 basic income dispute resolution I dont understand the finding futile or how to proceed to resolve the issue  Regarding the Wikipediabicyclesandwagons reference its my understanding that I am building a bicycle that may be slightly off spec and the editors are ordering the steel melted and shipped to hell instead of allowing the bicycle to be refined into spec  I point out also that the basic income is listed as a priority by four wikigroups and so it is a pretty important bicycle  Also the nature of basic income is at a theoretical philosophy stage and the highest quality references possible are available to verify and preferably succinct and high quality blogs provide the best verifiability IMO but regardless of this opinion a section on proposed benefits does not need prestigious academic references if the claim being made is that the ideas and rationale has merely been proposed  To keep the bicycleswagons analogy the page was a high quality bicycle and an important bicycle to 4 wikigroups  There is a difference of opinion over whether the bicycle meets specs but it is a functional bicycle that is more useful than a pile of melted metal shipped far away   

    ####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 : 
 basic income dispute resolution I dont understand the finding futile or how to proceed to resolve the issue  Regarding the Wikipediabicyclesandwagons reference its my understanding that I am building a bicycle that may be slightly off spec and the editors are ordering the steel melted and shipped to hell instead of allowing the bicycle to be refined into spec  I point out also that the basic income is listed as a priority by four wikigroups and so it is a pretty important bicycle  Also the nature of basic income is at a theoretical philosophy stage and the highest quality references possible are available to verify and preferably succinct and high quality blogs provide the best verifiability IMO but regardless of this opinion a section on proposed benefits does not need prestigious academic references if the claim being made is that the ideas and rationale has merely been proposed  To keep the bicycleswagons analogy the page was a high quality bicycle and an important bicycle to 4 wikigroups  There is a difference of opinion over whether the bicycle meets specs but it is a functional bicycle that is more useful than a pile of melted metal shipped far away   

