User talk:WikiLinuz/Archive 2

A really small request.
WIth the greatest respect - could you review WP:CIVIL.

I think it might help you and prevent a lot of challenges in complying with WP:NICE

Please do not comment on my talk page regarding any compliance issues you perceive or think you perceive - you are not an administrator and the behavior is well documented and noted by many others.

As are your dismissive not constructive reverts. With respect, this seems to be your only contribution, not adding any clarity and stating it is not constructive is not helping build an encyclopedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CIVIL&redirect=no

Please do not waste other editors time by being dismissive nor complying with this core founding pillar of Wikipedia.

I politely ask that you read this before any comments on editors talk page - it is very hostile and disruptive.

I know you respect my wishes on this matter.

Kind Regards and with civility and respect - Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 03:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Obsessive–compulsive disorder edit
FYI. Dmfennell just made another significant edit to Obsessive–compulsive disorder. I do technical edits (mostly CS! errors and warnings) and will wait so that my edits do not interfere. I did not want to put this message on the article's talk page.User-duck (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Request to admins
I think that the request to admins was appropriate, but the measure of an indefinite ban was too harsh, I asked admins to change the time of the ban from indefinite to a short-term at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:BeingObjective Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The admins know what they're doing. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 23:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Request
WikiLinuz, As an experienced user who is au fait with difficult topics such as Aryan Race as well as Wikipedia's internal structure, such as our noticeboards, may I request that you take a look at Fringe theories/Noticeboard and offer your viewpoint? The opinion of a third user would be particular beneficial to Talk:Black Irish (folklore). Thanks, CeltBrowne (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review
I am a Wikipedia contributor who has nominated several articles for Good Article (GA) status, which is a quality assessment for Wikipedia articles. However, some of my nominations have been pending for months without any progress or review. I attempted to help out by reviewing other articles myself, hoping to clear the backlog and make my nominations more visible, but it was not a satisfying experience. I would appreciate it if you could help me out and review one of my GA nominations that you find most suitable for GA. This would inspire me to write more articles or enhance the existing ones that are not yet up to GA standards. I feel discouraged when my nominations are ignored for so long. :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Explanation of reverts
Hi WikiLinuz. This is just to answer the question that you asked in this edit summary. I was blanket reverting all edits made by a sockpuppet IP of globally banned editor Belteshazzar, in line with WP:LTA/BTSZ. Belteshazzar is an extremely prolific sockpuppeteer who very rapidly makes a mixture of innocuous edits and edits pushing weird personal POVs. It isn't really tenable to check every single one when he has multiple sockpuppets doing this almost every week. His ban means that he should not be editing at all, even if not all of his edits are bad. The innocuous edits are mostly done to try to cover his tracks but it is absolutely fine for you, or anybody else who is not banned, to reinstate any of those edits that are actually improvements. Unfortunately, doing this can attract his attention. Please be aware that he might misinterpret your edit summary as supportive of his ongoing sockpuppetry and might try to canvas you hoping for help. He has tried to canvas other editors on several occasions. If you get any weird IPs asking for help, complaining that they have been reverted but carefully avoiding saying why, then that might be him. Please be extremely cautious of any such messages. DanielRigal (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * First of all, the "global ban" happened because of something I didn't actually do; a user reported receiving harassing emails, and somehow it was concluded that I sent them. I didn't. I've only emailed one Wikipedian, once, and it wasn't him. As for "weird personal POVs", everything I've done is well-founded, except maybe regarding eyesight. Unfortunately, valid sources don't quite make the necessary connections, at least in regards to the Bates method specifically. Porter and Jick was of interest to me because it shows how that kind of thing can happen in medicine. I substantially improved that article, but this has been repeatedly reverted for reasons that have nothing to do with actual content. Mark Geragos is a more straightforward example, and in that case I'm surprised it hasn't been fixed. 117.2.238.136 (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation and for filling me in. (It looks like there's already an IP editor here, lol). -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 17:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey
I noticed you have been editing some health-related articles recently; thanks for that work. I wanted to let you know that a bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You're welcome to join us if that's an area of editing that interests you. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put the group's page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

talk page of Cultural Appropriation
You deleted my post on the Talk page, and rightly so. My paragraph lacked my actual point, where I propose that accusations of "cultural appropriation" need to be done carefully, not just accusing people based on one's perceptions. I will not restore my post on that page. Pete unseth (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it isn't about the article - you posted your personal anecdote/opinion, WP:NOTFORUM. For the alternate concept, see Cultural appreciation. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 18:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice
Hello, I forgot to ping you in a talk topic. Please see: Talk:Amphetamine Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Modifications Recently Reverted
Good day, I edited the end of the paragraph just because it mentioned that Races "are among the most damaging elements in the human experience both today and in the past" So Rhetorically if it's something known to be "damaging" in the past and modern world, Why not ban the use of it to reduce or end the damages it caused or will cause in the future. That's just common sense in my opinion. If you don't do anything to stop something known to be hurting, it will continue creating problems for future generations unless you guys are okay with it do it so which I don't mind because it definitely won't be a surprising thing.

