User talk:Magnovvig: Difference between revisions

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Magnovvig, good luck, and have fun. SQL ^{Query me!} 17:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Magnovvig! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Beck (banker) has been accepted

John Beck (banker), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SamHolt6 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bedrock Industries (September 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CptViraj was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bedrock Industries and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bedrock Industries, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CptViraj (📧) 06:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CptViraj: thanks for your help. It would be even more helpful if someone were to amend the (cumbersome) AfC process to inform editors of the Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects in order that we would not need to have this conversation. Magnovvig (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

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.)

Early Irish law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Freehold and Chattel

Social Darwinism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Freehold and Chattel

Gérard La Forest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St. Thomas University

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Your addition to Darwinism has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

Copy-paste from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-160-years-into-darwinism-theres-one-mystery-we-still-cant-explain "© 2019 National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited."
Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when I see whole paragraphs lifted directly from copyrighted sources, the same editor has been copy-pasting on other articles, so I checked some of your recent edits. There don't seem to be other violations, though you do lean on direct quotes perhaps more than is ideal. I'm not sure why you chose to copy content wholesale in this case, because you seem to be aware that isn't allowed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This misunderstanding by @Dennis Bratland: has been dealt with on the relevant article talk page. Magnovvig (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brexit and the Irish border, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Sun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam

Hello, Magnovvig,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username CodeLyoko and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam, for deletion, because it's impossible to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|CodeLyoko}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CodeLyoko^buzz 01:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Economy of Canada. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SSSB. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edits to Oliver Letwin seemed less than neutral and has been partially removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
Don't accuse politicians of trying to "thwart" Brexit. Espically given that the Letwin ammendment did nothing of the sort. He actually intends to vote in favour of the deal. Please also note that including quotations from clear non neutral sources also violates the afore mentioned policy. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: your last full sentence is nonsense. Although I disagree with your deletion of the word "thwart", I have amended the language to which you object. Magnovvig (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Lehoux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PPC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Army SOS moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Army SOS, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 19:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian Pacific Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CPPS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hinckley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triumph Motorcycles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve China–Arab States Cooperation Forum

Hello, Magnovvig,

Thank you for creating China–Arab States Cooperation Forum.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The article is currently overly reliant on citations to outlets affiliated with the government of China, and would benefit from citations to independent coverage. There seems to be a fair amount of academic literature on the subject that is likely worth citing available on Google Scholar.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Campbell (professor) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Bruce Campbell (professor), does not have enough sources and citations as written to show his is notable except for the one event . It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fortress Transportation and Infrastructure Investors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Monroe County

Transportation Safety Board of Canada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CPPS

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Elliot Eurchuk for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elliot Eurchuk is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot Eurchuk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hug^syrup 13:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coroner's investigations in Canada has been nominated for discussion

Category:Coroner's investigations in Canada, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American coroner's investigations

A tag has been placed on Category:American coroner's investigations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American coroner's reports

A tag has been placed on Category:American coroner's reports requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Preliminary measures" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Preliminary measures. Since you had some involvement with the Preliminary measures redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PamD 08:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Research Global Investors moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Capital Research Global Investors, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Army SOS (February 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Army SOS and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Army SOS, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CRISPR gene editing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gene editing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bedrock Industries concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bedrock Industries, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Igor Sechin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Avena case (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Status quo ante

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Republic of Georgia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine never with a "the"

Thanks for your editing for the Wikipedia article Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine but "the Ukraine" is not the (English) common name of Ukraine since December 1991. So please for consistency within this article + others about Ukraine just call Ukraine never with a "the". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Bedrock Industries

Hello, Magnovvig. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bedrock Industries".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mark Buckingham (polemicist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Buckingham (polemicist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Buckingham (polemicist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Byelorussian Steel Works, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sergei Romanovich

A tag has been placed on Sergei Romanovich, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a disambiguation page which either: disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"; or disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. (See section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ost (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your move because there is no article for Sergei Romanovich (industrialist), per MOS:DABRED. If you think that the individual is notable, please create the page at Draft:Sergei Romanovich (industrialist) (or Draft:Sergey Romanovich, based on your edit to Economy of Belarus) and move it though the WP:AfC process. You may also consider using {{interlanguage link}} if there is an article in another language that you need to link to, rather than linking to the wrong person through the existing redirect to the footballer. —Ost (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economy of Belarus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acrylic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Alibaba Foundation

Hello Magnovvig,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Alibaba Foundation for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Govvy (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik Streeck Coronavirus research April Fools joke

Talk:Hendrik_Streeck#Coronavirus_research_April_Fools_joke Ncpie (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coronavirus disease 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, feel free to add your articles to this! † Encyclopædius 21:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please don't change the format of dates. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ASHRAE, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages OSHA and Vector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Ferguson

I'm very concerned about your use of sources in Neil Ferguson (epidemiologist). It seems to me to be demonstrating a clear POV hostile to the article's subject.

I'm very concerned about your use of this forum for browbeating me.

In this edit you misquoted the source by substituting "One of Ferguson's models predicted that 65,000 people would die from swine flu" for the source's "one of Ferguson's models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu". There's a very clear difference in meaning in your edit.

In this instance, there are no quotes on wiki, and wikipedians are somewhat free to interpolate. The model influenced policy, did it not? That is why the House of Lords had their post-factum inquiry. Or do I mistake their thrust. The model itself was taken from "can die" to "will die" somewhere between abstract theory and dictated policy and concrete practice. That is the reality of what transpired, and the raison d'être for the Lords inquiry. Please, let us not split hairs. Ferguson for a time was in the jump seat of the bus. Lesser men would not have survived a call that was wrong by *two orders of magnitude*.

In the same edit, you asserted "This latterly caused some embarrassment to Health Secretary Matt Hancock during BBC Today on 16 April 2020 while the coronavirus pandemic raged in the UK." The source says nothing about "embarrassment", nor does it describe its context as "while the coronavirus pandemic raged in the UK." Your embellishment is clear editorialising.

No it is not. It is an accurate picture of what transpired in the interview. Wiki forces us to summarise fifteen minutes of radio into one sentence. Are you naive or just a hack? What other reason is there to think that a radio host drags up some event from more than a decade earlier?

In this edit, you selectively quoted Streek as saying "the authors assume that 50 percent of households where there is a case do not adhere to voluntary quarantine ..." The source actually quotes Streek as saying "In the - really good - model studies by Imperial College about the progress of the epidemic, the authors assume, for example, that 50 percent of households in which there is a case do not comply with the voluntary quarantine ..." Your deliberate omission of Streek's preface puts a spin on the quote you employed and places the paper in a much worse light that Streek's actual words did.

It is standard practice in academic circles to couch language in a shit sandwich; I'm just cutting to the chase. Wiki forces us to brevity, remember? And it's Streeck, if I'm not mistaken.

I note that having mentioned criticism of Ferguson's work, you failed to make use of the Business Insider source's quotes from Tim Colbourn and Stephen Griffin, which were favourable to Ferguson's study.

This is an article about Ferguson, and that is a red herring. If I want to write about Tim Colbourn and Stephen Griffin or any other character who appears in the Business Insider article, I'll do so on their pages. What you seem to be saying here, if I'm not mistaken, is that you buy into Argumentum ad verecundiam.

This sort of one-sided editing is unacceptable, especially in a WP:BLP. Please ensure there is no repetition. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson is a big boy and more than able to fend for himself. Remember that lesser men would not have survived a call that was wrong by *two orders of magnitude*. Only because you have more seniority in this forum than me and can use it to silence me, I will back off my edits on this subject so as to ensure that there is no repetition. Magnovvig (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The convention on Wikipedia is not to intersperse your commentary inside another editor's post. Please fix that.

