Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth

Puzzled

 * Moved from User talk:Scott.

You stated on my review page and then removed: "O noes, an actual scientist is identifying my many errors, whatever shall I do? PROTIP: if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Since you state that you are not a friend of AfadsBad (perhaps a crony would be a better description), how do you know he/she is a scientist? Or a biologist? And how do you know whether I am a scientist or what my educational background is? Answer to the last question: you don't, you are making assumptions without any factual basis. Has it occurred to you that AfadsBad doesn't know everything and might sometimes be wrong? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that you could reveal what your educational background and professional field are, and thus save people having to make estimations based on the quality of your editing? —  Scott  •  talk  21:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't choose to reveal personal information on the internet, and even if I did, I could be making a false statement. I will say though that my biological qualifications are higher than AfadsBad gives me credit for. I haven't done any harm to you so I don't see why you should start attacking me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you are not a scientist, and this is only based upon, as are the assumptions about your level of scientific education, your Wikipedia contributions to articles and your inability to correct errors pointed out to you. I think contributing bad science to Wikipedia is harmful to the project as a whole, and, therefore, it is harmful to members of the community who are here to build an encyclopedia. But I don't think you have to be a scientist to write science articles well for Wikipedia.
 * You are determined to shoot the messenger rather than correct your errors, and, as a community insider I don't doubt your ability to accomplish this. But even if you succeed in getting me banned for "harrassing" you by pointing out your science errors, all of your articles will continue to be a source of lowered accuracy for Wikipedia and require a large community effort to correct. The longer it takes to begin this, the worse the problem because your bad science is being copied to other Wikiedia languages, as you know, and to the web. The source of the bad science will ultimately be traced to your editing. I won't be the last person to point this out, as long as the bad articles exist. Even one of your fans pointed out how disappointed they were in your FAs and GAs.
 * This is a credibility issue for Wikipedia, that bad science articles were written, repeatedly identified, then allowed to remain on Wikipedia and continue being produced while the editor who attempted to correct them was first chased away from making corrections by you, the creator of the bad articles, then banned and attacked for pointing out the errors, an action initiated by you, the articles' creator. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or a social network? Wikipediocracy members seem to lean towards no credibility for Wikipedia, but I think the idea is worth supporting, and I think your science contributions are detrimenal to the project, and this makes them hamful to members of the project.
 * It does not matter if you are a scientist, if your articles are wrong and unsupported by their sources. It does not matter if I am not a scientist if I can read the sources you use and see your articles are not supported by them, as can other editors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC))
 * I was trying to communicate with Scott. As you have joined the discussion, I will point out that I asked you to explain where I was going wrong with my science articles on your talk page. Unfortunately, in your reply you made a fuss about the taxoboxes used in articles on Gastropoda and never pointed out my other errors. Now you have your chance on my editor review page. I await your comments with interest.


 * "... that bad science articles were written, repeatedly identified, then allowed to remain on Wikipedia and continue being produced while the editor who attempted to correct them was first chased away from making corrections by you, the creator of the bad articles, then banned and attacked for pointing out the errors, an action initiated by you, the articles' creator.'" That's a curious statement! I didn't know you had been banned, and I certainly never initiated such a ban. Tell me more! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your intentions do not hide well. I await your corrections of all problems mentioned on my talk page, in my blog, and on Wikipediocracy now that you bring them up. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Biologist/taxonomist required
Could someone with subject matter expertise please inspect the edit I've highlighted at User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup. Thank you. —  Scott  •  talk  16:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks OK to me, mostly just changing the wording, but I'm also not an expert on mammals. Still, the text is a fairly straightforward description of what is depicted on other Equuid phylogenies on WP and in the cited paper. HCA (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks HCA. —  Scott  •  talk  08:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Early and unexpected closure
It looks to me like the editor review was closed early and without notice by User Cwm. User Cwm review has stopped comments by doing this and promoted an automated message on her talk page that the editor review will be closed automatically after 7 days of inactivity; see bot message. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * People can close their editor reviews whenever they like, so there's no sense in which this is "early". It's also not at all unexpected, since closing it was discussed quite some time in advance. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse my ignorance, I did not know how editor reviews are closed. I was also puzzled about the bot message on User Cwm's talk page which I noticed a little earlier today. Thank you for informative reply. Snowman (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)