User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive January 2019

No longer comment on my talkpage

Thanks.

jps (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Pingin'

FWIW, you can also do it just by copying how they write their sig, like this.
P.S. Love that you have Graham's Hierarchy here. It should be at the top of every talk page.
Also loved the preceding subsection's title. Happy {editing|New Year}, Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tornado chaser!

Happy New Year!

Tornado chaser,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

A little late UTC but still not midnight where I am. Have a happy and healthy New Year and keep up the good work! Donner60 (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Refactoring RfCs

Regarding this and this, there is no requirement that all replies need to be moved to the Threaded discussion section when such a format is used at RfC. Threaded discussion is useful for general comments, but replies to !votes should remain with the vote. Moving them all to the threaded section makes it difficult to read, and makes it nearly impossible for editors to clarify their comments when needed. Furthermore, WP:REFACTORING clearly states If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Someone has already replied to that comment, and you claim to have JzG's permission, so I'm not asking you to revert this one. But I am asking you to please not refactor RfC discussions like this again. Thank you. Bradv🍁 05:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed to have JzG's permission, I said that the OP (Guy Macon) instructed editors to move any commentary in the vote section into the threaded discussion section, saying Please !vote in the yes and no sections, and discuss in the threaded discussion section. Any editor may move comments placed in the yes and no sections into the threaded discussion section. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: fix ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, you couldn't be more wrong about "Moving them all to the threaded section makes it difficult to read, and makes it nearly impossible for editors to clarify their comments when needed." Having the !votes buried in page after page of threaded discussions is what is hard to read. And clarifying your !vote isn't affected at all. Just strike out the old and add the new like this: The Earth is flat. Correction: we know it isn't flat because if it was the cats would push everything over the edge. See how easy that was? (using five tildes instead of four gives you just the date). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC) Edited 05:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I missed the fact that you had requested that style when you opened the RfC – that's my bad. But in general I disagree with that strategy. Look at any WP:RfA for an example – the replies stay with the votes, and the general discussion stays in its own section. Bradv🍁 05:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tornado chaser: you, specifically, have no permission to edit anything I write on any non-mainspace page, ever. Don't fuck with the comments of people with whom you are in dispute, leave it to others. If you had an ounce of self-awareness you'd realise this without it being pointed out to you. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Just so you know I have nothing personal against you, I have noticed you becoming increasingly hostile towards me, but I'm not trying to make any of the content disputes we've had personal, disagreeing with someone about content doesn't mean I'm personally mad at them. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Jordan Cunningham

Thanks for the reminder on the sources. I have reverted the changes and added sources.Fenarols (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fenarols: Your edit still contained an unsourced list of bills, and some of the wording looks like it was intended to promote him, so I undid most of it. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Can you elaborate on how you believe the wording promotes him? I would disagree that bills can promote him. None mention him at all.--Fenarols (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Also, as was cited in the entry, see the below link from California Legislative Information https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml?session_year=20172018&house=Both&author=Cunningham&lawCode=All-- --Fenarols (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks promotional because it is: it was all essentially lifted from here: [1] --Calton | Talk 09:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:Autism quackery

Hi - I added the Category : Autism quackery to the Vaccine controversies page because I think that it is a page that falls within that category (though granted it would fall in lots of other categories too and I've not added them). Also autism is mentioned over 50 times on the page so it's already pretty... autism-y, for want of a better word. But if not I shan't bleat on about it :-) JoBrodie (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You have a point, my thinking was that autism quackery was just 1 topic within vaccine controversies, so it seemed a little odd to have vaccine controversies in the category autism quackery. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@JoBrodie: ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: thanks - would you be miffed if I restored that category?

No, but thanks for asking, I was actually on the fence about whether to remove it in the first place. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@JoBrodie: fix ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Thank you :) I'll un-revert it. You might also 'enjoy' the strange world of Rope worms. JoBrodie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

editing of ropeworms due to off topic changes.

