User talk:KateWishing

Delete
Why did you delete my section on "addiction and harm" in the oxycodone article? I spent a lot of time researching and writing that section. It contained information that is important for members of the public to know. You referred to it as an "essay", what makes it an essay rather than fact?

I would ask you to restore the content and make more specific changes. For example if you didn't like the sentence on "ground zero" then perhaps you might change that rather than delete all the facts and references.

Welcome
 Hello KateWishing, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

KateWishing, good luck, and have fun. --Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

November 2014
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Amanda Marcotte. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, Kate Wishing seems to have a habit of removing credible links, and only including a select number of links to the ONE paper she may have read on the subject - even if she doesn't actually read the whole thing. She has ruined a very article on RCVS by the same method of advancing either self-promotion, or someone with whom she has a connection. And she has the hypocritical audacity to claim that others self-promote. She's not published on any of the subjects she edits, but tries to make out she's a leading authority on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk • contribs)


 * This is nonsense. Here is the relevant revert, which contains absolutely no commentary of my own or original research and only quotes a reliable source. KateWishing (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

why your deletions of citations?
The references added are not "self-promoting." These meet the standard for being appropriate.

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy',Hughes, D., Attachment-Focused Family Therapy, NY:Norton, 2009Becker-Weidman, A., (2010), Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: Essential methods and practices, Jason Aronson Becker-Weidman, A., (2011), The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy Casebook,Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson

These are books published by reliable and well-known publishers and their inclusion supports and adds to the article and the statement these references were tied to. Please do not delete again without first discussing it on the talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJMSWPHD (talk • contribs)


 * Agree, Kate Wishing seems to have a habit of removing credible links, and only including a select number of links to the one paper she may have read on the subject. She has ruined a very article on RCVS by the same method of advancing either self-promotion, or someone with whom she has a connection. And she has the hypocritical audacity to claim that others self-promote. Laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

potential violation of wikipedia revert policy
Your revision/undoing of my edit to the Attachment Therapy so quickly without any discussion on the talk page is not consistent with policy and practice. NJMSWPHD (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You've done it again, without explaining your revision and without discussing in on the talk page. This is not consistent with Wikipedia practice at all. NJMSWPHD (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the removal of reliable sources would seem to be a violation of wikipedia policy and qualify as valdalism NJMSWPHD (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added back the material and hope that if there is a dispute we can discuss it here civilly on the talk page rather than you're reveting it without discussion, which is a violation of wikipedia policy and practice. NJMSWPHD (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would seem that since you continue to disregard discussion on the talk page and ignore that the material added are relevant and reliable sources that you are violating neutral point of view policy by advocating a POV. However if I am wrong, please comment. NJMSWPHD (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're gonna need another sock. KateWishing (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oreophryne furu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dorsal and Specific name. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your additions, which I corrected, are obvious violations of WP:RS and WP:ASSERT. It's impressive that you've been on Wikipedia for almost ten years and still haven't learned the most basic policies. I will seek a third opinion. KateWishing (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yopie is here complaining that I fixed his formatting error, which is actually encouraged by WP:TPO. KateWishing (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit on the Wikipedia article of pedophilia
I am trying to add comments following your discussion with James Cantor. However, it is impossible to add anything contrary to James Cantor or that denotes the relation between gay behaviour and pedophilia. It is inmmediately flaged as unconstructive, which is not. 190.23.112.237 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Rhinella


Micromesistius has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for moving all the Chaunus articles to Rhinella!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhinella proboscidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Specific name. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

James Ossuary
The source clearly states (if you've read the source) that the patina is authentic which doesn't prove either way it should be added that Jesus(the real one) does not exist all it saying is that the inscription is authentic irrespective of belief READ the paper.Also it should be added (not that you would of known )other such artifact have been discovered they themselves have been confirmed as authentic using with the same method used(such as the Caiaphas Ossuary for example) by the Israel Antiquities Authority.If you can come up with a better method (such as MAGIC for example) then I would be prepared to listen my suggestion is that you go away and look for something else to criticize and stop wasting serious thinkers time Richardlord50 (talk)
 * Yes, I've read the source. It's open access and can be found here. It clearly states that the findings "strengthen the contention that the ossuary and its engravings are authentic," consistent with my revision, not yours. It does not "confirm" the authenticity any more than the previous studies "disproved" it. Apart from that inaccuracy, your version uses more words to say less. My version explains exactly why the study supports (not confirms) authenticity. You've jumbled some words together in something vaguely resembling an English sentence and left the reader with the impression that the scientists used their science tools to magically confirm authenticity. The presence of microfossils and "biological indicators" alone does not support authenticity. Other studies cited the microfossils to argue against authenticity. The key point of the study is that the microfossils seemed naturally deposited. KateWishing (talk) 21:02, 15

