Re your post about an edit war, I did attempt to talk to you here (see my post at the end of this page) after you deleted all the new edits from the past few days.
I didn't see a response.
I'm still figuring out how to use talk. Don't know if I did it right MKarlsssson ( talk) 08:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MKarlsssson MKarlsssson ( talk) 08:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, firstly I must apologise as I am new to Wikipedia and don’t really know what I’m doing.
But basically I am just trying to get updated safety information onto the Ciprofloxacin page. The information is from the FDA 2016 warning. But it keeps getting edited out. I would have thought this was reliable information that belongs on the page?
As I say. I don’t really know what I’m doing and not really sure how to reference things properly. Can you help? Wiki woms ( talk) 23:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Also I have probably come across like I am trying to argue with Doc James. This is not the case, I’m just getting frustrated with it
I’m sure he has good intentions, but he just seems to dismiss the recent FDA warnings Wiki woms ( talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not alter your Talk page contributions after they have been responded to; it makes an already confusing thread even worse. See WP:REDACT. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Please be mindful of WP:TPNO, especially in discussions about pseudoscience. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
"It doesn't matter that you're fine with direct fraud cases being pseudoscience when you're actively portraying other sourced pseudoscientific areas as not." I am okay with sourcing being used, per NPOV, that states faith healing is a pseudoscience, so long as other sourcing is incorporated that suggests that this is not the case and that only certain forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. You are assuming that I am wanting to bludgeon my way over majority opinion of the RfC when I simply am not. Maybe we both view each other as wanting to cherrypicking sources? I want to have a discussion, either apply MEDRS restrict ourselves to the recent 2013 source or else if we use old sources, to do so neutrally which includes differing opinions amongst those sources.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Kingofaces43: @ Raymond3023: I am a bit frustrated being accused of POV pushing, so I am instead posting this to clarify where my real thoughts are at this point. Kingofaces43 made a sensible argument that MEDRS should not apply, at least not strictly, because faith healing is a fringe topic and not subject to routine research and review. Therefore, older sources should be used. Below is what I regard as NPOV summary of the available sources. I do not believe the below text will be perfectly acceptable to either side of the debate:
Faith healing is a scientifically unproven treatment and cures attributed to it are considered to be scientifically suspect; determining whether it can be proven that a person was sick and has been cured in the first instance or whether spontaneous remission has occurred may offer better explanations. There are, in fact, many examples of faith healing fraud and deception. Alleged cures from faith healing are considered to be paranormal phenomena, however, the religious beliefs and practices associated with faith healing are not generally considered to be pseudoscientific because they do not usually have any pretensions of science. [1] However, other authors disagree and have asserted faith healing is a clear cut form of pseudoscience. [2] [3] Another expert stated that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism. [4] Another author described faith healing as a form of paranormal belief that is based on fraud and deception. [5] Faith healing has been described as probably the most dangerous type of pseudoscience because it can cause people to reject mainstream medical care with increased pain and suffering and an earlier death being real potential consequences. [6]
If the consensus were to apply
WP:MEDRS '5 year rule source' then all we can say is:
Only certain forms of faith healing are regarded as pseudoscience, e.g.,
Christian Science,
voodoo and
Spiritualism.
[4]
So there you have it. Thoughts and comments are welcome. :-) Keep smiling folks. Wikipedia is about debate, fun and stimulating the mind.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban ( User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:
"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) ( talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage ( talk · contribs), is topic-banned ( WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 ( talk · contribs) ( WP:IBAN)."
As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork ( talk) 08:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't want you to have to go digging to look for this, so ...
So, I just noticed that you have over 60 signed comments on the faith healing talk page regarding the RFC and related discussions, and a majority of the past 100 edits on that page were made by you (and over 100 of the last 250 edits, and over 150 of the last 500 edits, and you get the picture). I think it might be a good idea to calm down a bit, stop editing that talk page, and let the process go forward. At this point, I can't imagine that anything else you say could convince someone who hasn't already been convinced by what you've said so far. That RFC is already a long rambling mess, and adding anything else to it will only make life more difficult for whoever has to close it. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irritable bowel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Translocation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to work, then focus on the work. Jytdog ( talk) 13:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
So what is going at Zolpidem, is sadly very common. There are people who abuse the openness of WP to come here and advocate like crazy for things.
