User talk:Natureium/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

reasons for posting on Wikipedia talk:Community portal

I posted to notify interested parties. I have to post in places that are refereed to on the relevant page. I did read what is at the top of the page and just assumed that what I was posting was related to the Community portal. If you look right here: Wikipedia:IRC it says "community portal" right on top. Since I want to modify that page, I assumed members would be interested. Maybe I made a mistake? Seahawk01 (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been told by other editors to stop posting the same things in multiple places. You already posted it on the IRC page (as well as other places). It does not need to be posted on the community portal as well. Natureium (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I was notifying other members. It is the same thing I do when working on an article...I look at the talk pages to see what Wikipedia projects might be interested, and then post at the project talk pages. So, I really disagree with you here and request you revert back and allow my original post. Also, please ping me if you reply here. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Seahawk01: I now understand your intention, but I will not reinstate your original post. All your posts are being centralized in one location where a discussion is already taking place. Natureium (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Natureium,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Eric Denton (musician), Natureium.

Unfortunately Insertcleverphrasehere has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

If you reviewed this article, please note that PRODed and CSD tagged articles should not be marked as reviewed, per consensus here. That's not necessarily to say that the tag is not applicable, this change is just to help stop things from falling through the cracks. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 10:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere When a page is tagged with anything by someone with NPP/review, it is automatically marked as reviewed. Praxidicae (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Praxidicae, Yes. it is a bug in the page curation software. There is a phabricator task associated with it, which has not yet been addressed. In future, when PRODing or CSDing articles with the curation software, just click the 'unreview' button afterwards. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 17:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
this is how it’s always worked. It wasn’t a glitch until it was decided at RFC that we wanted to change things. Perhaps consider not notifying people until the Phab request is dealt with?Praxidicae (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

PC reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow, just what I wanted for Christmas! Thanks! Natureium (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't get too excited, it might not last long. Bradv🍁 22:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
What a bummer. I was so excited about being granted the second most boring perm. Natureium (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
(Also before I clicked your link I thought you were insinuating that I would [redacted per WP:BEANS] and get the perm revoked quickly) Natureium (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Surely you're not planning to do something stupid! Honestly, I can't imagine a fun way to get PCR revoked - which is probably why you find this perm so boring. ;) Bradv🍁 22:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Well if it's not obvious, it's a good thing I didn't spill the beans! Natureium (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi, the 10 minute wait is already included in the footnote 6 of the page. Also companies and organisations are separately distinguished in the A7 template and also have seperate WikiProjects so are not the same thing Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's already in the footnote, why are you adding it a second time? Natureium (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Because people don't always read the footnotes Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Natureium, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
For your work providing citations to anatomy articles! Keep up the good work! Tom (LT) (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Natureium (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful alert on the likely deletion of an article

I moved what I had written on the International Society of Audiology to my sandbox, so I can improve it, once I gather more information.

Please let me know if you should take any other steps TMorata (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@TMorata: You're welcome. I would recommend that you add some references to the article where sources outside the organization have information about it. Natureium (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

RFX 200

Yeah, I was starting to realize that it was a dumb thing to do. Thanks for the undo. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

red flag law

I am not sure how the Amendments to the constitution is not a reliable source? Please explain, preferably after reading them. jshockley3

Hello jshockley3. I have read the constitutional and its amendments. I also left you a message explaining what "reliable sources" refers to. As an encyclopedia, we don't use primary sources. By saying that x is true according to the constitution, you are using your own personal interpretations, rather than that of a reliable source. Natureium (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Since you said you weren't aware :-P But yes, ignore the scary template and header. Just informational. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Failed suicide

See here for an example of this being discussed: [1]. It’s been discussed elsewhere though hopefully one example will be enough for you. More importantly, doesn’t it just make sense to not describe it as a failure? Damien Linnane (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Strange link to user group that's not the same sense of the term as far as I can tell. Killiondude (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
No, killiondude, it goes bureaucrat > wikiproject medicine contributor > admin > etc. Natureium (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Updating Simon N. Powell