I am not browbeating you, and your claiming that I am is a personal attack. Please strike your attack on me.

Wikipedians are not free to put spin on sources. There is a big difference between a model that predicts that deaths could rise to 65,000, and a model that predicts that deaths would rise to 65,000. That is not splitting hairs, and your edit deliberately misrepresents the source.

"This latterly caused some embarrassment to Health Secretary Matt Hancock during BBC Today on 16 April 2020 while the coronavirus pandemic raged in the UK." is not an accurate picture of what the Business Insider source states. Anyone can read the source you used to see that is the case. You embellished what you read there to reflect your own POV and that's not acceptable. Strike your personal attack on me there.

Steek's comment was not made "in academic circles", but in a newspaper interview. He was asked for an example of a model containing an untested assumption. Your selective quotation gives a very different interpretation of Streek's criticism of the report that he otherwise found "wirklich gut" – as is apparent from a full reading of the source.

You are utterly mistaken. There's no red herring. Our article is indeed about Ferguson, but "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." You cherry-picked the critical comment about one of his models from the Business Insider source, but didn't report that the source also contained quotes favourable to Ferguson's work.

If you don't demonstrate that you're prepared to abide by our policies on NPOV and NPA, I'll take steps to see that your editing privileges here are curtailed until you do. --RexxS (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to long comments

About this comment: WP:TPG#INTERLEAVE advises editors that "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts, you may wish to use the {{Talk quotation}} or {{Talkquote}} templates to quote others' posts."

Perhaps you would like to rearrange your comment when you have a moment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: thanks for your helpful suggestion. I was unaware of WP:TPG#INTERLEAVE and will take it under advisement in future but will leave as-is the comment you indicate. I have spent more than enough time with RexxS complaint which he filed in triplicate, forcing me also to file in triplicate, and to need to pay attention to his subtle changes in wording at every remove. Perhaps you will be alienated by my refusal but alea jacta est.

Perhaps you can tell me why WikiProject_Medicine is interested in biographies, which would seem to fall outside its remit. Magnovvig (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed removing them last month. There wasn't enough support for it, and I'm probably not the best person to say why they should be included. I guess that one concern is probably that people sometimes use biographies as Wikipedia:Coatrack articles, in which the editor says that it's an article about a person, but then they "hang" a lot of Wikipedia:Biomedical information on them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think once a BLP is flagged as in the scope of WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject COVID-19 and WikiProject Viruses, as well as flagged for COVID-19 General sanctions, it will attract attention from WPMED members. I'm sorry I ended up posting in three places, but the problem was brought to my attention at WT:MED and it involved content issues at Neil Ferguson (epidemiologist) and your behaviour as well. As I'm being kept very busy right now, I posted my complaint about your behaviour on your talk page, and then re-used it at the article talk so that the editors there were aware of the content concerns, as well as giving notice to the original complainant at WT:MED. I obviously altered it to address you in the second-person here, and to refer to you in the third-person elsewhere. I think you'll find that was the sum of the subtle changes involved. I've insisted on rearranging your interspersed comments at the other two venues, but I'll defer to your preferences on your own talk page. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not the sum of the subtle changes involved and you know it. What is the problem with my behaviour? Do tell. How dare you touch my talk page comments. You seek to tilt the playing field to your advantage. That's not very gentlemanly of you, is it?

I refuse to lower myself to your level.

@RexxS: Magnovvig (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

In this edit you re-added the Category:~~People~~Officials associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic with the edit summary restore cat; this is a new undiscussed cat; possible IP vandalism.

The parent category was discussed well over a month ago at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 20#Category:People associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic as the IP user who deleted it from that page clearly indicated in their edit summary.

Please don't go throwing accusations of WP:vandalism about, when a moment's reflection would have shown you that it could not possibly be vandalism. --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: Was it a "restore cat; this is a new undiscussed cat;" or not?

You mischaracterise "People" as a parent cat of "Officials", since it no longer exists, it cannot be.

I'm dismayed at the last clause in your last sentence. Please don't abuse my thought process.

Magnovvig (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mischaracterise "People" as a parent cat of "Officials", since it no longer exists, it cannot be That's just a non-sequitur. The concept of subcategories is independent of whether a particular category has been created or deleted. Categories of "officials" will always be subcategories of the equivalent categories of "people". In this case, the set of articles about 'officials associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic' will be a part of the set of articles about 'people associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic'. That's how we work out what a parent category is. If you don't believe that Category:Officials associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic has the deleted Category:People associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic as a parent category, ask yourself what its parent categories would be? It has to have some.

Alright, let me rephrase my final clause. The opening of WP:Vandalism reads like this:

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
...
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.

The IP removed a category very similar to one that had recently been deleted after a CfD discussion, and linked to that discussion in their edit summary. The category the IP removed is now about to also be deleted as a result of a CfD discussion. Any assumption of good faith would lead to the conclusion that the removal was not "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". So I'll assert to you that no editor who has read and understood that policy could possibly conclude that the IP's action was vandalism. You will quickly find that irresponsibly accusing other editors of vandalism is regularly sanctioned. If you don't take my warning about that seriously, and adjust your 'thought process', you'll be heading into trouble the next time you improperly accuse another editor of vandalism. I hope that's clearer. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @RexxS:, if a category no longer exists it can't be discussed. Yours is the non sequitur.

Besides, that's a red herring. "Officials" is a **NEW** category. "People" was considered and rejected. So I formed "Officials" as a new category that would restrict the 'People' membership. See? I read the deletion logs and adapted my category to suit the past discussion. Wiki works a charm! The answer to your question of " what **ARE** its parent categories ? " is easy to discover: go to Category:COVID-19 pandemic and look around. Beside "Officials" you find "Organizations" and "Deaths". Its parent category is Category:COVID-19 pandemic. As I suggested in a separate contiguous thread, we might add "Scientists" and "Politicians" if the "Officials" gets too bulky. Do you understand me now?

The IP was an anonymous editor who could have been anyone... 1 The IP was located in Korea. Normally, that means s/he may well have English as a Second Language... 2 I'll assert to you that because s/he chose to remain anonymous s/he could very well have been someone who wished harm to come to English language wikipedia. Haven't you read about Russian spies? Such behaviour has been known to exist... 3 If s/he did participate in the discussion around 'People' s/he could have been malevolent. In fact, if you go back through my logs, the person **has** revealed themselves because of human error. I won't divulge their identity here because it serves no purpose but to prolong an already boring debate... The solution to this problem is to ask all the IP editors to refrain from deleting Categories, or to bar IP editors from deleting Categories. The thing about anonymity is that mud can be thrown both ways. If they show themselves as named editors all the problems disappear. I don't like your threats and you can take that home to chew on it. Why do you take up the standard of an anonymous IP? Are you related? Magnovvig (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can discuss a deleted category. Stop gaslighting.

If you make a category and it's deleted via a CfD, you shouldn't be looking for ways to circumvent that consensus because that just wastes the community's time. Your new effort is going to be deleted on the just the same grounds ("far too unspecific") as its parent. The same will happen for any other ill-defined group having an ill-defined connection with COVID-19. If you continue to waste editors' time, you'll find yourself in trouble.