March 2015 (UTC)

What the actually says which seems obviously confusing you is this "We would like to emphasize that in Israel 80% - 90% of the archaeological artifacts are from unprovenanced origins and should definitely not to be overlooked. Archaeometric investigations should be carried out in order to authenticate important artifacts. This study deals with such an archaeometric analysis that is accompanied by a set of images supporting our contention that the inscription of the James Ossuary is authentic." Like I have said before (and it is up to the reader to decide for his or herself) the source does not say "yes Jesus does exist" all it is saying is the inscription is authentic which doesn't say anything one way or another.The previous analysis of the Ossuary is primarily based on: "This is to be good to be true theory".Which is meaningless in it self which doesn't aid scientific inquiry as opposed to adhoc method so often used. If biological indicators doesn't support authenticity,what does support it bad breath and heavy breathing.Science didn't magically confirm the authenticity of the Ossuary all science has done is use a BETTER method that can eliminate doubt: "Other studies cited the microfossils to argue against authenticity".Which is a bit rich when you yourself is using the very same thing to prove your argument (I notice you don't cite these other studies).Lets be reasonable the both of us.Richardlord50 (talk)
 * I don't care about Jesus or even whether the inscription is authentic. My concern is that your revision misrepresents the source. A "contention" is not "confirmation." One of the previous studies I mentioned was based on oxygen isotope analysis, not speculation:
 * Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., & Goren, Y. (2004). Authenticity examination of the inscription on the ossuary attributed to James, brother of Jesus. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31(8), 1185-1189.
 * It concluded that the inscription was probably a forgery, noting that "the fact that only the letters patina from the James Ossuary contain microfossils of marine origin, suggests that it was artificially deposited." Now, should we cite that study and say that it "confirms the forgery?" Obviously not.
 * KateWishing (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision on Polyamory
It was agreed at the end of the discussions that the material was fitting, as sources using the example study were put in the section. Be sure to read all of a discussion before simply saying "per talk". 24.252.141.175 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone who agreed to that was wrong, because the deleted material is blatant WP:SYNTH. KateWishing (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:SYNTH to report what a source says. The source specifically discussed polyamory and cites that study. The opposition on the Talk Page agreed. You don't seem to have read the entire discussion that resulted in the consensus. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, WP: SYNTH says "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." However the conclusion is explicitly quoted from the paper, and its conclusion is what Finn, 2012 references. So this is something referred to explicitly by two reliable sources. Did you read them before deleting the material? I'll assume good faith but it seems like you are erasing sources you have not read based off of a portion of a discussion you did not finish reading. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read both papers in full, and you are not reporting what either source says. You are synthesizing them to make an original conclusion about polyamory, when neither source says anything about polyamory (which is consensual non-exclusivity, not non-exclusivity in general). I have explained this at Talk:Polyamory. My talk page is not the appropriate venue. KateWishing (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would someone who read both in full be claiming the Finn study didn't talk about objections to polyamory? 24.252.141.175 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I know the meaning of "polyamory". KateWishing (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coital cephalalgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posture. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * DSM-5 codes
 * added a link pointing to Pica


 * Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome
 * added a link pointing to Cannibis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Template mysteries
The error message is gone now, and gone from the earlier version as well. Someone must have been making changes to the underlying templates and your edit got caught in midstream.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
You may be interested in Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson (and Long-term abuse/DPeterson, if you haven't seen it). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Remedial measures
Thanks for tracking down and fixing so many of those Packersfanam edits. When you start to dig there are a ton of them and I was beginning to despair of the task of fixing them when I saw that you'd been to a lot of them already. Really odd, how he's gone so bad so quickly. It'd be nice if he can be rehabilitated short of an indef block but I'm skeptical. I guess we'll see! JohnInDC (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not discussing changes on talk PAge
Why won't you discuss your revisions and changes on the talk page first so we can do consensus together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.40.55 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit I reverted was not made in good faith. KateWishing (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ageplay
The definition of ageplay currently on the site is totally wrong, the indie I posted is 100% accurate if you have a problem with the truth please email me at daddy_tallica@ yahoo.come — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddy tallica (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia exists to summarize reliable sources, not right great wrongs. You can't add your own personal commentary to articles. KateWishing (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Diabetic nephropathy
good morning...at the behest of CorporateM ,I have decided to write this to you, I will say I still have reservations about what was discussed at the Help Desk...however in the best interest of the article (Wikipedia as a whole) I have been advised to collaborate ...I believe going reference and sentence by sentence this article can be done without trouble ...(perhaps) we could do others depending how this one goes...in any event should you choose to respond to this request I will therefore be at the talk page of the aforementioned article. I am going by Assume_good_faith --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ozzie. I hope that we won't need to individually discuss each and every reference. The problem is not limited to one or two citations — your entire approach to referencing needs to change. For example, you added | this source for the claim that "Normal eGFR is above 90 mm/min/1.73 m2." The reference says nothing of the sort. Do you see the problem? You should only add a source when you are absolutely certain that it says exactly what our article states. If you aren't certain, it's better to leave the information uncited. In many cases, it's not even possible to find a good source for pre-existing information. Someone may have taken it from a paywalled journal or even made it up. That's why I suggested that you focus on adding new information rather than trying to overhaul whole articles. Many medical articles are still missing basic facts about epidemiology, history and so on. KateWishing (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Article

 * Thanks, Ozzie. I enjoyed working with you. KateWishing (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter influences and analogues
Should I remove Nadrali's contentious line? He hasn't modified it according to our discussion.  Serendi pod ous  13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just edited it to my own suggestion. KateWishing (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

CHARTRES
Can you tell me why you revert my edit; thank youHuntermiam (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit deleted a random portion of the text and made the sentence nonsense. Apart from that, you are obviously a sockpuppet of Whiteflagfl (and I noticed your edit via Flyer22's talk page, where it's further suggested that you're a sock of a user I'm not familiar with). KateWishing (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

So you believe any information put without any proof, I simply removed false information that the city was in the hand of the same group between1568-1591 plus no reference. Huntermiam (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope the above wasn't too big a shock. Had to notify all mentioned whether involved or not. Feel free to comment at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Rollback question
Hi KateWishing, I saw you appear in my watchlist and I noticed that you often revert vandalism/spam. Would rollback rights and reviewer rights be of use to you? If so, I'd be happy to grant them to you. Please let me know what you think. Best. Acalamari 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful, Acalamari. Thank you. KateWishing (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Hope you find both tools useful. :) Best. Acalamari 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Talk page
Last I checked, I'm allowed to edit my talk page the way I want it to be. If you want to delete this comment after you read it, go ahead, it's *your* talk page. I have been trying to make sure that updates I make are without controversy. So far the vast majority seem to have been met with approval, if one every great once in a while upsets somebody, that doesn't seem to be grounds for some big accusation. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * May seem strange, but I wanted to apologize if I was unjustly short-tempered. I have every intention of trying to do things the right way, but in my defense, how I edit my talk page, whether I removed things that stress me out or could cause other problems, is my decision (WP:Talk page guidelines). Packerfansam (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Packerfansam, you're free to remove messages from your talk page, but communication is required. My complaint was that you did not acknowledge the problem in any way. It's okay to make mistakes when editing, but not to keep making the same "mistake" over and over again after it's been pointed out to you. You even returned to one article and repeatedly removed the same content three times over months (apparently because witches and rock music are sinful). That's not good faith. KateWishing (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I like good rock music. We may have disagreements over certain things for different reasons, but I'll freely say I made the edits to Beloit on purpose. You can write somebody won a Tony, there doesn't need to be list of different plays and things they worked on. You can write that somebody is a singer, there doesn't need to be a list of the different genres their songs are considered. I did *not* remove individuals from the list, but I did make their credentials more compact. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

potential violation of wikipedia revert policy
You redirected the Face Lift Dentistry without any discussion, why you think you have the right to do this? You are now invited to join a dispute discussion of the conflict through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request, hope that now you are willing to discuss and please provide solid evidence of your behaviours. Thank you.Indepentten (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree, Kate Wishing seems to have a habit of removing credible links, and only including a select number of links to the one paper she may have read on the subject. She has ruined a very article on RCVS by the same method of advancing either self-promotion, or someone with whom she has a connection. And she has the hypocritical audacity to claim that others self-promote. She's quite happy to vandalize quite well-written articles and direct the majority of links to one paper that she might read and then, only when the original author complains, does she pitifully back down with a request to talk. Personally I think she deliberately does this to provoke a reaction,. and the number of similar complaints forma wide number of people across a wide number of subjects shows clearly where the common problem lies. She is the common denominator is acting as some sort of article owner, particularly on subjects where she is not published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk • contribs)


