User talk:SlimVirgin/May 2015

Sourcing help please
Hi Sarah, I'm sure that you have little time to help others but I'm wondering if you could take a look at the Atrazine article where I'm having a sourcing problem, an area where you have a great deal of experience. I used a primary source for an insect section because there are, as yet, no secondary sources. I felt that I used it according to guidelines but others feel differently. I don't want to try to drag you into something that is quite complex and time consuming, but it seems quite cut and dried to me and would involve reading only the last section on the talk page. On the other hand, if it is something that you just don't have time for I understand. Either way, thanks for your time. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I left a note but I can only speak in general terms about primary v secondary. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
Hi Sarah, I'd appreciate your involvement on the talk page to this article, what Emma Sulkowicz has evolved into. It's now got a huge defensive section on Paul Nungesser, whom you know didn't create the article. thanks!--A21sauce (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not sure there's anything I can do. Ideally the article should be written carefully, then defended against anyone arriving to push one or the other view. It should probably be semi-protected too for BLP. But the lack of agreement between regular editors meant that it was easy for SPAs to take control. I can't take admin action because I've edited it, and trying to rewrite it now would be a big job, with no guarantee that it would last five minutes. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What's an SPA? Thanks for considering.--A21sauce (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * an SPA is a single-purpose account, someone who is on Wikipedia only to work on one article or one type of article, usually to push a point of view. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, definitely one SPA there I know of. Put in another note with my request for semi-protection. Thanks so much for your help.--A21sauce (talk) 13:47, 2 May 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 at DRN:Female genital mutilation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Veganism article
Hey, SlimVirgin. Have you abandoned the Veganism article? While a few people seemingly considered you WP:OWNING that article, I appreciate the work you put into it and that you kept it clean. See this revert I just made to it, for example. Your editing of that article is what WP:OWNING calls stewardship. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I've noticed the edits, but haven't checked the diffs. I'll try to find the courage to look soon. :) Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please do Sarah (Nice to know you btw, and blessings of Vegan peace from Israel), and please see the talk page, there I've detailed my edit and spoke with Flyer of it. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 11, March-April 2015 by, , ,

 Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
 * New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
 * Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Eating Animals
Hi. I haven't read Eating Animals, but maybe you have. The critical reception section might be a bit biased (or not), and I was wondering if you would take a look at it as it reads a bit strange and undue. Also, if you look at the article on Jonathan Safran Foer, the statement "Huffington Post contributor Anis Shivani included him in his list of the fifteen most overrated modern American writers" stands out a bit. I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was the author of that opinion blog that added his own source to the BLP. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I can take a look at some point in the future, but I don't want to start anything new until I get a better draft of that other article up. The chronology is complex and whenever I think I've nailed it, I find another source that takes it in a new direction. Thanks for commenting there, by the way. That input was really helpful. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Hi, thanks, I appreciate that. I'm thinking of taking it through peer review once I have a better draft ready, so perhaps I could ping you then for some input. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Study 329
Hi. Can you please review my last bunch of edits in Study 329? As I understood the problem was with the ref reordering. I did not do that part. I think the infobox still needs fix and we should find an appropriate Infobox to use instead of directly adding Infobox. Thanks in advance, Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent DRN
Perhaps you can help me understand what happened there because I'm at a loss and now wondering if I really want to participate as a volunteer there. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  15:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I didn't realize you volunteered there. To be honest I'm at a loss too.


 * The backdrop is that FGM is often used to attack Islam. Lots of Muslim countries don't practice it, and other religious communities do practice it, but it has become part of the arsenal that people use against Islam. In particular people stress its presence in Indonesia and Malaysia, which have majority-Muslim populations. The Wikipedia article follows UNICEF's prevalence figures. UNICEF says that FGM happens in Indonesia and Malaysia, but the extent of it isn't known because reliable figures haven't been collected.


 * A conspiracy theory has developed that the UN is deliberately hiding the figures to protect Islam (or something like that). A little-used account arrived at the article to stress this, linked to one of the anti-Islam websites, said the UN can't be trusted, and added to the infobox that Indonesia and Malaysia are two of the countries in which FGM is most concentrated. When the edit was resisted, the account opened an RfC, RSN, DRN and various other things. For some reason the DRN volunteer interpreted this as a serious content dispute, then began making his own suggestions for quite extensive changes. I have no idea why. It has made me reluctant to get involved in DRN again.


 * I wouldn't want it to discourage you from helping at DRN, though. Good volunteers are needed there. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
My appreciation to you for the great work you do in Wikipedia. I want to help the work you do and not discourage you. I am trying to find answers and figure out solutions for all the problems you reported. A big thank you for your contributions.

Magioladitis (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC) 

Since all the job in AWB is done voluntary we do not have a schedule of when any changes will be done. GoingBatty and I provided you some solutions (use of comments, deny tags, etc) till we can figure out a better solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, that's very nice of you and it has made me feel a lot better. I hope we can get something sorted out that satisfies everyone. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Free will
A bit sad about brews but I couldn't see any alternative. Meanwhile, I am going to attempt a tidy up of the main article, pushing some of the detail down to sub-articles and adding material that was omitted. Odd that the article hardly mentions Augustine and Anselm, who more than anyone else were responsible for informing the ideas of the later medieval world about free will and sin and so on. Any help appreciated. Peter Damian (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See also Two-stage model of free will Peter Damian (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Giuliano Mignini Article
Dear Slim Virgin, I know you were involved in the past with writing the article on Guiliano Mignini.

Just today a user Salvio backed up by an adminstrator Berean Hunter  who immediately locked the page have deleted an entire neutrally worded sourced section describing the role of Prosecutors in Italy from the article.

This makes no sense to me, and i was hoping we could get your eyes on the article and these actions if you have time.

Thank you so much, 109.145.67.105 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation
About your comment here, where you wrote "(and as you don't seem opposed to COI editing, that perhaps won't concern you)". This is misrepresentation of pretty much everything i have said and done in Wikipedia. Per WP:TALKNO and with the original bolding, Do not misrepresent other people. Please strike that. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it difficult to work out what your position is, so perhaps you could say here whether you oppose COI editing. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am so not engaging with you. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will point you to this and this and this, which are coherent and clear. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you mind if I move this back to WT:COI? There's no need to hold a separate personal exchange here. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * you asked me a question, i replied. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't reply. I still don't know whether you oppose COI editing. In any event, I'd appreciate it if we could continue this discussion on WP:COI, not here. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * if your question here were authentic and you really wanted to understand what I think about COI, you would have read the diffs and asked me about anything that wasn't clear to you. Instead: nothing. So OK i will spoon feed it to you. Yes I oppose COI editing.  And as expressed in the three diffs (and in my work here) dealing with COI in the Wikipedia that actually exists is not a simple, black and white thing. with regard to the conversation at WT:COI- as i wrote there, i will not continue a discussion with someone who lies about me.  Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I asked you twice not to continue the discussion here. This habit of splitting off and personalizing leads to a forest fire of conversations, increases the heat, and hugely increases the time spent. It's far better to keep things in one place. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, if you really cared what i think about COI, you would be actually dealing with what i have written in those diffs somewhere instead of constantly ducking it. I do understand the game of making a simple story and telling it over and over: I see that you are doing that. Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

and i will repeat what i wrote one last time: please strike your misrepresentation of me. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and i will add that your personalization of your apparent disagreement with the existence/structure of the RfC is what led to me posting here Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

