User talk:CommonKnowledgeCreator
 | CommonKnowledgeCreator is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation. Your help in cheering this user up would be appreciated. Wikipedia is run by a group of longtime editors who effectively assert ownership over the project by abusing the consensus policy to prevent any change to other policies, guidelines, and norms that are at least in need of reform. Since this effectively requires editors who wish to edit to be subjected to rules that are not functional and that they have no ability to change, there does not appear to be much of a reason to continue to participate in this project. Also, many longtime editors also feel no need to cite policies or guidelines in edit summaries when they revert your contributions or contest them on talk pages—despite supposed community norms for determining consensus through discussions and editing and the recommended practices of other supplemental project pages to do so—while other longtime editors abuse the non-bureaucracy policy to take a broader interpretation of policies than what the letter of the policies suggest the larger principles of the policies actually are—despite the fifth pillar of the project and the editing policy's requirement to preserve content unless it truly cannot be fixed—which both strongly suggest that your contributions are not valued just because some longtime editors don't like them. Besides, research on digital divides has shown that greater equality of internet access has not reduced knowledge divides, so continuing to participate in a project to give free access to the sum of all human knowledge must not be a worthwhile use of time (if it ever was). |
 | This user is in school. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. |
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Sự thật về Đúng và Sai
[edit]Sự Thật là 100% ghi lại sự vật ,hiện tượng theo thời gian thực… Đúng là hiểu về câu chuyện và trình bày thực tế… Sai là chưa hiểu hoặc hiểu một phần của câu chuyện ( Sai trái, sai phải...). Nếu hiểu thì sẽ không còn Sai … ~2025-35881-97 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Congestion pricing in NY
[edit]Isn't there a rule against pedantry? The city's Health Department, according to reference 334, asserted that 12 months of data would be required "for reliable findings." The Cornell paper (reference 335) is a "first look" at the impact of congestion pricing in New York City, based on only six months of data. When, for balance, I added a second and third look from other researchers, you complained that preprints are not allowed. But the guidelines do not actually say that. They say that preprints may "meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources," which "may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert . . . " The authors of the two papers I added are subject-matter experts from Yale, Stanford, and Columbia universities. Since the Cornell paper is not necessarily reliable, according to the NYC Health Department, balance requires that opposing findings be cited as well. Pamela Miller (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Isn't there a rule against pedantry?
Nope. WP:LAWYER is an essay rather than a policy or guideline and is not an how-to page, information page, or explanatory essay that supplements any P&Gs. Citation and analysis of relevant P&Gs is required by the consensus policy for talk page discussions, for determining consensus, and recommended by the how-to page for edit summaries since both the editing policy and the consensus policy strongly recommend including clear edit summaries for all edits (and when making reverts in particular) since doing so helps prevent edit wars.When, for balance, I added a second and third look from other researchers, you complained that preprints are not allowed.
Nope. In my first edit summary, I did not say that they were not permissible. As I said in my second edit summary, I removed the preprints you included per the recommendations of the reliable sources guideline for academic research because they were being included alongside a peer reviewed journal article and that to do so arguably was introducing undue weight and false balance per the neutral point of view policy. Because the Cornell paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the Cornell paper is more reliable than the preprints since, despite being authored by acknowledged subject-matter experts, the latter are still self-published. If you insist that they be restored, their in-text summary should reflect that they have not been peer reviewed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- You initially wrote that it is "arguable" whether including preprints along with a peer-reviewed study creates a false balance. In this case, in my opinion, it would not create a false balance. The Cornell paper was the first published study about air quality related to the New York City congestion pricing program. Contrary to your contention that publication in a peer-reviewed journal automatically makes a paper more reliable, you should remember that "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research." This warning was borne out when two additional studies came out with conclusions that contradict the Cornell study. We now have three papers about air quality and New York's congestion pricing program, all by subject-matter experts. Two of them contradict the Cornell paper. So the true balance is actually on the side of skepticism of the Cornell paper. I don't think that labelling the papers in one way or another will help to illuminate the controversy. DG707 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
This warning was borne out when two additional studies came out with conclusions that contradict the Cornell study. We now have three papers about air quality and New York's congestion pricing program, all by subject-matter experts. Two of them contradict the Cornell paper. So the true balance is actually on the side of skepticism of the Cornell paper.
I'm not disputing that the authors of the preprints are not subject-matter experts (and at this point not even that they should not be included), but two preprints came out with conclusions that contradict the Cornell study. Preprints are even more "tentative" than isolated academic journal articles precisely because they have not undergone peer review—which is to say, an editorial process as the community requires for sources to be considered reliable in general. As such, I would still argue that the Air quality subsection of the Congestion pricing in New York City article should reflect that they are preprints, with language like "Other preliminary research indicates...". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)- I changed the last sentence to "Preliminary studies . . .". DG707 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- I changed the last sentence to "Preliminary studies . . .". DG707 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- You initially wrote that it is "arguable" whether including preprints along with a peer-reviewed study creates a false balance. In this case, in my opinion, it would not create a false balance. The Cornell paper was the first published study about air quality related to the New York City congestion pricing program. Contrary to your contention that publication in a peer-reviewed journal automatically makes a paper more reliable, you should remember that "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research." This warning was borne out when two additional studies came out with conclusions that contradict the Cornell study. We now have three papers about air quality and New York's congestion pricing program, all by subject-matter experts. Two of them contradict the Cornell paper. So the true balance is actually on the side of skepticism of the Cornell paper. I don't think that labelling the papers in one way or another will help to illuminate the controversy. DG707 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
National banks
[edit]I added a comment to this page. Talk:National bank (United States) Julian in LA (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)