User talk:SoyokoAnis/A2

Welcome to my Talk Page! If you need to contact me do it here. Otherwise, email me.

'''This is an archive of a talk page. Please don't edit.'''
 * Archive

If bolded than it means we're on that current page. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6

User:SoyokoAnis/Prodigy (online game)
Page is undeleted and in your user space. Please copy what you need and then make with delete and it will be cleaned up. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * have you got this text? Can I delete this page now? — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. You can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoyokoAnis (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you intend for Soyoko to turn around and just copy it to a new draft, Draft:Prodigy (online game)? -- ferret (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to try to improve it. I don't want to give up on it. Also, why do you keep looking at my contributions? SoyokoAnis  15:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you have repeatedly crossed my watchlist with edits that required reverting. When an editor has constantly required correction, I tend to monitor for a few days. -- ferret (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. SoyokoAnis  19:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the article is to be deleted (SoyokoAnis: I said this to you). The community has had this conversation, it has been through draft on a number of occasions and it is not considered notable by the criteria. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Both deleted. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit on oil pulling
Hello - on my talk page, you said: ''I have read a situation that appears to involve you and Jimvanm. You warned this user for adding quackery material on the Oil pulling article. Now, this is just my opinion, others may think differently. I don't understand how this is quackery. I think the issue is a systemic bias against the topic. I still consider myself a new editor but I feel as you could've helped contribute to what they wrote instead of deleting and reverting it. I apologize if I sounded disrespectful or unkind. On the other hand, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.''

Thanks for your comments. The practice of oil pulling is clearly quackery as are other practices of traditional medicine, well indicated in the right information box entitled alternative medicine. With this edit, which was disputed twice by me and another experienced editor, presented a case that research published in the two journals mentioned should be accepted as credible, despite neither article being a quality review and neither journal being indexed in Medline, which Wikipedia uses as a screen for general acceptability in the scientific community. If you review the history of the article, I and other editors have a long-standing involvement in retaining science for the article by defending against quackery.

This is the Medline summary for the Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine for your reference. Jimvanm misunderstands that a Medline statement by the NCBI is not an endorsement or actual publication by the US NIH, but rather is only a catalog listing in PubMed, having no endorsement about journal quality or publication accuracy. For Wikipedia articles on human health, we rely on WP:MEDRS as a sourcing guide on quality, which disqualifies JTCM and IJDR as not having the reputation or history of quality to use as references for the encyclopedia. Jimvanm's editing history also does not seem to be grounded in medical writing, so perhaps it is best that this editor sticks to their expertise. You can respond here on your talk page, if you wish. Zefr (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While you may not know that topic well enough doesn't mean they don't understand or know what is going on. SoyokoAnis  18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Very minor nitpick
With your custom user boxes, you've misspelt anniversary (it's two Ns). Other than that, nice start :) Remagoxer (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for taking interest in my userboxes! Apologies for the mistake I'll change them immediately. SoyokoAnis  19:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Slow down
Hi SoyokoAnis! I'd suggest slowing down and getting a handle on our policies and guidelines before jumping into recent changes patrolling. Looking at some of your recent edits: Remember that you are responsible for every edit you make, even if you're simply restoring edits made by someone else. If you restore sexist commentary in an article, then you can get warned and blocked for that sexist commentary. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You removed a non-notable person from a list, which is good. But you also restored a non-notable person to a list, which is not.
 * You restored a "reference" of Although he whines and complains the whole time.He even punks out on the coach who was trying to help him by taking off workout gear and throwing it and yelling like a sissy, which is not a ref at all.
 * Oh my. Apologies for that. I didn't even see some of those edits. Thanks for alerting me. SoyokoAnis  22:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not tag any more articles for CSD, PROD or cleanup tags. You don't appear to know what the various tags mean or when to use them, especially about Speedy deletion criteria. Additionally, this was not vandalism. That doesn't mean you cannot revert it, but you should not label edits as vandalism unless it's clear and obvious. To give the IP an 4im warning over that edit is grossly inappropriate. You are very quickly approaching the point where your editing becomes disruptive and you could find yourself blocked. -- ferret (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But the articles I've tagged meet the criteria for those tags. I am trying not to be disruptive I may make some mistakes though. Just because something vandalized may not seem obvious doesn't mean it's not vandalism, the article Prison School is about boys. The vandalized part was when the user added a section about girls. Thank you for your help on spotting out my mistakes. I had also checked the IP users contributions and most of them were marked as vandalism. Thank you for your help on spotting out my mistakes. SoyokoAnis  01:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't. The CSD tags you applied were all wrong, and the cleanup tags you applied to the other article don't apply. "Under construction" is not even a cleanup tag, it's to be used when you yourself are working on major edits to an article. As for the manga, Prison School, it clearly has a prison related theme, so referring to the boys as "male inmates" is not strictly wrong, and definitely not vandalism. The IP didn't add any section about girls at all. That IP has some 20-25 edits with only 4-5 of them reverted, so they clearly aren't "most of them marked as vandalism", especially since we don't have a tag to mark edits as "vandalism". -- ferret (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, you tagged Chaudhry Muhammad Riaz as meeting 4 CSD criteria: No context = while the lead paragraph could be improved you can gather that the article is about a Pakistani politician. Patent nonsense = no? Vandalism = no? it’s an encylopedic article. Attack page = while there are some negative statements, some sourced, some not, it’s not solely written as an attack on the subject. SK2242 (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what happened. For the Prison School articles I misread it and I thought I saw female not male. For the user I thought I saw had vandalism I didn't read the Twinkle Docs. Apologies for causing this. I will try and review articles more thoroughly. SoyokoAnis  03:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop tagging stub articles as "Lead too short". We know they are stubs. That is why at the bottom of the article it notes what kind of stub it is (This is a stub about a politician, etc), and asks for help in expanding it. Stubs are already categorized, so do not need tagged. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But the lead is too short? SoyokoAnis  13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The LEAD is a summary of the article body, just as the article body is a summary of reliable sources about the subject. STUBs have very little content, so it's quite normal (and entirely appropriate) for them to have short leads. There are nearly 2.3 million articles with stub tags on the English Wikipedia. Editors who enjoy expanding articles will find them through their stub tags and expand them in time—including the lead—so manually adding them to cleanup projects is unnecessary. And that's if those articles can be expanded at all. Some subjects just don't have much coverage or they barely meet the threshold for inclusion and will never get larger than a few sentences. Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah okay.

TEMSA Safir
Hello, Please look at the history of the article(s) before CSD'ing them. I appreciate you weren't to know this was a redirect however by you CSD'ing the article you created more problems than needed. Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies. I'm sorry. I didn't know it was a redirect. I'll take that into effect before tagging articles. SoyokoAnis  13:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)