→Re:Disappointed: r @ MosheA |
Oh boy chicken again (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 285: | Line 285: | ||
Hi, since you recently closed the Tumbleman case, just letting you know that there's loose end in this case -- the {{user|Oh boy chicken again}} sock is still active [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman]]. [[User:Vzaak|vzaak]] ([[User talk:Vzaak|talk]]) 14:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hi, since you recently closed the Tumbleman case, just letting you know that there's loose end in this case -- the {{user|Oh boy chicken again}} sock is still active [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman]]. [[User:Vzaak|vzaak]] ([[User talk:Vzaak|talk]]) 14:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks for the note {{u|Vzaak}}, I'm aware of that editor... That editor has been discussed at the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman]] sockpuppet investigation and it's up to the Checkusers and others there to handle it. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 14:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC) |
:Thanks for the note {{u|Vzaak}}, I'm aware of that editor... That editor has been discussed at the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman]] sockpuppet investigation and it's up to the Checkusers and others there to handle it. <code>[[User:Zad68|<span style="color:#D2691E">'''Zad'''</span>]][[User_Talk:Zad68|<span style="color:#206060">''68''</span>]]</code> 14:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Dearest Vzaak -- I *really* resent your off-handedly referring to me as a "sock" that needs to be swept aside, as though this has somehow been conclusively demonstrated. We both know it hasn't been, nor can it be, because I'm not Tumbleman. I'm a guy who's been following Rupert Sheldrake's career for over a decade now. a guy who was compelled to jump in when it became evident that any voice in support of Sheldrake was met with coordinated pseudo-skepticism. |
|||
It seems your tack has been moving to rid yourself of people with weird ideas instead of dealing with the ideas themselves. With all due respect, you should give the latter a spin. |
|||
[[User:Oh boy chicken again|Oh boy chicken again]] ([[User talk:Oh boy chicken again|talk]]) 17:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Re:Disappointed == |
== Re:Disappointed == |
Revision as of 17:04, 17 October 2013
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
- ...is here
Your apology
I just caught it. Yeah, I was out of line with the first comment, but not the one you pounced upon, but, no, none of my edits were with any intention but to get a good article, and, yeah, people get frustrated when treated badly (which is why, plus the backtracking by the Colonel, I simply removed myself from the fury). I accept your apology; it was well given, and I appreciate it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
- No problem, AfadsBad, I look forward to seeing the good work you and Sasata will do on the article.
Zad68
20:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3100 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Quarter Million Award
The Quarter Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring Low back pain (estimated annual readership: 461,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Low back pain to Good Article status. |
Well done! I really admire your work on these high-traffic medical topics. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Nutrition
You would of had to read the discussion to understand the nutrition comment. Also, this discussion is not about an edit, it is about the article not having a neutral point of view. Campoftheamericas (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Campoftheamericas, OK, that discussion is still happening under a subsection named "Article Edit"--a subsection you created, so I thought that was supposed to be the topic still. I hope you won't mind if I create a new subsection head for that NPOV thread.
Zad68
01:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Lyme and diet discussion
This discussion may be useful in the future: Ketogenic diet and Lyme. I've not encountered Wordreader before that I can recall-- good stuff! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Cucurbita peer review
I just listed Cucurbita at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cucurbita/archive1. I saw some edits tonight you made to Capuchin monkey. I fixed some references there and then found your edits and talk page. It seems you know a lot about medical/pharmacology issues. If you have time, would you be so kind as to look at this article, especially the medical/pharmacological issues, which are in Cucurbita#Chemical_constituents? I'd greatly appreciate it. Peter coxhead told me about MEDRS and I want to both comply with policies and make the article as good as possible. If something is not in compliance can you work with me to find appropriate sources and wording? I appreicate any assistance you can provide. HalfGig (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks HalfGig for the kind words! I'm interested in helping out at that peer review, I'll stop by.
Zad68
01:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't normally participate at RfA
But since we've worked together, for example on low back pain, I figured I'd at least ask a question. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- "I don't normally participate at RFA, but when I do, I prefer to ask essay questions..." You just had to, didn't you?! Answered...
