User talk:UseTheCommandLine/Archive 2

Marina Gardens
Hi. Can you clarify why you nominated this specifically for CSD (instead of, say PROD or AfD)? I don't think WP:CSD applies to physical buildings (they tend to survive owning companies coming and going), and a search for sources brings up a few hits, such as this one. There might not be enough for it to be notable, but I tend to prefer sending things to AfD - sometimes it turns out there are things in offline sources, or (more likely in this case) that the term is good for a redirect (such as Tourism in Dubai, perhaps). Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A cancelled building is not a building. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 17:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That link also looks like a press release. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 17:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

your removal of many links in the oncolytic virus article
I don't comprehend why you removed the external links in the oncolytic virus article to the companies doing research in this area-- Note that none of the companies you removed are selling the viruses commercially, so putting their links is not promoting any product. Indeed, the websites contain much frequently-updated information about ongoing clinical trials, and therefore they seem highly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.250.152 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

RfA
And the best of luck!!! I've not gone through your history, but at RFA, unless it's changed (I don't watch it), you will need to show that you can do everything, not just bash the ungodly, so you will be asked about content creation, how you have handled disputes etc... If and when you think you can satisfy the wolves, then go for it. Let me know if you do (that isn't canvassing, because I've asked you to do so.

Looking at the message above, reminds me that I meant to raise a point with you. I think sometimes your tagged articles are not unambiguously promotional. It's permissible to write about buildings and companies, and you need to sure of your ground. If an article has proper sources, is clearly notable, isn't created by an obvious COI editor like kmprops123, and doesn't have explicitly promotional text, it can't be speedied. I'm as deletionist as they come with regards to spam, but I do need to be able to point to problems.

With a company, this can simply be that it is describing only the products and not the company, but construction articles always describe their topic. If you can't highlight obvious spamming, consider AfD for notability or advertising or both.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, i dont think i want the mop per se. all i'm really looking for is to be able to look at deleted pages and histories. If that can be done with a specific permission, then that would be much better, in my view. I'm happy to leave the decisions up to others, i'm more interested in the research. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 09:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be harsh, but I think the number of people who have questioned your CSD calls, combined with your own assertion that "I don't think I want the mop per se" means I think your RfA will be closed per WP:SNOW if you ran it now. You need to have a track record of demonstrating exactly why you want the tools and that you can be completely trusted by the community to use them responsibly, since deleting and blocking in particular can permanently frighten users away unless done extremely carefully.


 * Now, having said all that, just because I don't think you're likely to get the mop now, it doesn't mean you'll never be in a position to get them. The first place to start is to have a look at Scottywong's admin score for yourself, which is here. As you can see, you've been marked down in some key areas, most obviously number of edits and articles created. While getting a good (over 500) score won't guarantee an RfA passes, you can probably assume that not having a good score will make it much harder to convince people to support you. Work on getting an article to good article status and watch your AfD stats to check you're making good calls on AfD - all it takes is for somebody to ask you "Why did you nominate San Patricio Plaza for deletion when a longstanding editor called it a ridiculous assessment" and you'll be in trouble. I think you're looking at least a year before you're ready.


 * Best of luck, in any case. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I guess, for the unsolicited advice? As you observed, I was not so much asking for the mop as a way to track down marketers etc. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see where you're coming from. It would be nice to unbundle the tools - I occasionally would like to approve obvious speedies or move stuff over a redirect, but I fear the blocking and vandalism fighting stuff would take over content work. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Multiple personal attacks. The edit summary is not a place to make personal attacks against editors. In this edit you commented ("please stay on topic" my ass)". In this edit, you lashed out at the editor for editorial disagreement: "(over the line, smokey)".In the first edit, you replied with personal attack in response to my polite, good faith request to stay on topic of discussion. Responding by making a personal attack, then shifting discussions and evading following up on original discussion is getting disruptive. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not place things on my talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 04:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, do not post here unless it is required in conjunction with e.g. a noticeboard posting. This includes warnings, comments about my or others' editing, or responses in the event we do have some further interaction on-wiki. FWIW, my edit summary in response to you was inappropriate and I apologize for it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 05:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

your concerns about lambda olive oil
I have updated the talk page of λ /lambda/ ultra premium olive oil. Please take my response into consideration. Thanks Tassosl (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hydrocodone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schedule III (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) 11:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Invention members' update
To post the following user box on your user page, copy, which creates:

Thanks for joining the project! Northamerica1000(talk) 08:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of links in oncolytic virus article
Yes, I had read your explanation in the history of your changes to the oncolytic virus article.

