User talk:CommonKnowledgeCreator

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

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. They will return when their wikistress has dissipated and their confidence in the wikicommunity has been restored. 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. Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for them may not be replied to for a while. They will be back on Wikipedia when school is over.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I changed the last sentence to "Preliminary studies . . .". DG707 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment to this page. Talk:National bank (United States) Julian in LA (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Domestic military deployments by the second Trump administration

added a link pointing to ABC News

Operation Metro Surge

added a link pointing to ABC News

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CommonKnowledgeCreator,

Thank you for creating Election subversion by the second Trump administration.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I can find few substantative references that use the term "Election Subversion" as a substantative notable topic in the 2nd Trump administration (some do exist for the first). We are therefore straying into original research here. thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aszx5000 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]