Passion is a double-edged sword --it drives people to contribute, but it can drive people right over the policies and guidelines and to just bludgeon the talk page to get what they want.
MEDRS actually developed because our articles on autism were a mess -- we had people shilling things, and desperate, desperate parents grasping at straws, all hammering to drive crap into WP based on the latest primary source, or some old primary source that somebody "re-discovered", or some junk source from popular media or a blog. Working on health content used to be as bad as working on video games. But the folks back then pulled together and after a lot of talk and discussion, put MEDRS together and it has earned broad and deep consensus, for good reason. It makes pretty quick work of most advocacy, be that some company shilling some drug, or somebody who comes here obsessed with some sort of side effect and just hammers to try to get the page to fit with their very impassioned notions.
In these cases, it is all the more important to stick to MEDRS and the other policy and guidelines. We don't bend to accommodate the obsessions of who ever happens to show up.
If people refuse to engage with the policies and guidelines, they end up topic banned or they get sick of beating their head against the wall and leave.
This is not at all uncommon, unfortunately. I am not sure you have encountered this personally before in WP. I appreciate the kindness you are showing; that is very much in the spirit of what we do here. But we need to remain grounded on what we do here, and how we do it.... Jytdog ( talk) 01:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
That definition of fundamentalism is pure OR you know and you're tainting Proestantism by using it in that way. You are also failing to respect WP:BRD and should have taken it to the talk page rather than reverting. I'll return to this tomorrow when I have time but you should consider reverting ----- Snowded TALK 13:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Literaturegeek. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rifaximin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Translocation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up re not making significant changes quickly, and for acknowledging that they were made in good faith (they were, and it is demoralising when changes are rejected without discussion).
Could you clarify which of the changes over the past few days you think show bias and why?
From my perspective the current page is very biased (pushing the psychogenic cause line by putting it up in the intro is one example of this);
The content is also very North-America centric (an example putting the N.American medical association's lack of recognition of MCS RIGHT at the top and editors repeatedly deleting the line about recognition by the medical associations in Germany, Austria, Spain, Japan up top. Yes, Germany is mentioned later but WAY down the bottom of the page, where it gets lost. Mentioning WHO's lack of recognition up top? Sure, that makes sense. But why should the US's medical association's position take precedence over other countries's? It would also seem logical to me that recognition should go before lack of. In this way, the north America centrism is biased).
It's also filled with citations that breach Wikipedia reliable sources guidelines (that is, individual studies taken as gospel rather than secondary sources; and Quackwatch, which is a self-published web site and forum -- it's a far cry from a secondary source published by a reliable third party).
I hope I've used talk correctly here. If not, let me know; I'm new. MKarlsssson ( talk) 03:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MKarlsssson MKarlsssson ( talk) 03:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I didn't see them till now.
Your new review, being psychiatric, brings a certain perspective with it. Although it does mention organic brain changes, including "limbic kindling" -- would love to see that mentioned.
There are a few other more recent reviews than Genius' out there, although I only had time to read one, and I referenced it in the intro.
Thank you for this! This is a step towards balance. Can we include Spain and Japan too? Again, I really think these belong in a section on recognition specifically not in the intro. Because, for example, the Skandi countries also recognise MCS as a functional disorder and health condition. I don't think these are the most important facts about MCS to be in the intro.
