Talk:Thiamethoxam

toxicity

Jytdog, we have crossed paths before and I see you causing the same quality issues on this page.

Before I started editing you had made errors, which I corrected and since I edited you've introduced more errors due to haphazard reading?/non-attention to details/and obviously incomplete understanding, like

• claiming non toxicity for aquatic life
• claiming a contradiction where there is none can be non toxic to fish and yet toxic to aquatic life
• claimed WHO attributions, which were in fact FAO statements.

Also, it seems to me, you misuse the WP:edit summary to dodge discussions. This isn't civil. The talk page is the correct place.

I urge you to please read all sources before editing the toxicology section any more.

I will not hesitate to revert your rash removal of sourced statements of other editors. PLease first use Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems if you have problems with them. Your deletion of my introduction / explanation of GHS statements was unreasonable, and uncalled for. I know your background, and suspect you you are not aware, that there has been a shift in hazard classification.

--Wuerzele (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember to address content, not users in your edit summaries Wuerzele. Not doing so only inflames issues and is also against WP:REVTALK. Jytdog's edit summaries seem pretty standard, especially when a comment is short on a straightforward edit that a talk page discussion typically isn't perceived as needed. If you felt discussion here was needed at some point, you simply needed to say so. Either way, article talk pages are not the place for most of your above comments / grievances. If you have specific content or proposed changes to make, then do so rather than make a post primarily about a user. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kingofaces. Wuerzele, here is what the WHO report actually says - I quoted it in the article and will do so again here: Thiamethoxam "is classified as non-toxic to fish, daphnia and algae" and "very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects. Fish are aquatic life. Those two statements directly contradict one another. And so we report the contradiction. I found the FAO source where you had just tagged it; if resolving the contradiction is important to you, please find an additional source or two. But we cannot erase the contradiction - we simply report it. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, gosh you think you have to quote it to me? I read resources I quote. Fish are not the only aquatic life- there is absoluely NO contradiction, go read study or talk to a biologist, i should have known that a discussion and explanations are useless.

After many months of observing your editing, even listing the errors you introduce (content, what about them, eh?) I have to say: your "good-faith edits" on pesticide pages are unhelpful and not welcome. you should leave biology and toxicology topics alone, not your "strength".

And please, Sir: no more pluralis maiestais ("we report the contradiction") on WP- I think "we've told you that before",it's poor rhetoric, do you see? probably not... --Wuerzele (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele, What? Fish are not aquatic life? daphnia are not aquatic life? algae are not aquatic life? for pete's sake. Really - wuerzele, what are they? and by the way if you comment about me one more, time, I am taking you to the boards. STOP IT. I mean it. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, (edit conflict, because you had to add a threat to your prior comment), so you werent "done". Fish are but one part of of aquatic life. what do fish eat? read the source again and you see why FAO ( not WHO- your error, for the 4th of fifth time) concluded thiametoxam is highly toxic to aquatic life, since you dont believe me, you dont take repeat explanations seriously and you clearly act WP:IDONTHEAR. If you are now really done, I thank you for stopping the edit war.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

you are correct on the WHO thing. My mistake. The rest of what you are writing is wrong. You are not dealing with plain contradiction. I am not stopping working on this - I am just not going to stoop to edit warring to get my way; instead I will use the dispute resolution processes that we have in place. The article can be stupid for a while - there is WP:NODEADLINE. I guess we need an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am withdrawing the RfC. You left the contradiction in place. Your personal attacks threw me off; you actually agree with me. The personal attacks are very unproductive, and I am stupid for having reacted to them. Sigh. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

this speaks for itself.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

i can admit when i'm wrong, sure. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Kingofaces43 Remeber to address content :

Reporting litigation on WP is customary, and there is no reason not to report it, except for protecting chemical manufacturers, maybe? - some of the lawsuits take years. weight issue is ludicrous. sure, you always need to cut, when I constructively add on a pesticide page, (trolling?) as always in my experience. Your (unconstructive and biased) edit speaks for itself. .--Wuerzele (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh . . . if you didn't notice above, I was asking you what content you actually wanted to discuss, and instead it's on to personal attacks again. The issue is that lawsuits are fluid. We (you, me,and everyone reading the article) don't know what the results are going to be as we don't have a crystal ball. We don't know whether the allegations are anywhere near valid, or entirely frivolous (which happens a lot). Without some weight to give us that, we can't satisfy NPOV. That's why we need the results to know what to do with the lawsuit in terms of Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

reporting litigation

Given the disagreement between Kingofaces43 who reverted insertion of 2 sentences about litigation regarding Thoiamethoxam for formal reasons, and has not replied to content, stalling discussion, I have asked for a third opinion. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you've got a belly-button on this one in the hopes that maybe you missed the post, but I responded awhile ago above about the content and why it was removed, and the ball was in your court to respond. I suggest striking the relevant parts of your sentence here to avoid any unnecessary accusations (which shouldn't have been written even if they were correct). Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele your description of the dispute .... He provided a reason, and you didn't reply to it, and you say he is stalling. I don't get it. For what it is worth, I agree with the removal. Lawsuits are a dime a dozen; verdicts have meaning. WP is littered with X sued Y dated from ages ago, and nobody ever followed up and said what actually happened. Jytdog (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As a fourth opinion, I came from the 'Third opinion' page, I agree with Kingofaces43 and Jytdog here. Just stating that someone has claimed something or started litigation on something is not encyclopedic content. When there is a verdict ot general agreement we can state it here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)