feel free

Re this edit comment "Smokefoot deleted information referencing scientific studies because he personally does not like MIT not because of any valid reason " I do like MIT. So where this remark coming from? Seems uncollegial.

It has been a year since I edited that article, so my memory is fuzzy.

About the MIT part: In general I and many editors are wary (and weary) of edits that rely on argument by authority vs stating facts by relying on a nice reliable source. So citing MIT is kind of like "Daddy said so.." type thing. The other, even more practical reason to avoid writing "MIT said so" is that otherwise many, many articles would be encumbered/encrusted with Univ of XYZ claims this and Institute of ABC found this. One descends into a strutting game. For example, look at this article Vinyl chloride. Vinyl chloride is really dangerous. The article does not lean on any institutional claims.

Finally, probably someone should question how the recent edit inserted in a comment that SO2F2 is an "acute neurotoxin" into the lede. Seems like a chemophobic maybe even alt-fact thing to say.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 20:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

————

@ Smokefoot: On your talk page your response to me was " most of the world does not give a hoot about MIT-based anything. " which sounds like a personal opinion. My bad for the uncollegial edit comment. Regardless you can't just delete references to scientific studies because you don't like them.

I think its fine to rephrase the language so it doesn't sound like "MIT says so". But just rephrase the edit next time instead of deleting it outright. And MIT wasn't making an institutional claim they were reporting on research based evidence not conjecture or opinion.

Regarding acute neurotoxin, I didn't contribute that edit, but see this publication ^[1] on page 28:

"At non-lethal concentrations, neurotoxicity was observed in rats, mice, rabbits, and dogs. With acute to 2 weeks of exposures, clinical signs observed in these species included tremors, lethargy, respiratory effects, incapacitation, tetany, and convulsions. At the lowestobserved effect level, animals treated with sulfuryl fluoride for two weeks showed tissue damage in the kidney (rats), brain (rabbits, mice), and respiratory tract (rabbits and dogs). Available oral and dermal toxicity studies did not provide sufficient data for toxicity evaluation"

I'm not a chemist or expert on chemicals but that sounds reason enough to call it an acute neurotoxin to me. Meaningzone ( talk) 20:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response. Youre right, my comment about giving a hoot says something. I'll revisit the article sometime in the future and keep your comments in mind. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 22:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Ryder Ripps, you may be blocked from editing. Ammarpad ( talk) 13:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC) --- @ Ammarpad: hey what are you talking about? I didn't "remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself" because I didn't create the page Ryder Ripps that speedy deletion notice was unwarranted. Are you a bot? The page in question is not "pure vandalism" Meaningzone ( talk) reply

Hi! Regarding your AfD of Jennifer Chan (artist), please have a look at WP:Deletion is not cleanup. It's a inefficient to nominate articles that just need to be edited to reduce their promotional nature or tone. WP:BEBOLD and just fix them. If you think they are not notable, the thing to do is WP:BEFORE to determine if the sources in the article and those not in the article (i.e. available by web search or in libraries) are enough to meet the notability requirement. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 20:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ ThatMontrealIP: Hey thanks yes I did read the provided links you posted and it's not just a question of notable sources as I mentioned it's written like a resume and there's a ton of self promoting non neutral language, thanks

WP:NOTRESUME , WP:NOTPROMO Meaningzone ( talk)

Yes, but those policies are not reasons for starting an AfD. they're reasons for editing. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ ThatMontrealIP: You're incorrect it says "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions" those are policies for deletion Meaningzone ( talk) 21:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply

You might read WP:IDHT, and note the other editors who are saying the same thing. have a nice day. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 01:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ ThatMontrealIP: that's really patronizing you ought to read the rules your referencing I spent the time to read them and thought I was doing the right thing. All of the issues I brought up are listed as reasons for deletion. God bless you Meaningzone ( talk) 03:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

All the items you mention in the AFD were fixed by a minute of editing. Following the advice of editors with more chops is part of Wikipedia-- it's how you learn. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 03:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ ThatMontrealIP: Just because you're more active on Wikipedia doesn't grant you holy authority over interpreting the rules, the article still sounds like WP:NOTRESUME , WP:NOTPROMO from my point of view but I guess that's why Jesus made us all different Meaningzone ( talk) 14:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Sigh. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 18:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@Meaningzone I've noticed you've repeatedly stated "self promotional" here and elsewhere, and I believe the term you are looking for is "promotional." Just clarifying so you don't continue to unintentionally misrepresent your arguments Jghampton ( talk) 02:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Jghampton: hey thanks? I think you might be splitting hairs and being a grammarian you knew what I meant as the topic was self evidence, don't take it for granite Meaningzone ( talk) 03:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Meaningzone: Not being a grammarian, the word choice is fundamentally different in the context. As it stands, your argument for deletion is claiming that the subject wrote their own article, which would sway people's opinions if they assume that you are telling the truth or have evidence to suggest that. Jghampton ( talk) 13:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Jghampton: That's not exactly true, as it stands, my argument for deletion is "written like a resume, questionable neutrality and notability, reads self promotion" stated that it reads like self promotion, I haven't claimed the subject wrote it about themselves. God bless you Meaningzone ( talk) 14:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply