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. |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).
|
|
J, in this edit of 6.5 years ago, you made among other things this change to an unsourced statement:
to
(this is after "There is no physical scientific evidence for the existence of such energy", which might relate to your "thus").
So, a couple of questions. Since this was in the context of an edit stripping unsourced content, why didn't you just take it out? It doesn't seem to be supportable in any of the nearby refs. And why the "thus"? And why is "contentious" better here than "controversial"? And do you believe it? It is more contentious than homeopathy and acupuncture and such? In general, it seems to me that the anti-fringe crowd have crowded out actual info about topics like this in favor of their western POVs and orthodoxy. Can you see a path to making such articles more NPOV? Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celerra 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.
Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, JzG,
This page had a broken redirect on it and was an orphaned talk page so I moved it to Talk:Judith Wilyman/PhD controversy. Since you moved around some of the talk page comments on this article in the past, I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you had a better idea of where it should go. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Over a year back, I put myself into some trouble, and one of the things it resulted in was being banned from talking about infoboxes. For the sake of being in 100% good standing with Wikipedia and Wikimedia, may I be unbanned from talking about/mentioning infoboxes? I will follow the guidelines laid out by WP:CIVILITY, I will not start fights in discussions related to IBs (or any other for that matter), heed to ArbCom sanctions, and not mention the editors I have been told not to interact with.
Even though it was a while ago now, I am sorry for what I did. I will not let it happen again.
Thank you for your time. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and am confused by a comment left on my user talk page by you and by the fact an update I made was reversed by you. It was a very severe response to my editing and implied I was a repeat offender. As it stands right now, since my edit was removed, Wikipedia is factually wrong. I know that because I'm the a key player in the subject and founder and CEO of the organization mentioned in the text. I don't like to see wrong information attributed to our organization. It has to be fixed.
Can you explain what references you have and when you were involved with our organization such that you believe the text I corrected did not need fixing? If you won't let me fix it, who can you get to fix it? It is currently a libelous statement. Thank youMay12th (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Back in 2017 you placed indefinite edit restrictions (WP:BLUELOCK) on several journals, including American Journal of Cancer Research, American Journal of Translational Research, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine and e-Century Publishing Corporation, apparently in response to a single suspected sockpuppet account which has been indefinitely blocked since 2017. I don't see a history vandalism in all of the articles, and I note that WP:PPLIST states: Extended confirmed protection "should not be applied as a protection level of first resort." Given that there has been no significant disruption since, and that articles for major journals like Nature, Science, and The Lancet lack any page-protection whatsoever, please review and consider removing such obsolete page protections, and other similar ones with little imminent risk of vandalism, so that they can fully rejoin the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).
Hello JzG,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello JzG! I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to let you know that I added you to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. If you ever come back, or choose not to have your name on this list, just let me know. Hope you come back, even just to check in, Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bangalamania (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
In 2018 you adjusted the block settings for Carmaker1 after abuse of Email privileges was discovered. The editor is currently being considered for a topic ban or indef ban at ANI, if you'd like to weigh in on the matter you may do so at the link given. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).
Template:Fake news has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)