My ANI and closure
Hi Sarah. Sorry to be asking for your time again. I recently raised an ANI here which boomeranged on me very badly. An admin closed it based on the criticisms of my behaviour rather than the ANI I raised. This is my first question - can an ANI be closed on the basis of the OP's behaviour, rather than the actual subject of the ANI? The closure was extremely quick - I think the ANI ran for 48 hrs if that. The admin closed with a topic block on me of "human biomedical articles" on my talk page, but on the ANI page this was only "biomedical articles". This was contested on the closing admins talk page by a highly involved editor and the result was a severe broadening of the scope to, "biomedical topics, broadly construed". Is such a huge change of mind allowed after an ANI has been closed? The closing admin is now reverting my own talk page which I have been trying to edit to show that there has been a change of decision by this admin - they appear to be hiding that they made a mistake! DrChrissy (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DrChrissy, I've left a note on the closing admin's talk page. I'd like to ask you to consider something. It would be easier for me to go to bat for you if I knew that you really were an animal behaviourist (or whatever your speciality is), so I was wondering whether you'd consider emailing me your ID. If you don't want to do that, you don't have to explain why not; in fact, don't feel obliged even to refer to this request. I'll make representations to Beeblebrox whether you do or not. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah...having a few problems sorting out email on wiki - I have never done it before. Please be reassured I am an animal behaviouralist - if 60+ publications in international peer reviewd journals and 20+ years as a lecturer in Animal Behaviour in one of the UK's top 6 Universities counts.  Will get my ID to you asap.  Thank you so much for your help in this absolute madness. DrChrissy (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia lots of publications and a professorship get you absolutely zilch. Believe me, I know. Or don't believe me, and look at the Arbcom cases where the committee has banned established scientists. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , DrChrissy has been banned from a topic without clear consensus (there was barely a mention of animals), in an area where she's a subject-matter expert and has edited without problems. I've never known an academic to be topic-banned in those circumstances. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point was that expertise, per se, gets you nothing here. If his edits in other areas were not problematic that's a good argument but it has nothing to do with his expertise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In the AN/I thread, I supported a topic ban but didn't specify its breadth (trusting the "community" and the closing admin to work that out). I guess I should clarify. I do think that a topic ban from human medical topics and alt-med is warranted. I didn't see any evidence to suggest that a topic ban from animal or veterinary medicine was necessary, and I think it's reasonable for DrChrissy to continue to edit veterinary and animal articles. I hope he's permitted to do so; I don't support a topic ban from animal articles so I shouldn't be included in any vote-counts to that effect. (As an aside, like Boris, I'm a bit bemused by the idea that academic qualifications, expertise, or a university professorship carry any positive weight on Wikipedia, although I wish they did, partially for selfish reasons. My own experience is better summed up by #4 on this list and its associated footnote). MastCell Talk 16:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , thanks. I'm thinking of posting an AN/I about the ban covering animals, though there are some issues I want to think about first. I'm laughing out loud at #4. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as Langston Hughes said (or maybe it was Madonna), we laugh to keep from crying. MastCell Talk 16:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @MastCell Thank-you for taking the time to compose and post your clarification - much appreciated. (I also like #4!) DrChrissy (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've filed the AN/I to discuss the ban. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hi, that's a very nice thing to say, and I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I'll second that. Your work in the COI page has been awesome. Coretheapple (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll third that...thanks Sarah! :) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and, thank you both for this. It's extremely kind, and I hardly know what to say. Bobo, I hope you're managing at Mattress! I see it made it to the graduation ceremony. I had to laugh at Columbia's request: "Graduates should not bring into the ceremonial area large objects which could interfere with the proceedings ..." :) Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That was funny. Only allowing protected edit requests has really calmed that page down, but I'm concerned things are going to go right back to being a BLP violation mess when the protections lifts tomorrow. I worry the BLPN consensus that it's ok to name the accused student, if his defense is fully presented, is going to be misinterpreted to mean it's ok to add out of context texts Sulkowicz reportedly sent him prior to the incident such as "fuck me in the butt" with no explanation that she said this was an expression freshman year to mean "I'm so annoyed".  I fear all hell is going to break lose tomorrow and it's going to be a BLP nightmare, but I hope I'm wrong.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've left a message here for FPAS, the protecting admin. It wouldn't hurt to let him know you're concerned too. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I too late? Gandydancer said it well, and it needed to be said. I recently became aware of a very problematic group of articles with strong pov and entrenched, committed editors manning the talk pages, preventing any change. I thought it a lost cause, but Sarah, you came immediately to mind as the one person on WP who could have some success; I've seen you do the impossible before. (It's only because I like you that I haven't yet asked for your help - it's an ugly situation that almost seems better off left festering - but you let me know if you get bored one day, yes?)
 * Thank you for your continued diligence.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   09:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you. I'm not sure I'm up for an editing challenge at the moment, and your point about not having asked me because you like me doesn't make it sound that inviting. :) Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not. You made a good call ;)   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Email
Hi SlimVirgin, Please email me at mailto:scott.perry@wikipeneditorsguild.org re that targeted hack attack article recently placed in your wikispace, when you get a chance. This is time sensitive. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Scott, if there's a link that needs to be removed, by all means let me know here (or remove it yourself). Or you can drop me a note by email using this link. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI ping
I saw as I was reading the ANI related to DrChrissy that you had pinged me. This ping did not come thru to me. I don't know why, but I thought that some of the others that you pinged may not have received it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks. I saw someone else mention that. I don't know what to do about it, because I don't want to risk pinging people twice. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if perhaps it was due to the box you put them in? It doesn't seem that should affect it but it is possible.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I collapsed them afterwards, so it wouldn't have made a difference (and shouldn't anyway). Can you let me know whether you get this ping: ? Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I got that ping.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I mistyped your name first time. I'll go back and check for typos. It's fiddly to post lots of pings, especially when people (like me!) have sigs that don't match their names. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder
I wonder if you would take a look at WP:Biomedical information and add/change/remove/fix whatever you can. IMO we'll never get MEDRS applied to its correct subject (i.e., to all of the things it should be, and none of the things that it shouldn't be) until we have a really good understanding about what is "biomedical" and what is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'll take a closer look at that tomorrow. It's a very good idea to have it, so thanks for creating it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Have I breached my ban?
Yikes! I have just been editing the Dog meat page and I have just realised dogs are sometimes eaten for medicinal purposes. I did not know this! Please believe me, I am not trying to test the limits of the ban, I was first drawn there by an RfC regarding the gory nature of the lead image. My edits to the article do not relate to human medicine, but is there a possibility this might be interpreted as alt.med? DrChrissy (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, editing that article doesn't breach your ban. If you were to write: "eating X is regarded as a cure for human disease Y, and it works," that would be a breach. But you could edit bile bear, I think, without problems. You can report that this is done because people believe X; just don't make human-health claims for it yourself (which I know you wouldn't do anyway).