The fact that it's not recognised as a discrete disease in an index doesn't mean it's not recognised as a health condition. There are a bunch of researchers who say it's a symptom cluster that is likely more than one disease. That was in a previous new edit in the intro that I tried to keep in there, but it was repeatedly deleted. But it's an important distinction. MKarlsssson ( talk) 09:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MKarlsssson MKarlsssson ( talk) 09:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Literaturegeek, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
I see that you voted twice on the autism talk page RFC: once to support your opinion, and once more to express opposition to the other opinion. I'm sure you meant no harm by this, but I think you should remove one of your !votes since it may confuse the closer. Wikiman2718 ( talk) 03:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I have removed [5] material from your 2012 edit to Alcohol abuse [6] because the cited reference talks about chronic fatigue syndrome and not chronic fatigue. The two syndromes are different and studies of one may not be relevant to the other. Alcohol abuse may be an important cause of chronic fatigue, but it is certainly not supported by the citation given. If you have a WP:MEDRS citation supporting this material then I would certainly support re-adding it. Thank you. Ward20 ( talk) 21:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
You may not close an RFC in which you voted, as you did here. Also, the RFC was malformed, so it was not a real RFC and could not be closed like one even if the person closing it actually did have the authority to do so. This is bad faith POV pushing. Please reverse your edit or I will report you to ANI. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 11:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you | |
For voting to keep the list of scientists who disagree with IPCC 3. You seem to appreciate that disagreeing with something is no reason to silence it. Kolg8 ( talk) 17:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC) |
(Alerting all recent editors of our Multiple chemical sensitivity article.)
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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you wind your neck back in re Bbb23. He is one of the best, most helpful checkusers we have. Read what he said: he's not arguing that we may not block, only that the evidence for sockpuppetry is not just weak, it's strongly against. That means it's more likely a meatpuppet. You might be able to find out the site where they are coordinating if you Google creatively (I've not tried yet). Guy ( help!) 21:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
His latest response was a clear violation of WP:NPA and possibly a violation of WP:NLT. The best thing to do is what you have done already; explain your reasoning in a clear fashion and then stop responding. leave the next move to the admins. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
This pretentious wikipedia editor has claimed to know something about opioids and has blocked one of my updates.
Debate question: Codeine and Morphine differ by 1 carbon atom. The extra carbon of Codeine is demethylated in the liver. This extra processing step makes codeine the 'weaker' opioid because it is less immediately bioavailable. Note that I was able to provide a clear and concise biochemical explanation as to the difference between Codeine and Morphine.
Tramadol and Venlafaxine also differ by 1 carbon atom. What is the exact biochemical explanation (like the one I provided for Codeine/Morphine) which explains why Venlafaxine is neither a mu1 binding opioid nor an NMDA antagonist whereas Tramadol is both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3CA0:3CD:247F:54CF:D553:4D05 ( talk) 02:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you were a significant contributor to the the article Alprazolam before it was accepted as Good Article, so this is why I am sending you this message. I translated the page in Romanian for GA, and I added a new section regarding its synthesis, using the data available on line ( this is the link). Would you like to add this section to the English version as well? I could help translating. If not, could I suggest adding it, if suitable? Anyways, thank you for your time! -- Alex Nico ( talk) 21:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 ( talk) 17:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi There,
I saw you on JBL's talk page, and I saw you had an issue with him calling out your perfectly fine edits as "bullsh*t". I also had the same thing happen with one of mine, where I have gotten into what is almost an edit war over some stuff. I just wanted to reach out and ask if you had talked to any admins or anything about his behavior because on review of everything he seems to have a pretty long history of acting dumb on Wikipedia.
Respectfully, Jedistormtrooper0625 ( talk) 03:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.
AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 02:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I know everyone is tired of hearing about the essay, but could you please not remove my posts? I think the fact that TonyBallioni was the person who originally created this essay, which directly mentioned race and intelligence at the time when he created it, is something that's significant enough to be more than just a personal attack. Before you removed my post, I actually was about to reply saying that I've said what I have to say about this issue, and I'll be quiet about it now.
The real mistake that I made was in not mentioning this point when I first brought up the essay right after he closed the RFC. The reason I didn't do that was because I didn't notice this additional detail until today. 2600:1004:B121:24B1:68A8:B461:310A:D948 ( talk) 14:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
I don't know who decided to make this yellow. It looks scary. Natureium ( talk) 00:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I assume that I'm allowed to ask about this here, since it relates only to the arbitration request to which I'm a party, and not to the articles from which I'm topic-banned until the end of July.