Again, I DO NOT see how links to the companies doing research on oncolytic viruses can be considered an "advertisement". NONE OF THE COMPANIES WHOSE LINKS YOU REMOVED ARE SELLING ANYTHING AT PRESENT. Nor have they asked the FDA to allow them to do so. When they have a product to sell then you may or may not consider links to their websites to be advertisements. Removing the links at this stage seems to be removing valuable content from the article without any purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.250.152 (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

New User Question
Hello UseTheCommandLine,

A few days ago, you left a courteous notice on my talk page about the conflict of interest policy, and requested/encouraged me to read it carefully in regard to the new pages I've created about Moffitt Cancer Center physicians in Oncology. I am very grateful that you brought this issue to my attention and I would like to know where the appropriate place would be to discuss the question of a COI on my part with community members. It didn't seem like the deletion discussion was really the proper place to discuss it, but I don't know who to bring it up with, and how to correct the many misconceptions that are being held about me in a way that doesn't look like I'm just defending the article. I want to seriously deal with this issue, as its own issue, mostly for the sake of my future involvement in the community.

Thank you for your help, Jcmeberhard (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey UseTheCommandLine. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your Recent Edits
Hi User:UseTheCommandLine:

I honestly wasn't aware that a blog could not be an official source, or that fraternity membership was relevant in some politicans' lives but not others. I thought it was an interesting fact to add and didn't know that it was inappropriate. I will no longer use this as a source. I also was not aware of WP:UNDUE. I will be more careful with my edits next time.

Lbr123 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I am definitely going to check out the links you sent me more thoroughly. I am mostly concerned about the yearbook thing, as I can't really see why it wouldn't be a reliable source. Obviously, yearbooks can make mistakes, but for the most part, students submit their own information to the yearbook, and the editors/printers just copy in what they write.  I absolutely understand the blog thing, I just thought that since it came from an organization whose job it is to oversee national social Greek organizations and their membership, I was surprised that that would be considered controversial.  I also understand why what I was doing could have been seen as linkspam.  I had just found the post, thought it was interesting and relevant, so I used it to add more information to each person's page.  I see that many politicians' pages list fraternity membership, but they are not cited at all, so I didn't think that a citation from the NIC would be an issue.


 * I will look into all of this more. What do you think?


 * Lbr123 (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I, as you probably are able to tell, am not interested in the nitty-gritty of policy things, and thought that any information I could add would be helpful. When I have more time to look into these things (I just began graduate school and already have numerous papers to write that I am putting off), I will definitely read more into the policies.  Your messages don't come off as condescending. I should have read the Wikipedia rules and policies before jumping into editing, but since no one had ever pointed my errors out to me until you did, I never thought there was anything wrong with them.
 * Lbr123 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

your concerns about lambda olive oil
Thanks for the page on conflict of interest policy I believe that all references on both λ /lambda/ ultra premium olive oil and Speiron pages come from reliable sources, they are still online and are not advertisements or promotion stuff.

Both articles are written in a neutral way as far as I am concerned.

What are the next steps for removing the banners from the pages? Please advice.

