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. |
Hello,
I'm writing to you regarding the Investindustrial page. After the page was deleted (speedy deletion), you created a Draft page Draft:Investindustrial so that the new text could be reviewed and approved. The page is now complete and is waiting for approval. My doubt regards the approval process, there is a functionality where I can mark the draft as ready and submit it for approval? Sorry about that. Thank you very much, Tinext ( talk) 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
on this, you actually reverted me. slipped in before you sorry. i didn't revert you. Jytdog ( talk) 00:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
But why did you just reverse ALL the edits? I also included citations and references to four books, which you also reverted. Which is not right. You should have let me know and I would have removed the blog entries. That would have been much easier and much less frustrating. The Ralston, Richardson and Rixon references were to well-known books on diecasting. Can you revert back and I will remove the blog notes instead of rewriting all the references? Thanks. -- Cstevencampbell ( talk) 23:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Usually it's obvious when something is nonsense but here I just couldn't tell so I did the next best thing and at least cleaned it up a bit. Could be someone with a latest possible explanation, "increase in Smart Grid technology" why not. I've followed that story for a while and everything about it is weird. Anyways I'm glad you caught it. Best. Slight Smile 00:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't know if this ping came through to you, so letting you know. — Spaceman Spiff 14:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed your PROD. It's not so bad that it can't be fixed. Bearian ( talk) 23:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
You reverted my edits, many of which were based on the fact that content was unsourced. I then noticed that you then deleted content that was unsourced. So you it's not okay for me to do it, but it's okay for you to do it? Can you please explain? Thank you. -- Darkwaterbuffalo4 ( talk) 17:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Men's rights movement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) First you remove it then you replace it? Don't get it. Up to you. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 00:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I added an area to the Mucoid Plaque talk. Please guide me to what violates Wikipedia that resulted in you undoing my revision. /info/en/?search=Talk:Mucoid_plaque — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I saw you deleted " Jolly Phonics". Are you sure that page can't be rescued to be more neutral somehow? I think Jolly Phonics is quite a big thing, used in lot of UK schools. I don't remember how the wikipedia article looked now but it can't have been too bad. I decided it was the thing to link to from my blog post, but now there's nothing. :-( -- Harry Wood ( talk) 11:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Meant to mention this earlier. At the AE discussion of My very best wishes you say the election is weeks away. It's next Tuesday. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
So going down the rabbitholes from Peter Hofschröer I have ended up at Willem Jan Knoop which has issues. Specifically the third paragraphy at the end of 'Siborne controversy' that makes a number of statements in wikivoice that appear to be very non-neutral, not supported by sources (except heavily POV-slanted ones) etc. "Siborne's book nevertheless became a celebrated source in Anglophone historiography for many secondary accounts of the battles of Quatre Bras and Waterloo, that faithfully perpetuated the many egregious errors of fact and fabrications (willful or accidental) in Siborne's work." Which is strong wording which is not mentioned in Siborne's article at all. You would think someone who made many 'egregious' errors and falsifications would have it mentioned somewhere with a reliable source. "Recently the controversy resurfaced with the attack by David Hamilton-Williams, who used Knoop's rebuttal as one of his sources (though not for his accusations of fraud aimed at Siborne).[8] This apparently earned Hamilton-Williams the enmity of many Siborne-fans, and an avalanche of mostly ad hominem attacks." etc etc. I'm tempted to nuke the paragraph in its entirety as it appears to only be semi-related to the subject and more of a catfight between competing historians? In a wider sense, there are a number of related articles relating to the Napoleonic wars that appear to be having similar problems. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous sources which categorize the entirety of chiropractic as pseudoscience. The only possible defence against this is to claim that chiropractic isn't a science at all, but with all the work being done I have a hard time justifying that. Also it's important that this is visible in the first or second sentence of the introduction, as these are the only ones to show up in Google searches (where we get most of our readers from). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The profession is rooted in pseudo-science, and much of it is actively antiscientific.
Guy, For some reason I can't work out how to email you directly. Is there something wrong with your User page? In HELP it says to click on "email user", but I can't see this.
Can you email me on [email protected]. I want to have a brief dialog about the nature of these medical articles. Best, K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbowden ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DrChrissy (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Something fishy?? Negative labelling on Chiropractic. A request for clarification. The Banner talk 21:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The article [Mesh (Band)] was deleted in September; at the time the majority of those in favour of the deletion cited the poor style of the article and the lack of references. Some also claimed the band was not well known enough.
I reworked the draft article to address these issues, and someone resubmitted it for review. Yesterday you have deleted the article again without reference to the improvements made, or any explanation why. The article has been substantially changed, so I believe G4 no longer applies. No one has had a chance to respond to your concerns. As I write, the band is number 1 in the German Alternative Charts. What can I do to at least re-open the deletion discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Sumo ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Deleted-DHCM.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 01:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Might I suggest that you revdel the edit where Christof posted a physical address? That's a bit too much private info to be revealing on Wiki. Regards. Blackmane ( talk) 02:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The "further reading" section in LearningRx links to what looks like to me a promotion. A book title that seems to advocate the program, something that would be a
wp:advertising. And also on Brain Balance, I put
reliably sourced criticism of the program. A few days later an IP (probably affiliated with the company) added that a randomized control trial showed benefits of the program. But I can't seem to figure out weather it verifies if the company funded or had links to the trail. If so I don't think it should be there as it become
WP:SPAM. Better check them out.--
Taeyebar 23:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
And listen to what he says [2], I think it's great advice.-- Taeyebar 23:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed that promotional link myself. And this IP edit [3] was also reverted I think.-- Taeyebar 18:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
What are you thoughts on this [4]? Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I just realized I didn't write you after tagging you on the page [5] with my many edits/suggestions, so my apologies for not checking in here sooner. As has already been disclosed, I am a former employee of Richard Pombo so there's that going for me. I hope you or another editor can take a look at my critique of the current Richard Pombo page to see whether it can be updated to reflect the bad sources, poor organization, bad [ahem] writing, and blatantly beautiful bias, though I know my credibility is out the window with my disclosure that I know him, but still, I hope you can take a look at my critique and I would appreciate your guidance and views. Thank you. -- Rencoyote ( talk) 05:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi JzG.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi JzG,
As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).
Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.
Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.
It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.
(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
...You do know that any block in enforcement of an arbitration sanction can be an AE block right? It doesnt have to go to the AE noticeboard to do so. The noticeboard is just a central location to report them. Any administrator can place an AE block as long as its enforcing an active arbitration sanction against a user. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I just happened to see this edit for the first time today, and it made me laugh out loud. Just wanted you to know that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for ending this joke. -- Asterixf2 ( talk) 22:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
here - are the journals mentioned reputable? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)