I'm unclear on the meaning of the outcome of this arbitration request, which has now been closed: [8] The last member of ArbCom to comment there, DGG, agreed that an arbitration case is needed. [9] [10] He appears to have been persuaded by your own comments there. But no other arbitrators commented there after DGG, and eventually the request was closed without anyone opening a case. I was wondering if you could explain the meaning of that outcome. Does it mean ArbCom has concluded there needs to be a case, but won't open one unless someone requests it?
Based on your comments in that request, it seems you agree there are issues ArbCom needs to address, so I also would like to know what you think is the way forward at this point. 2600:1004:B167:C948:E549:A895:4F46:2A02 ( talk) 00:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Articaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exponential. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I've been getting myself up to speed with the RFC [11] (and the disputed close [12]) last year about a potential genetic component to the racial IQ gap. I saw your name in the discussion and have respected your contributions on other articles, so I was wondering if you have any input on the current situation, in which editors are citing the fringe consensus determination in defense of:
Editors are using the fringe determination to advance the argument that 100% of the racial IQ gap is due to environmental factors, and any dissent from this view is considered fringe, despite evidence to the contrary from a variety of reliable sources. Administrators at the ArbCom case back in 2010 proposed findings of fact affirming as much: "The (weak) hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe" and "The idea that genetics is one factor in racial IQ differences may not have achieved consensus in the scientific community, but neither is it fringe (and, in fact, no other factors have achieved consensus either—although some have been disproven)." [17]
I'm trying to to determine how best to proceed with this dispute, as the current situation strikes me as untenable and plainly wrong. I would rather avoid starting a new RfC and reigniting the whole debate again, if possible. Is there any better alternative? Stonkaments ( talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 20:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Hand Defenders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dundonald.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Drug seeking behaviour has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § Drug seeking behaviour until a consensus is reached. -- BDD ( talk) 14:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Unreality has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30 § Unreality until a consensus is reached. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 07:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolufazepam 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 until the discussion has finished.Re your post about an edit war, I did attempt to talk to you here (see my post at the end of this page) after you deleted all the new edits from the past few days.
I didn't see a response.
I'm still figuring out how to use talk. Don't know if I did it right MKarlsssson ( talk) 08:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MKarlsssson MKarlsssson ( talk) 08:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, firstly I must apologise as I am new to Wikipedia and don’t really know what I’m doing.
But basically I am just trying to get updated safety information onto the Ciprofloxacin page. The information is from the FDA 2016 warning. But it keeps getting edited out. I would have thought this was reliable information that belongs on the page?
As I say. I don’t really know what I’m doing and not really sure how to reference things properly. Can you help? Wiki woms ( talk) 23:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Also I have probably come across like I am trying to argue with Doc James. This is not the case, I’m just getting frustrated with it
I’m sure he has good intentions, but he just seems to dismiss the recent FDA warnings Wiki woms ( talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do not alter your Talk page contributions after they have been responded to; it makes an already confusing thread even worse. See WP:REDACT. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Please be mindful of WP:TPNO, especially in discussions about pseudoscience. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
"It doesn't matter that you're fine with direct fraud cases being pseudoscience when you're actively portraying other sourced pseudoscientific areas as not." I am okay with sourcing being used, per NPOV, that states faith healing is a pseudoscience, so long as other sourcing is incorporated that suggests that this is not the case and that only certain forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. You are assuming that I am wanting to bludgeon my way over majority opinion of the RfC when I simply am not. Maybe we both view each other as wanting to cherrypicking sources? I want to have a discussion, either apply MEDRS restrict ourselves to the recent 2013 source or else if we use old sources, to do so neutrally which includes differing opinions amongst those sources.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Kingofaces43: @ Raymond3023: I am a bit frustrated being accused of POV pushing, so I am instead posting this to clarify where my real thoughts are at this point. Kingofaces43 made a sensible argument that MEDRS should not apply, at least not strictly, because faith healing is a fringe topic and not subject to routine research and review. Therefore, older sources should be used. Below is what I regard as NPOV summary of the available sources. I do not believe the below text will be perfectly acceptable to either side of the debate:
Faith healing is a scientifically unproven treatment and cures attributed to it are considered to be scientifically suspect; determining whether it can be proven that a person was sick and has been cured in the first instance or whether spontaneous remission has occurred may offer better explanations. There are, in fact, many examples of faith healing fraud and deception. Alleged cures from faith healing are considered to be paranormal phenomena, however, the religious beliefs and practices associated with faith healing are not generally considered to be pseudoscientific because they do not usually have any pretensions of science. [1] However, other authors disagree and have asserted faith healing is a clear cut form of pseudoscience. [2] [3] Another expert stated that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism. [4] Another author described faith healing as a form of paranormal belief that is based on fraud and deception. [5] Faith healing has been described as probably the most dangerous type of pseudoscience because it can cause people to reject mainstream medical care with increased pain and suffering and an earlier death being real potential consequences. [6]
If the consensus were to apply
WP:MEDRS '5 year rule source' then all we can say is:
Only certain forms of faith healing are regarded as pseudoscience, e.g.,
Christian Science,
voodoo and
Spiritualism.