Zad68
15:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- FYI that didn't work as you're weren't also re-signing. ;-) Yes, I couldn't resist. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I should have spared you the essay question at the beginning. O well. There's a first time for everything. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 October 2013
- Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more
- News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities
- Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war
- WikiProject report: U2 Too
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, you are now an administrator!
Hello Zad68! I am pleased to report that I have closed your request for adminship as "successful." Welcome to the administrator corps; you may find WP:New admin school helpful as you try out your new tools. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Administrator Zad68, that has a nice ring to it. An obviously well-deserved promotion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- 28bytes and I posted at the same time (by a second or so apart); I combined the sections. Would have posted a few minutes before now, but was waiting for 28bytes to post. After a few minutes, I got impatient (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes congrats. But I'm still waiting for a reply to question 8! The reason I was saying all that is because I don't want WP:MEDRS to devolve into something we beat over the head of new people unnecessarily. Please don't ever remove primary sources when they should be WP:preserved. So why did you sound dismissive of Cassidy 2008? I think you were a bit unfair to the source, no? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Biosthmors, deciding "when they should be preserved" is really the crux of the issue, isn't it? I thought I was pretty clear in my answers to you about when I thought they should be preserved; you might feel differently. I want to continue this conversation with you, I just dropped a note on your User Talk and I plan on starting an email conversation about it with you.
Zad68
02:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Biosthmors, deciding "when they should be preserved" is really the crux of the issue, isn't it? I thought I was pretty clear in my answers to you about when I thought they should be preserved; you might feel differently. I want to continue this conversation with you, I just dropped a note on your User Talk and I plan on starting an email conversation about it with you.
- Having not seen the RfA, I am happy to see you get the bit. 107 unopposed is amazing, but, honestly, from my experience of dealing with you, I guess my only regret is that I couldn't make it 108. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats! Now feel free to place Template:Administrator topicon and/or Template:User wikipedia/Administrator on your userpage! ///EuroCarGT 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes congrats. But I'm still waiting for a reply to question 8! The reason I was saying all that is because I don't want WP:MEDRS to devolve into something we beat over the head of new people unnecessarily. Please don't ever remove primary sources when they should be WP:preserved. So why did you sound dismissive of Cassidy 2008? I think you were a bit unfair to the source, no? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who participated at the RFA, and to those who stopped by here. It's a nerve-wracking process and I was humbled to the point of being stunned by the result. Zad68
02:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations. I could not vote but am pleased to see you recognized for what you do here.89.204.138.21 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations and good luck in your new role. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations Zad- although we often vehemently disagree( Joyce might have said vehe-mentally) on content, policy interpretation and rationale( Circumcision -cough please sir ), your energy,patience, diligence,erudition and good intention cannot be doubted. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 06:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Tumadoireacht this was a very kind note, thank you. And although we often disagree, I've picked up on your sense of humor and obvious love for language. I had one go at trying to read Ulysses... I heard that the concept of the book club began due to readers trying to work their way through that book. I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were!
Zad68
14:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Tumadoireacht this was a very kind note, thank you. And although we often disagree, I've picked up on your sense of humor and obvious love for language. I had one go at trying to read Ulysses... I heard that the concept of the book club began due to readers trying to work their way through that book. I don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were!
- Congratulations Zad- although we often vehemently disagree( Joyce might have said vehe-mentally) on content, policy interpretation and rationale( Circumcision -cough please sir ), your energy,patience, diligence,erudition and good intention cannot be doubted. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 06:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations and good luck in your new role. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations!
The doffed beanie award | |
I had honestly believed that gone were the days when editors could successfully apply for adminship after extensive editing of controversial topics. I you'd told me that someone can still get approved (with better than 100 to 0 support!) while editing articles like Water fluoridation, Andrew Wakefield, and Premenstrual dysphoric disorder during the nomination I never would have believed it. My hat (pictured) is off to you. If there's anything I can do to assist you, please let me know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC) |
- Quadell, whaddaya talkin' about, RFA is a breeze, everybody knows that! Thanks for the beanie-doffing, and—careful!—I might take you up on your offer!
