 General editing practice  not about euFEDS I know I just said keep it on the article talk page but Im going to respond here separately on a couple of things that dont bear directly on that article to avoid cluttering up that space with things that arent useful to other editorsHave you in fact read the Wikipedia guidelines Im not trying to be snarky its an honest question because you seem to have a few misunderstandings about the process hereFirst if you feel that anything in an article is inappropriate whether its the original text or a recent change you can edit it You dont have to ask me to reverse the changes There are still rules of editing etiquette that apply such as not just pingponging changes back and forth see WP3RR and being willing to discuss differences of opinion on talk pages like this But no one owns the article  not me not you no one has veto power except for administrators and theres no reason to ask anyone in particular to make changes for you Its not as if I wiped out your text forever its all in the article history which is pretty easy to useSecond WP articles are not to be written based on what you or anyone else may think are very logical reasons to support a theory It is fine to explain a particular persons or groups point of view on the subject pro or con as long as its attributed clearly but the encyclopedia itself is not in the business of saying what makes sense and the purpose of the talk pages is not to argue about whether a theory is correct Debates that might be very productive in the pages of a scientific journal are less so in an encyclopedia This is particularly important when the theory has not yet reached wide acceptance as a scientific consensus  and I dont think youre claiming that it has That is why I dont think the link from for instance SIV was appropriate by stating that argument in the voice of the encyclopedia itself it made it sound as if most researchers agree that this is a likely explanation Again see WikipediaNeutral point of view  one of the absolutely crucial WP rulesThird on a more trivial note it is basic WP etiquette to log in under your username before you make edits or comments so people can see who is doing what to use the standard  signature for your comments and when responding to a specific paragraph on a talk page to indent your response immediately below it with  rather than copying and pasting the previous comment elsewhere

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
 General editing practice  not about euFEDS I know I just said keep it on the article talk page but Im going to respond here separately on a couple of things that dont bear directly on that article to avoid cluttering up that space with things that arent useful to other editorsHave you in fact read the Wikipedia guidelines Im not trying to be snarky its an honest question because you seem to have a few misunderstandings about the process hereFirst if you feel that anything in an article is inappropriate whether its the original text or a recent change you can edit it You dont have to ask me to reverse the changes There are still rules of editing etiquette that apply such as not just pingponging changes back and forth see WP3RR and being willing to discuss differences of opinion on talk pages like this But no one owns the article  not me not you no one has veto power except for administrators and theres no reason to ask anyone in particular to make changes for you Its not as if I wiped out your text forever its all in the article history which is pretty easy to useSecond WP articles are not to be written based on what you or anyone else may think are very logical reasons to support a theory It is fine to explain a particular persons or groups point of view on the subject pro or con as long as its attributed clearly but the encyclopedia itself is not in the business of saying what makes sense and the purpose of the talk pages is not to argue about whether a theory is correct Debates that might be very productive in the pages of a scientific journal are less so in an encyclopedia This is particularly important when the theory has not yet reached wide acceptance as a scientific consensus  and I dont think youre claiming that it has That is why I dont think the link from for instance SIV was appropriate by stating that argument in the voice of the encyclopedia itself it made it sound as if most researchers agree that this is a likely explanation Again see WikipediaNeutral point of view  one of the absolutely crucial WP rulesThird on a more trivial note it is basic WP etiquette to log in under your username before you make edits or comments so people can see who is doing what to use the standard  signature for your comments and when responding to a specific paragraph on a talk page to indent your response immediately below it with  rather than copying and pasting the previous comment elsewhere