Tornado Chaser, with all due respect:

I'm not sure how else to give the reader an idea of exactly what "rope worms" consist of in what I believe to be current science understanding. It is important they are not misconstrued for "a new type of worm" because that is not current medical understanding, and only the musing of two papers not accepted in any journal. With your study in medicine, might you indicate a more appropriate way to give the reader understanding of what exactly intestinal lining is? This was reiterated in at least three of the references used, and thus I feel not off topic. Why would I not use the terminology "intestinal lining"? And is it not a protective lining of the intestine that protects much like skin? If integrity is lost via caustic(?) substances or tears, would it not have immunological concerns? I don't believe I was off topic. I did not discuss anything but the intestinal lining, which is what a rope worm is, according to the sources posted. Please reconsider. Otherwise, I will leave it as is. I have little medical background, maybe I misunderstand. I was hoping to teach, in my childish way, more than scare.

I plan to study medicine, too. I am 62 years old and slightly forgetful, hope my dream is not dashed before it begins, but the classes are free for "senior citizens" in my state.

Jrbwalk (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)jrbwalk

@Jrbwalk: I like your "teach not scare" approach and wish more editors on fringe medical topics used that approach. The issue is that you just seemed to be describing what intestinal lining is, rather than how it relates to rope worms. I have added a few clarifications to the article, and I will link intestinal lining. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Reverting sourced content. You could have seen that it was well sourced if you had looked a little harder and followed the link. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Benjamin (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: I was going to do that, but I see you got to it first, looks good now. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta:. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay! (^.^) Cheers. Benjamin (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Your recent editing history at Rope worms 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. See BRD for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bradv🍁 01:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You received an arbitration enforcement warning a year ago for similar behaviour, please tread carefully. [2] Bradv🍁 01:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

And another revert? This is reckless, Tornado chaser. Bradv🍁 01:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: Did you look at the diff? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Regardless of its content, the wise thing to do when you run out of reverts is to stop editing. This counts double when you're already on the radar at WP:AE. Bradv🍁 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I though this last edit was obviously uncontroversial, but I will be more carful in the future. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

rope worms

I read about rope worms somewhere on the internet, but I don't remember where.

Where did you read about them?

Benjamin (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: I don't remember where I first read about them, why? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Because I thought we might have read about them in the same place, which would be interesting. Benjamin (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Open to criticism

@JzG: You have repeatedly stated that I am too sympathetic to antivaxers. I am aware that before this summer I didn't understand WP:UNDUE, leading me to support the inappropriate use of primary sources, which made me look sympathetic to antivaxers when I tried to add self-published stuff by them, but since you think that this is an ongoing problem, I would be interested to know how you think I should be doing things differently now. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be trivially easy to establish that you are not too sympathetic to antivaxers. Simply indicate that you fully agree with all of the following statements without reservation or qualification:

• While nothing in life is without risk, vaccination is far safer than remaining unvaccinated.
• Vaccines are one of the most successful programs in modern health care, reducing and in some cases even eliminating serious infectious diseases.
• Vaccines do not cause autism. Mercury does not cause autism. Aluminum does not cause autism. Formaldehyde does not cause autism.
• Andrew Wakefield was a fraud. At the time he published his discredited study he was being paid by a group of parents of autistic children seeking to sue for damages from MMR vaccine producers and he had applied for patents for an MMR vaccine substitute.
• There is no scientific evidence for the existence for "immune system overload".
• There is no need for any alternative vaccine schedule. The existing MMR (mumps-measles-rubella) vaccine schedule isn't broken and doesn't need fixing.

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

+ + + Hands out popcorn. + + + -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, the only qualifications being that there has been some speculation that rubella infection during pregnancy could cause autism, so I think it is conceivable that live rubella vaccine during pregnancy could cause autism in rare cases, but the CDC warns that pregnant women should not get MMR, so this is not a disagreement with the CDC's vaccination recommendations. MMR saves many lives, and should be given before pregnancy becomes possible anyway. Also, we need RS for any statment of fact, so I will not support adding something like "X doesn't cause autism" with no source, or with a bad source, even if I think it is true, see WP:TRUTH. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