 * Try not to worry about it so much because otherwise you won't enjoy your editing. Act in good faith, avoid obvious breaches, and things should be okay. If you make the occasional minor error that was clearly unintentional, reasonable people will understand. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers! DrChrissy (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
I am asking you to clarify or remove your claims. Please respond Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You are mentioned in the thread here. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Hi, thought I'd point out here that the comment at the KK87 AN/I thread attributed to Sarah actually links to a comment (with the same thread title) I once made on KK87's page, . I'm not sure which you meant to link, but thought I'd mention it. Sorry Sarah for jumping in here, but this is better than jumping in over there. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 20:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, the Curse of the Errant Diff strikes again. Thanks for letting me know. I'll see if I can amend it without disrupting things too much. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Funding, flagging
Hi Sarah,

It seems obvious that if funding of studies isn't mentioned in MEDRS, that needs to change. Otherwise, we may be slipping propaganda or falsities to our readers. I am hoping a discussion would be moved from the HFCS article to address this at the proper venue. If I were more well-versed in these aspects of WP, I'd start a thread myself, but this is not an area with which I'm very familiar.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of starting a thread, but if you or someone else wants to, please do. It's something we should definitely address, perhaps per FRINGE that independent sources are preferred, especially for anything contentious, or that industry sources should at least be flagged as such. It's not only funding that's at issue; it's also ghostwriting and the second is regularly found with the first. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be curious what that discussion yields. that was part of MEDRS before I joined WP. i have been meaning to go back into the archives to see what gave rise to it. i'll probably go back and look for that over the weekend. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, Jytdog, please find in the archives the discussion you mentioned last night at Genetically Modified Food. It appears you missed my request.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarah, this is me encouraging you to go ahead (and with apologies that I'm of little help). "At least flagged" is a good starting point (and reminds me so much of the initial BP discussions).   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   20:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific publishing if someone is going to approach the topic with this attitude. It is a rather large problem that non-scientists fall for the funding source fallacy so often or call such studies not independent while completely missing the multiple layers used to make the study independent. If a discussion is opened, that might be a good opportunity to actually strengthen the guideline instead by describing a bit more why a source should not be excluded because of funding source alone. Seems few are aware of the vast differences between industry-funded vs. industry-performed studies if this question of funding source keeps coming up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There's an academic literature about the problems funding and ghostwriting cause, so we should follow what it says. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, this will give editors more freedom to disregard sources and shape Wikipedia article content away from the real world mainstream consensus and closer to their own personal worldviews and conspiracy theories, sources notwithstanding. I think that's an especially bad idea, personally, regardless of what some academics that are not at all familiar with Wikipedia's special problems may say about it. This is not just an encouragement for editors to leave little notes by sources they don't to inform the readership about how Chevron runs the world, it's a re-definition of NPOV, and anyone that likes the idea that Wikipedia's information content is (supposed) to be a perfect mirror of what informed majority opinion in the real world thinks about things won't be able to support this. Geogene (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your theories are not as interesting to read as you may believe. Facts are much more appropriate for WP talk pages. From Scientific Fraud is Rife (Guardian 2012)