[4]
So there you have it. Thoughts and comments are welcome. :-) Keep smiling folks. Wikipedia is about debate, fun and stimulating the mind.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban ( User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:
"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) ( talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage ( talk · contribs), is topic-banned ( WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 ( talk · contribs) ( WP:IBAN)."
As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork ( talk) 08:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't want you to have to go digging to look for this, so ...
So, I just noticed that you have over 60 signed comments on the faith healing talk page regarding the RFC and related discussions, and a majority of the past 100 edits on that page were made by you (and over 100 of the last 250 edits, and over 150 of the last 500 edits, and you get the picture). I think it might be a good idea to calm down a bit, stop editing that talk page, and let the process go forward. At this point, I can't imagine that anything else you say could convince someone who hasn't already been convinced by what you've said so far. That RFC is already a long rambling mess, and adding anything else to it will only make life more difficult for whoever has to close it. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irritable bowel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Translocation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
If you want to work, then focus on the work. Jytdog ( talk) 13:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
So what is going at Zolpidem, is sadly very common. There are people who abuse the openness of WP to come here and advocate like crazy for things.
Passion is a double-edged sword --it drives people to contribute, but it can drive people right over the policies and guidelines and to just bludgeon the talk page to get what they want.
MEDRS actually developed because our articles on autism were a mess -- we had people shilling things, and desperate, desperate parents grasping at straws, all hammering to drive crap into WP based on the latest primary source, or some old primary source that somebody "re-discovered", or some junk source from popular media or a blog. Working on health content used to be as bad as working on video games. But the folks back then pulled together and after a lot of talk and discussion, put MEDRS together and it has earned broad and deep consensus, for good reason. It makes pretty quick work of most advocacy, be that some company shilling some drug, or somebody who comes here obsessed with some sort of side effect and just hammers to try to get the page to fit with their very impassioned notions.
In these cases, it is all the more important to stick to MEDRS and the other policy and guidelines. We don't bend to accommodate the obsessions of who ever happens to show up.
If people refuse to engage with the policies and guidelines, they end up topic banned or they get sick of beating their head against the wall and leave.
This is not at all uncommon, unfortunately. I am not sure you have encountered this personally before in WP. I appreciate the kindness you are showing; that is very much in the spirit of what we do here. But we need to remain grounded on what we do here, and how we do it.... Jytdog ( talk) 01:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
That definition of fundamentalism is pure OR you know and you're tainting Proestantism by using it in that way. You are also failing to respect WP:BRD and should have taken it to the talk page rather than reverting. I'll return to this tomorrow when I have time but you should consider reverting ----- Snowded TALK 13:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Literaturegeek. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rifaximin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Translocation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up re not making significant changes quickly, and for acknowledging that they were made in good faith (they were, and it is demoralising when changes are rejected without discussion).
Could you clarify which of the changes over the past few days you think show bias and why?