 * Indepentten is referring to this edit, which was not a revert or violation of any policy. It was discussed here. KateWishing (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you KateWishing, and I joint in the discussion. But before you did a major edit, you don't think you should at least notice me or leave a reason and discuss it with me? Based on other editors, this is not the first time you did this.Indepentten (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laser-assisted new attachment procedure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bone loss. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

help needed
help me by making wikitable that has brand names of medicine. check post on talkpage of wikiproject medicineMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, Kate. --Blue Indigo (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI


--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

neuroscience of sleep
Thank you for solving my dilemma; I didn't know what to do with user Dumb Daisy. Perhaps you found the problem(s) yourself; perhaps you saw my plea on Materialscientist's talk page (with the same headline as this comment, #37 at present). No matter which, we agree that she's quite impossible to just edit. ///// Oh, now I see that you followed up at ANI and DD was blocked this morning. Good job! --Hordaland (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
For your comments at my talk page with regard to tagging. I am always open to refinement of the tag that I leave. Often, what appears to be duplication of tags, is a matter of their be numerous issues in various parts of articles, where, on address of a subset of the issues, one of the set of the tags can be removed. I understand it is unsightly, but the issues are real, and it is unfair to the students who are such a large contingent of our readers to believe articles are sound, when in fact they re not. With regard to unilateral versus consensus, I believe I am both in my rights as an editor, and on sound footing with regard to WP policy, to tag as extensively as I do, and will defend it as necessary.

Again, as I said, I am open to tag revision, but not to pretending articles (e.g., unsourced articles) are anything other than the plagiarised or WP:OR morasses that so may of them are. FInally, if you have access to routes to improve tag design, I will gladly put effort there. The fact that there is no plagiarism tag, and the fact that so many tags are not quite what is needed in particular cases, means that there will be overtagging, or mistagging, to make complete communication of issues clear to readers and fellow editors. See also User_talk:Liz. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * With resect to a couple of specifics that you mention in your tagging critique—and thank you for engaging, instead of the standard revert-without-discussion approach:
 * First, while we know that the poem appearing is by Dora Maar, we do not know from what published work it was taken. It may indeed be DM's poetry, and may indeed be fully accurate in its transcription, but until a published source is provided that tells us where the poem was actually drawn, it has to be considered suspect. (Per WP policy, quoted material must be sourced, and per standard academic definitions, unsourced quoted material—including poetic works—is plagiarism.) I could have put or, but  seemed best at the time.
 * Second, I am generally willing to check sources, and make sure that the placement of inline citations is accurate (see next point). I am generally unwilling to do post hoc sourcing of large blocks of unsourced material, both because it encourages sloppy initial scholarship (much the same as with parents, who must eventual stop cleaning their children's rooms, I stopped cleaning up after the myriads of others that place their own textual creations into the encyclopedia); moreover, fixing clearly miscreant text makes me complicit in the plagiarism or WP:OR that often is accurate diagnosis of a large tract of in-place unsourced material.
 * Third, and perhaps most subtly, and seemingly ridiculous: placing inline tags—making an article look a mess—is often the only, and best first step toward resolving plagiarism and misattribution issues. For instance, vis-a-vis the L. Shankar mess, the text material was a mix of plagiarised material, editor WP:OR, and the former types of material into which good faith citations had been placed as an attempted corrective.
 * The result of that good faith post hoc citation addition was most often a resulting revision where the citations that appeared were inaccurate with regard to the text. (The inline citations added did not support all of the text to which they were attached—the facts appearing in the sentence were not in the citation.) Moreover, when a systematic plagiarism or lessor sourcing matter is discerned, the lack of inline tags makes unclear the progress toward dealing with the issue, while giving the errant impression that sparse citations that do appear—for instance, a single tag, at the end of a substantial paragraph—cover more material than they actually do. As an example, see Talk:L._Shankar. Before hitting the roof over the large number of inline tags in this article, read that talk section and the next one, and realize that the better part of the three main non-list sections were plagiarised (material now appearing in short and long quotes, with sources), as were the vast majority of the lists of collaborators (in Career) and Discography (separate section). Likely more plagiarism will be found at that article, and until the whole of the article is reviewed, the inlines are our only guide to what is checked and valid, and what is not.