Neither I no any other admin care where the IP geolocates to. You must consider the edit, not your preconceptions of the editor. IP editors have the same editing rights as unconfirmed registered editors, and they have the same expectation for fair treatment as any other editor. Stop spouting your conspiracy theories and quit insulting IPs. They are entitled to remove content that shouldn't be there; they are entitled to edit anonymously. This isn't a debate: it's a warning from an uninvolved admin. You either heed the warnings and abide by the community's conventions and expectations, or your editing privileges here will be coming to an end. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. They are **not** "preconceptions". They are if anything "post-conceptions". Your mind is playing tricks on you. From a mistaken word you go on to blather and spout ad nauseam about a tempest in a teakettle. "conspiracy theories" indeed: there can be no conspiracy of one. The substitution of "Officials" for "People" was legit and you are being a bore when you insist that a category has life when you yourself were a party that killed it. You **are** involved: you are the administrator who has a bee under his bonnet about me. Just look at my talk page. You have had it in for me for two weeks now. Go find someone else to hoodwink. Magnovvig (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ONS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated protein

Hi, as far as I could tell the article Isolated protein was based on a misunderstanding, the cited article seemed to just be discussing proteins that have been isolated, so I've redirected the article to Protein isolate. I've also redirected Antenna protein to Light-harvesting complexes of green plants because they seem to be about the same thing. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Þjarkur:. I am no expert on plant photosynthesis. However, the Protein isolate page to which you redirected the Isolated protein actually discusses Protein purification, a completely artificial synthetic lab process. I believe that if you read the paper that I located on pubmed and to which I referred in the original Isolated protein wiki article, you will find that the authors discuss photosynthesis as a natural process in plants. These are two very different topics, and I believe they should be discussed separately. Magnovvig (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Þjarkur: For the record, I believe your second edit, in which you #REDIRECT Antenna protein into Light-harvesting complexes of green plants (LHCGP) is correct. I wonder if you could find a way to mention in the journal article that was on the original Antenna protein wiki, rather than delete and destroy my work. Magnovvig (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The paper only discusses the chemistry of artificially isolated photosynthesis complexes (preparation shown in the cited works). Protein isolates are discusses in the intro of the article protein purification, I don't think isolated proteins exist in nature. There wasn't any content to merge from the Antenna protein article, but of course it would be interesting to summarize that paper there since it discusses the evolution of the protein. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Þjarkur: Magnovvig (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translations

Please do not create articles with raw computer-translated text, as you did at Yupo (manufacturer). Consensus is that rough translations are worse than having no article at all on the subject, and Wikipedia editors have spent a lot of time cleaning up such texts. Next time, draft the article in userspace or draft space to copyedit all of the English before creating it. Thank you, Passenger pigeon (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Passengerpigeon: oh is there an official guidance on that? I'm surprised at your remark. Magnovvig (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's not an official guidance so much as consensus against making edits that other people have to spend lots of time cleaning up (assuming you don't intend to clean up the machine translation yourself, which should ideally be done in draftspace), and machine translations were established as undesirable edits in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passengerpigeon (talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Passengerpigeon: thanks for the pointer to this discussion, of which I was unaware. My thought process was to post the machine translation into mainspace and then to spend a week improving it, along with other editors who are surprised by its poor state. If I can't draft in other editors like this, what good is wikipedia, really? ;) Magnovvig (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but perhaps you could instead create it in draftspace and then alert interested editors to the article through the relevant WikiProject (Japan or Companies, in this case). Passenger pigeon (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Passengerpigeon: I just cleaned it up some more. In the meantime, my technique worked! Another editor not from WikiProject Japan or Companies (to my knowledge) helped shoehorn it in to shape. :) Magnovvig (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hood

Hi - You have twice now added unsourced material to wikipedia. Please read WP:BLP. You are also edit waring which could lead to you being blocked from using wikipedia. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dormskirk: FYI your edits make no sense. Did you not read the tags that I sent? If you like we can just strip Michael Hood of his chestful of medals. Are you that unfriendly to the armed services? I puzzle at your behaviour, to put it very mildly. Magnovvig (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA. Some of us are simply ensuring that material which clearly breaches WP:BLP is removed as required by the guideline. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yupo

The Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Absurdist

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violated discretionary sanctions at List of concentration and internment camps

Hello, your reinstatement of challenged material without consensus at List of concentration and internment camps is a violation of the WP:ARBAPDS discretionary sanctions, which are clearly stated in the page editor. Specifically, no challenged edits may be reinstated via reversion without first finding consensus on the article talk page. Please revert immediately.

If you would like this challenged material to be included on the page, please find consensus for its inclusion on the article's talk page.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have further challenged your additional material in this article, as the source you've provided does not show anyone calling the Canadian facilities internment or concentration camps. Per the same discretionary sanctions, please start a conversation on the article's Talk page and find consensus before reinstating. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pinchme123: I don't see how ARBAPDS applies to Canadian or Hong Kong articles or sections. The ARBAPDS seems to relate to American politics, although even that is unclear. I am able to refrain from touching the section on the United States camps, and thus to abide by this policy (misplaced though it seems to be). Would that work for you? I doubt the global reach of this particular policy. Magnovvig (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the sanctions are currently applied to the entire article as specified in the notice, I'm not sure why you question even their applicability to the U.S. portion. No matter, our conversation is specifically about your additions to the list. They have no basis in the sources provided - no references to "concentration camps" or "internment" whatsoever - and I am therefore requesting you revert them and seek consensus for their inclusion via the talk page. If you are unwilling to do this, I will remove them later today myself. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

William Shawcross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Colin Campbell and Robert Dean

COVID-19 pandemic in Canada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Essential service

JBS USA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to BDO

National Security Advisor (Canada) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PMO

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Magnovvig

Thank you for creating Human-to-primate transmission.

User:Eostrix, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Interesting page. I checked if this was a duplicate, but could not find anything more specific than the general Cross-species transmission page.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Eostrix}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Eostrix (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of parliaments of England (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to York House and Balliol

COVID-19 pandemic in Canada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PPE

Canada Labour Code (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CDIC

Quarantine Act, 2005 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CBSA

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Heather Galbraith (soldier)

The article Heather Galbraith (soldier) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No notability established in article. Lieutenant-commander is below the rank of presumed notability in WP:SOLDIER

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dumelow (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Committee on the Present Danger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon Chang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 5G; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong national security law page moves

Hi there, you've recently been moving the Hong Kong national security law article without discussing it. The first move you did was to an inaccurate title. The latest one, which I haven't undone, is also inaccurate (but less so): it should have 'law' in the title since none of the bills have been called 'Hong Kong national security', and covers a wider scope than just a list of bills. In any case, it still seems more appropriate to use the common name of the general legislation that all the bills and proposals are about.

These moves also shouldn't have been made without discussion (WP:Requested moves), especially with a current article that is also controversial. So I'm going to move it back, and you should open a discussion if you think there's a better title. From the photos on your user page, you seem to be around the LegCo a lot, so perhaps you can provide sources and a good argument for moving the article. Kingsif (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, @Kingsif:. As I understand it, before a law becomes a law it is a bill. Bills becomes law when they are passed through the legislature. As I understand it, no national security law exists in Hong Kong. That's what the controversy is all about. We're now in the bill phase. It does everyone harm to talk about a law which doesn't exist yet. Wiki needs to reflect reality, to tell it as it is. Is this clear now? I made the first move to tighten the wordy title. I made the second move to fix your mistake. FWIW, those are photos I gathered from wikimedia (with my own categorisation). Magnovvig (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See, the article would still exist if there were no bills. It could give the background and controversy of just proposals and political back-and-forth. What would it be called then? Hong Kong national security theory? No, it's still about the theory of the law, even if it doesn't exist. And the way you describe We're now in the bill phase suggests you would want to rename the article again when the law was made - no, bills and laws get separate articles. There also isn't yet an actual 2020 bill, and the 2003 bill does have its own article. So using 'bill' is just wrong and confusing. Because of the background etc. in this article, the scope is broad enough that it should just have a generic title. Kingsif (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif:

See, the article would still exist if there were no bills.

