lost the sympathy for the user you currently have. Then again, I do think Rubin should find something else to occupy his time, like writing articles. Good luck with that. :) In a way, both of them are made for each other, and I get the sense that the user is trolling Rubin to keep him preoccupied. After all, if Rubin isn't busy tracking down the IP, he's shilling for the Koch brothers. Uh oh, the cat's out of the bag now... Viriditas ( talk) 11:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you, for letting me know. I couldn't find any attempt to reach out to him other than through a few occasional sentences in between dozens of templates. EllenCT ( talk) 12:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

The links I listed for you on ANI are to the archived talk pages Viriditas mentioned ... lots of reading there :) Vsmith ( talk) 23:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC) reply

@EllenCT: The ANI discussion is closed now, so I'll reply here. For brevity, I did not spell out the details of the case that I recall, but a critical point is that the user made good edits for several weeks—it was not until they had been left to do pretty much what they wanted on several articles that the editing became bizarre. At the start, the only clue was that the editor made ten edits per day to articles which rarely had ten edits per month. At the end, it was obvious that the editor was a disruptive menace, and myself and another user were groaning at the thought of how much effort would be required to get the editor removed given the large number of good edits they had made which would make explaining the problem to third-parties difficult. The problem was resolved when the user was indeffed as a sock. For the socks of some long-term abusers, observers cannot tell that the sock is going to be a problem because the troll knows how to do their job, and they may give no clue about their intentions until they have become establised. In other words, you have no way of knowing that the IP is editing in good faith, nor do you know what would happen if they became established. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Ellen's last post at the ANI (to Vsmith and separately to me) appear to say the real issue has nothing to do with the IP, but rather a gripe Ellen has on her own behalf. Ellen, see WP:DR and good luck getting that gripe resolved. You'll have better luck addressing the issues head-on, I think. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 06:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I said nothing of the sort. Just because I learned about the issue while researching the editors who have been stalking my contributions doesn't mean that I think the stalking is worse than what has been going on over the past four years with the IP editor. Why does it "appear" otherwise to you? EllenCT ( talk) 07:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Disengaging. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 07:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

EllenCT, don't take these jokers too seriously. Just focus on what interests you and what gives you enjoyment and stick to it. These guys are all too wrapped up in their own Private Idaho's. Viriditas ( talk) 10:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC) reply

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC) reply

16:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)