Hey there! Hope you're doing well. Do you have a minute to review my proposed changes to Simon N. Powell over on the talk page? I've been trying to find someone to take a look unfortunately everyone I've asked so far seems too busy. I'd appreciate it if you have the time!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Signature

I have reflected on your feedback and modified my signature slightly. I hope this resolves your concerns. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No, still too friendly. Natureium (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive Raymond Sackler reversions

Hi Natureium,

I am curious to learn more about your reversion of my edits to Raymond Sackler's page. The edits I made were in good faith and removed a significant amount of content from the article that was unsourced and/or unencyclopedic, including lists of donations that read like a resume entry and as such do not belong on Wikipedia. I left much of the information that appears encyclopedic and improves the quality of the article, tagging any of those items that lacked a proper citation. These edits were constructive to the page and improved its quality and readability and worked to solve issues on the page identified by other editors. You marked your reversion as due to being "overkill" for its removals and for my removing sourced content. I removed one sourced item, which listed awards paid for by Sackler and had little to no encyclopedic merit. Other removals were unsourced content which violated WP: PROMOTION, WP:ADVERTISING, and/or WP:COI. I am happy to provide more thorough explanations for that reasoning for these removals if you are interested.

I would like to improve this page and, of course, the best way to do this is with a consensus between editors. Reverting constructive revisions is unproductive. I'm hoping we can work together to improve this page and remove much of the problematic material; even before my revisions the page was tagged as needing additional citations and being written like an advertisement. I am interested in fixing these problems and improving the page, and I would be eager to work with you to solve this. I am curious of any improvements to the page you would recommend to fix these problems, and I hope you do not continue to insist on reverting the work of other editors acting in good faith to improve the article and fix previously identified issues. SiliconRed (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There have been a lot of bad faith edits to articles surrounding the Sacklers since the media published articles blaming them for the opioid crisis. Removing unsourced information is appropriate in certain circumstances, but attempting to remove information that shows someone in a positive light while leaving the information that shows them in a negative light is not. Natureium (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your response—I've re-edited the page adding tags seeking more sources for the material. The significant press about the family represents a significant part of the biography of Raymond Sackler, and therefore is worthwhile to include in detail on the page regardless of whether it portrays the family in a negative or positive light. The philanthropy, meanwhile, lacks sourcing and seems intended to impart positive bias on the page—problematic for a Wikipedia entry. If you have any issues with my edits feel let me know, as I mentioned earlier I am eager to improve the page as constructively as possible. To that end I would encourage you (or any other editors) to gather resources to cite the content that currently lacks reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siliconred (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Natureium,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template namespace. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Mistake

I apologize for putting misleading info on Zoey Tur's wikipedia page. A friend of mine told me that she changed back to a male so I was trying to get the pronouns right on the page. I should've fact checked first. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Austino The Captain (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I did actually worked with Category:BLP with no sources today. You can check them. 00:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday (Feb 28) as of now. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Daratumumab

Hi Natureium, thanks for your feedback on the edit of the Daratumumab article. I think it's not complete, since the DTT treatment of the RBC is not the only method to overcome Daratumumab interference, nor is it necessarily the best. I agree with you that a reference to the manufacturer's site is not the best reference, however, there's only little other literature so far, and the manufacturer's site currently gives the best explanation of the mechanism. If you think there should be other references, consider these:

N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 5;379(1):90-91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1804751. F(ab')2 Fragments to Overcome Daratumumab Interference in Transfusion Tests. Selleng K, Gebicka PD, Thiele T.