 * Hence, the first step toward an accurately sourced revision of a very bad article is sometimes to place thorough inline tags that subsequent workers can easily remove as they progress through their fact checking and source additions.


 * All on this for now, from me, but in summary, the Dora Maar tag was sound (if strange to your ears), though perhaps not the ideal one to choose, and the articles that are thoroughly inline tagged—the most egregious cases of content creation that is either sloppy (best interpretation) or dishonest (how at university we would eventually assess the matter)—often simply need to be so, at least for a time. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

user:Thedawgbelongmem
Instead of revert war, please try to explain what was wrong in user's edits and invite for discussion. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind that unless it is a clear-cut stupid WP:VANDALism, it is good to provide a decent edit summary. In case of dispute it will work in your support. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I normally provide edit summaries when reverting good-faith edits, but I mistook Thedawgbelongmem for a sneaky vandal because of edits like this (fake date with fake edit summary) and this (incorrect period with fake edit summary). KateWishing (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not saying he is not. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Call-Fleming Sydrome - RCVS page ... You're not an authority on this subject, so please don't act like you are.
I'm surprised that you've removed my addition to the RCVS write up, considering that you don't actually know the symptoms I, or other patients, have been through and are being researched by University College London and the UK's other leading authorities on this disease. That research is being undertaken as a longer-term project, so is not yet fully published. But, the text addition is accepted by CCUs. If you bothered to read your own added source papers, or the ones you've previously removed, you would clearly see that encephalitis is noted as a symptom in a few reported cases, including mine. Having looked through your edits to this article, it's clear that you are making yourself out to be some sort of authority of the matter, which you're not... I've researched who you are. You're neither published in the subject and have simply splattered over previous authoritative and quoted text that has been submitted by others. Sadly, this is trait that less-frequent users of Wikipedia see all too often, when someone of Wiki-self-importance acts in a way to, effectively, take over ownership of an article, and reject any and all edits - even though that defeats the whole ethos and point of Wikipedia - and simply reverts every reasonable or informed edit without exception. I wouldn't be surprised to see the three reverts rule kicking in very soon...I won't hold my breath. You have already committed one autocratic revert...you only have two left before you are reported.

I have not done you the discourtesy of removing any of your text; I have simply added additional info based on my own medical case history, of which I am not, at this stage, prepared to put my own personal medical files on Wikipedia...I'm sure that you will understand the reasons why not. Therefore, kindly afford others the same courtesy, and desist from blanket removals that are uncontroversial, simply because they might not fit in with your personal choice of sources. It is noted that you have splattered over the previous sources to the publications of Drs Call and Fleming in favour of another published source. Perhaps you could explain why you have denied the discoverers of this syndrome the common courtesy of their original papers being left as links. Looking through your edits, you have removed vast tracts of valued and respected source links, and deleted blocks of text that gave very good commentary on the illness.