Actually, no. page didn't exist until 22 May 2020. You premise is mistaken, so I have difficulty with everything else you've written. You're flying off into barking madness with your theory comment. The bill hasn't yet been released, but rest assured, the bureaucrats *are* working on it, because the NPCSC said to.

Now, I think you will agree that the National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill 2003 (NSLP Bill 2003) is appropriately entitled, because it never got out of LegCo. Having made the transition from imagined bill to drafted bill to live bill, it remains forevermore a dead bill. If the 2003 dead bill is known to wiki readers as the NSLP Bill 2003, why confuse readers of the Hong Kong national security law wiki with the mistaken title "law"? A law is a different animal than a bill, and wiki should not be bashful or economical with the truth, or afraid of the truth either.

Side note: have you declared your interest (pecuniary or otherwise) in this topic? For the record, I write to satisfy a purely personal and benelovent motive. Magnovvig (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't exist until recently, but given the amount of coverage in news and political analysis of what a national security law could be, the article could exist even without any bills. I agree that the 2003 bill article is titled correctly, because that is the actual name of the actual bill. The history of debate of a prospective law is not a bill, surely you understand that. As for my interest: I saw the two articles (law and the 2020 NPC decision) being conflated in current events, and went and did a lot of research to get my head around it. I know of the protest movements from reviewing those articles, and so had already researched structure of the legislature in Hong Kong. My interest is keeping everything accurate and in the appropriate place. Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have now made a series of bad edits, and left this edit reason that speaks to an ego Get the facts right and the article flows from there. It is strange that this article didn't have a solid foundation from its inception on 22 May until 11 June when I fixed it for you. Insulting, passive-aggressive, and narcissistic in two sentences. Go read Wikipedia:Etiquette now (seriously, I may be short in some of my comments, but that edit reason is beyond the pail). I strongly encourage you to have a more open attitude and communicate about edits on the talk page before doing anything, since your only major contribution has been to move the article to inaccurate titles and to add an unsourced opinion about CCP opportunism. Kingsif (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on @Kingsif: if you can't understand a clear provocation to you and only you, you need to back off. FYI, the proper usage for beyond the pail is beyond the pale. You are in the wrong on my the article to inaccurate titles as I have explained to you here above in agonizing detail. I invite you to detail the accusation: why do you use plural form?

The entire headnote section of Hong Kong national security law was bereft of any substantial reference to accepted and reputable sources before this edit. I specifically disliked the unreferenced sentence "Both the 2003 and 2020 attempts at legislation occurred during a coronavirus outbreak that originated in China, which negatively impacted the response to the proposals." so I changed it to "Both the 2003 and 2020 attempts at legislation occurred during a coronavirus outbreak that originated in China, which speaks to CCP opportunism." because I knew that it would get your attention and thereby receive your attention. I trust that the headnote section will be improved by this contretemps. Magnovvig (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kingsif (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Kingsif doesn't come out of it smelling like roses.

For your information, Hong Kong national security law has been move protected for one week. This means that for the time being, only administrators can move the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, @Cwmhiraeth: your move protection work means wiki is inaccurate and wiki misleads readers. And this on a topical and significant issue. One would think that an administrator with roots in the UK saw a discrepancy between bill and law. Magnovvig (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a standard process to avoid having to block editors (that would be a last resort) attempting to persuade them to seek WP:CONSENSUS (see WP:MOVP for more information). It's also possible to initiate a more formal move discussion (WP:RM#CM has already been mentioned at the article's talk page). —Paleo Neonate – 20:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Xinfadi market for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xinfadi market is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xinfadi market until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZLEA _T\^C 17:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cai Qi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CCP and Weibo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important note re edits in certain topic areas / WP:ONUS

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 shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Template:Z33

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 shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Template:Z33

Please see above as a standard reminder. Also, please don't restore material that has been challenged on specific grounds, especially to a lead section. See WP:ONUS ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."). I have opened a discussion on the article talk page if you want to pursue the matter. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 14:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [User_talk:Neutrality#WP:ONUS_and_The_Room_Where_It_Happened other editor's page] where I address this curious remark. Magnovvig (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Trade Organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charles Kahn

The article Charles Kahn has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cahk (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Nikolai Dmitriyevich Kuznetsov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kolesov

Scientific Production Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tula

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for EncroChat

On 6 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article EncroChat, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rasanan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Naron and Shemiranat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Norman (Canadian naval officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of National Security Advisory Council

A tag has been placed on National Security Advisory Council requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

not referenced sufficiently and not clearly linked to the Government of Canada

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Whiteguru (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mosquito Coast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander MacDonald.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Army SOS concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Army SOS, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bruce Campbell (professor) concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bruce Campbell (professor), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Capital Research Global Investors concern

Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Capital Research Global Investors, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@M Imtiaz: yes, I think you made a mistake. All information on wiki is subject to citation. Unreferenced material may be deleted. I am surprised that you are unfamiliar with this policy. I will continue to make this edit until the unreferenced material is either referenced or deleted. Thank you for your productive contributions, one of which this wasn't. 08:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one source cited later in the article, as I'm sure you would have noticed if you had actually read the article in question. I'm sure you'll find some weird reason to revert this, too, but maybe familiarise yourself with WP:TE before doing so. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great news, @M Imtiaz:! I'm glad you read and agree with WP:REFB, and you won't mind adding the reference to the paragraph in question. Magnovvig (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Bruce Campbell (professor)

Hello, Magnovvig. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bruce Campbell".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Council (Lebanon) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Supreme Council (Lebanon), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.S Philbrick (Talk) 13:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sphilbrick: you omitted to explain exactly why this edit was a copyvio. Please refer to the source usatoday article, not a copy in the pratt tribune. I am happy to discuss copyright violations so that together we can move towards a joint statement that reflects the usatoday article in question. If you want to remove some of the quoted material, let's work towards that. Is that a suitable midway point for you? I'm restoring the deleted material for you to prune, not chop. Magnovvig (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, It took me sometime to track down the entry in the copy patrol tool, which is not your problem, it appears to be my problem. Even though I addressed this, I apparently forgot to check it off in the tool and someone else checked it off. In any event I found it.

It wasn't handled the way I would normally handle such a situation. My guess is I was moving a little too fast and missed that the matching material was in quotes. While I do think those quotes are on the long side, Wikipedia:Quotations (admittedly not a policy or guideline) talks about "brief excerpt", and it is always been my action as an editor when introducing a quote, to make it as short as possible. When I am doing copyright issue review, I normally skip quoted material unless it's truly egregious such as multiple pages and leave it for editors to assess. It's clear I missed the fact that the material was in quotes. I've undone my revision deletion. For what it's worth, the material at Pratt seems to be identical to the material at USA Today so that's not an issue. I'll leave it to you and other editors to determine whether the quotes are too long or acceptable. Feel free to restore if they are not back in the article. Sorry. I'm trying to do too much, and may need to slow down a bit. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sphilbrick:, thanks for this reply. I'm glad that we have come to an agreement on the Hasbro page, where I have reduced the length of the quotes as you suggest. Hopefully the revised text is also more acceptable to the wider community. Magnovvig (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, Sounds good thanks, and sorry for the bull in a china shop reversion. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rib (nautical) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rib (nautical), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: your move of this article to draftspace appears to be unhelpful. Please reconsider your activities in light of the source I just added and help to revive this article to the mainspace. Magnovvig (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is a fundamental requirement that all content is verifiable from reliable sources, therefore references are required. I note you have submitted the article for AfC review. As I'm not an AfC reviewer, it would be inappropriate for me to interfere with that process. --John B123 (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 restores Timothy Grayson to mainspace, was Speedy deletion nomination of Timothy Grayson

Hello Magnovvig,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Timothy Grayson for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CentreLeftRight: thanks for your helpful deletion request. I wanted to let you know that another administrator, @Ritchie333: here within two days helpfully restored the page to mainspace: "decline A7 per WP:ATD-R". Thanks for your helpful patrolling. Together we can make wiki stronger and more helpful! Magnovvig (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cell-mediated immunity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Army SOS

Hello, Magnovvig. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Army SOS".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeneOne Life Science moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, GeneOne Life Science, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Companies listed on KOSPI

A tag has been placed on Category:Companies listed on KOSPI requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: the category would be unempty were someone like you to approve Draft:GeneOne Life Science. Magnovvig (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inovio Pharmaceuticals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FM: I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Magnovvig

Thank you for creating Fondation Mérieux.