 * "A recent paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that since 1973, nearly a thousand biomedical papers have been retracted because someone cheated the system. That's a massive 67% of all biomedical retractions. And the situation is getting worse - last year, Nature reported that the rise in retraction rates has overtaken the rise in the number of papers being published.


 * This is happening because the entire way that we go about funding, researching and publishing science is flawed."    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   18:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarah, this seems related and I wondered if I could get your take on a source. A Wikipedia page (and WP in general, though subtly) is called out specifically for misrepresenting science and using skewed studies, which is obviously a grave concern. Thanks,    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)  just in case    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll take a look at that tomorrow. It's an issue I've never involved myself in, so it would be hard to judge, but I will definitely look. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another ping typo: . Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sarah. I think my question is whether the publisher and peer review process meets our standards, not about the GMO's, so I think your un-involvement in the GMO issue is actually desirable.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   03:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I took a look, but I won't be able to judge the weight to give it, compared to the other sources, without doing quite a bit of reading. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand. Do you have a feel for whether it meets our standard for reliability? Logically speaking, claims that this is a biased source don't make sense. Half of the scientists were actually pro-GMO, and the conclusion after 300 had weighed in was not anti-GMO at all. In fact, they said there is no support for claiming GMOs are dangerous.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   22:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I would want to see where and by whom the journal is published, who the main signatories are, what their affiliations are, and whether the statement has gained secondary coverage. Then I'd want to read the sources the WP article uses for its consensus statement, and whether there are points of agreement between those sources and the new statement. I don't feel I could give an opinion before I'd done some of that reading. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that all makes sense too. From what I can ascertain, the publication received wide coverage outside of the U.S. It seems to be directed at Wikipedia's articles on GMO safety, specifically. It also seems in every way to be the epitome of an independent review, and its conclusion is what I would expect - "no consensus". it is not being suggested that anything be added to WP from this document, rather, the document refutes the statement made all across this website, namely that "There is broad consensus that GMO foods are no less safe than conventional foods". The document does not claim GMOs are dangerous, but points out a miriad of sources that make WPs claim impossible. They list studies that have shown harm which have not had proper follow up. They note that international food safety agencies do acknowledge that we do not know whether these foods are safe, and make regulations based on this fact. These regulations and their stated justification is public record, and it is hard to argue that a consensus exists. I address this in better detail here.
 * I feel it is time for WP to wake up to how it is being used to promote this unsupported claim that is a product of OR/SYNTH (there is no RS that supports our use of the claim - instead we have a string of 18 sources that the reader and other editors are supposed to survey to see if the WP editors got it right), especially after being called out by a large group of scientists. At this point we knowingly have our head in the sand, or are advocating for GMOs. I might see whether ArbCom finds his compelling, though as a volunteer who just wants to enjoy some sun, the amount of work involved in such a case makes this unlikely.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For further clarity on how this OR/SYNTH arose, gives a simple blow-by-blow here.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

German Trejo
Hi there. Thanks for taking care of the page protection. As it happened, you arrived moments after another IP editor whitewashed the page. If the old, consensus version looks better, would you mind restoring it? I can't do it since the page is set to admin-only, and the IP vandals aren't really coming to the talk page or otherwise acting as though their edits are being made in good faith. (There was one guy who seemed to be making an effort, but I haven't heard from him since we went offline four months ago .) Thanks, — Bdb484 (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Bdb, I've posted something on the talk page. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kashmir window
You removed the CSD in anticipation of further discussion. All the participants on the talk page except yourself, Drm310 (who also requested a G8) and a couple of bots were puppets of Kashmirwindow and have been blocked. Please proceed with the deletion. Bazj (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, Bazj. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RudolfKastner1.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:RudolfKastner1.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Copelandnail.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Copelandnail.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)