In all, this was a page that was a good source of info for Call-Fleming Syndrome patients like me, steam-rollered by someone who clearly has another agenda that clearly demonstrates some personal an non-impartial influence - another breach of Wikimrules. And before you kick off, I will be quite happy to show the Wiki senior editors that you have broken Wiki protocol, as evidenced by your edits, by altering the entire article to be skewed to personal interest sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.250.21 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because it was unsourced. Wikipedia's policies do not allow original research (you stated "The source research is currently being conducted on me and several other patients.") You're welcome to alert WikiProject Medicine to the dispute. If you revert again, I'll do it myself. By the way, the original paper of Call and Fleming is reference #4 in "my" version. I only added a secondary source to support it in accordance with our WP:MEDRS guideline. KateWishing (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the ref. Happy now?! (Probably not!) You sound like a right one. I've read some arrogant, dismissive  responses in my time, but threatening users with "revert again, I'll do it myself"!!! Wow, what an attitude. You know Jack on this subject, as evidenced by your childish defence of your actions, in trying to trump someone who talks to the leaders in this illness on a weekly basis. Good day, little Miss Pompous. And your previous suppression of good reference info will, yes, be reported.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.250.21 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You added a book of case studies after previously claiming that the source research was unpublished. I just downloaded the book, and unsurprisingly the page numbers you cited do not even mention RCVS -- they're about infective endocarditis. So no, I am not satisfied with your fake reference. KateWishing (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A paid copy or a pirated PDF version? You fell for a simple exercise to see if you will now proactively go and find the correct page reference, or you are just interested in being an antagonist to try and get your own way, and delete ANY additional text offered. I gave you an opportunity to do a simple check on the link between RCVS and encephalitis and you simply chose to remove rather than provide any of the well-known links. Even some of your own sources include references to encephalitis. If you had ANY knowledge of this condition, then you would know that a primary trigger of encephalitis presentations is caused by the bulging on cerebral arteries, and minor leakage that can then be interpreted as a foreign infection; hence the swelling. It's clear that you're not an authority on this subject, and from the looks of it, you've read one paper, and have trashed a previously good article in favour of one author. BTW, I didn't write the original article, merely added the odd grammar correction and I note that author has also complained about your trashing, no, let's actually call it vandalism. So, let's see if you are simply a page vandal, or will now reference the link that you can now easily look up, and are genuinely interested in the subject. I doubt it, as the numerous comments above on your talk page indicate quite clearly that you slash and burn first and then ask questions later when other users hit back. In the meantime, I am still awaiting the links that show your authoritative or published knowledge on this subject. In the meantime, I'll go back to working with the consultant's team in the UK who are studying this. As someone who has read just about every paper on it, having suffered from it for 30 years, and being used as a consultative patient for study by two of the top two medical universities in this country, I can smell amateurism and BS when I see it and you, Missy, are full of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've backed away from your original attempt to add unpublished research to the article. And no, the book does not support your claim on any page. You obviously picked a random source from Google Books and faked the page numbers. And despite all your bluster about "amateurism and BS", you've cited no errors whatsoever in my text.
 * Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome is present in a small minority of RCVS patients, but that was not the extent of your original claim. Your newer edits are still problematic, though. You turned the sentence about clinical trials into nonsense, and you restored a source that fails WP:MEDRS. KateWishing (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't backed away at all - you fell into the obvious trap where you defiantly insisted it wasn't referenced anywhere, and now you don't like it that someone has proven you so very, very wrong. Go read some research on a subject about which you pretend to know something. In the meantime, your latest edit shows that you know absolutely nothing about medicine, let alone encephalitis. Reversible encephalopathy syndrome stills presents as swelling i.e. encephalitis. so whether it's short term swelling, or longer term requiring anti-inflammatories, sedation, etc., it is STILL encephalitis. Even the Wiki article states as much... that's before you go off and alter that to fit your agenda, and make yourself out to be right.  Which piece of this don't you get?  Do you actually read, or do you make these edit changes for some sort of joke, or a bet? Pathetic!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. To quote from the very Wiki page, before it's altered by you... "Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), also known as reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome (RPLS), is a syndrome characterized by headache, confusion, seizures and visual loss. It may occur due to a number of causes, predominantly malignant hypertension, eclampsia and some medical treatments. On magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, areas of edema (swelling) are seen. The symptoms tend to resolve after a period of time, although visual changes sometimes remain." That's assuming that you know what a cerebral edema actually is! So, you've just contradicted your own edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You've again completely misunderstood everything I said. Trying to communicate with you is hopeless. If you believe I have no medical expertise (because you know nothing about me), then please ask any editor at WikiProject Medicine to review my edits. (Spoiler: they'll revert you, too.) KateWishing (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've asked you countless times, and to which you constantly wriggle out of providing... If you are medically trained, especially in this subject, please provide a reference link to your qualifications that entitles you to poo-poo the references links given by specialists who are eminent authorities in this field, or a link to at least one of your publications on this subject. Then, and only then, will I shut up. It won't happen, because their aren't any. I have scoured the Internet for references on you, are there is a big fat zero! I smell a big fat Stephens Wiki False-PhD brewing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S> Your previous form on edit warring says it all. You are quite simply an antagonist who likes winding users up with uneducated and self-promoting or vested-interest edits. It is only when you have been proven so miserably wrong, that you try and back track, or go blubbing off to the Admins like a spoilt child who's been found out. Again, please provide proof of your medical qualifications.  No? Thought not. I guess I'll be watching the tumbleweed on that one. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of providing my personal information to someone who brags about trying to stalk me — nor do I need to since any medically competent editor will support my edits on substance alone. Enjoy your block. KateWishing (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Dengue fever
Hello KateWishing,

