User talk:Plasticwonder: Difference between revisions

 

Line 50: Line 50:

:I have replied to you on your talk page. [[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder#top|talk]]) 05:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:I have replied to you on your talk page. [[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder#top|talk]]) 05:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

== FIP ==

Hello! I noticed you reverted my previous edit on this page. I understand my reference wasn’t up to snuff. However, the information genuinely is wrong. I found a different source from UC Davis. If it’s not good enough, could you tell me what would be preferred? I thought I wasn’t supposed to link to the actual studies (primary sources). My cat currently has FIP and is undergoing treatment with the drug. It was really disheartening to see on wikipedia (one of the first places many people go to look for information on this sort of stuff) have outdated information on such a serious issue.

Also, I tried using the markup from the documentation page, and I’m not sure what I’m doing wrong to have it pop up incorrectly for the citation. [[User:Lacustriandj|Lacustriandj]] ([[User talk:Lacustriandj|talk]]) 16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:Multiple things wrong here:

:* There is no way you could have thought that it was disallowed to link to the actual study.

:* You are replacing good academic sources with a pdf file that may not have solid research behind it

:* While I feel for your situation as a cat owner, your cat undergoing treatment is not an excuse to replace good sources with research that doesn’t have a scientific basis behind it yet. If you can find the same information from multiple journals, then I can let it go.

:[[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder#top|talk]]) 01:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, thanks for your reply! I see now I had faulty information. I was told you can’t put direct studies because many people can’t be trusted to interpret them correctly. You’ll have to forgive me for that one. Anyway, the article for GS… shows the studies. I elected to not re-link them to avoid clutter. The information on the drug is there. This article was conflicting with the other.

::Additionally, that PDF links to a paper summarizing the findings from a professor who had done extensive research on the topic at a well respected institution. The professor wrote the summarization. In my experience, papers written by such reliable groups are considered good academic sources. You have no real reason to believe this, but I do actually have quite a bit of experience in experimentation and research with emerging technologies. Granted, my experience is in biodegradable plastics and soil/agriculture. There is in fact enough data to show the medication dose work (for the majority of cases). I do not feel the need to continue this further. If you won’t accept linking to an already approved internal page, I’m sure people out there won’t actually care about what the wiki says more than the many veterinary sources one can find with a bit more scrolling. [[User:Lacustriandj|Lacustriandj]] ([[User talk:Lacustriandj|talk]]) 04:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

:::*does work

:::PS: I do really appreciate you holding such high standards. Last time I was editing wikipedia I was 12 editing media pages. I would like to contribute more, but I’m still learning. People like you keep wikipedia a good starting off point for doing proper research. [[User:Lacustriandj|Lacustriandj]] ([[User talk:Lacustriandj|talk]]) 04:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

::::For starters, you are edit warring.

::::Secondly, you even admitted the weakness of your position when you said:

::::{{xt|I see now I had faulty information. I was told you can’t put direct studies because many people can’t be trusted to interpret them correctly. You’ll have to forgive me for that one. }}

::::and

::::{{xt|. Anyway, the article for GS… shows the studies. I elected to not re-link them to avoid clutter. The information on the drug is there. This article was conflicting with the other.}}

::::(it doesn’t by the way, I have checked.)

::::For the first, that is simply not true. People can be trusted to interpret sources, believing otherwise is against the spirit of this encyclopedia.

::::It is flat out disruptive to replace good text with [[WP:FRINGE]] viewpoints, it is even more disruptive to remove it altogether, as you have done [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feline_coronavirus&diff=prev&oldid=1319334882 here.] [[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder#top|talk]]) 05:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

:::::This will be my final message. I have tried to be kind, and you have just been rude. I know that’s a very common problem on here though. We both know it’s not a fringe idea. The medication was approved and now is available legally in the US (as of June 2024, which is listed on the drug page). You know it’s not right to do leave that crucial of information incorrect. I don’t believe I’m edit warring because I was genuinely trying to find the sources you were asking for. I don’t believe you’re able to interpret studies if you actually read the studies linked and still believe they don’t say that the drug is effective. I hope you’re able to see the error and fix your revert or allow me to attempt to add the links to the studies. I believe this is the first time I’ve ever humored an argument online, and I hope you can see it’s because I can tell you actually care. I genuinely hope you have a great rest of the year. (Again, I’m not being passive aggressive. I do genuinely want what’s best for wikipedia and the people who do quality control.) I think wikipedia is a great resource for the casual learner, and I know I didn’t even think of looking to wikipedia for answers during this trying time. I did read those studies, and many other far more reliable resources. I have things I enjoy much more than this that I’m now going to tend to. [[User:Lacustriandj|Lacustriandj]] ([[User talk:Lacustriandj|talk]]) 05:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I am the firmest believer in calling a spade a spade, and telling the emperor that he has no clothes.<>