Thanks, Tassosl (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 9 September 2013 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Consider Good Faith First
You may want to consider assuming good faith per Wikipedia policy before hinting that I have some COI. I've never had a history of COI, just putting that out there. There are plenty of editors who would vouch for me and verify that I do good work on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, I followed Wikipedia policy, and while I haven't done an extensive literature review on acne vulgaris, I have no objections to other current review articles being included in the article to better complete it and balance it so it does not rely too heavily on the journal article I added today. I verified a lot of statements that were previously unverified on that page with a review article source. If you're not satisfied with that, by all means, add some additional review articles you deem suitable before criticizing what I've done. I do happen to be a medical student and have friends and family who are both DOs and MDs and respect them both regardless of the letters after their name. I see no good reason not to use the review article from a peer-reviewed journal used by Elsevier. If you can provide me solid, logic-based reasons per Wikipedia policy and demonstrate that I somehow inadvertently violated them, I'll willfully retract my edits and find other sources.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While I neve said I went there (ever consider the possibility of a family member or a friend going there?), I certainly can understand your concerns about COI regarding the Touro University California page. And yes, I do appreciate you going to my talk page to discuss this instead of such a public forum (I mentioned that on WP:Med as well, but we can move past that since we're now on the same page). Anyway, to address your concerns about prevention of injecting my own bias into the article, this is the precise reason why I have consulted other editors and had them assess the article. In the past, when I was actively editing that article, I had other editors work with me so that NPOV would be maintained. I think that's sufficient. If I'm not working on an article alone (and I do incorporate their suggestions, I do not ignore them, I am a Wikipedia editor who actually does work cooperatively with other editors), I'm not preventing others from making rational and sound edits to the page, and I strive to use reliable, objective, secondary sources whenever possible, I think that is demonstration enough that there is no issue of COI or bias/judgment problems interfering with my editing. As I offered on the WP:Med page, if you have specific concerns about the page, we can discuss it further on the Touro University California talk page and collaborate to ensure the article does not suffer from imbalance or POV. As I see it, I do not think it does and other editors have agreed, which I think says a lot. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I only mentioned it in the public forum because i noticed the proxied links. I should have taken it directly to your talk page instead, and i apologize for that. I do think that upon seeing proxied links that one can have reasonable suspicions about a connection to that institution, my experience has generally been that institutional policies are rather clear about prohibitions on the sharing of logins, and while it does happen, i think it's reasonable not to have that explanation leap to mind as a likely one.
 * And again, I feel like i've made some serious missteps here. I'm not even saying that the article is biased. I'm saying that regardless of if one's contributions to an article have been vetted, examined by other editors, etc, one should still disclose those conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and abide by the conflict of interest policies, including not directly editing the article. Because if we as active, engaged editors can't do that ourselves, how can we ask others to do so? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 05:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem with that is no one was editing the article at all until I came across it. I hear what you're saying, but I have been having my contributions vetted and have not displayed any signs of obstructionism when other editors have asked me to shift emphasis or seek out better/more objective sources. Much of the editing I did on that page was earlier in my Wikipedia editing days when I was still learning a lot about the Wikipedia environment. As for disclosing COI, I understand your point entirely, really, but when it comes to the internet, I'm not someone who will talk about their personal life on the internet. That's simply not going to happen. If that means there are some restrictions on my editing, then so be it, I'll jump through hoops if I must and have others check my work if there are such concerns, but I'm not going to divulge details about myself in such a public forum, that is non-negotiable I'm afraid as a personal privacy policy of mine. Also, I don't ask other editors to disclose their COI (even though, yes, I agree that they should), but ultimately, the bottom line is how did the article come out? If the article comes out NPOV, balanced, well-researched, etc. and no undue weight or injection of bias is present, can we really say that COI is a relevant issue then? I wouldn't think so. COI only seems to really manifest itself as an actual problem, as I see it, if it affects how articles are written. If articles are thoroughly vetted and other editors are used as a balance/check system, I see no issue.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand about the issue of disclosures, I am rather guarded myself. But saying "I have a potential conflict of interest with the topic of this article" and using does not require the disclosure of the nature of that relationship. It could really be anything, employment, student, family, connection, who knows. Certainly anyone can look at your edit history and see that you have a strong interest in this topic and garner the same amount of information as to your identity: a probable connection of some sort, whose details are opaque.