Please discuss on your removal of a sourced content in the Dengue fever page

Sathishmls (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ogilvy & Mather
 * added links pointing to Greek and Rolls-Royce


 * Atul (company)
 * added a link pointing to National Stock Exchange

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Dengue fever. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sathishmls (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Obsessions
Why have you removed the entire section about drug-induced OCD in the "sexual obsessions" page ? The sources should be excellent. The main source is DSM V itself ? The article is full of missing sources already, why is this particular section removed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.189.52 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ogilvy & Mather
Hey there! Last month I proposed another section draft for the Ogilvy & Mather article. I've reached out to a few Wikiprojects, but haven't had any luck finding someone to review it. I was hoping maybe you could take a look—you were a tremendous help editing the draft last time. I understand if you're busy or uninterested, but I wanted to make sure you saw the note in case you missed it when I originally posted. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again! I'm not sure if you're still interested in this article (and no worries if not! I recognize how busy you are on Wiki), but I wanted to pop by and let you know I've started a few more discussions on the Talk page. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! Just wanted to let you know that I responded to you on the Talk page here in case you missed it. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

Thanks again :) -- Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand
…the value of tags to our readership, in educational contexts, and, as well, the potential "professional" value of leaving tags in place as an article demands.

On the first point, in educational settings, instructors and students struggle with discerning to what extent each accessed article has risen to a level to be trustworthy to use as a source for their learning. We endeavor to hide much from them—tucking away our own ranking on pages only looked at by editors, hiding the meanings of those rankings even deeper, dismissing/discontinuing other efforts to assign critical editorial labels to content of value to our readers, etc. And then, on top of all—and in this, I view the two of you as being least at issue—we place the cosmetic appearance of articles as a higher priority than dealing with the clear issues they contain. Now, on this, if, as has been argued about some tags, they are incorrect—then certainly, remove them. That is how the system works, and I am glad for it. (For how and when and how much, see next paragraph.) But on the policy of not making tags visible on mobile platforms without effort? On the knee-jerk reversions, as appeared today for four tags on Partition coefficient (two section, two article) despite their being accurate? (The situation, two completely unsourced sections added three, and one further arose because the article was clearly a student, class-notes essay, including opinions and exclamation points. Glance at before, and after, and reverted, to see problems, and de-tagging without problems being addressed. The two sections that immediately follow the lede have no sources  at all in either, and this fact is again without attention being called.) Bottom line, from my teaching and student interactions, educators want and need to know the reality, and do not want or need to presented with a sanitized image. So, I say, if there is garbage, call it what it is. Don't hide the fact that most articles are—literally are, stubs or little more, or with major sourcing or other issues—on an accumulated stats page on article rankings, somewhere in the bowels of WP.

Otherwise, as to the matter of over-tagging, etc. First, let me reiterate: I rarely if ever tag an article to which I have not given an hour, to many hours of time. Often I being with a thorough review of presented sources, fixing dead URLs and completing and checking citations to an appropriate format. That in and of itself, can take a half-day to a day, and by the time this is done, I have a very good idea of the state of the article vis-a-vis its stated sources. So, if an article calls for it, based on this long work and analysis, how much tagging is sufficient? I will let you to redirect me here, but as far as I understand, inline tags raise no flags higher up. Section tags do, but there can be so many of them, they are rarely attended to in their lists. Only article tags raise flags that garner much attention. Sow which tags to place and why?

Here, I turn to the way in which documents are handled in team-writing settings in major industries. First and foremost, the notion that placing an article tag is of any practical value to fellow editors is near to absurd. If a pharma is submitting an NDA, the draft NDA is littered with section and line notes, to tell others on the team where and what attention is needed. Never, ever, for a team-composed document, would a writer affix a note to the top of a document saying "has problems with sources." What collaborators need are specific indications of what is needed, and where.

That is to say, in summary, two things: i, that tags are only placed when there are egregious issues, that need to be systematically addressed, and ii, that having tags at sentence, section, and article level have distinct and clear purposes (the latter to garner attention, the former lower level tags to track progress in moving an article toward having issues addressed).