[3] Natureium (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you are of the opinion that any vaccine could possibly cause Autism -- even if you limit yourself to live rubella vaccine during pregnancy -- you are rejecting what virtually every WP:MEDRS compliant source tells us, and in my opinion The Other Guy is 100% right about you and antivax. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a note about general principles.... Many laypersons don't realize that brain damage and autism are not the same things. On very rare occasions, some vaccines can cause encephalitis, leading to brain damage, and they think the bad reaction to the vaccine caused autism. No, it didn't. I still haven't heard of any mechanism by which a vaccine could cause autism, whereas anything, including vaccines, which causes encephalitis can cause brain damage and/or death. So far, genetic factors seem to be the biggest causes of autism.

Also, one of the effects of some childhood diseases is encephalitis, which a vaccine could have prevented. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by this. Tornado chaser is suggesting that we need to prove a negative, and that he is open to "speculation" that the rubella vaccine could cause autism. That's a problem. Bradv🍁 17:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I was asked my personal views so I stated them, I am absolutely not open to speculating in my edits, everything must well sourced, and I did not say you need to prove a negative, nor have I ever made an edit to suggest that vaccines cause autism. The CDC says that MMR during pregnancy is contraindicated, I had read that there was a theory that wild rubella could cause autism, I was unaware that rubella vaccine has been studied during pregnancy when I said that, and knowing this, the best evidence that vaccines cause autism is that sometimes symptoms of autism show up around the same time as vaccines are given, with only means that kids are given a lot of vaccines (a good thing as these vaccines are a lot safer than remaining unvaccinated) and that autism first shows up in childhood, not that vaccines cause autism (see correlation does not equal causation). Tornado chaser (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I will concede that you have probably learned a lot since you started editing Wikipedia (I know I have), but you must understand that the burden of proof remains with those who make extraordinary claims. As there is no causal link whatsoever between vaccines and autism, making edits that are sympathetic to contrary views remains problematic. Bradv🍁 18:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv:but you must understand that the burden of proof remains with those who make extraordinary claims. As there is no causal link whatsoever between vaccines and autism, making edits that are sympathetic to contrary views remains problematic. And when have I made edits that are sympathetic to the view that vaccines cause autism? The closest thing I can think of was over a year ago when I reverted an edit saying pertussis vaccine doesn't cause autism because it was sourced to a list of MMR studies. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I can think of several edits you made sympathetic to the views of anti-vaxxers, just in the past few weeks:

• The series of edits you made to Texans for Vaccine Choice trying to legitimize the organization
• The edits you made attempting to remove the word "bleach" from Rope worms and Miracle Mineral Supplement
• The edits you made at Alternative vaccination schedule trying to hide the criticism of Robert Sears

I'm sure there are other editors here that can point to more examples if you like. Bradv🍁 18:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Re the rope worms article I believe the word "bleach" is not necessary to make our point and may lead people to be less convinced that it is actually bad for you. I never edited Alternative vaccination schedule to hide criticism of sears, could you provide a diff where you think I did that?. I would like to post on the talk page of Texans for Vaccine Choice to explain why I made the edits. But now I am stuck arguing about whether I am anti-vax instead. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv:. ping Tornado chaser (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me put this another way

Let me put this another way. I count 6 editors here that have expressed concern about your editing in this topic area. Only JzG was pinged, the others were already watching your talk page. This doesn't happen by chance, so please allow me to summarize what I think are the community's concerns with the following points:

1. You have a history of editing articles at the intersection of the topics of vaccines and autism
2. You have, or used to have, views about these topics which are contrary to science, and have occasionally promoted such views
3. Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for this topic area by the Arbitration Committee
4. You have been formally warned as an arbitration enforcement action (log)
5. You have continued to display similar behaviour subsequent to the above warning, including edit warring, tendentious editing, and a battleground mentality

These concerns are sufficient to make a case for a topic ban at AE or AN, as has already been suggested by several editors. However, I personally don't want it come to that, as I feel that such effort is more than likely going to drive you away from the project rather than steer you into areas where you can be productive. You have clearly learned a lot in your time editing Wikipedia, and have demonstrated such knowledge of policies and guidelines that it would be shame to lose you as an editor.

