User talk:Fitzrex

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sprague-Dawley rats (June 30)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sprague-Dawley rats and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sprague-Dawley rats, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Sprague-Dawley_rats Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Sprague-Dawley_rats reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quaternary numeral system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nucleus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Hi there, please be careful to stick to neutral language or language which accurately reflects the source - re your use of "poignant" in Health and Social Care Act 2008. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi luckily, it is stated policy of wiki that you be free to fix the errors that you see. That's what makes wiki such a useful collaborative tool! Isn't it nice that we can have this brilliant conversation over a matter of less importance than a fly in your ointment. Fitzrex (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Health and Social Care Act 2008, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DHSC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice
In reference to your edits at Peter Daszak. Just an FYI. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that Peter Daszak is subject to a consensus required editing restriction. This is explained under "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" on the article talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. jps (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Thank you.

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have attempted to clean up a few articles which lack balance or otherwise disregard WP:MOS. I'm glad you noticed. Can I count on your support? Fitzrex (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt that you understand our policies. For instance, "balance"? What does that mean? Doug Weller  talk 16:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of your edits have been reverted, which suggests that your "clean up" is not in accord with policy and not supported by other editors. (And as noted above, "balance" is not Wikipedia policy and in fact is often at odds with it. See, e.g., WP:NPOV and WP:DUE). Also, above on this page someone politely pointed out--in regard to the word "poignant" in one of your edits--that neutral tone should be used, and you sarcastically responded off-point saying they could fix it themselves (I actually would but the citation is behind a paywall so I can't determine whether it contains the word "poignant") and suggesting that "this brilliant conversation" was a matter of no importance. This is not the way to gain support. -- Jibal (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry re "poignant". Is an "editor" supposed to, or not supposed to, summarize the external article text? Need an editor copy verbatim from the source, as would seem to be indicated by your "so I can't determine whether it contains the word"? The only way I can understand this is if you meant to verify a quote. Why do you come down automatically on the side of the complainant when you haven't read the article? Perhaps just by chance I summarized the passage accurately... And thanks for highlighting WP:NPOV, which is precisely my point, along with (in the instant context) WP:BLP.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
 * re "balance". My work on Christiane Northrup seems to be the instant cause of your concern, although it is nowhere mentioned in your text. Let's take one example.
 * Here I heard from Robincantin that "Doesn't belong in lead as formulated - gives the impression alleged irregularities actually occur". So I thought "ok, let's adduce the information that the 'alleged irregularities' do actually occur and are not "alleged". And I found multiple reputable sources to back the claim up. Is the MHRA an acceptable source in wiki or not?
 * Now I hear from "MPants at work" that "rm: none of those sources even MENTION Northrup, and none of them definitively establish that period changes are the result of the vaccine", which is completely beside the point. The point is that the irregularities do actually occur. Have I satisfied you, ?
 * The "MENTION Northrup" issue looks to me like a Red herring in the context of the "alleged irregularities". If the goalposts move to such an extent only because we are on the page of fringe science woman Northrup, then it seems to me that the field is slanted. Given that I have now satisfied Robincantin, can I count on that editor to revert "MPants at work"'s red herring? I know it will be difficult for some to accept that a trained Ob/Gyn physician has been correct about a matter that falls squarely within her professional remit but the observations are the observations regardless of our interpretation. Isn't that the essence of hypothesis and the scientific method?
 * And that is an example of what I mean about balance. The lede on Northrup's page has 80% warning about fringe science and fringe views. It's like her life's work is 80% pitch black. It doesn't seem right that, only because of her later adoption of fringe views, the woman be smeared to such an extent by wikipedia.
 * Fitzrex (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not much clearer about what you mean and I haven't read your edits, but what does this have to do with WP:NPOV? Doug Weller  talk 07:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Why do you come down automatically on the side of the complainant" -- again, this is not the way to gain support. It's a false charge and is combative. People have tried to help you here. And the only justification for using a word like "poignant" is if it appears in the citation; otherwise it's your judgment put into Wikivoice. In any case, I won't engage with you further. P.S. Having read the talk page of the predecessor account and its ANIs (which unfortunately went unaddressed), I see that this is a well-established pattern. -- Jibal (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Previously blocked account
The usual procedure to appeal the block would be using the Magnovvig account. Since talk page access was also revoked, it can be done using UTRS (more details at WP:APPEAL). Using other accounts is otherwise considered block evasion and sockpuppetry and when discovered their contributions can completely be reverted or deleted by policy. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Buckland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Murray.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sprague-Dawley rats
Hello, Fitzrex. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sprague-Dawley rats, 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&#32;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) 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Science Feedback moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Science Feedback, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)