As to numbers of tags in a sentence: Yes, if I have found an article with sentences to which citations are affixed has, on checking the citations, the issue that citations have been added willy-nilly, without clear correspondence between source and text, and if in that issue-laden text, a sentence appears that has three factual elements that may well have come from three sources, then such a sentence, until all three factual elements are checked, may bear multiple tags. And if three tags mark my place in seeing this done, how is this not a help to the encyclopedia? Or do we wish such text to appear fine, where it is truly, to scholarly editors, suspect? Likewise, for the reasons stated above, I am going to disagree with "if there is an OR tag at the beginning, you do not need to tag each OR sentence." The sentence tags are to let editors know what needs to be fixed in the article, to remove the section or article tag.

That is all I will say on this, except to address a specific brought up in one of your original comments. Calling for attribution of Dora Maar poetry is just that—yes, we know that Marr wrote it, but in what source does the specific text appear that has been put into WIkipedia? That was the point of the inline tag, and the issue remains unresolved. (Anyone with any experience with texts—I married an historian—knowns that versions of creative or other texts are important, and stating which appears is important, esp. in an encyclopedia. (As for Widefox's comments, I have no reply. There was a simple, earlier editing matter that they have taken and persisted in making personal, and so I avoid this editor at all costs. Here, they are just piling on, and trying to stir trouble.)

And yes, I am aware the extent to which I am alone on this. But it is interactions like this to create the opportunities for promoting substance over appearance.

As for the editing between IPs and signed on, I have just this to say. I always make clear I am one in the same editor, often signing the IPs "Le Prof". I simply sometimes am logged out, and get far enough into an edit, hat it is hard to be bothered to take the time of saving the text, and logging back in to complete the edit. There are other reasons as well, but none are nefarious. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you guys, but I am commenting because I was mentioned here. May I know why I was pinged? Leprof, I don't seem to understand why you mentioned me in this particular instance. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI / Packerfansam
It's reassuring to know that someone shares my (continuing) concern. I've tried to add a bit of background and context to your posting to show that her most recent edits, while small change from a pure disruption standpoint, are part of her longstanding & unrepentant practice of removing material from the encyclopedia that - I guess, she simply doesn't like. I hope the information helps others in their assessments. Meanwhile you might give some thought to what you are asking of the administrators there, because it's bound to come up. I don't think a block is forthcoming. Maybe a topic ban? I don't know. TBH I find myself thinking that if someone could just get her to acknowledge the problem we'd be 80% of the way to a remedy. So far she has just equivocated & dissembled and pushed the problem back out onto what she implies to be the extreme sensitivities of others.

As for me, I pretty much said my piece during the original go-round and, given the outcome there, don't feel inclined at the moment to dive back into the fray. So don't interpret my comparative silence (if I can maintain it) as indifference. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the details, and for keeping an eye on her edits for so long. I wrote my original post in a bit of a hurry. I'll propose a topic ban now. KateWishing (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well - thanks for trying. JohnInDC (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ogilvy & Mather, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Ogilvy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is a discussion on ANI right now about tag-bombing that you might want to take a look at Kate, based on comments I've seen you post on user and article talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Reallysomething123 and pedophilia topics or pedophilia-related topics
Yes, Reallysomething123 needs to be watched; I don't have nearly as much time on Wikipedia as I once did, including when I was quick to gather evidence on WP:ArbCom-banned pedophiles or pedophile/child sexual abuse POV-pushing editors who have returned. But I will help when I can. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also been pretty busy and haven't been doing much beyond checking my watchlist. It looks like the user in question isn't currently active on pedophilia articles (now that I've finally replied), anyway. KateWishing (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Past Life Regression Changes
You undid changes I made to this article without any opportunity to discuss this on the talk page. Please be respectful and state your reasons on the talk page in accordance with Wikipedia code of ethics. Andy Tomlinson (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS is still the problem. I don't have time to rehash the same discussion again. Seek input from others if you disagree. I won't revert anyone else who restores your edit (but I don't think that's going to happen because you have a unique understanding of MEDRS). KateWishing (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Flagging block evaders
Thanks for reverting a serial block evader, but if you haven't got the time or means to file an SPI or raise an AIV over it, at least mention the blocked user's name in the edit summary so that other editors have a clue to follow? Joko Gade has stuck around for another 24 hours and continued vandalising, with nobody else noticing. --McGeddon (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't remember the master offhand, since they usually just vandalize with an Italian IP (example). It looks like you've settled on Borcker. Another "master" account with its own category is Glliwian 23.0. Anyway, thanks for taking care of it. KateWishing (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)