Zad68
14:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Blink-182
Yeah, it is fine now. Congrats with the new mop . Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Great to see you active on AIAV, been backlogged for a while! Also great to see you do good admin work since you recently became one! ///EuroCarGT 03:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks EuroCarGT! Trying out my shiny new toys... I'm still a bit nervous hitting the block button, but I've been working alongside some experienced admins and also getting others to review my work. So far so good...
Zad68
03:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for blocking that vandal—the experience was a first for me, I've got to say! And now I feel keyed up, just as if I was being shouted at face-to-face. Quite an interesting place Wikipedia is... —Neil 03:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Neil, no problem... the trick is not to let them get under your skin. Looks like you're finding your way around very nicely with the article work too. Hope you like it here and decide to stay active!
Zad68
03:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Johnny Cash vandalism
Hello. I can understand your confusion. A simple glance at the article is not sufficient to see what is happening here. This same user, under different names and IP addresses, has repeatedly changed that image, despite being asked not, has never provided an edit summary, and refuses to discuss his changes. This pattern, over the course of several months, is disruptive and blockable. Is that more clear? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- TheOldJacobite, thanks for the additional background. The way to handle disruption from multiple accounts targeting one page is to try some protection, so I applied six months of semi to the article. I'm still not sure about the changes to the image, but there's enough vandalism in the past few weeks to justify semi, and it looked like the last time it was protected (earlier this year) it got two months of semi, so the next thing to try is a step up, so six months. Let's give that a try, let me know if there are more issues.
Zad68
03:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)- Thank you! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Outdated generalization
Re your revert, discuss the generalization on the science, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water_fluoridation#Generalization_based_on_11_year_old_study_criteria Prokaryotes (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Health effects of salt
Greetings, Zach. The Salt article is a current GA nominee that I am reviewing, and based on my recommendation the nominator moved the information on health effects to a new article, Health effects of salt, leaving just a summary behind in "Salt". (I figured that research on health effects would be the most controversial part of the Salt article, and it suffers a bit from the list-of-most-recent-research-without-context syndrome.) Anyway, I thought you might be interested in the new article; it seems related to the type of thing you usually edit. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lead Quadell... Totally agree with spinning off the health effects to a subarticle per WP:SUMMARY, and I do want to look at it. I've been having too much fun trying out my admin toys over the past few days to look at much content (shame on me!) but hopefully they'll lose their novelty soon.
Zad68
02:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 October 2013
- Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans
- WikiProject report: Australian Roads
- Featured content: Under the sea
- News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
- In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Recent IPvandal Block request
I'm kind of new to the "catching vandal" biz. I'm a new student of User Hahc21's Vandalism Class. I'll get better. Was the level 3 warning OK? Thanks for the explanation # AIV. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, on a side note, can you check the article Vic Roznovsky. The last para seems like vandalism. Hall of Fame? "goldy" children? Looks like prior vandalism that was not caught. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- ...and I'm a new admin, Buster7, so we're both green at this! What I've been finding out this first week of mine as an admin is that there's a fairly broad range of discretion allowed for determining how much disruption is enough and what to do about it. Your report was just fine, I think, and you probably shouldn't do anything different than you have been. Another admin patrolling AIV might have blocked based on your report, and that would have been fine too. In fact, today I saw another somewhat similar IP reported to AIV, and I while I was investigating and blocked it, another admin had marked the AIV report as "not enough to block" and declined it. When that other admin saw that I had blocked the IP, they simply archived the report without any follow up, even though we didn't agree on the outcome. It was because of that sequence that I didn't block this time! I think reports like that one I declined are just about 50/50 edge cases. So, keep patrolling, use your best judgment, and this is as much art as it is science.