I am hoping that this discussion will persuade you to volunteer to stay away from areas related to pseudoscience and fringe theories, including vaccines, for a period of time sufficient for you to gain more experience in other areas and to clarify some of your thoughts around pseudoscience and pseudomedicine. Such a decision would be in your best interest as a volunteer editor, and in my opinion would be preferable to any of the other options we could take at this time.

I've taken some time preparing this comment, and I hope that you would also duly consider your response. Bradv🍁 20:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: I have noticed this criticism from multiple editors and I have honestly thought about whether there is some mistake in my approach to these topic areas. The only major flaw in my approach has been edit warring, this was a mistake on my part, in the future I will consciously make sure to use the talk page more and revert less. Ok, I may have been a bit hasty in removing imperfectly sourced material from Joe Mercola, and was misinterpreted as whitewashing the article, which was never my intention. If there is any view I hold that is contrary to science, It will change as soon as I am shown evidence that it is false. I have never tried to promote any counter to science views, and am very curious what edits made you think I did that, could you provide diffs? Re battleground, was this separate from the edit warring? Tendentious editing is another area that I would like you to be more specific where you think I have done that, as it is a somewhat vague term. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the criticism I have gotten has been invalid, for example I was told I am too antivax-sympathetic for reverting unsourced claims that a living person was an antivaxer, and I bit an IP, mistaking a large removal of non-MEDRS content edit for vandalism(I do a lot of anti vandal work and don't know if i've ever seen an IP constructively blank 6 kilobytes before), but was accused of being anti-vax for this. So it is hard to tell what accusations of being anti-vax indicate a mistake in my editing, and what are just unreasonable assumptions of bad faith, but to be clear I believe vaccines are one of the most important inventions of the last few centuries and never meant to obscure this fact. I am not planning to take a break from this topic area unless I am shown evidence of a significant flaw in my approach that I have not already mentioned, but if you respond and show me something I have been doing wrong this whole time, I will certainly consider taking some time off this topic area. Tornado chaser (talk)

Also note that I have consistently defended articles on my WL from antivax edits[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this is all a misunderstanding in which case I am sympathetic with your situation. You have to understand though that after edits like this [11] and this [12] all reasonable people are going to believe you are editing with an anantivax world view. The edits are objectively that bad and are minimizing an antivax crusade. Maybe this isn't entirely fair but it is what it is. There is no reason though if you take Bradv's advice and edit outside the topic for a couple months that this all can not just be an unfortunate blip.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I would also give you the same advice that AlmostFrancis and Bradv have given you; volunteer to stay away from areas related to pseudoscience and fringe theories for a couple of months minimum. There are now several experienced editors looking at those pages and at the edits you suggested at Talk:Texans for Vaccine Choice#Justification for my edits. Pick an area where there isn't so much fighting about content going on. Hit the rando page button until you find an article that interest you, check every source to make sure it says what we claim it says, then try to find better sources and to edit out the minor problems that so many articles have. The alternative is to keep editing pseudoscience articles and risk being the focus of an arbitration enforcement case. I estimate a 75% chance of you ending up with a six months to a year topic ban if that happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am taking a break(maybe permanent) from wikipedia due the the confrontational attitude and constant assumptions of bad faith. I tried to ask for advice, instead I was basically told "your an antivaxer, go away" I will ask one more time, If I ever edit vaccine-related issues again do you have any advice for what to do differently? (I already know to stop edit warring)

@Bradv:@Guy Macon: ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC) @Bradv:@Guy Macon:@Roxy the dog:@JzG: I normally prefer not to say anything personal on wikipedia, but given JzG's repeated statment that I don't understand antivaxers' MO, I feel the need to say this: There was I time, before started editing wikipedia, where I was an antivaxer, but I have enough background in science that I realized all the antivax talking points are bogus. I find it really disappointing that I am being told I should stop editing vaccine-related articles to clarify my thoughts around pseudoscience when my thoughts around pseudoscience are so clear that pseudoscience is wrong.