 * What you describe about the outcome is something that reasonable people can disagree on, but i strongly, strongly disagree with. This is one of the things that I think WP really fails at, to be honest, in saying that it's only important what the outcome is, and not the process. Process is incredibly important to the production of a meaningful and useful outcome. Without some control over process you have no way to prevent mistakes before they happen. This is why checklists in the surgical theatre, an innovation borrowed from aviation, have been so important, because it formalizes process and allows us to address our errors in judgement.
 * I think my language is important too; I merely asked you to clarify your potential CoI. "yes, I have one" or "no, i don't have one" are legitimate responses. I left it open-ended for a reason, because I do understand that people may be uncomfortable with giving out identifying information. But what is the alternative? People with clear and unambiguous CoIs deny them all the time, in my experience.
 * If nothing else, CoI disclosure is a part of academic norms. We might not be academics here, necessarily, but those norms arose for good reasons, and our missions are quite similar. If you have other ideas about how this can be handled in a way that benefits our readers by helping to ensure NPOV, et al, then I'm eager to hear them. But as of right now, asking for disclosure is pretty much all we got. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 06:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm certainly not disregarding the importance of process, we agree on that part, though ultimately I do think that the central outcome of a polished, balanced, well-researched article (the goal) is most important (again, not discounting the importance of process, I definitely hear your point). If COI disclosure requires nothing more than a generic disclosure as you have stated it and does not require disclosure of personal information that I am unwilling to share, then that is a different matter entirely. If you read my previous comment carefully, you'll see that I did indeed say that even though I personally have not asked other people about COI on Wikipedia, I do agree that editors should make potential COI issues known. I have no issue with using the edit request template you mentioned above in the future if my edits could potentially be construed as a "potential COI". Yes, I have a strong interest in the topic since, as I mentioned previously, I have family & friends who are DOs and MDs, and I have met many people who suffer from deep misconceptions about the DO and MD fields. Medicine is certainly a passion of mine. I would agree that, by definition, Wikipedia editors are not academics, certainly some are in real life, but I think the majority are not, though I admit I have no data to back that claim up. Overall, I do not believe that I have a potential COI since, as I mentioned before, I am not striving to push any particular agenda, I engage in meaningful conversation (just as we are doing now) with other editors when we disagree on matters and always work with them constructively to reach a solution that the Wikipedia community finds agreeable, but without compromising the integrity or skewing the message of the original information, and I have other editors (as part of my process) vet my work thoroughly to ensure that the article represents only the facts and is not an opinionated encyclopedia piece. The way WP:COI characterizes COI: "Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest." leads me to believe that I do not have a COI as I do not allow any personal feelings or passion I have about a given topic undermine the quality of the work I put into Wikipedia. Further evidence of that, I've yet to have editors accuse me of shoddy or biased work. Yes, I have had disagreements with editors before, but I always seek to solve them through the proper Wikipedia channels and I do not edit war, obstruct changes, etc. you get the point. I think we've reached an understanding, agreed? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say we've reached an understanding. thanks again for your willingness to talk this out, even in spite of my missteps in raising the issue. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 06:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, and if you ever need an extra set of eyes on an article, be sure to let me know. I enjoyed our conversation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A message from zictor23
I received a message recently accusing me of plagiarism in a number of my contributions. It has never been my intention to plagiarise any sources. Are there any additions I've made that you would like me to rewrite? Whenever I have added any information to Wikipedia, I have alwasy tried to put it in my own words. zictor23 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, this is not exactly an example of trying to put it in your own words. - DonCalo (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A message from zictor23
I will make sure that I take on board what you said. I would like to contribute more information to Wikipedia in the future, as I enjoy sharing my knowledge with others, and people have given me positive feedback on my additions. I hope that you understand that it is not my intention to copy what people have written word for word. zictor23 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Re. CoI and Moffitt
Although there was no immediately obvious request in your message requiring me to do anything, I have read between the lines and concluded you don't want me to be such a dick to Jcmeberhard, based on a now non-existent and more detailed analysis than I'm sure I could have provided and I also haven't read. So, consider it done. Lesion ( talk ) 23:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although superficially, it still looks like the Khaldoun Almhanna article should be deleted. Lesion  ( talk ) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