Zad68
20:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)- Congrats! I ran in a couple of months ago---unsuccessful but close. So now I'm in training for the next time. Good Luck! ```Buster Seven Talk 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- ...and I'm a new admin, Buster7, so we're both green at this! What I've been finding out this first week of mine as an admin is that there's a fairly broad range of discretion allowed for determining how much disruption is enough and what to do about it. Your report was just fine, I think, and you probably shouldn't do anything different than you have been. Another admin patrolling AIV might have blocked based on your report, and that would have been fine too. In fact, today I saw another somewhat similar IP reported to AIV, and I while I was investigating and blocked it, another admin had marked the AIV report as "not enough to block" and declined it. When that other admin saw that I had blocked the IP, they simply archived the report without any follow up, even though we didn't agree on the outcome. It was because of that sequence that I didn't block this time! I think reports like that one I declined are just about 50/50 edge cases. So, keep patrolling, use your best judgment, and this is as much art as it is science.
Why can't I edit the "expresso" page
it is currently incorrect, and you said "sock" -- sockpuppet? -- and yet, I am not a sockpuppet at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.35 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll say this again: I am not a sockpuppet. 193.109.199.35 (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Quack, quack. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- 193.109.199.35, if you're not, sorry about that, but we've been having problems at those articles. Until the protection expires, could you please use the article Talk pages to propose your changes? Use the {{edit protected}} template, and be sure to cite reliable sources. Thanks for bearing with us while we deal with disruptive editors.
Zad68
20:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- 193.109.199.35, if you're not, sorry about that, but we've been having problems at those articles. Until the protection expires, could you please use the article Talk pages to propose your changes? Use the {{edit protected}} template, and be sure to cite reliable sources. Thanks for bearing with us while we deal with disruptive editors.
- Why do I need to quote a "reliable source" for, like, a word? that, like, exists? in, like, dictionaries? Whatever, no wonder Wikipedia isn't regarded as a reliable source, when maniacs like "Yworo" above can get a page shut-down simply by shouting accusations and insults. I think I'll stick to my encyclopedias that actually cost me money, thanks though. 193.109.199.35 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why would you want to edit Wikipedia without knowing the rules. Verifiability by citing reliable sources is required. Why would you want to use an encyclopedia where anyone can add anything without supporting it? That'd be way worse than Wikipedia. Don't let the door hit you on the rear end on your way out. Yworo (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Re: How did you know
I could tell through comparing the IP's edit history with that of the sockmaster; both revolve exclusively around the addition of blatantly incorrect content added to quite specific football and talent show articles. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mattythewhite but how did you know which sockmaster to look at in the first place? There was nothing in the AIV or block log to indicate that Football boys was the sockmaster... I guess that's my real question.
Zad68
20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)- I've been reverting this individual's edits ever since Football boys was the used account, so it's just down to experience of dealing with this person and becoming familiar with his/her edit pattern. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mattythewhite ah OK so it's a matter of personal experience. I've seen a number of other vandals like that, who make random unsourced changes to pop culture articles. It'd great if we had an "AIV 10 Most Wanted" list (or the like) where frequently-encountered socks or general vandal types could be documented so that we could share our experiences on how to identify and handle them.
Zad68
21:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mattythewhite ah OK so it's a matter of personal experience. I've seen a number of other vandals like that, who make random unsourced changes to pop culture articles. It'd great if we had an "AIV 10 Most Wanted" list (or the like) where frequently-encountered socks or general vandal types could be documented so that we could share our experiences on how to identify and handle them.
- I've been reverting this individual's edits ever since Football boys was the used account, so it's just down to experience of dealing with this person and becoming familiar with his/her edit pattern. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 00:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
///EuroCarGT 00:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For being concise, patient and making a right decision! ///EuroCarGT 00:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
Edit War on CAIR page
HI
I am responding to your message about looking into the edits on the Wikipedia entry for CAIR.
He is what I am deleting -
"A federal appeals court removed the label for all parties and sealed the list on October 20, 2010, ruling the designation was the result of "simply an untested allegation of the Government, made in anticipation of a possible evidentiary dispute that never came to pass.""
This is simply wrong; in 2010, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals UNsealed the 7/1/09 decision of Jorge Solis. No one at any time removed anyone from the Attatchment A list, or removed any labels.
