User talk:ThePromenader/Archive 2 2018 July

Please comment on Talk:Żegota

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Żegota. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Atkins Diet. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This 'warning' is from a contributor who reverted without satisfying the edit summary rationale or opening a talk page discussion... the very definition of edit-warring. TP ✎ ✓ 14:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Atkins

I get it that you think the article is biased but if you want to persuade other people, making arguments based on passion and vague claims is not going to get you anywhere.

You need to bring strong sources that support the perspective you believe is missing. Based on what you have written, you don't understand how the biomedical literature even works, which cripples your efforts and leads you to write things that are nonsense like this.

For what its worth, I suggest that you read WP:MEDRS as well as WP:PARITY to get a sense of how sourcing works for content about health so that you are able to bring strong sources and talk about them sensibly.

Also, please consider withdrawing the RfC for now, and working with the other editors there to generate a neutral RfC that will generate useful feedback. The RfC as it stands, will not.

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making an 'issue' of an offhand-reference 'error' (that wasn't!), but I will consider the validity of sources when I use them (not as an offhand comment), so my twelve years editing thanks you for the attempt at painting me with a 'bumbling editor' paintbrush. TP ✎ ✓ 16:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

That article's 'anti-' bias in undeniable (as the earlier talk page threads also clearly indicate), and it doesn't give credit to the diet's aspects that are scientifically founded (it, to the reader, dismisses them with the rest). How to open an RfC over that? TP ✎ ✓ 16:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked through your edits; you have hardly edited at all about health -- most of your edits are about France or Paris, with some religion thrown in.

There is a different literature base for editing about health and medicine, and there is a relevant style manual WP:MEDMOS and sourcing guideline, WP:MEDRS. You are clearly not versed in these things. That is what it is. There is stuff that all of us don't know.

But arguing passionately about things you don't understand is like being the ugly American in Paris, angry and yelling because nobody speaks English. It gets you no where and is not a good look, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You are talking to me as though I have edited the article in a 'scientific, knowledgeable way' (which is a strawman). I have not. After examining the reference, I simply attributed a specific opinionated claim to its author, instead of leavingt it as the 'statement of (commonly known) fact' it pretends to be. This sort of 'interpretation' is wrong in any subject on Wikipedia. TP ✎ ✓ 16:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And what know you of my understanding of this? Don't let your expectations distract you. TP ✎ ✓ 16:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And your reporting only me was frankly beyond unfair... I'll let the admins decide about the obvious 'siding' of that themselves, though. I haven't seen so much disingenuousity since years here, and if there's one thing I can't stand (especially in what's supposed to be a rational, fact-based place like this), it's clan-minded dishonesty (or'selective interpretation'). No wonder I hardly edit anymore. TP ✎ ✓ 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Listen, sorry for my tone, but I am a bit steamed. And it's also the repetition (I see the same pattern everywhere) that gets to me. Sorry. TP ✎ ✓ 17:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And for the record, I spent years translating biomedical research papers and speeches into English (for researchers at the Kremlin-Bicêtre Hospital), and have written a few (particle/quantum physics) papers myself, so I know 'a thing or two' about scientific peer review ; ). Still, I can't consider myself an 'expert' (I don't know 'how much' I know, actually), nor would I ever 'pride' my knowledge over any other wikipedia contributor (or attempt to shame them that way). Even a 7-year old can be right about things (especially when their questioning stands to testing), so to 'pooh-pooh' them (because they... don't 'belong' or 'fit' a preconcieved category?) is just plain wrong. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 17:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mumbai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mumbai. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello ThePromenader, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)