Best Regards,

Andil Fatokinsi Andilfatokinsi (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 19:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Responded. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey WikiLinuz, hope you are doing well,can you please tell me why my changes are reverted even though i added the source link in reference page. KapilBhardwajWiki (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edits were reverted because you did not cite reliable source to substantiate your additions. GeeksForGeeks website is not a reliable source. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * can you please tell me, how can i identify what source is reliable KapilBhardwajWiki (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RELIABLE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I posted a welcome message with a list of links to Wikipedia policies; please go through them. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 05:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help KapilBhardwajWiki (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing a reference
Hi. In this edit you removed a reference. Please add a reference for your new content. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification of Dispute Resolution
Hi there, to help reach article consensus on a matter you are involved in, I have requested a dispute resolution here: Dispute resolution noticeboard Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

History of LSD
You deleted my contribution to the History of LSD page without much justification. I believe it was valuable and reasonably backed and of reasonable extent. Please discuss with me on Talk:History_of_LSD what you exactly consider to be issue and how we can resolve our opinion differences. Barvinek (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Edits to the Bipolar Page

 * Hi WikiLinuz,
 * I spent several hours making edits to the bipolar page, and you removed them less than three hours later without making any effort to contact me to resolve our disagreements beforehand. In your message notifying me of their removal you called them "disruptive" but provided no reasons for why you felt that way. My edits did not remove any of the previous content, they were elaborating on things that were already there based on very basic knowledge of bipolar disorder that is well understood among the psychiatric and bipolar communities. My edits sought to make the jargon approachable for the general populous, which is the whole point of Wikipedia, as well as to provide context to problematic stereotypes, especially under the extremely outdated prognosis section.
 * Was the issue simply a matter of citations? I initially did not include citations as my edits were mostly making the current content understandable to a widespread audience and added content was very basic and widely understood among psychiatric and bipolar communities. However, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I understand that citations might be required more on Wikipedia than in other circumstances. I'm happy to revert my edits and add citations to them, if that would resolve this dispute.
 * If I don't hear back from you here I'm happy to open a forum the articles talk page as requested, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond more privately first.
 * Best,
 * Cjallen26 (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot add original research. We also do not water down a topic just because something upsets some people; Wikipedia reports facts based on WP:SECONDARY, reliable sources. Medical articles have its own criteria, see WP:MEDRS. You cannot add your own theories or things you consider well understood among the psychiatric and bipolar communities without substantiating it.I initially did not include citations as my edits were mostly making the current content understandable to a widespread audience and added content was very basic and widely understood among psychiatric and bipolar communities - the WP:BURDEN to provide citation lies on the editor who added/restored a material. You must provide citation while adding it. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 22:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and your clarification. I was not asking you to provide the citations, I can easily find sources for the vast majority of the things I added and am happy to not re-add the few things I cannot. None of these sources would be my own personal research, as I do not have degrees in psychology or psychiatry. I believe this should resolve your concerns about original research and those you outlined in the second paragraph.
 * The only remaining dispute would be your concern about "water[ing] down a topic just because something upsets some people." I'm a little confused where you came to the conclusion that this was what I was doing. My explanation of what psychotic paranoia is like to those experiencing it is much more upsetting to a general audience than the cartoons explaining it on the current page. If you are referring to my edits to the prognosis section, I am confused as well. I left the current prognosis section intact simply with the clarification that this was for those who do not follow treatment plans. I then added a section for what many people who do follow their treatment plans can expect. When providing information on a disorder, health condition, injury, or disease, it is standard practice across any health or information site to look at both the untreated and treated prognosis. I understand that the medications to effectively treat bipolar disorder were only approved in 1970 in the United States, and even with the medication early treatment plans were severely flawed. Therefore, evidence of successful long term prognoses for medicated people are a relatively new concept, and the writer of the current section may not have found the updated studies when writing the section. I, however, have the sources showing the updated prognoses and am happy to add them. While the updated evidence is most certainly less upsetting to bipolar people and their families than the old evidence used on the current prognosis page, using outdated information to make something more upsetting than it actually is goes against the idea of "reporting facts" you described.
 * I hope this proposed solution resolves things. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Cjallen26 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears as though this dispute has now been resolved. I will add my edits back, excluding the ones that I do not have sources for immediately on hand. If you have any other concerns, please let me know shortly. In the event you miss this message prior to me adding my edits back and do have further concerns, please send me a message prior to removing any edits.
 * Thank you,
 * Cjallen26 (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

AFDs
Hello, WikiLinuz,

I noticed that you filed quite a few AFD nominations and have subsequently withdrawn many of them. We are currently facing a shortage of editors participating in AFD discussions so, please, do a thorough BEFORE when considering nominating an article for deletion and only nominate articles that you feel shouldn't be on the project. Articles that are just marginal can usually be improved through editing and better sourcing so shouldn't be nominated for deletion. I close a lot of AFD discussions and I've seen the number of participants decline over the past 12-18 months so I'm trying to encourage editors who nominate a lot of articles to be more selective and not flood the AFD daily log with lots of AFDs that will just be closed as Keep, withdrawn or No consensus. Let's focus on the truly unacceptable articles!

Thank you for your contributions to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I opened up a bunch of AFD that I initially thought should be removed; I skimmed through the sources so fast that I missed the ones that'd help keep the article around. That's an error in judgment on my part, sorry. I did a careful BEFORE for the AFDs that are currently open. Thank you, -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 07:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)