User talk:Jervis49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2023[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Raltoid. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Raltoid (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Raltoid. I did stated that the removed content was due to unsubstantiated claims. Perhaps my edit explanation was not saved? If so, I apologize Jervis49 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Jervis49. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Dairy farming in Canada, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this! I don’t have any CoI. In fact, I was Nosfer Ariel 65, but my account got locked. If you see my previous account, you’ll notice that I contribute hundreds of times to the wiki in general, but I did a lot of work in patrolling charlebois’ page against the pro-charlebois propaganda, and I did an extensive search to identify the sockpuppets related to janvez.

Since then, I have avoided touching any material related to charlebois, but I can’t hold myself after seeing some edits from potential sockpuppets. I do have now a difficult relationship with the pro-charlebois’ crowd, because I was sorely bullied by them when I attempted to restore the neutrality of the page. However, I don’t know the person, nor I have any relationships (implicit or explicit) that could put me at odds with the CoI policy. I do have to disclose, however, that my feelings towards the pro-charlebois editors are slightly skewed after the attacks I received in the past, and this is precisely why I avoid making substantive contributions to his articles. 

Jervis49 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I understand that you erased my revision on the Canadian dairy industry. But please reconsider the content itself. My pattern might be suspicious, but if you see the actual content of my revision, and it’s rationale, you will probably agree with me. Jervis49 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add one more thing: My main issue with the pro-Charlebois editors—other than their attempts to whitewash his reputation—is that they go all over the wiki to reference his studies, and then imply that his view is indisputable... and the END-ALL of all scientific debate. And exampleof this is Buttergate. The editors are too aggressive at slanting the debate towards Charlebois. And I take issue with that. Jervis49 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Dairy farming in Canada[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Dairy farming in Canada 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; read about 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this. I will use the talk page. Excuse me.
Based on my claims, do you stll disagree with my edit? Jervis49 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to revert your last edit or I will open an edit warring discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I just undid. My apologies again.
Can we arrive at some consensus? The chronological order of the studies is inconsistent with the claims made by the source. And it monopolizes the scientific evidence about buttergate towards one scientist and one POV. Tons of articles are with conflicting evidence. Some artivles that enrich the discussion:
"Palm oil in food: What is it and why is it controversial?" - BBC News
"Palm Oil: Good or Bad?" - Healthline
"Palm oil in dairy and meat products: a threat to public health?" - The Conversation
Labuza, T. P., & Breene, W. M. (1980). The effect of oil type on the physical properties of butter. Journal of Dairy Science, 63(5), 787-792. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82750-2
Murthy, H. N., & Raghavendra, R. (2006). Influence of oil type and level on the quality characteristics of butter. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 59(1), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0307.2006.00234.x
Don't get me wrong, I personally think the addition of palm oil is a horrendous practice, and I actually approve of it. But there is simply no resolute evidence suggesting that palm oil causes butter hardness. Jervis49 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sylvain Charlebois, you may be blocked from editing. Social media, including Twitter, is not a reliable source. If an incident lacks any coverage in independent, reliable sources, it is not significant enough for an article, particularly a biography of a living person. Please familiarize yourself with the requirements at WP:BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should also read WP:TWITTER to learn the few instances where it can be used as a source in an article. Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing what you're doing. Ghertydjzww (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to User talk:Jervis49 while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Jervis49. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Sylvain Charlebois, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jervis49 has spoken about a growing scandal involving Sylvain Charlebois. WE have seen no records of this. Does he know something we don't? Is he in conflict with the subject matter? Ghertydjzww (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
look at the press release from April 19, from the Canadian Economics Association:
https://www.economics.ca/cpages/cwec-home Jervis49 (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yikes, you have a history of harassing users. I won’t reply to anything here Jervis49 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was posted on April 19 by this association. Can you point me to the exact press release please? Ghertydjzww (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the number, Jervis49 is. Ghertydjzww (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. 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, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

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 procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Schazjmd (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jervis49&oldid=1154985722"