User talk:Einsof

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Einsof, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Robson moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Christopher Robson. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Housing in the United States

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Housing in the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on East Side Union High School District

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page East Side Union High School District, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2025 Hollywood car attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Hollywood car attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Hollywood car attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

XYZ1233212 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Christopher Robson

Hello, Einsof. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Christopher Robson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping pare down the bloat at Josh Gottheimer. Your edit summaries made me chuckle. Blah blah blah... Marquardtika (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Christopher Robson

Hello, Einsof. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Christopher Robson".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Charlie Kirk

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Charlie Kirk, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Shooting of Charlie Kirk

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Shooting of Charlie Kirk, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Rebecca Kutler

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rebecca Kutler, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Charlie KirkReichstag Fire reference

In my edit summary for this edit[1], by "the article", I meant "this Wikipedia article". The source mentioned it in the headline, but that has nothing to do with whether this is suitable material for the lead of a Wikipedia article. Anyways, I've opened a section on the talk page if you'd like to discuss it further. Please do not reinsert challenged material without consensus. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned you in an ANI thread

You already received the ping, but because it's ANI I'm dotting i's and crossing t's with this notification: see the relevant ANI section. As you were involved in the disputes leading up to this ANI thread, you may find it of interest to participate aside from my criticism of one of your comments at RobertoBriago's talk page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congestion pricing in New York City

Fair point regarding this. Do you think it merits mentioning on the MTA Bridges and Tunnels article? Epicgenius (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may belong somewhere where the MTA tolling schemes are talked about more generally. The other issue I had is that the point of that source seems to be that some drivers claimed to have not received sufficient notification of tolls owed, or that the MTA's process for forgiving toll/fee debt is nontransparent. That is not the same as tolls/fees being assessed incorrectly. Those also seem like claims that are broad enough that they ought to be reflected in multiple sources. Einsof (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too long here but too short there?

I give you credit for completely confusing me. You think that the coverage at Globalize the Intifada is too long, yet at the same time you think that the [proposed] coverage in the Zohran Mamdani article is too short?
I guess you like to keep people on their toes? 😊 Green Montanan (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will be less confusing if you read the sections of the NPOV policy on due weight and balance. Einsof (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding what's due and what's undue is obviously subjective. That's why you confused me. Green Montanan (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

""Merrily We Roll Along" (DuPont Show of the Week)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect "Merrily We Roll Along" (DuPont Show of the Week) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 17 § "Merrily We Roll Along" (DuPont Show of the Week) until a consensus is reached. Happy Editing -- IAm Chaos 22:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2026 United States strikes in Venezuela, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 2026

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Killing of Renée Good, you may be blocked from editing. You need to stop adding "widely" and "widely debunked" to the lead in opposition to more neutral wording. Veggies (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Veggies, if you are referring to Special:Diff/1331940736, you should have noticed from the edit summary that it was accidental due to intervening edits. Do not make accusations like this against me without sufficient evidence in the future. Einsof (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting close to calling you a liar. Your edit above was not a reversion to some prior edit, it was manually done. Additionally, you've been trying to add "debunked" and "widely debunked" repeatedly already from more neutral terms. -- Veggies (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The word "widely" was removed Special:Diff/1331940585 two minutes before I hit the "publish changes" button. It took me longer than two minutes to reduce the text in the subsection that I was editing. Einsof (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You would have received an edit-conflict notice if that were true, warning you about intermediate edits. -- Veggies (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I made my mistakes in the same article, i did not get EC notice. Interestingly to note: the user itself got blocked. Amtiss, SNAFU ? 15:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Good

can‘t edit Even the Talk Page

Eyewitnesses for conflicting orders are three; Three: NYT; Mr Janeksela „agents yelled at her to move“, Huffpost Heller "screaming at her to ‘move, move, move," MPR Callenson: "but ICE gave her orders to leave"

NYT and Huffington Post: ^[1]^[2]

Regards--Ossobe (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thanks. I think in this case we need a source saying explicitly that the orders were conflicting. It seems like the MPR source does that; not sure about the Huffington Post or NYT sources. Einsof (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point.

how about presenting this on the talk page to let more authors weigh up whether the information in the article (with one witness) can be called correct

