User talk:Saidmann

Image
Not sure what it has to do with BPD? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It was greeted with a warm welcome on the German sister site some months ago and has not been met by one single objection since. Young persons are the major group of those affected. Here, on the painting, they are - each on their own - sitting at the border between land an sea and looking out. Munch is known for his psychologically inclined paintings. I hope this is sufficient for an explanation. Could you please reinstall the image?--Saidmann (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2015 (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)

Template messages on Denis Duboule
Dear Saidmann, while adding a picture and a piece of information on page Denis Duboule, I noticed the two templates messages you left on the page. I was surprised about this, so I contacted Denis Duboule (I had never met him physically before, but had interacted with him by email in an academic setting). He was himself horrified about the presence of the tags, and told me he had never even considered paying anyone to write/edit his wikipedia page. He remembered, however, meeting User:Ventus55 at a conference during which D.D. received a medal, and this person (a scientist working in a similar field) indicated that he, as a wikipedia editor, would add some content to the wikipedia page (starting with the medal). There was not even a discussion about remuneration, and there was no request from Duboule with regards to the editing -- and he is understandingly unhappy with the current templates (which, I agree with him, are potentially defamatory). He has forwarded me some material (emails), which show that we are indeed talking about the same person (the name and other information match) and that the circumstances were as he described them. Since it looks to me like you tagged the article based on the general behavior of the banned user (and not on specific evidence linked to this particular article), would you be willing to reconsider the addition of the two templates ? I don't want to do it myself, in case you had other information I'm unaware of. In any case, I'm happy to share the information I have by email, if that is of any help. Best wishes, Schutz (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Schutz, I throroughly checked the kind of edits that Ventus55 applied to this article and I now did it a second time. Here some major pieces of evidence:
 * Ventus extended the article from 5,640 bytes to 15,755 bytes. This is almost threefolding the volume.
 * Ventus added an extremely long list of publications as references that appear to come from Deboule's hands. Independent WP-editors do not (re)produce such listings.
 * The ridiculously long listings of Fellowships, Memberships, and Honours are mostly unsourced and definitely demonstrate a personal relationship between Ventus and Deboule.
 * In summury, this evidence makes it necessary to have the article tagged until it agrees with our rules. With best wishes. --Saidmann (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From the documentation I have, Ventus indeed mentioned he used Duboule's CV, which is coherent with what you write. And actually, I was not very precise in what I wrote above (more exactly, I did not reread the two templates carefully just before posting). In such a situation, it seems to me like the COI tag is not so much a bad fit, because it is about "someone in close connection to the subject". It is the UDP tag that is more worrying, because it implies something bad being done by the subject of the article himself (which I don't think is the case). Schutz (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, looking closely at the contributions, I see that Ventus' contribution have not been too much edited afterwards; so it may be easier to just remove everything he's added to the article, while keeping other people's contribution. I'll see if I manage to find some time to do this. (your opinion on the COI vs UDP tags is still welcome in any case). Thanks, Schutz (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Also the UDP tag uses the word "may". WP does not need certainty in such cases. A reasonable suspicion is mandatory for applying such tags. As to "bad" behavior, this would more apply to the editor. But this is not part of WP policy. WP policy is to present appropriate (according to the rules) articles to the readers. Removing everything that Ventus added would be fine and would of course make both tags obsolete. As reason for removal you may state lack of independent secondary sources. --Saidmann (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll edit the page accordingly, in order to present the right version to our reader, as you write. I hear what you say about the word "may" and the fact that it applies to the editor; I still find it problematic, because most readers will not read this subtleties: what they will read and remember is "hey, this guy has paid to prettify his CV without declaring it, and he does not play by the rule". I don't think that it is any better than to have wrong/defamatory facts in the article itself. Anyway, that will be moot once the content is cleaned. Thank you for your help, Schutz (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ it took me less time than I expected, actually. One problem solved ! Cheers, Schutz (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

DS alert BLP
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS as you decide how to respond to this template, please note that I put the same thing on my own talk page. Why?  Because they are informational only.  For more info please click the links in the template and study the pages that appear. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I might be confused
At Talk:Greta Thunberg, in which thread do you count four editors favoring your addition of this text? I admit I may have made a mistake and would like to verify I am looking at the same thing you are before I check again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Even better, please name the three editors you claim agree with you. We don't usually name people without telling them, so you might want to use the u template. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Here they are:
 * Paulmlieberman: "I'm fine with this." 15:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Schwede66: "That is an entirely appropriate edit." 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WWGB: Supporter by fine-tuning the edit.
 * --Saidmann (talk)

Thanks... everyone, rather than discuss this further here, I will followup with each of us in the thread at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Mz7 (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Template for references
Here's a simple citation tool, Citer that may help you easily format references in a Wikipedia template, WP:CIT. Zefr (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Email
Please email me on phlatolutelute@hotmail.com

Talk
Please email me on phlatolutelute@hotmail.com— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)