Rather than engage in an edit war, I will leave Roscelese's entry intact, and write a brief description of the current status of CAIR in regards to the Attachment A list, and let the reader decide for themselves which version they prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Holy Land Foundation page
This is a link to the talk page for the Holy Land Foundation on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development
Under the section titled "The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting" you can see I told ahead of time that I planned to add this section. I received no response. So, I made my edit, and it has been deleted, by I do not know who. You can read the text for yourself. I do not see any violations. I would like to put this back up, and am asking for guidance. Thank you. Livingengine1 (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Livingengine1, unfortunately I really have no knowledge about this topic and do not edit in this subject area. My only involvement was regarding editing behavior. I can only point you to the same resources I already have pointed you to. You've chosen a very contentious subject area to edit in, good luck with it.
Zad68
03:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Was wondering if you had any suggestions
Hey Zad, I included a section on the history and culture as you suggested; I was wondering if you had any other suggestions for the page, since you seem to know what's expected of FA articles. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Help for blocking request.
Hi, can you block this person IP 198.209.77.235 because he/she always blank this page.--Ng Pey Shih 07 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done But Ng Pey Shih 07 next time please file a report at WP:AIV.
Zad68
14:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay.--Ng Pey Shih 07 (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Livingengine1 again
User has continued to add in the BLP violations both under his own username and under an IP. [1] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
helpful script
Hello Zad. I saw you recently at AIV and thought I'd let you in on a helpful script that can easily help you see if a user is blocked.
importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js')
This helpful script will show all blocked editors with a strikeout through their username or IP address (both on the watch list and signatures). I find it highly helpful and maybe you might too. Take care and a late congrats on the new role. Calmer Waters 03:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Calmer Waters thanks much! I have the one that makes admin IDs have a blue background but I haven't seen that one. I do have to add a few new scripts to my vector.js and other files to make myself a bit more efficient and less error-prone. (Is there a comprehensive list of these sorts of magic admin scripts somewhere?)
Zad68
03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)- Not sure about a list, but I would heartily recommend User:MastCell/user-rights.js (although I'm admittedly a bit biased). It adds a small bar when you go to a userpage or user talkpage which lists the editor's rights (autoconfirmed, sysop, checkuser, etc), the date of account creation, the # of edits, and whether they're currently blocked. MastCell Talk 03:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
As you said in your block summary, it was persistent sneaky vandalism. Since all that the anon was doing was changing the numbers, it wasn't obvious that it was vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC) |
More on the health effects of salt
Since Salt is a current "Good article" nomination that I'm reviewing, it's understandably being scrutinized to ensure any health claims in the article are reliable. A user has started discussion here, and I would love it if you found time to comment. Many of his comments and edits seem focused on removing material that casts doubt on whether healthy people should reduce their salt intake. On the one hand, he may be responsibly removing silly fad-science claims that have no place in a general article like "salt". On the other hand, he may be removing reliably-sourced information that suggests a conclusion he disagrees with. In all humility, as a layman, I honestly have no way of knowing which it is. Is there any way you could weigh in and help ensure that the brief summary of health benefits in the "salt" article is as reliable and neutral as it can reasonably be? Thanks so much for your time, – Quadell (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Honored you'd ask me, looking now.
Zad68
01:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) - Quadell you were right to ask for another opinion, that section needs work before it can pass GA. Replied there.
Zad68
02:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)- As the nominator of the article Salt at GAN, I thank you for your comments on the "Health effects" section. I have no specific knowledge of medicine and know little of how medical-related articles or sections should be treated on Wikipedia. Having removed the previous health effects section in Salt to create a new article Health effects of salt, I have tried to summarize it, mostly keeping the same references (which I largely did not check). Obviously, either the original section was poor or I have made a pretty poor job of summing it up, or both. I could address the points you raise in the GA review about the various sources but the section would likely still be unsatisfactory. Would you consider rewriting the section to the necessary high standard? If you could, it would be very helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth thanks for taking the comments well. I know what it's like to have your GA nominee picked apart! I think the original health content that was there wasn't good. I'll at least give you a running start at getting that section going, give me a bit of time to look at it.
Zad68
14:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth thanks for taking the comments well. I know what it's like to have your GA nominee picked apart! I think the original health content that was there wasn't good. I'll at least give you a running start at getting that section going, give me a bit of time to look at it.