fyi
You'll probably spot it, but see Articles for deletion/Lambda (olive oil) DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your undo on The Clash page
Hi, the band's official site (http://www.theclash.com/gb/gigs (towards the bottom of the page)) link to the page I used as a reference (https://www.songkick.com/concerts/554827-clash-at-unknown-venue). The 2 day concert is also refered to here: http://www.setlist.fm/festival/1985/rock-in-athens-1985-63d69ab3.html These sources are not reliable ? The other link is a review of the whole concert from Greek music critics. OK, it's in Greek which can be ...difficult to read to most people. Tassosl (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read our policy on reliable sources. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 19:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to your notes on the IMS Health page
Hello UseTheCommandLine,

You've indicated that there may be a CoI on the IMS Health page due to the IP addresses coming from the company's network. The IP address source is accurate -- I work for the company and have made many updates to the page. I have been vigilant in ensuring that all information updated is not biased nor done in agency of the company's position or commercial prospects. Rather, it's to ensure that the latest information about the company is reflected and accurate. And it is not done as part of any PR activity (I do not work in the PR department). As this is not a very popular page, there aren't others at-the-ready continually vigilant that the content on this page is updated and accurate. For instance, when the company's HQ changed, I updated it to ensure accuracy. When a new ranking came out, I added it because it was newer and more relevant than the prior year's ranking. When executives change (i.e.., CEO, etc.), I update it so it's accurate. Same with # of employees, etc. And I consistently reference external and on-line sources when adding any new content that is relevant. I do not remove or stop others' inputs to the page -- I am not a guard... Rather, I work hard to be conscientiously working on behalf of the community due to my knowledge of the subject.

One area that does need updating on the page that is currently still outdated is the company logo (it's been re-done), but I have no idea how to update it.

Please advise as to what we can do to reduce or resolve your concerns about CoI and this page. One thing I read after I saw the warning is that I should post a talk item before updating to get some kind of buy-in on the updates. Is this the right path? Will there be any people interesting or knowledgeable enough to respond to such a talk request?

Thank you in advance for any information and guidance. 162.44.245.104 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First things first: Read the WP:COI policy, and although it's an essay, the WP:PSCOI plain and simple COI guideline.


 * Second: make an account, and please follow our WP:USERNAME policy. Specifically, "Bob from IMS" is acceptable, but "IMSHealth" is not. But the policy should make that clear.


 * Feel free to chat me up here afterwards. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine, I've done what you've requested. I'm not sure if this is how we continue the chat (i.e., by editing this area of your talk page?), but I'm trying it to see if this works. Thanks. Jon from IMS Health (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. What else would you like to know? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 18:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine, I've taken all the steps asked of me, and I think the IMS Health page is sufficiently within the CoI rules that were laid out. I've created an account that demonstrates transparency, and I will use the Talk page before adding/editing additional information to ensure the community is OK with the updates. I will continue (as I have in the past) only act as a quality editor to ensure the information is up-to-date and accurate. I have no interest other than keeping this page as accurate as possible. If this is all sufficient, can you initiative the removal of the CoI tag on the page, as I think it's been established and reviewed by peers that the page is in OK condition? Thank you. Jon from IMS Health (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there some way I or other editors can know whether these other IP edits coming from IMS health were you, or someone else?
 * If any of these edits were not you, what assurance do we as editors have that you will be the only point of interaction with WP? You've said you are not part of the PR department, and if I recall, this is something like a free-time project, so I don't know whether we can reasonably expect additional edits from elsewhere within your company. Perhaps you can clarify some of this, preferably on the article talk page and/or your personal talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 01:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine, I don't think I can assure you that no other IMS Health employees are editing the page, but what I'm presuming is that the various IP addresses are in fact me because IP addresses change all the time on our internal network. Is this the type of clarity you are looking for me to add to the page's talk page? Jon from IMS Health (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

vit c and cancer
The pharmacokinetic study and the reviews all suggest that intravenous vitamin c has effects that oral does not and should thus be reevaluated. This is noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine#Vit_C

My edit was not promotional, but it reflected the actual content of the articles, from notable sources, the conclusions of which specifically stated the view that intravenous vitamin c in the treatment of cancer be reevaluated.198.189.184.243 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * your edits looked to me like wp:synth, a policy you might want to take a look at. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 17:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

ad refspam as my contributions: I contribute to wikipedia out of good will. With taxpayer money I reserach medical topics and want to give the knowledge to the public. I am not glad that some see it as refspam. I made many edits that improve the topic. Please put you contributions to the topics (links to your articles) next to mine. Please explain for each link - how exactly they are spam before making such claim. --Sakaton (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