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for this new article, but other editors have pointed out a significant problem. The article needs content in which someone in reliable media covered the organization, as opposed to what it says about itself.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doomsdayer520: thanks for the remark. I took the opportunity to add a pubmed citation. I hope you are satisfied with the results. Magnovvig (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Veal Association moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Canadian Veal Association, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from COI editor

Hello Magnovvig,

My name is Jeffrey Krasner. I am a former journalist (Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal) and covered biotechnology and healthcare, and also wrote about cars and other interesting things. I do some consulting for biotechnology companies, and I am helping David Lucchino, CEO of Frequency Therapeutics, improve his page. I am being paid for this.

I have used the COI template and have reached out to the volunteer community to make some updates to Lucchino's page, but haven't received any feedback. At this point, I'm uncomfortable making any additional changes without input from a volunteer editor.

I've noticed that you have contributed many improvements to life science and company pages. I'm hoping you might have a moment to look at the changes that I have made, and give me your feedback to ensure they are accurate and meet Wikipedia standards. I'm hoping you might be able to help with future edits.

I am happy to help you with any edits. I have a good knowledge of the Boston biopharma and medtech scene and would be happy to help you with any edits where I don't have a conflict. Thanks in advance.JeffreyKrasner —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JeffreyKrasner:. Thanks for the unexpected encouragement. Please note that I have exactly zero "pull" on this site, and you might be better off to ask your question to an administrator, which I am not. I'm happy to help but not just now. Can you remind me in a few days if I forget to answer you in detail? Lucchino is an impressive man, but one detects something amiss in his bio. It's difficult to put a finger on it, because you are such a polished writer. I'd almost say that it reads like a resume, not a wiki. Too much detail: let the readers dig in the reference material if they care enough... I'd take the material about the "frequency" ear product and put it in a wiki for the manufacturer. Magnovvig (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Serum Bank moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, World Serum Bank, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Novavax

added a link pointing to Molina

Novichok agent

added a link pointing to Alexander Yakovenko

Operation Warp Speed

added a link pointing to GSK

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Coronaphobia

The article Coronaphobia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Given it's a neologism, see WP:NOTNEO. An article containing it being cited is not the same as entering mainstream use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi I’ve just reviewed Chuang Yin-ching. Thanks for creating this article and happy editing! Mccapra (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Wow! how pleasant it is to be recognized with a bowl of strawberries for my work on wiki. This is the first time that my talk page has ever contained a reward! Usually it only contains criticism and refuse. You have made my day. :) Magnovvig (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Phases of clinical research. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Strange edit. Don't write your opinions into medical content on Wikipedia. Don't write content unless supportable by a reliable source, preferably a WP:MEDRS review. Zefr (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zefr: I'm glad you noticed my edit and moved to delete it. In general, when I decline to footnote a sentence, it contains sufficient wiki links to other articles that substantiate my claim, as this one did to the novel Adaptive design (medicine) (AD) page. I needed to create the AD page because of a black hole in the WikiProject Medicine. I am surprised that you hadn't heard previously of AD, and glad of your significant contributions to the AD page, as well as the COVID-19 vaccine edit you made linking that page to the AD page. Would you care to retract your claim that I "add original research or novel syntheses of published material to article" and change the tone of your commentary in light of this communication?

I wouldn't trust a publication in the J Biosciences which has an impact factor too low (1.6) to be trusted. That statement you used and the source (added after my first revert) are too general and misrepresent the facts. Animal studies are widely used in development of possible COVID-19 vaccines and drugs - there may be a few exceptions where programs are on fast-track, but the majority are testing new compounds in animals. It's a topic that doesn't belong in the Phases of clinical research article. Btw, I am the editor who first added "adaptive design" content to COVID-19 vaccine and COVID-19 drug development, and there are good WP:MEDRS reviews on adaptive design for Phase II-III clinical trials. Editors work on countless different Wikipedia articles, as I do (patrolling thousands), so it doesn't fall into the responsibility of one editor to fill in a "black hole". I'm glad you started the Adaptive design article, and will follow it closely. Zefr (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Impact factor too low "to be trusted" seems a bit dodgy to me, like moving goalposts. I'm disappointed that you failed to retract although given ample opportunity. It does belong in the Phases of clinical research if it is novel and a departure from previously accepted practice. Magnovvig (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple - find a WP:MEDREV review in a high-quality journal to support the statement. But use of the words, "decided", "stampede", and "forgone" are the original research statements you used for which there is no review evidence to verify; WP:V. Zefr (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: I stand behind my usage. There is no original research, read the pubmed article. If you want to soften my words, go right ahead. Magnovvig (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I wonder if you might help the article Draft:Andrew Pollard (vaccinologist) move out of the AfC draftspace, to which it was condemned by another overhasty administrator. Thanks in advance! Magnovvig (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested for now. Zefr (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Piers Corbyn

added links pointing to Wired and Matthew Scott

List of people and organizations sanctioned in relation to human rights violations in Belarus

added a link pointing to Central Election Committee

Oxford Vaccine Group

added a link pointing to Immunity

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Pollard (vaccinologist) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Andrew Pollard (vaccinologist), does not have enough references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements sources and citations as written to remain published.Se the requirements at WP:PROF I I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DGG: thanks for the notice about the Andrew Pollard page. I have added several references as you suggest, and submitted it to the AfC review board. Hopefully you will see the worth of the article and approve it there soon. Magnovvig (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wpuld also help if you added a list of his 4 or 5 most noted papers. I will let someone else review it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, @DGG: and with thanks. Can you suggest another interested reviewer to help revive the article into mainspace? Magnovvig (talk) 02:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we usually do reviews at random. I recognize there is some immediate interest in the subject, and if nobody responds with a week or two after you have added references and resubmitted it, get in touch with me again on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DGG: I haven't had time to add AP's significant papers yet, but I have discovered that Pollard sits on the WHO SAGE body. I would argue that this single fact outweighs any benefit to his reputation afforded by mere papers, and would kindly ask you soon to restore his page to mainspace. Magnovvig (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

checking .... DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DGG: oops I forgot yesterday afternoon to inform you that the Pollard article had been moved back to mainspace by another person yesterday afternoon. Sorry about that. Thanks anyhow. Magnovvig (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI editor seeks notability review

