User talk:RememberOrwell

Welcome!

Hello, RememberOrwell, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Pabsoluterince (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the assumption of good faith...

I will try to let you know that when you place charged accusations on a personal talk page, for disagreements occuring on an article, it does not foster a collaborative environment. I would also caution you to WP:AGF of other editors, as in the particular instance of Rituximab you are coming across as quite disgruntled and disagreeable. The proper place to table discussions about modifying the content of an article is on the relevant talk page. Pabsoluterince (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jak Mallmann Showell moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Jak Mallmann Showell. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I was just fixing a redlink. The USNI source I provided seems adequate to me; seems like a home run. Why is it insufficient, per policy? It satisfies the Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research policies. I was skeptical that U.S. Naval Institute was a reliable source, so I checked and made the article after I confirmed it was. Draftifying it seems counterproductive to me. Why didn't you leave a redirect? That seems particularly counterproductive to me! RememberOrwell (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I held off; seems his work is rather, erm, controversial. Think it's ready yet now? RememberOrwell (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Havana syndrome. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A retaliation template, right after I warned about edit warring. Editors have been blocked for that? RememberOrwell (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to suspect trolling. Bon courage (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out the facts isn't trolling. You've been labeled a troll.

You keep refusing to engage in talk page discussion. What RFC are you talking about here? The one that found consensus in favor of

"On March 31 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report" ...

which seems pretty close to what I restored? You just removed it twice in short succession, which is edit warring. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says

On March 31, 2024, The Insider, in collaboration with 60 Minutes and Der Spiegel, published an investigative report claiming that the syndrome was possibly caused by actions of Russian military intelligence. The report states that members of the GRU Unit 29155, known for undertaking foreign operations, received awards and promotions for work related to the development and deployment of "non-lethal acoustic weapons", and that telephone and travel data pinpointing the locations of these agents correlated with the timings and locations of Havana syndrome incidents worldwide.

as agreed. This stuff would be undue for the lede. Bon courage (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Says you. The lede was a topic of the RFC?

Editing wikipedia with unprincipled warriors like you around is a waste of time. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Havana syndrome

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Havana syndrome, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet allegations

Hello.

It's being accused that you're a sockpuppet of mine. If you'd like to read the allegation and help rebut it, you can find the allegation here. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put the above here because I did something wrong? If so, can you explain? E.g a diff and a policy? RememberOrwell (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying I should stop editing on the topic? Seems like a futile and dangerous task to correct a blatant error, so I've unsubscribed from the lab leak talk page. Pity. RememberOrwell (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lab leak theory is complicated because some newspapers and government agencies take it seriously, but top academic sources (WP:NOLABLEAK) do not. This confuses some editors. The regulars on that talk page have decided to go with what the top academic sources say, overriding the newspapers and government agencies. New editors take awhile to figure this out sometimes and make a lot of posts to the talk page (WP:BLUDGEONING).

The blue message is to inform you that the topic has stricter rules than the rest of Wikipedia, due to past disruption. Leaving the blue message is also a required step to enforcing those rules at WP:AE. You don't have to stop editing the topic, but it might be a good idea to tone it down and get a feel for the history of that article and why editors have it written the way it currently is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Misinformation - Name Usurpation - Washington_Technical_Institute / [1]

Redflag

Washington_Technical_Institute / University_of_the_District_of_Columbia#Federal_City_College_&_Washington_Technical_Institute

Washington Technical Institute, as can be verified at https://web.archive.org/web/20121012022722/http://www.udc.edu/welcome/history.htm was founded in 1966 and CLOSED IN 1977.

It seems a new, online-only institution, found at washingtontech.edu , a domain first registered 06-Jan-2022, has started using the name. Excel Education Systems runs 4 'institutions' that are 'regionally accredited'

Wikipedia is currently conflating the two, making the latter seem like a long-accredited institution, which it is not. Could use some admin scrutiny to see who put in the misinformation. Help, anyone?

Also posted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Misinformation_-_Name_Usurpation_-_Washington_Technical_Institute_/_11

RememberOrwell (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

South Boston High School

added a link pointing to 11

University of the District of Columbia

added a link pointing to 11

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]