Good show reverting your revert. I cannot tell you how rarely that happens. It warms the cockles of my heart to see such a sincere Wikipedian with such demonstrative integrity. 2601:196:180:DC0:45F5:3EF7:390B:49C3 (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and thanks! Plasticwonder (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your anti-vandal work. I can’t stand those vandals! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3156:1DC4:AF14:D226 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! Plasticwonder (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologize for saying you lied in the edit summary; I then recognized you meant the source article, not ours. —Golbez (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Plasticwonder, do you speak Burmese? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ToBeFree,

I do not speak Burmese. I checked the history of the article you linked, as I don’t remember editing a Burmese themed page, and realized I undid a content removal from an IP that I thought was disruptive. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Why did you think so? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In AntiVandal, I see large chunks of text being removed, I usually revert, especially if there isn’t a proper reason for it, or even worse, no reason at all. In this case, the user stated that “justice is served”, which didn’t seem encyclopedic to me, and perhaps the editor had a bias. Plasticwonder (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, “justice is served” doesn’t even question the accuracy of the content, so I agree that the edit summary combined with a large removal of text is a pretty good indicator of disruption with a conflict of interest.

So that’s okay, no worries and thanks for the clarification. However, please be careful with such restorations. Whichever reason you had for restoring the content, you clicked a button and suddenly became legally responsible for the content you restored. If the user had stopped reverting there and sought a lawyer, and the content turned out to be defamatory, you could have been sued for defamation. 17 seconds between a removal and someone who doesn’t speak the language of the references restoring the content are very likely far less time than should have been taken in this case. Allegations are just allegations; WP:BLPPRIMARY applies about court records et cetera et cetera. If you could take at least a minute of reading and thinking as a matter of principle before restoring BLP content, that would be great.

Special:Diff/1317139564 had a far better edit summary that shows good faith (even if there’s a strong conflict of interest). Skywatcher68 reverted that one, which is the actual main problem in this dispute, but at least they sought advice afterwards. I found the page because they asked on my talk page.

And that all said, thanks a million for the recent changes patrolling you do. Especially for being brave enough to deal with such subjects and to oppose the introduction of bias. All the best! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best comment I have had on my talk page. This was a tremendous heads up. I never knew you could be litigated for stuff like this, so this probably just saved me from a whole lot of trouble.

And as for the patrolling, it is the least I could do! Plasticwonder (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(It’s extremely unlikely and the recent situation with Caesar DePaço was an extremely rare case where the WMF actually had to reveal users’ IP address information. It went through the press and Wikipedia noticeboards because it is so extremely rare. I think this is mostly about morals, honor, reputation and not getting blocked rather than actual legal risk; even if we both used anonymizing proxies all the time and noone could sue us, we’d still be interested in not doing something illegal. It’s mostly something to keep in mind, not something to be afraid of.)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mauk Kham Wah. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plasticwonder, You were the first one to chastise me for posting an edit to the American LaFrance Wiki; you were followed by another. I’ve been around and around in the far more legalese that I’m used to pages to figure out how to get this post/edit made. So far I’ve learned that the moderators mostly tell me to look for things that I don’t understand, and not tell me how to get it done. I’m coming back to you to appeal for some assistance.

I’m trying to post that the 1921 American LaFrance fire engine S/N 3970 set a world record that still stands. It’s an enhancement of information on the ALF. I’ve got pictures of the sales manual (No. 20) produced by ALF in 1923 (with a picture of the copyright statement within it). AND a copy of the Letter of Affidavit from the U.S. Bureau of Mines branch director who attested to the feat.

I’m unable to post any of the pictures – I ‘don’t have the privilege’ or something like that.

I’m looking for someone who might work WITH me to achieve this, rather than just against me by throwing gauntlet after gauntlet explaining why I can’t. I reviewed a bunch of rules on documentation (PAGES of details within Wikipedia) and find that my documentation should be more than adequate. And/but there is no way to overcome the fact that some of the anecdotal pictures were taken by someone – but there’s not way to find out who, or when. Most of them are 100 years old; the rest are more then 25-30 years old (isn’t the copyright on photos like that around 28 years?).

Thanks for your work to keep Wiki honest. I’m just trying to honestly update some information. I’m a director on the Alaska Fire Service Museum Association and the Wasilla-Knik Historical Society – just an ‘old timer’ dealing with some only time information. Antiquetuck (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you on your talk page. Plasticwonder (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]