- As the nominator of the article Salt at GAN, I thank you for your comments on the "Health effects" section. I have no specific knowledge of medicine and know little of how medical-related articles or sections should be treated on Wikipedia. Having removed the previous health effects section in Salt to create a new article Health effects of salt, I have tried to summarize it, mostly keeping the same references (which I largely did not check). Obviously, either the original section was poor or I have made a pretty poor job of summing it up, or both. I could address the points you raise in the GA review about the various sources but the section would likely still be unsatisfactory. Would you consider rewriting the section to the necessary high standard? If you could, it would be very helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your very helpful feedback. – Quadell (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Quadell no problem, just updated the GA1 with a list of suggested sources as you were leaving me this note. I provided the sources and links to them, why not let the editor have a go at summarizing them. All the info is there, just needs to be summarized.
Zad68
16:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Recent AE
Hi, since you recently closed the Tumbleman case, just letting you know that there's loose end in this case -- the Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs) sock is still active Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman. vzaak (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note Vzaak, I'm aware of that editor... That editor has been discussed at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman sockpuppet investigation and it's up to the Checkusers and others there to handle it.
Zad68
14:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dearest Vzaak -- I *really* resent your off-handedly referring to me as a "sock" that needs to be swept aside, as though this has somehow been conclusively demonstrated. We both know it hasn't been, nor can it be, because I'm not Tumbleman. I'm a guy who's been following Rupert Sheldrake's career for over a decade now. a guy who was compelled to jump in when it became evident that any voice in support of Sheldrake was met with coordinated pseudo-skepticism.
It seems your tack has been moving to rid yourself of people with weird ideas instead of dealing with the ideas themselves. With all due respect, you should give the latter a spin. Oh boy chicken again (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Re:Disappointed
Sure, I'll revert the edits. This was honestly not a malicious attempt...I've refrained from editing medical aspects of the "circumcision" page anymore, as per our discussion. I thought that the foreskin page was different, however- again, I was going by the French version, which has that page as linking to both the medical and sexuality portals.
The aspects I discussed were purely sexual and anatomical; I did not discuss any medical procedures whatsoever. Does pure anatomical information - not an anatomical procedure - fall under WP:MEDRS? (Serious question) I see nothing on the page about "anatomy". Can we not, for example, quote "Gray's Anatomy" (1858)? I know that there a lot of science pages, such as Newton's law of universal gravitation, which use a mix of both new and rather old sources. There are also currently very old sources on the page I edited (eg, Gairdner (1949)), and the only issue on the page seems to be a primary sources template, rather than an outdated sources template. So I didn't think that the WP:MEDRS 5-year rule applied to anatomy pages.
Again, sorry if there was any misunderstanding. I'll revert the edits.
(But just as a head's up, I am going to be editing the brit milah page soon, so please be aware of that. Despite appearances, I'm really not trying to subvert these pages behind your back, which is why I'm telling you this!)
Best
--(Moshe) מֹשֶׁה 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- MosheA, thank you very much indeed. WP:MEDRS applies to all biomedical content anywhere in any article on Wikipedia. Statements about the neurological components and their functions are plainly biomedical content, I'd have a very hard time seeing how they wouldn't be. And even if they weren't, I don't see it could make sense to reach back many decades to over century ago in time for sourcing on something well-studied with up-to-date sourcing available. Why would we would ever be citing Gray's Anatomy 1st Edition (1858) when we have Gray's Anatomy 40th Edition (2008) available, see here. Once again, please stop assuming that content that exists in other articles either here on en.WP or on other-language Wikipedias must be fine and good to import across articles. In most cases, it's not OK to do that. The Foreskin article has a lot of problems and really needs to be gutted and rewritten from scratch. I can see how you might think the edit you made must be fine because it was in line with the quality of what's there already, but adding poor content will only make the problem worse. I might look in at Brit milah to double-check any biomedical content; other editors watching that article might be looking at other aspects of edits made there, just FYI.
Sorry if my tone seems a bit raised here, I care quite a bit about Wikipedia's biomedical content, and want to ensure it is accurate, up-to-date and represents the best quality sources accurately.
Zad68
16:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)