Transfusionsmedizin 2017; 7(04): 229-232 DaraEx Prevents Daratumumab Interference in the Indirect Antiglobulin Test Clemens Schneeweiß, Daniela Grüger, Hans-Gert Heuft (German, English abstract available)

Transfus Med Hemother. 2018 Sep; 45(Suppl 1): 1–91. First experiences with DaraEx in cross-matching red blood cell concentrates under Daratumumab therapy A. Rosner, I. Chocholi, and K. Hölig

best regards 217.91.155.161 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI

You forgot to leave the ANI notification message on my talk page. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not. Natureium (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard: so have you retired or not ? I'm fucking confused. I do hope this retirement wasn't a sanction avoiding exercise (given we still seem to be witnessing CiR issues with you). Nick (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, didn't see that. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard: I guess my question isn't worthy of an answer. Nick (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nick:. Nope it wasn't to avoid sanction. You can do whatever you want. I am here to gain experience by improving encyclopedic and try to be qualified enough to get back to wikispace. However, I am still confused of whether the topic ban also implies I can no longer review GA articles. It is one of my strength (check my userpage for the list). THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Mops and buckets

I saw this AIV report and thought "er, why don't you just block them yourself?", then realised you can't! Have you thought about remedying that? I've done a quick whistle-stop check and while that's not really enough to determine whether or not you're suitable admin material, I can't see any obvious red flags from a brief scan around the usual areas. Paging Amory for a second opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe Natureium's position is somewhere between "not interested" and "wouldn't pass anyway." I'd be happy to be corrected/updated! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but Amory is correct. RfA is not worth the ordeal when AIV is just a few clicks away. :) Natureium (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That's what Galobtter thought, then look what happened :-P Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I've also considered asking you if you'd be willing to run. Maybe the reason for the decline in admin numbers is because we've made it too easy, with WP:TW and all, to request admin action :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Idea: Limit Twinkle, XfDCloser, and others to sysops only. After a few of that we'll have enough RfA candidates to last a while! Also vandalism... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Amory, well I suppose instead of using twinkle, I could leave everything that needs to be done on your talk page! Natureium (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess that's why we have the "mop and bucket" analogy, dump a load of junk on somebody's talk page, then walk off so they have to clean it up :-D Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Support having Natureium run for RfA. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Mea culpa

Very poor assumption on my part. My edit summaries are intended to be pretty sarcastic there; I want to make sure you know that the apology part was not. [2]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Floquenbeam. I support your blanking of the page, but we'll see how long that lasts... Natureium (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I was about to reply at RFAR with a response of ... gulp ... more than 500 words. But alas...
p.s. the blanking stuck! --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Haha nice job. I guess I was a little hasty at predicting an edit war. Natureium (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hot Zone Publication Date

Hello. I reverted the publication date back to 1994 as per my original edit, which is not incorrect information but reflects the original year of publication. This can be easily verified by consulting the copyright information at the beginning of any hard copy of the book, but I've also included a citation to the WorldCat online library database for reference. Thank you.

Spenceemmett (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I only have the audiobook, and I don't know how to find copyright information there. I've been finding several different dates online(1995 here but 1994 on Amazon), so I'll just give up and leave it up to you. Natureium (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

You deleted over 50% of the entry for Fight the New Drug, including citations of scientific publications. This is your final warning from me before reporting to WP:AIV NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that in addition to your report of me at WP:ANEW, or did you decide to do that instead? Natureium (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
You deleted scientific sources in over 10 edits removing >50% of the article. Bad editor and bad actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsYouCanUse2018 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I made 8 edits to the article, and 7 of them were in a row, so I probably should have planned better rather than making a change and then thinking about other changes that should be made. If this makes me a bad editor, I'll try to do better. Natureium (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

RD request

I see that you added a request for revision deletion on Ineffective erythropoiesis. the source material appears to be from NIH/NCBI. This suggests it is in the public domain. I believe you work in this area extensively so perhaps I'm missing something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Sphilbrick The work itself is not by NCBI - the work is in the journal Adv Hematol published by Hindawi - but per the copyright on the article it is "This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." which is presumably why the NCBI can provide the full text of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Galobtter is right. Natureium (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Natureium, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

http://www.suicide.org/stop-saying-committed-suicide.html

http://www.suicide.org/stop-saying-committed-suicide.html Jdm26 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but this is not relevant to wikipedia. Please see the article talk page for a discussion on this, and links to other wikipedia discussions on the same topic. Natureium (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is one of the stupidest SJW fronts on Wikipedia atm. Killiondude (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
"One of the stupidest" is too generous, but it is one of them. GMGtalk 23:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand how "commit" would be stigmatized in a way that "suicide" is not. Natureium (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Holmes

“Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Elizabeth Holmes, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)”. The content is per se not defamatory. She is being prosecuted for fraud. Therefore, she is an alleged fraudster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.48.20 (talk)

The information about her crimes is already in the first few paragraphs of the article. Adding "alleged fraudster" to the infobox under "occupation" is unnecessary, and fraudster is not an occupation. Natureium (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see the occupation in this established article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi

Your reversion wasn’t based on any WP rule, just your poor understanding of the word defamation. She is an alleged fraudster, being a fraudster is an occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.48.20 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not the kind of information that belongs in an infobox, and it seems based on your talk page that several other editors agree with me. If you continue reverting, you are going to end up blocked for edit warring. Natureium (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I cited numerous examples of it being EXACTLY the kind of information in an info box. Your statement is wrong. You don’t know what you are talking about.198.232.48.20 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"Alleged" anything is not an occupation. Natureium (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Nice custom userbox! Artoria2e5 contrib 21:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you :) Natureium (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Your revert

Hello. This revert of your has no edit summary. But unless it is vandalism you are reverting, it is appropriate to leave an explanatory edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal&diff=889153867&oldid=889151815 --2604:2000:E010:1100:8069:AC8:EB33:8D1D (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I did leave an edit summary. Natureium (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. I did initially say you failed to leave an edit summary, which was wrong, but then said it is appropriate to leave an “explanatory” edit summary. You did say “better before.” But that edit summary was not “explanatory” - how was it better before? You did not explain how it is that is in your view the case. For example, the first comma added - but deleted by you - was better English. I think that is self evident. By the same token - you deleted clarification, where two schemes are discussed in the same sentence, as to which is being referred to. How is that deletion better? The sentence is otherwise less than clear. Also, the two-pronged scheme that is the subject of the article involved either approach a or approach b in each instance (not both) - you deleted thr clarifying language, leaving the text murky. You also deleted the word “him” which makes clear who the soccer coach had asked for a bribe. How is that deletion of the clarifying word “him” better? You also reinserted the horrible non-encyclopedic phrase “get their children admitted.” How is that mangling of the English language “better?” I guess my problem is that not only is the edit summary not sufficiently explanatory for me to understand the revert, from what I can see the language you reverted to was not better. Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:8069:AC8:EB33:8D1D (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think the repetition of scheme and pump-and-dump fraud are verbose and not needed. The phrase "illegally have" could be "have" instead of "get." Hopefully our readers know bribery and fraud are illegal. If not, there are wikilinks just before. The word "him" is not exactly needed, either. Examining the prose as written, who else would he have asked? The authorities? Basically, most of what you added didn't make it better. Hope that helps. Killiondude (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Lathrop Stedman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page College of Physicians and Surgeons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Page merge

Could you please merge this page and its history into Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season? NoahTalk 14:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Because you're the only author of the version in your userspace, you can just copy and paste your version into the article. History merges are done to preserve the author attribution, so in this case it's not necessary. Natureium (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

XfDs

Hi, please follow the rules at WP:FOOLS for XfDs, namely not using automated tools. Thanks, ansh666 19:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ansh666, I will have to work on my fortune telling, because that rule didn't exist until it was unilaterally imposed 10 hours after I created that XfD. Natureium (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, true. Either way, you shouldn't leave the deletion tag on the nominated page, even if it's not explicitly in the rules. Thanks, ansh666 19:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

recent edit

april fools? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't do anything in jest. Natureium (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Natureium/Archive_5&oldid=1048395902"