Hello User:Magnovvig Thank you for your response to my message. I appreciate your feedback on the David Lucchino article and I will take your suggestions into account. You mentioned that Lucchino's company, Frequency Therapeutics, might be deserving of its own article. Would you be willing to review a draft of the article, with appropriate citations, for notability? I can post it on my talk page, or yours, or however you prefer. It will probably take me two weeks to put this together, so no rush! Thanks in advance.JeffreyKrasner (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JeffreyKrasner:. Thanks for your pleasant correspondence. At the outset I must state that I have no experience with this type of COI activity so you get what you pay for, which is SFA. I'd be happy to help within these confines. I would imagine that the best place for you to start with the FT page is in your User:JeffreyKrasner/sandbox. Ping me when you've polished the sandbox article and I'll take a gander. Magnovvig (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Magnovvig: Thank you for your response, and your caveat emptor warning. I will be in touch when I have something in my sandbox. Regards.JeffreyKrasner (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

date format - September 2020

Please don't change the format of dates. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ViperSnake151: As a general rule, I write in the dmy format that is comfortable to me, and leave for other editors to spruce it up if they so desire, as you did on Mountain Equipment Co-op. The process seems to have worked well in this case. Magnovvig (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MEC page

Your recent editing history at Mountain Equipment Co-op shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt: I am mystified by your contention. Please itemize how you feel I have been involved in an edit war, or kindly retract your words. Magnovvig (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research

added a link pointing to MRC

Politics of Belarus

added a link pointing to Asylum

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020: FPN

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Fixed penalty notice. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stifle: I was unaware that I added my own point of view to the FPN page. Can you please elaborate on what it was exactly that triggered you? Thanks in advance! Magnovvig (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Serum Bank (September 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/sero-survey-delhi-completes-15000-samples-results-details-covid-19-coronavirus-in-delhi-640465, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678936/, https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/05/10/unexpected-heroes-of-coronavirus-dissent-tanzania-president-john-magufuli/. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:World Serum Bank may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rosprirodnadzor

The article Rosprirodnadzor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article only makes one statement about a body in Russia with delegated tasks. It is bereft of common sense and information for the ordinary reader. It needs significant attention to detail and the addition of much more detail.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Whiteguru (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Whiteguru: thanks for the reminder to edit that stub. I hope my subsequent work meets with your approval. Magnovvig (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo! @Magnovvig: I'll be watching. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mountain Equipment Co-op, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kitchener and Laval.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Supreme Council (Lebanon) has been accepted

Supreme Council (Lebanon), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Calliopejen1:. Thanks for the help! Magnovvig (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Jenő Tihanyi

added a link pointing to Olympic

National Security and Intelligence Review Agency

added a link pointing to CSIS

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: GeneOne Life Science (October 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Buidhe was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GeneOne Life Science and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:GeneOne Life Science, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

(t · c) buidhe 03:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Rib (nautical) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rib (nautical). Thanks! TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada

I've noticed that you have been adding dates to timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada in "day month" format when it clearly states it is in "MDY" format. Were you aware that it was in that format? I do not mind changing them as it's a script, but it would be easier for you to do so from the outset. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Thanks for your patrol of the Canadian covid timeline page. When I write for wiki, I don't limit myself to one particular parish as I find that that would hamper my productivity. I see and I'm glad you have automated scripts for prettifying MOS:DATEFORMAT imperfections. That's a great example of teamwork in action! Magnovvig (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Musical Ride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biennial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Valery Vakulchik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lipniki.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Grayson moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Timothy Grayson, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hossein Modarres Khiyabani

The article Hossein Modarres Khiyabani has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Deputy ministers are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Blair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NHS Gender Identity Development Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trans.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rib (nautical) has been accepted

Rib (nautical), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Zoozaz1 talk 13:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arif Ahmed (philosopher) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arif Ahmed (philosopher) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Ahmed (philosopher) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

No-fault insurance

added a link pointing to Queen's University

Vaccine adverse event

added a link pointing to Queen's University

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – 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 these sanctions. 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.

Template:Z33

Alexbrn (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15 December 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RexxS (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an enforcement block, as I cannot be certain that you were fully aware of the implications of general sanctions.

Nevertheless, you must read WP:MEDRS and understand that biomedical claims have to be supported by secondary sources. You must not reinstate content that has been challenged by legitimate reversion in articles under discretionary sanctions. You must gain consensus on the article talk page for any reinstatement. If you breach policy and guidelines again on this page, or fail to adhere to the highest standards of behaviour in you interactions with other editors, I will apply a discretionary sanction against you which is likely to be for a far longer period. If you don't understand any part of this warning, please ask for clarification. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: It would be helpful if Administrator were to itemize the so-called "disruptive edits" in question, so Editor can understand the sanctions. Otherwise, the sanction procedure is simply an arbitrary and violent procedure that will lead to few good results. If Editor wishes to appeal the block on substantive terms Editor must be given itemized reasons by Administrator. This is standard practice in UK and US disciplinary procedure... Can Administrator justify the length of the block? Why is it in this case 31 hours, and not 30.5 hours, 10*pi hours or 24 hours? How has Administrator come to arrive at this particular duration? Magnovvig (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "so-called" about repeatedly inserting the same challenged content into an article under general sanctions. Your lack of understanding of reliable sourcing and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude at Talk:Ivermectin compound the problem. You only need to understand what I wrote to you in my post above to see what changes you need to make for the future. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS you misunderstand me. Elsewhere this issue had been mischaracterized by Alexbrn. I was told by him to go to WP:MEDRS, which is a catch-all page for various ills, when WP:MEDDEF would have relieved me from my misdirection. Again, *initially* on this page you have no mention of *why* you feel "disruptive edits" have been made by me. How does this behaviour help? If you don't tell me, how am I supposed to know? I am not a mind reader... The edit in question was a large-scale rewrite and included the claim in the intro ""A five day course of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 may reduce the duration of the illness". Why then did Alexbrn not simply remove that sentence and tag WP:MEDDEF as a reminder in his edit summary (as he is free to do, and would have been friendly to do!) rather than reverting all 1,160 bytes of my edit? It seems to me that Alexbrn needs to have his administrator privileges temporarily revoked so that he learns (by being reduced to the status of mere contributor) to be gentle and less power-mad with others. Magnovvig (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada

Your recent editing history at Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicate to you here, the onus is on you to discuss the matter on the talk page. You have initiated the edit war. Magnovvig (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who initiates a edit-war, on pages under discretionary sanctions I am quite prepared to sanction all of the participants, whether they breach a bright-line 3RR or not. Can I strongly recommend that the moment any editor reverts another's recent edit on one of these pages, they immediately open a talk page discussion, please? and that the reverted editor refrains from repeating their initial edit until some agreement is found on the talk page. I understand it slows things down, but there is no deadline, and trying to force change into an article when challenged is not a good means of improving articles. --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is why I started discussion. The article has now been fully protected anyway. I have pinged other frequent editors on the subject to generate discussion instead of engaging in edit warring. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RexxS, for your observation that "trying to force change into an article when challenged is not a good means of improving articles." This is one matter where you and I seem to be in complete agreement. And I am delighted to participate in the talk page, and satisfied that CaffeinAddict has been told by another person more senior than him that this incident can be only with superhuman difficulty characterised as an "Edit war". Might I suggest that the title on that page (freely chosen by junior) now be amended in order not to tar junior with "baseless claim", "utter fabrication" and "feverish invention". Magnovvig (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl sulfone moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Vinyl sulfone, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 23:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discospinster can you now approve of Draft:Vinyl sulfone please? Magnovvig (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article back to main space. ... discospinster _talk 18:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great help, discospinster. Magnovvig (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pyridyl disulfide moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Pyridyl disulfide, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 23:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discospinster can you now approve of Draft:Pyridyl disulfide please? Magnovvig (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article back to main space. ... discospinster _talk 18:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great help, discospinster. Magnovvig (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again