They way I was fooled into being antivax is: I have libertarian-leaning political views, so I don't think vaccination should be mandatory in most cases. The fact that so many pro-vaccine people act like being against vaccine requirements is that same thing as being antivax, and that antivaxers use libertarian talking points, confused me into thinking of antivaxers as more and more reasonable, but I eventually realized(I wish I realized this sooner) that regardless of my agreement with there politics, the science is all wrong. This is why I am hesitant to label groups antivax without clear evidence that they are actually antivax, not just libertarian, because in my experience, the conflation of libertarianism with antivax can lead people into believing antivax misinformation (now I am OK with calling TFVC antivax, because we have a lot of sources for it and they were promoting Vaxxed, which destroys any ability to claim that they just don't like government mandates). Tornado chaser (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

One take home message from all this is that the editors you have named here have decided for themselves that their efforts regarding your work here could be very robust, without bringing into question, and I'm having difficulty expressing this, the value of your overall work here. My one-off snark can be nasty, but I am aware you have a broad back. I am glad to see this post. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:Sorry if i'm being dense, but could you clarify your post? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. People have been hard on you because of your anti-vax stance, which I see remains; (TC:"I don't think vaccination should be mandatory in most cases.") but I want you to stoppit. It is anti everything this project is about. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think he's antivax from the statement, it looks like he's anti-mandatory vaccines. While I disagree with this, it's not the same as being anti-vaccines. Natureium (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

One word : Herd Immunity. ... um ... two words. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we're in agreement, but that's not relevant to the issue at hand. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought I was clarifying my position to TC, whose position I see as antivax, and awfully anti social and very selfish. I don't like the death sentence hanging over my head because of antivaxxers. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pro vax[13], my political opinions re the proper role of government in encouraging vaccination are not relevant to my editing, so long as I don't bias articles in favor of said opinions. The only reason I even stated my views on vaccine laws was to explain how I was tricked into being antivax for a time(before wikipedia) by antivaxers trying to pass themselves off as libertarians. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have great sympathy for the libertarian view (full disclosure: I dislike all political parties, but would prefer to see more libertarians, greens, etc. elected just so that we can be disappointed by someone new). and I wouldn't mind seeing a well-sourced article on that view, but is is a fringe view. See [14] for some of the political thinking on this.

That being said, Texans for Vaccine Choice is an antivax group, not a libertarian group, so you shouldn't make edits like this one[15] which fly in the face of how pretty much every reliable source describes Texans for Vaccine Choice. On a more general note about your editing, you need to work on how you respond when the consensus is clearly against you. A personal note: there is one political area where I personally am 100% convinced that I am right and that the consensus among other Wikipedia editors is wrong. I even tried to convince others twelve years ago when I was still editing as an IP, and completely failed to convince anyone. So for 12 years I have chosen to never make any edits in that area, and if I am ever asked about it I will simply say "the consensus is X" and point to reliable sources that agree with X without any hint that I personally think this is one of those rare cases where the consensus is full of shit. Now I am not insisting that you go that far, but be aware that it is an option.

You ask "If I ever edit vaccine-related issues again do you have any advice for what to do differently?". I have written a detailed essay that I believe answers that exact question. My essay is at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I realize TFVC is antivax(I admit this wasn't clear to me wen I first created the article) and I am fine with describing it as such. When I have many editors who I am unable to convince I will accept the consensus and move on, thank you for the advice. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:@Roxy the dog:@JzG:@Bradv:@Natureium:@AlmostFrancis:(pinging everyone who has responded here) I have been thinking more about this whole issue, and I realized that I have become too hasty my editing(for example removing content that just needs to be reworded, skimming sources and drawing bad conclusions, ect), and have responded to confrontational users by becoming more confrontational myself(including edit warring), I recognize that these trends have made me a worse editor, and will consciously make and effort to avoid repeating my mistakes. I will keep 1AM in mind and will avoid haste, this should address any recent actions that could have been considered disruptive on my part. I plan to continue to edit vaccine-related articles (in a less rushed and more careful manner) but please if you disagree with any future edits of mine, don't just point to my past mistakes as your reason for opposing my edits, it's not that this offends me, it just doesn't lead to developing a consensus. P.S. If you have a problem with my general pattern of editing or think I have not addressed an ongoing problem with my edits, feel free to leave me a message here. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The above sounds like a reasonable request. I am in. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Libertarianism and vaccines

