User talk:Mensch

Peer review
Hi,

I've removed the peer review you started for Anosmia because it's not needed. You've done what you need to do by tagging the assertion dubious and pointing out on the talk page that it's not supported by the cited source. If no one responds with a better source, you can just go ahead and remove the claim. If it does turn into a dispute, you could use something like Third opinion -- it's not really what peer review is for.

If you have any questions, just drop me a note on my talk page.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  10:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I followed the instructions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement because I came across a statement which seemed inaccurate.

One of the steps is to start a peer review, but that was deleted soon after I posted it. What instructions should I follow?

Mensch 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All you need to do is give it a little time to see if someone provides a better source. If not, then just remove the claim.  That's an everyday part of editing articles on Wikipedia.


 * The dispute resolution processes are for when editors just can't agree on something, even after discussing the issue on the talk page. That hasn't happened yet here, and chances are good that it won't.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ...And I think those instructions at Disputed statement must date back to a time when peer review served a different function. Sorry, that's really misleading.  I'll see about changing them.   &mdash;Cel  ithemis  00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emirate of Granada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zahara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 18:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diogenes Allen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Subic Bay Freeport Zone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aetas. 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) 08:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

April 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Elizabeth Holmes, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Please see WP:LABEL. “Disgraced” is judgmental; please stick to something factual.'' Peaceray (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree with you more (I am not however going to fight to have my contribution reinstated.) The word "Disgraced" is entirely non-judgmental. It doesn't presume to determine guilt or innocence, it just expresses that the person is mired in negative controversy. I saw the term "disgraced" used in the Wikipedia article and thought it was appropriate. When I entered her name in the search function at https://www.wikipedia.org/ it listed her as an "American Entrepreneur and Inventor" which I felt was rather weasel worded. She isn't an Entrepreneur in any meaning and her "inventions" are all pending patents and are actually the work of others and she was simply a cash provider with the source of that cash is still in question. So I feel that "Disgraced American Entrepreneur and Inventor" Is much less judgmental then siding with her and pretending she is a businessperson and inventor. I leave it to your honor as a well respected editor to examine the dictionary meaning of disgraced and then ask a group of editors their opinion if I might not be correct. Mensch (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , [ Citation needed ] ! Without a citation, your label is simply WP:POV & WP:OR. Also, I notice a paucity of describing convicted white collar criminals who are men, like Jeffrey Skilling. as "disgraced". I am no fan of Elizabeth Holmes, but I have noticed a tendency to detract more from her than comparable male mis-doers. I infer that this is sexist, either unconscious or conscious. BTW, Holmes has not yet been convicted. Feel free to use the more factual "indicted", but please keep your opinions to yourself. Peaceray (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Another "good faith" edit.
Hi, Mensch.

My TP is not the place to talk about this.

If you are so kind, please use the Peanut allergy talk page. This topic is being discussed and I replied there.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca &#128051; ♂ (Talk)  18:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)