For the second time in the last few days, you are again trying to force an edit about COVID-19, inserting unreliable sources, at both Tozinameran and Polyethylene glycol‎ i.e. citing PMID 33320974, an editorial. You have reverted my removal of non-MEDRS[1] without any discussion or sign of consensus. I strongly suggest you self-revert. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you've just continued on editing without responding to this. I am pinging DMacks and RexxS - the admins who commented on the last incident at Talk:Ivermectin - to assess the situation. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn I disagree with your assessment of "edit warring again". The Tozinameran modification which set you off in a tizzy was this one here. I purposely limited this contribution to a WP:MEDRS source, and the Canadian regulator (health government) source. So it was not an edit war. *I took into account your complaint* and tried to find a middle ground. This edit cannot be termed as you did. Your attempt to tag me with an epithet is distasteful and I hope you will apologize. Magnovvig (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig I'm not sure what you mean about "tizzy" and "epithet". I removed the non-MEDRS source and you put it right back (see my diff), which is behaviour against the guidance of the general sanctions of which you are aware. If for some reason you felt WP:MEDRS didn't apply here, you should have discussed the matter rather than simply restoring the material. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue with you on this, Magnovvig. The source https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/all.14711 is an editorial and the source https://www.gponline.com/mhra-warning-allergic-reactions-nhs-staff-given-covid-19-vaccine/article/1702322 is a news report. I don't think you're making an effort to understand MEDRS, and you are re-instating a challenged source without going to the article talk page. I'm blocking you for a week for the disruption you have caused. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn if you check the edit logs, I expanded the reference via Citation Bot and by that means attempted to indicate to all and sundry (including you) that the source indeed was valid under WP:MEDRS. I'm trying to get you to climb down because your claims that I engaged in an "edit war again" cannot be substantiated. Magnovvig (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RexxS (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Magnovvig (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The assessment of "edit warring again" results, I think, from my Tozinameran modification: here.

Alexbrn is angry about this edit which sought to remove material about the recent problems with anaphylactic reactions to Tozinameran.

Alexbrn then obtained the approval of RexxS for this block. RexxS notes that s/he "blocked Magnovvig with an expiration time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing - reinserting non-MEDRS sources)". So we know that the problem is something to do with MEDRS.

I was surprised that Alexbrn would remove a source found on Pubmed (which states the fact that people suffered anaphylactic reactions) under an edit log that quoted WP:MEDRS. Sources found on Pubmed are typically acceptable under WP:MEDRS. The fact itself seems incontrovertible. If we want to exclude reputable newspapers from reporting facts, ok, we can do that.

So I purposely limited this contribution to a WP:MEDRS source, which is in an accepted medical journal. What else can I do when the OP indicates that my prior contributions are invalid under WP:MEDRS? I eliminate the reputable newspaper sources and material while keeping the WP:MEDRS source and material.

Isn't collaboration what wikipedia is all about?

Isn't collaboration what I did?

Let's now look at the block log: "Disruptive editing - reinserting non-MEDRS sources". **But that's not what I did**: "I purposely limited this contribution to a WP:MEDRS source." So fail the grounds on which the block was handed out.

I tried my best to find a middle ground and feel that my contribution was unfairly tarred with an "edit war" epithet. I have asked kindly for Alexbrn to apologize but have been thus far rebuffed. I feel that my effort to contribute to wikipedia in a positive way have been unfairly and grossly mischaracterised to wikipedia's detriment.

Magnovvig (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

per my own assessment and RexxS's comments below, this unblock-request demonsrtrates exactly the reason for the block: continued refusal to understand and commit to following WP:MEDRS. Collaboration doesn't mean we can half-way go against sitewide consensus policies and guidelines on a per-page basis. DMacks (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Non-admin comment). One of the problems here is that you are saying PMID 33320974 is WP:MEDRS when it simply isn't (have you read WP:MEDRS?). It is an editorial. This basic misunderstanding combined with a steamroller approach to editing makes things very difficult. Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that your unblock request illustrates precisely how you fail to understand the requirements of MEDRS. You must read and understand that guidance if you intend to edit medical articles, particularly ones in controversial areas or subject to discretionary sanctions.

Your assertions "Sources found on Pubmed are typically acceptable under WP:MEDRS. The fact itself seems incontrovertible." are absolutely, totally, and completely wrong. You need to grasp the fact that PubMed indexes a huge number of articles, including novel hypotheses, primary studies, editorials and opinion pieces published in scientific journals, some of which are of dubious quality. MEDRS requires medical content to be sourced to good quality secondary sources such as systematic reviews and position statements from national or international expert bodies. All of that is laid out in the opening of MEDRS and you have no excuse for not having read it by now. Let me be as clear as I can on the topic: MEDRS-sources are a minor subset of PubMed-sources; being indexed by PubMed is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion for meeting MEDRS.

Secondly, I made it abundantly clear above that doi/10.1111/all.14711 falls short of what is required by MEDRS, yet you insist in your unblock request that it is. You were told the same by another editor who reverted you. However, instead of trying to reach an understanding of what would be acceptable as MEDRS by debate on the article talk page, you simply restored the content and the source to the article. That is not the first time you've done that, and such behaviour has to stop if you wish to continue editing here. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pyridyl disulfide (December 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Graeme Bartlett was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2,2'-Dipyridyldisulfide instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Pyridyl disulfide is a generic term, but it always refers to 2,2'-Dipyridyldisulfide. We could do with a redirect to that page.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pyridyl disulfide and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pyridyl disulfide, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mutein

The article Mutein has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As per WP:DICDEF.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the prod because there are sources available for expansion beyond a dictdef. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Organ accumulation

The article Organ accumulation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition, if its a standard term at all

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Trojan War

added links pointing to Phoenix, Molossus, Deidamia, Nestor and Colophon

Prometheus

added a link pointing to Mercury

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recurve bow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lemonwood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Trade Act 2021 you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Open Parliament Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again on Disinfectant— Diannaa (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alibaba Foundation

The article Alibaba Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

R14: Other. I believe this can be merged into the Jack Ma page with little effort, and would recommend that we delete this page and merge it there.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

MMR vaccine

added a link pointing to Merck

Trade Act 2021

added a link pointing to David Davis

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Colchicine. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. There have been enough edit summaries rejecting your revisions to persuade you to seek discussion and consensus on the talk page. Please stop and seek WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pierre Kory

Hello Magnovvig,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pierre Kory for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CoconutOctopus talk 20:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Public Health Agency of Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iain Stewart.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 moved to draftspace - unreferenced

An article you recently created, Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 has been accepted

Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Mosaic (genetics)

added a link pointing to Genetic

Soviet biological weapons program

added a link pointing to Pokrov

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gain of function research into Johnston Atoll. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Capital Research Global Investors

Hello, Magnovvig. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Capital Research Global Investors".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian Food Inspection Agency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonwood

Hi, at Recurve bow you recently added, about Mongol bows: These bows were constructed with laminated lemonwood and bullhorn bonded by an unknown adhesive. Lemonwood links to a disambiguation page, unfortunately, and none of the trees listed there seem native to Asia. The source doesn't specify what this lemonwood is supposed to be either. The article Mongol bow, however, says The core is bamboo, with horn on the belly (facing towards the archer) and sinew on the back, bound together with animal glue. I can't find any other mention of lemonwood and Mongol bows anywhere on the internet, either. Do you think the source got that one wrong, maybe? Lennart97 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arlene Foster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foodprofessor