Above, TC writes

"I have libertarian-leaning political views, so I don't think vaccination should be mandatory in most cases. The fact that so many pro-vaccine people act like being against vaccine requirements is that same thing as being antivax, and that antivaxers use libertarian talking points, confused me into thinking of antivaxers as more and more reasonable, but I eventually realized (I wish I realized this sooner) that regardless of my agreement with their politics, the science is all wrong. This is why I am hesitant to label groups antivax without clear evidence that they are actually antivax, not just libertarian, because in my experience, the conflation of libertarianism with antivax can lead people into believing antivax misinformation"

Who owns the children?

Someone who values property right above all, else might respond by saying that children are in fact owned by their parents until such time as they achieve adulthood, and that, as property, children may be treated by their parents as the parents see fit. Besides the obvious problems of defining adulthood and dealing with two parents who disagree, this view implies that eating babies, keeping children in cages or selling them into slavery is OK. This is a problem. There are places in this world where parents do sell children -- especially daughters -- into slavery. That being said, this could work in some cultures. Under Roman law the father had the right of life and death over his children, but what actually happened was that on a regular basis these fathers gave their lives to protect their children.

A hardcore statist might respond by saying that children are owned by the state. Sort of "it takes a village to raise a child" on steroids. This also has been tried by various totalitarian dictatorships, and the results were not pretty. Do we really want to raise children the way the Spartans did?[16] The Taliban say that it is the state's right to choose whether girls are allowed to learn how to read.

Although I know of exactly nobody who believes this, one might argue that children own themselves and are free to do as they please as long as they don't hurt others. Anyone who has dealt with a baby who really really wants to put razor blades in their mouth will see the problem with this view. A related issue is adults who are mentally incapable of taking care of themselves (severe retardation, advanced Alzheimers). Do they own themselves? Is a person with severe dementia free to leave the nursing home and walk out into busy traffic?

While these are all interesting moral and ethical questions, what I am actually seeing among antivaxers is a lot more self-serving. They don't like vaccines, so they say it is the parent's right to choose whether their children are vaccinated. They don't like slavery, so they say it is the state's right to choose whether children can be sold into slavery. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I don't thing it's right not to vaccinate your kids, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the government to force any medical treatment on a population, the only thing to do (in my opinion, and I don't want to bias wikipedia toward any opinion) is to try to inform people so that they will voluntarily vaccinate their children. And I agree re antivaxers pretending to be libertarians, I find this trend quite frustrating. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI close

Thanks, blasted autocorrect turned 'abot' into 'about' and I didn't notice. A reminder to me to always preview! --RL0919 (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Vaccine controversies lead section rewording

Hi there! I noticed we're both working on editing the article's lead paragraph at the same time. I was planning on improving my rewrite even more, as I definitely didn't want to imply that all vaccine safety concerns were invalid. Would you be alright with me reverting your revert so I can easily continue off my previous work? Thanks, Merlin^sorca 00:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Merlinsorca: No problem at all, thanks for asking. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Florida tornado report

I saw you noted a tornado report in Florida, but I coudln't find the record of it. Which WFO issued it, in case it is confirmed? TornadoLGS (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: It was in lake County which would fall under the jurisdiction of the Melbourne WFO, but I am unaware of anything the weather service has said about it yet. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Okay found it. It's currently listed as a severe wind report. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

What's your problem?

There is nothing wrong with me updating my alma mater's basketball coach's page after every game.

What is your problem? Do you not have a life?

Noodz53211 (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Noodz53211: I try to stop vandalism, changing numbers without explanation is a common but hard to catch form of vandalism, updating numbers after a game is fine, I just became suspicious because of your username. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-subtle3

Template:Uw-subtle3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)