Regards--Ossobe (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congestion pricing

The source for my addition is the cited paper itself. Have you read it? If you had, you would see that the paper itself is verification. Pamela Miller (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The study says, "For context, background levels in the New York City metropolitan area during the study period averaged ~8–9 μg/m³, meaning the observed reduction represents ~22% decline from the counterfactual mean of 13.8 μg/m³ that would have occurred in the absence of the policy." Separately, there is a paragraph later on that describes their controls. This is not *discounting* background levels. This is *accounting for* background levels. Einsof (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Later on is this paragraph:

To isolate local emissions from regional background pollution, we selected four upwind background monitoring sites. These stations were chosen based on two criteria: (1) their persistent positioning upwind of the CRZ under dominant west and northwest wind conditions, as shown in seasonal wind rose patterns (Fig. 3A); and (2) their minimal influence from proximate traffic or industrial emission sources. consistent representation of transported background PM2.5 levels, which were subtracted from city-wide measurements to calculate net PM2.5, thus isolating the local-scale impact of congestion pricing on ambient air quality.

Background pollution levels were "subtracted," i.e. they were discounted. Pamela Miller (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Background pollution levels were subtracted in order to arrive at the net PM_2.5 generated within the CRZ. As per the sentence I cited earlier, the background levels are brought in again to compute the percentage decrease in peak pollution. Einsof (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Background levels were subtracted in order to heighten the alleged local-scale impact. In the paragraph you quoted from, a counterfactual of 13.8 μg/m³ with a background of 8-9 μg/m³ implies a local concentration of 5.8-4.8 μg/m³. A reduction of 3.05 μg/m³ means a reduction of 52%-64% in local PM2.5 concentration, which includes PM2.5 from building boilers, power plants, etc. The paper also claims a -4.9 μg/m³ change by week 20, implying a local-scale reduction of 84%-100%. Something is wrong here. But rather than debate what, I would rather drop the offending sentence and go back to the 09:48, January 6, 2026, version which had references to two other papers that came to the opposite conclusion, i.e. that congestion pricing had little to no effect on air pollution. Pamela Miller (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3.05 µg/m³ is the value given within the CRZ specifically; 8–9 µg/m³ is a value range given for the NYC metropolitan area in aggregate. Einsof (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me there. Background levels average 8-9 μg/m³ in the CRZ just as everywhere else. Peak PM2.5 averages 13.8 μg/m³ in the CRZ, and so the the net PM2.5 from local sources averages 5.8-4.8 μg/m³. A large proportion of the local sources are building boilers and electric generation equipment. So a reduction of 3.05 μg/m³ due to small traffic changes associated with congestion pricing hardly seems plausible; a reduction of 4.9 μg/m³ seems impossible.

But, as I wrote, let's drop any analysis of that paper and restore citations to other papers that came to the opposite conclusion. Pamela Miller (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The study says, "Average daily maximum PM2.5 concentrations within the CRZ decreased by 3.05 μg/m³ (SE = 0.022). For context, background levels in the New York City metropolitan area during the study period averaged ~8–9 μg/m³". Einsof (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 8-9 μg/m³ average represents "transported background PM2.5 levels" with "minimal influence from proximate traffic or industrial emission sources." PM2.5 is transported into the metropolitan area from distant sources, e.g. cities in other areas, smoke from fires. Background concentrations are assumed to be uniform over the metropolitan area, including the CRZ. As you wrote previously, "the background levels are brought in again to compute the percentage decrease in peak pollution." Pamela Miller (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 22% figure is found by dividing 3.05 μg/m³ of net PM_2.5 by the projected 13.8 μg/m³, the latter of which includes background. I did not literally mean that the 8–9 μg/m³ average background was used to do the arithmetic. Einsof (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use 8-9 μg/m³ to do the arithmetic, but the authors had already added a background to a net PM2.5 concentration to get the 13.8 μg/m³ counterfactual concentration. Pamela Miller (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to a second published study. This should hopefully settle the matter. Pamela Miller (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for your helpful comment at Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti. ~2026-16343-3 (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 'You Just Killed My F**king Neighbor!' Eyewitness Describes Deadly ICE Shooting

[2] Horns, Whistles and Then Gunfire on a Minneapolis Street

[1]

[2]