Janvez: Just realized he deleted your comment under Sylvain Charlebois, again. His intent is clearly not to inform the public. Not sure what he's doing. Can we report him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvez (talk • contribs) 10:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Janvez: Foodprofessor deleted those comments which were unsubstantiated by footnotes, as is proper. As a result, I replaced the material he deleted with adequately sourced text. S/he can no longer complain (see edit history notes) that the material is not adequately sourced. We will see the response, if any. Thanks for bringing this to my notice. It's like editorial ping-pong, you just need to get your mind into the game. You'll learn quickly enough. Magnovvig (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janvez: Thanks! I hate this back and forth. Foodprofessor has only made changes to this one Charlebois page, for some reason. One recommendation, I would delete the "coining" comment, since I believe s/he was right, and NPR was not. Just a recommendation, up to you. --Janvez (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome @Janvez: :) I'm pleased to be of service. Yes, I think the term was coined on twitter, but twitter is not accepted by wiki, which needs adequately sourced material like the NPR article. So if Denise Wong didn't use the term in an article between 29 December 2020 and 21 February 2021, Charlebois seems (in print thus on wiki) to have originated the term. Do you follow this logic? Magnovvig (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janvez: Was not aware Wiki didn't recognize Twitter as a source. Not a bad idea. I do follow your logic and your contribution is well written. Thanks.--Janvez (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnovvig: Thanks for your edit at Sylvain Charlebois. I recently commented at article talk about the previous edits which you largely reverted. I am planning to act only as an uninvolved administrator relating to this issue but I have to comment on the general idea of what kind of text is suitable for an article. At Wikipedia, plain encyclopedic facts should be reported without flowery market-speak. That rules out "reminded readers" and "newsworthy item" and "dismayed" and more. In fact the whole "Consumer advocacy" section should be shortened to WP:DUE facts. If buttergate was an article on a notable incident, it would be fine to mention that term. Since the incident is not yet notable, there is no point in mentioning it other than for boosterism. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janvez: Sorry, it appears Foodprofessor is at it again. I thought your article was appropriate. --Janvez (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Janvez: if s/he tries to revert on the grounds that the op-ed is mere assertion, just point out that Charlebois is a professor and he can be assumed to know his field of study beyond that of mere scribes, hacks or other wikipedians. Magnovvig (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janvez: Thanks! --Janvez (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Canadian Veal Association

Hello, Magnovvig. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Canadian Veal Association".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Principles Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Cannon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain Charlebois

Hi @Magnovvig: You seem to have a habit of adding non-sourced content into BLP articles, which is against policy. That section you restored, hasn't got a single reference to it's credit. Don't add it back in, unless it has proper references, that are verifiable per WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 18:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of taking up to coin. It's worrying me that you adding unsourced content, into a BLP, of such low-quality, for some unknown reason. scope_creep^Talk 18:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: actually, it is not I who am "adding unsourced content". I am merely *restoring* unsourced content added by other editors which is relevant to the subject, and asking you kindly to "give readers more time than a few days to discover alternative references like archive.org, in the meantime leave it up". What part of this edit summary do you not understand and how can I help you to understand? Magnovvig (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janvez: Canadian Dairy is at it again. That lobby is relentless. Thank you for making sure the page is accurate. Wally Smith is a lobbyist so not sure why he needs to be mentioned.--Janvez (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaskyask: Smith is a farmer, but he represents a highly powerful lobby group, and the information presented is a matter of opinion. Others disagree with him. Are sure this is useful for wiki readers? Commenting "He should go back to school"? This is more provocation than anything else. What do you think? --Yaskyask (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnovvig: Well don't. Wikipedia policy is very clear on unsourced content, particularly for a BLP. Don't add it until you have references to support it. scope_creep^Talk 21:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hugh Capet

added links pointing to Montreuil and Chelles

Nils G. Walter

added links pointing to GBM and AAAS

Derrick Rossi

added a link pointing to Protein expression

MRC-5

added a link pointing to Caucasian

Moderna

added a link pointing to CMO

Ohio Department of Agriculture

added a link pointing to RBST

Sylvain Charlebois

added a link pointing to RBST

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Geology of North Macedonia

added a link pointing to Solway

Macedonite

added a link pointing to Crni Kamen

Senomyx

added a link pointing to Solae

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:GeneOne Life Science

Hello, Magnovvig. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:GeneOne Life Science, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cunico Resources for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cunico Resources is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunico Resources until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Smrdliva Voda

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Smrdliva Voda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ... discospinster _talk 01:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macedonite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crni Kamen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tiger Asia Management" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tiger Asia Management. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#Tiger Asia Management until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. JBchrch (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the abbreviation "G-SIB"

Hi, both UBS and Credit Suisse are on my watch list and I noted that you added the abbreviation "G-SIB" (without prior explanation) to both articles [2][3]. Now I've been working in, with or around banks for 10 years now and I can tell you that the abbreviation "G-SIB" is not standard and that most people in banking and finance would not know what it means. Only the folks at the FSB and maybe some members of a few sub-committees at the BIS would be immediately familiar with this term. I also think that abbreviations are generally unhelpful and that it is preferable to spell out the words completely, especially in places like Wikipedia that are intended for laypeople to learn about this stuff. So I would suggest that we keep the term "systematically important bank" instead of saying "G-SIB". --JBchrch (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, you keep adding this abbreviation to multiple pages, despite my message above. Please engage constructively. --JBchrch (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:18, 31 March 2021 edit JBchrch (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 10,214 edits →Use of the abbreviation "G-SIB": new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:33, 31 March 2021 edit undo JBchrch (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 10,214 edits →Use of the abbreviation "G-SIB" Next edit →
Line 1,480:		Line 1,480:

	Hi, both [[UBS]] and [[Credit Suisse]] are on my watch list and I noted that you added the abbreviation "G-SIB" (without prior explanation) to both articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UBS&diff=1015239475&oldid=1012015685][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Credit_Suisse&diff=1015239900&oldid=1015112706]. Now I've been working in, with or around banks for 10 years now and I can tell you that the abbreviation "G-SIB" is not standard and that most people in banking and finance would not know what it means. Only the folks at the [[Financial Stability Board\|FSB]] and maybe some members of a few sub-committees at the [[Bank for International Settlements\|BIS]] would be immediately familiar with this term. I also think that abbreviations are generally unhelpful and that it is preferable to spell out the words completely, especially in places like Wikipedia that are intended for laypeople to learn about this stuff. So I would suggest that we keep the term "systematically important bank" instead of saying "G-SIB". --[[User:JBchrch\|JBchrch]] ([[User talk:JBchrch\|talk]]) 11:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)		Hi, both [[UBS]] and [[Credit Suisse]] are on my watch list and I noted that you added the abbreviation "G-SIB" (without prior explanation) to both articles [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UBS&diff=1015239475&oldid=1012015685][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Credit_Suisse&diff=1015239900&oldid=1015112706]. Now I've been working in, with or around banks for 10 years now and I can tell you that the abbreviation "G-SIB" is not standard and that most people in banking and finance would not know what it means. Only the folks at the [[Financial Stability Board\|FSB]] and maybe some members of a few sub-committees at the [[Bank for International Settlements\|BIS]] would be immediately familiar with this term. I also think that abbreviations are generally unhelpful and that it is preferable to spell out the words completely, especially in places like Wikipedia that are intended for laypeople to learn about this stuff. So I would suggest that we keep the term "systematically important bank" instead of saying "G-SIB". --[[User:JBchrch\|JBchrch]] ([[User talk:JBchrch\|talk]]) 11:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

			{{u\|Magnovvig}}, you keep adding this abbreviation to multiple pages, despite my message above. Please engage constructively. --[[User:JBchrch\|JBchrch]] ([[User talk:JBchrch\|talk]]) 11:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)