From my perspective the current page is very biased (pushing the psychogenic cause line by putting it up in the intro is one example of this);
The content is also very North-America centric (an example putting the N.American medical association's lack of recognition of MCS RIGHT at the top and editors repeatedly deleting the line about recognition by the medical associations in Germany, Austria, Spain, Japan up top. Yes, Germany is mentioned later but WAY down the bottom of the page, where it gets lost. Mentioning WHO's lack of recognition up top? Sure, that makes sense. But why should the US's medical association's position take precedence over other countries's? It would also seem logical to me that recognition should go before lack of. In this way, the north America centrism is biased).
It's also filled with citations that breach Wikipedia reliable sources guidelines (that is, individual studies taken as gospel rather than secondary sources; and Quackwatch, which is a self-published web site and forum -- it's a far cry from a secondary source published by a reliable third party).
I hope I've used talk correctly here. If not, let me know; I'm new. MKarlsssson ( talk) 03:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MKarlsssson MKarlsssson ( talk) 03:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I didn't see them till now.
Your new review, being psychiatric, brings a certain perspective with it. Although it does mention organic brain changes, including "limbic kindling" -- would love to see that mentioned.
There are a few other more recent reviews than Genius' out there, although I only had time to read one, and I referenced it in the intro.
Thank you for this! This is a step towards balance. Can we include Spain and Japan too? Again, I really think these belong in a section on recognition specifically not in the intro. Because, for example, the Skandi countries also recognise MCS as a functional disorder and health condition. I don't think these are the most important facts about MCS to be in the intro.
The fact that it's not recognised as a discrete disease in an index doesn't mean it's not recognised as a health condition. There are a bunch of researchers who say it's a symptom cluster that is likely more than one disease. That was in a previous new edit in the intro that I tried to keep in there, but it was repeatedly deleted. But it's an important distinction. MKarlsssson ( talk) 09:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MKarlsssson MKarlsssson ( talk) 09:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello Literaturegeek, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
I see that you voted twice on the autism talk page RFC: once to support your opinion, and once more to express opposition to the other opinion. I'm sure you meant no harm by this, but I think you should remove one of your !votes since it may confuse the closer. Wikiman2718 ( talk) 03:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I have removed [5] material from your 2012 edit to Alcohol abuse [6] because the cited reference talks about chronic fatigue syndrome and not chronic fatigue. The two syndromes are different and studies of one may not be relevant to the other. Alcohol abuse may be an important cause of chronic fatigue, but it is certainly not supported by the citation given. If you have a WP:MEDRS citation supporting this material then I would certainly support re-adding it. Thank you. Ward20 ( talk) 21:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
You may not close an RFC in which you voted, as you did here. Also, the RFC was malformed, so it was not a real RFC and could not be closed like one even if the person closing it actually did have the authority to do so. This is bad faith POV pushing. Please reverse your edit or I will report you to ANI. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 11:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you | |
For voting to keep the list of scientists who disagree with IPCC 3. You seem to appreciate that disagreeing with something is no reason to silence it. Kolg8 ( talk) 17:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC) |
(Alerting all recent editors of our Multiple chemical sensitivity article.)
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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you wind your neck back in re Bbb23. He is one of the best, most helpful checkusers we have. Read what he said: he's not arguing that we may not block, only that the evidence for sockpuppetry is not just weak, it's strongly against. That means it's more likely a meatpuppet. You might be able to find out the site where they are coordinating if you Google creatively (I've not tried yet). Guy ( help!) 21:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
His latest response was a clear violation of WP:NPA and possibly a violation of WP:NLT. The best thing to do is what you have done already; explain your reasoning in a clear fashion and then stop responding. leave the next move to the admins. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
This pretentious wikipedia editor has claimed to know something about opioids and has blocked one of my updates.
Debate question: Codeine and Morphine differ by 1 carbon atom. The extra carbon of Codeine is demethylated in the liver. This extra processing step makes codeine the 'weaker' opioid because it is less immediately bioavailable. Note that I was able to provide a clear and concise biochemical explanation as to the difference between Codeine and Morphine.