To UseTheCommandLine - I attempted to accurately reflect the content of the articles, as well as the phase I trials. Please tell me how I violated policy. You appear to be demonstrating lack of NPOV, as you are not accurately reflecting the content of the articles. Please at least suggest an improvement on the talk page.198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * , please do not comment here. Thank you. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 01:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello!
Any progress on that class? Just curious. I hope all is well! =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 10:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And random but do you happen to know why this might not have archived? Maybe it was me tinkering with the archive dates, but I'm assuming you've had other instances with your exact signature get archived (just in case it might be that)? Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 09:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Amen Clinic/Daniel Amen
Hi UseTheCommandLine. I did not remove the carlat reference from the Amen Clinic article. I completely edited the page and moved around the information for clarity. I also did not add or remove the carlat reference from Daniel Amen's article. I removed the merge request from both articles because each has separate news coverage and the articles don't overlap. I added a See Also section to each article to show that the subjects are related but articles are about different subjects. News Team  Assemble! [talk?]  04:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see the wired article now. was looking at the diffs.
 * Regarding the merge, perhaps discuss the merge request instead of removing it? There is really no content at Amen Clinic that requires its own article. And the Amen article certainly appears to have been substantially edited by someone associated with the clinic or Amen. (The picture of Amen is listed as "own work" by an editor who has made substantial contributions.) The GNG warning i can understand, since the article has survived the AfD process once. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 04:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey UseTheCommandLine, I can see where you're coming from about these articles. I agree that Daniel Amen's page could use some rewriting. Would you like to help me out? I'll go to the talk page before each edit. Let me know. Thanks, News Team   Assemble! [talk?]  01:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

consensus
I don't think the article got to be were it is at by consensus. Welcome to Wikipedia. Campoftheamericas (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Response on my talk page, please. Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-athon!
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on La Luz del Mundo
Hi !

I have created a To-Do list to improve the article on La Luz del Mundo. I have incorporated your suggestion to the list and would like to get your input on the list. The list can be found here: Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo. Thanks.  Ajax F¡ore talk 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Follow up from August 2013
This is a follow up to the dispute in August 2013 regarding the FDR block quote. Since then I've become aware of things regarding the block quote and Wikipedia policies and guidance that I wasn't aware of or overlooked earlier that month. Hopefully, you weren't aware either.

First of all, the FDR block quote is Original Research. The No Original Research Policy lists speeches as an example of a primary source.

Second, the quote violates policy on Neutral Point of View. The policy says "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." The subject on the New Deal and "charges" of fascism is heated now, it was certainly heated back in the 1930s.

Regarding quotations and NPOV, Quotations guidance states "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." The block quote has a rhetorical question. NPOV also means that including FDR's quote means permitting quoting other POVs, such as Roosevelt's private statements.

The third core Wikipedia policy is Verifiability. The block quote fails verification. It reverses the sentence sequence and uses the ellipse to conceal two changes of subjects. On page 49 of Fireside chat book, Roosevelt denies charges that he was violating constitutional rights. He then talks about his economic programs. On page 51 Roosevelt changes topics again and says that his programs were practical, not radical. The Manual of Style says "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." It further states "Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text." The block quote violates all of these rules.

The Quotation guidance states "Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false. See this example ([1]) at Phoenix, Arizona. There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles." I overlooked this in August, but it should go without saying that a false statement should be refuted, or removed.

I am right about the New Deal violating constitutional rights. That is why I mentioned the Schechter decision. After I was blocked Rjensen dropped by my talk page and wrote in part "That is completely false and one reason he got reverted by other editors. The Supreme Court never mentioned the Bill of Rights..." Rjensen was wrong on both counts. The Schechter decision specifically mentioned the Tenth Amendment. (It's true that violating the Bill of Rights isn't necessarily fascist, but it is the Roosevelt block quote that created that test, not me.)

I pointed this out at Rjensen's talk page. Pass3456 went and said that "obviously" Roosevelt wasn't referring to the entire Bill of Rights. Again, the exact opposite is true. Roosevelt told listeners to "read each provision" of the Bill of Rights. Rjensen and Pass3456 dominate the consensus on the New Deal. I can cite other claims they made that are equally fictitious. Everyone makes mistakes, but theirs are always in the same direction.

At the New Deal talk page there is a whole series of excuses for the block quote. The current one is that the Tenth Amendment doesn't protect individual rights, just the states'. The other is that the Supreme Court rejected the Schechter decision. When I have the time to resume the New Deal controversy I will easily disprove these claims, citing at least 10 experts on the constitution whose credentials can't be exceeded.

Incidentally, the editors of the Fireside Chat book say on page 46 that the "charges" of fascism were really warnings of "regimentation" and "cautionary comparisons" to European totalitarian governments. It is not fringe theory for the New Deal article to elaborate on the critics' points and show that FDR privately acknowledged radical influences. The block quote violates all Wikipedia core policies and well-established facts. It satisfies the criteria of fringe theory.

