This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
From Reductress, the "women's news" analog of The Onion: [1] -- Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • COI) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 10:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't delete drafts I have been working on, without at least giving me (or the page creator) the courtesy of a deletion notice. I see none on my page or the creator's talk page. Just because it was deleted years ago for G11, does not mean it always has to be deleted. The whole point of Draft space is to allow users to create a document in an area which is non-indexed by the search engines. The document has been reviewed by the AFC reviewers, none of which have suggested that it is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", and have given valid suggestions to improve the document. Maybe you are just a deletionist, or do you have there some particular axe to grind against this individual, if so I suggest you keep such things away from Wikipedia. I intend to keep improving this page until a reviewer accepts it - which is the way the WP:AFC should work, not by people coming in at random and deleting pages. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant GRB Ring: note the original paper is in MNRAS, with a preprint also posted on arxiv. I don't think this changes the outcome, but you might want to amend your statement. -- Amble ( talk) 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Guy - I wanted to notify you that I restored the article you removed, Black Book Market Research. There are additional sources of notability on the company web site, so I thought you'd prefer to wait until I can finish adding them, and then have a notability discussion if you still feel the group is unambiguous advertising and promotion. Cheers Mate. TechnoTalk ( talk) 17:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I see that you deleted my page Draft:Randy_Clark_(evangelist) on July 14. Reason: (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW)) Could you explain this any more for me? I wasn’t attempting to create any advertising; were you referring to some sort of adware that got infected into the page? Thanks! /info/en/?search=Draft:Randy_Clark_(evangelist) Josephcotten.global ( talk) 14:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Joseph Cotten
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, just curious why you reverted on Brian Leiter. Thanks. Philosophy Junkie ( talk) 22:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Guy, thanks for your interest in various medical sources available from The Wikipedia Library. We need some responses from you to process your requests:
We're working on a method to streamline our application process, but for the moment we've still got a lot of forms. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I note that BLP policy applies in talk pages and your description is a classic violation of BLP policy. I suggest a removal. Capitalismojo ( talk) 14:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Academy of Achievement. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TechnoTalk ( talk) 21:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC) (suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption)
You have repeatedly talked about "the issues identified" and I have repeatedly told you that no evidence of "persistent battleground behaviour" was present by The Blade of the Northern Lights". On the contrary I have presented Sandstein and Cla68 who say the opposite. Could you substantiate your claim? MOMENTO ( talk) 05:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I work with the non-profit Wiki Education Foundation. We're creating a handbook for student editors in higher ed who are assigned to write biographies on Wikipedia. I hoped you might be willing to spare some time to review the text of that brochure and offer comments on its Talk page? You can find it here. Thanks in advance! Eryk (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 21:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
JzG, let me try to answer your question: "why are you so determined to make naturopathy look less like the quackery it is". As I told you earlier, I think that life is more interesting when swimming against the mainstream. If I would be a lawyer, I would be the devil's advocate, but it would not mean that I would support the devil. Did I in any way support quackery ? I don't think so. Do you realize that a WP:BIAS can happen in both ways ? Did you realize that some "good willing" editors and admins are becoming insane as soon as it concerns quackery ? One of them did even rephrase the Constitution because, according to his opinion, it was too favorable to quackery. Is it in line with Wikipedia principles ? Why did you not join this interesting Talk section ? There are enough admins and editors fighting against quackery here. Editors and admins shall not be fighting for pros or cons. They shall simply apply WP:V in a neutral and objective way. I don't want quackery to be seen less quackery. I want Naturopathy article (and all WP articles at a later stage...) to be less WP:BIAS, to be more in line with WP:RS and WP:RS/MC, even when such sources can be seen "too favorable" by cons. I will not hesitate to revert undue pros if need be... but other editors and admins are faster than me for reverting pros. Who else is reverting undue cons ?! Maybe I am too much involved and too much SPA for the moment. I have taken naturopathy as my sandbox for understanding Wikipedia. For my learning curve, I could have choosen other "hot" article like Holocaust or Palestine... But I have choosen Naturopathy simply because I can better understand the pros and cons. Paulmartin357 ( talk) 00:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, JzG. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.
For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 20:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please remove the COI Tags and all of the media comments from the Talk Page. The posts are not neutral or fair to the subject. The article does not have a conflict. Everettstern ( talk) 18:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC) I personally emailed the emergency response team a couple of months ago about the user who is making the conflict claim. I need the admins to see the full scope of the situation. What do I do and how do I resolve this? If there is anything in the article that is not true then I encourage anyone to remove it. I am not writing the article. I did pay one person to make changes after the page was attacked and after I was threatened. Should I post the emails to the Admins or explain the situation? Please provide me with detailed instructions as I am not used to this system. The allegations being made against me are serious and I want to resolve this right away. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern ( talk) 18:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I don't like the implication in your closure that I'm "bickering". Please note that I put in a lot of hard work and made substantial improvements to the article in question. I have tracked down and cited some very relevant and important historical sources. I am still reviewing my sources (I need to translate some of them) and intend to use them to further improve the article. There was no disruptive behaviour on my part and at no point did I "bicker" with anyone. The thread I opened at ANI was short and sweet, I gave just the facts without using any emotive terms. Please don't "lump" me, like it says on my user page I am here to create content, not to start drama. MaxBrowne ( talk) 13:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion that I should be topic banned from this article was also rather infuriating after the work I put into it. Please think before you casually dismiss me like this. Do you remember what it's like to be a content creator? MaxBrowne ( talk) 14:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)I am doing the research and substantially improving the article in question. I am not bickering or point scoring. I resent being lumped in with this person, and I resent the implication that I am in any way to blame for the disruption which was unilaterally initiated by this person.
You insist the edits by User:MichaelBLewis72 are self-promotion, yet the reference he adds is *peer-reviewed* article in a *scientific journal*, not a blog or website. I encountered reference to Lewis' article outside wikipedia and thought it has to have its place in Marriage squeeze. As I have no affiliation to Lewis and/or his works, you cannot remove material by saying "self promotion". Alliumnsk ( talk) 06:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Per the link below, could you please take a look at the Multiple Chemical Sensativieis or Idiopathic Environmental Intolerence page? You mentioned blocking a user who keeps making spurious edits (e.g. the chemical companies are assassinating opposition voices and silencing research that would show their crimes), but he keeps logging on with different accounts and reverting. It's already a completely pseudoscience article, but it really shouldn't have discussion that begins with "much like tobacco companies in the past, chemical companies are now...", degrades into discussion of murder attempts by chemical companies and then goes only deeper off the reservation from there. Obviously none of these edits are sourced.
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Athana — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientificMethodGuy ( talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)