Tramadol and Venlafaxine also differ by 1 carbon atom. What is the exact biochemical explanation (like the one I provided for Codeine/Morphine) which explains why Venlafaxine is neither a mu1 binding opioid nor an NMDA antagonist whereas Tramadol is both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3CA0:3CD:247F:54CF:D553:4D05 ( talk) 02:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed that you were a significant contributor to the the article Alprazolam before it was accepted as Good Article, so this is why I am sending you this message. I translated the page in Romanian for GA, and I added a new section regarding its synthesis, using the data available on line ( this is the link). Would you like to add this section to the English version as well? I could help translating. If not, could I suggest adding it, if suitable? Anyways, thank you for your time! -- Alex Nico ( talk) 21:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 ( talk) 17:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi There,
I saw you on JBL's talk page, and I saw you had an issue with him calling out your perfectly fine edits as "bullsh*t". I also had the same thing happen with one of mine, where I have gotten into what is almost an edit war over some stuff. I just wanted to reach out and ask if you had talked to any admins or anything about his behavior because on review of everything he seems to have a pretty long history of acting dumb on Wikipedia.
Respectfully, Jedistormtrooper0625 ( talk) 03:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.
AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 02:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I know everyone is tired of hearing about the essay, but could you please not remove my posts? I think the fact that TonyBallioni was the person who originally created this essay, which directly mentioned race and intelligence at the time when he created it, is something that's significant enough to be more than just a personal attack. Before you removed my post, I actually was about to reply saying that I've said what I have to say about this issue, and I'll be quiet about it now.
The real mistake that I made was in not mentioning this point when I first brought up the essay right after he closed the RFC. The reason I didn't do that was because I didn't notice this additional detail until today. 2600:1004:B121:24B1:68A8:B461:310A:D948 ( talk) 14:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
I don't know who decided to make this yellow. It looks scary. Natureium ( talk) 00:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I assume that I'm allowed to ask about this here, since it relates only to the arbitration request to which I'm a party, and not to the articles from which I'm topic-banned until the end of July.
I'm unclear on the meaning of the outcome of this arbitration request, which has now been closed: [8] The last member of ArbCom to comment there, DGG, agreed that an arbitration case is needed. [9] [10] He appears to have been persuaded by your own comments there. But no other arbitrators commented there after DGG, and eventually the request was closed without anyone opening a case. I was wondering if you could explain the meaning of that outcome. Does it mean ArbCom has concluded there needs to be a case, but won't open one unless someone requests it?
Based on your comments in that request, it seems you agree there are issues ArbCom needs to address, so I also would like to know what you think is the way forward at this point. 2600:1004:B167:C948:E549:A895:4F46:2A02 ( talk) 00:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Articaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exponential. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I've been getting myself up to speed with the RFC [11] (and the disputed close [12]) last year about a potential genetic component to the racial IQ gap. I saw your name in the discussion and have respected your contributions on other articles, so I was wondering if you have any input on the current situation, in which editors are citing the fringe consensus determination in defense of:
Editors are using the fringe determination to advance the argument that 100% of the racial IQ gap is due to environmental factors, and any dissent from this view is considered fringe, despite evidence to the contrary from a variety of reliable sources. Administrators at the ArbCom case back in 2010 proposed findings of fact affirming as much: "The (weak) hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe" and "The idea that genetics is one factor in racial IQ differences may not have achieved consensus in the scientific community, but neither is it fringe (and, in fact, no other factors have achieved consensus either—although some have been disproven)." [17]
I'm trying to to determine how best to proceed with this dispute, as the current situation strikes me as untenable and plainly wrong. I would rather avoid starting a new RfC and reigniting the whole debate again, if possible. Is there any better alternative? Stonkaments ( talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 20:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Hand Defenders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dundonald.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Drug seeking behaviour has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § Drug seeking behaviour until a consensus is reached. -- BDD ( talk) 14:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Unreality has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30 § Unreality until a consensus is reached. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 07:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolufazepam 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 until the discussion has finished.