This weekend I will probably be challenging the block quote again. I think you are obliged to either help remove it or let me deal with it.

I am sorry for the length, but I wanted to fully elaborate on the problems with the block quote.

Regards.

P.S., there are other problems in the "charges" of fascism subarticle. Material is copied verbatim from Kiran Klaus Patel's book without quotation marks. A quotation from Patel's book is selectively edited to misrepresent findings by Patel and John Garraty. A quotation by Isaiah Berlin is from an editorial column, which is also original research.

LesLein (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Meetup in Vancouver, WA
-- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Geo-Mod
In September you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane WIR, please apply now
Those interested in applying should complete the online application form by 'Friday January 17th. Interviews with short-listed candidates will be held via webinar in late January or early February. The successful candidate should be available to start work in February or March 2014. Cheers and thanks! Ocaasit &#124; c 22:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia
Sorry about removing the deletion notice. I don't know how to use Wikipedia. The DVDASA article is the first one I attempted to contribute to Wikipedia. I tried to be as thorough as possible, but it ended up being an advertisement apparently. I don't have any ties to the show DVDASA. I made the majority of the edits in my free time. I don't know where to start on complying to the guidelines as Wikipedia is not that user friendly. Hashashash (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems unlikely, even assuming good faith. please do not comment further on my page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 02:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to an upcoming WikiWednesday meetup!
Hi UTCL, you are invited to come meet fellow wiki enthusiasts at WikiWednesday, a series of meetups for fans of Wikipedia, PortlandWiki, and wikis in general. If you are interested in attending, we will be meeting at NedSpace (619 SW 11th Avenue, Suite 250, at the corner of SW 11th and Morrison) at 6pm on Wednesday, May 21. You would be welcome to work on Wikipedia articles of your choosing, or other preferred wikis. I'll be there to help out. Hope to see you there! (Feel free to RSVP on my talk page or here.) -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014
Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014 by CFCF sign up for monthly delivery 

Feature – Ebola articles
During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!
 * Just some of our over 60 translations:


 * Xhosa
 * Northern Sotho
 * Zulu
 * Tsonga
 * Venda
 * Hausa
 * Igbo
 * Yoruba
 * Kinyarwanda
 * Swahili
 * Tigrinya

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page! We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed! Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * New roles and guides!
 * New sign up page!
 * Style guides for translations
 * Some more stats
 * In July, 18 full article translations went live ( WP:RTT ), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live ( WP:RTTS )!
 * We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! ( Find them here old sign up page )
 * We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
 * New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!
 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)
 You are invited!


 * Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm
 * Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming Art+Feminism events in Oregon
You are invited to participate in Oregon's upcoming Art+Feminism events, which will be held in Portland and Eugene on Saturday, March 5, 2016. Please see the following links for additional information, or to sign up: About Art+Feminism: Art+Feminism is pleased to announce its third annual Wikipedia edit-a-thon, an all-day event designed to generate coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia and encourage female editorship. Last year, over 1,500 participants at more than 75 events around the world participated in the second annual campaign, resulting in the creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 articles on Wikipedia. For more information, see Art+Feminism.
 * Portland: Yale Union (800 SE 10th Avenue), 12:00–5:00pm
 * Eugene: Architecture and Allied Arts (A&AA) Library (200 Lawrence Hall, University of Oregon), 12:00–5:00pm

You received this message because you have attended a Wikipedia meetup in Oregon or contributed to WikiProject Oregon. To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Art+Feminism @ Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (March 18, 2017)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon @ PNCA Library (April 29, 2017)
You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) Library at 511 NW Broadway on Saturday, April 29, 2017, from 11am to 4pm. For more information, visit the Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride at PNCA: Tuesday, June 27
You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color - Thursday, Oct. 26 at PNCA
On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon: Jewish Women Artists (March 8, Oregon Jewish Museum)
On March 8 (International Women's Day), the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education and artist Shoshana Gugenheim will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest articles to create or improve here. This event is free and open to the public, and will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participation is welcome in person and remotely (for those outside of Portland). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (March 10, Pacific Northwest College of Art)
On Saturday, March 10 (11am to 4pm), the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art, feminism, and women. You can read details on the Facebook event page, or this Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, childcare, and refreshments will be provided. Bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, you're welcome to stop by to show your support! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)