CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath

June 2024

Regarding your edit on Pseudoallergy:

1. Using "you" in an article doesn't fit Wikipedia's Manual of Style. See WP:YOU.
2. Beware of closely paraphrasing sources. Your edit includes the phrase An oral food challenge test is a highly reliable ..., which is copied verbatim from the source (Cleveland Clinic).

— W.andrea (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@W.andrea Thank you for bringing this up! I had no idea about the first part. As for paraphrasing, I do struggle a lot with paraphrasing information and it's something I'm continueing to try and work on. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help! Take a look at WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. — W.andrea (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I was just reviewing that page yesterday (as well as some others) after you left the message on my talk page! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

MDWiki

A heads up if you have not seen MDWiki. A few of use are also working on a slightly more medical version of Wikipedia, particularly geared towards offline use, if you are interested in joining. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Would I be able to transfer some of my major edits over there? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Replied here https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Comlan A. A. Quenum

I have reversed one of your recent edits at Comlan A. A. Quenum where you remove text that was tagged with as per WP:Preserve FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma I restored part of my edit, but I won't revert your revert. However, I do recommend you check out WP:REVONLY (part of this is my fault for not seprating my edits) as well as WP:BURDEN, specifically the part about "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." With the overwhelming amount of unsourced info on Wikipedia, I've gotten a bit bold with just removing content that has been unsourced for long periods of time. In an ideal world, I would prefer to find sources for the unreferenced claims, but that's just not possible all of the time. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Burden is about the reliability of sources. WP:Preserve is about keeping unsourced materials in pages excluding BlPs of living people and negative information. These are two different policies. Nothing about preserve is about time, but I understand your frustration but please do not go wild on areas that already lack coverage here on Wiki due to many reasons including geographical bias. You can actually help build articles about these regions or just preserve the little that is left. Anyway, I hope you will consider FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagmaWP:BURDEN is not just about the reliability of sources, it's also about the responsibility of providing sources. I do understand wanting to preserve what information you do have but again I'd like to point to WP:BURDEN "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." While I'd love to be able to hunt down sources for every unreferenced claim, it is not my responsibility to find sources for others, as that burden lies on whoever added the unsourced info, or in this case, chose to include it. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It also says “Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.”

policies should not contradict each other and if you look to WP:Preserve it states “Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.”

going back to WP:Burden, it states “Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups.” And this is not.

again these policies do not contradict each other

Anyway, if you are keen on removing stuff start with US related articles. Here, Utah#Spanish exploration (1540) please go and remove the entire section. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagmaThe bits I removed had citation needed templates for over a year now, so someone already tagged it, hence I didn't need to. I'm not stating that these policies contradict each other, I'm just stating that you seem to be ignoring "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." The burden now lays on you to find citations for this content as you chose to include it. I mostly edit on the medical side of wikipedia, and I don't accept edit requests as a general rule. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I was the who tagged it as I was not happy with the source and tagging the information just let the reader know that this information should be taken with a grain of salt.

And this is not a medical article.

I really do not understand why people choose articles from these regions to exercise the extreme of a specific policy that says “maybe remove”. Maybe not. We had a couple of the same incidents last year. See User talk:Brlob FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I truly understand where you are coming from and I really hope you can appreciate my point. I will try to fix the citation issue and thanks for taking interest on Quenum. He is a legend. Have a nice day and sorry if my rebuttals rubbed you the wrong way FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagmaI’ve had some time to think this situation over and I want to apologize. I feel that I came off a bit too harshly in some of my original replies. I’ve had time to reflect and talk with others and through this my mindset has changed a bit. Thank you for being kind in your responses as I likely would not have reached this conclusion without the helpful feedback. I think you understand where my frustration comes from, but I guess I’ve kinda made the mistake of assuming I need to fix every issue I come across. This isn’t sustainable for long term editing. I’ve decided to change my threshold for removing unreferenced material. Instead of doing large removals I’ll focus more on only removing material that isn’t easily verifiable, has been uncited for awhile, doesn’t have people actively editing the page, or material that seems out of place or unlikely to be verified. The material I removed from your page (and admittedly other material I’ve removed in the past) doesn’t meet this criteria. While I still stand by what I said in past replies, I’m learning that policies and such don’t always need to be followed so closely and building the encyclopedia is much more of a priority to me. I truly don’t know why I pushed this issue so much with you but I again want to thank you for the time you spent replying to me and the attitude you had while doing so. I hope you continue to make the quality contributions that you do and this “conflict” doesn’t disrupt that. Best of luck with your future editing and I’m glad we were able to have this discussion in a civilized manner. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice reply. I was really hoping that our disagreement will not deter you, and I am glad to see it didn’t. It’s really easy to forget about the “human” behind the keyboard and I am glad you managed to see me.

I understand the criticality of verifiability for medicine pages as misinformation there cab ruin lives and I appreciate your work fixing that. Take care FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent developments

Just a note to say that if external assistance isn't forthcoming in the next half day or so then I'll approach an administrator directly and ask for their advice. Axad12 (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12 Sounds good. I did write up a draft for kinda what I would say but its not great and needs to be updated. I was originally thinking of saying something along the lines of "I originally brought my issues with User:Exerciser87 to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Exerciser87 for the COI issues) however I was encouraged to bring this issue to the attention of an admin. I believe that User:Exerciser87 is evading a block based off Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guptalab/Archive I'm not fully sure how all of this works but it seems highly likely that User:Exerciser87 was also involved in the sockpuppetry and is therfore most likely evading a block. " Thank you for helping me out with this, I've never dealt with this kind of thing before. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm currently drafting something rather similar with a view to raising it an WP:ANI. There are other negative elements such as the edit warring, aspersions, evasiveness, refusal to abide by COI policy, etc. that need to be mentioned to demonstrate ongoing disruption.

I will wait to see if anybody takes action in the meantime however.

If the user continues to edit war and pursue an evasive line of argument then really he's doing himself no favours. Thus, no major hurry at this stage.

To be honest, anybody looking at the 2017 history, recent history and current discussion will surely see what is happening. Axad12 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure how sockpuputting works but hopefully an admin can link the accounts. I also think the fact that the most recent user has admitted to having multiple accounts should add credit to the claims. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Leave it with me for the time being. I'll speak to an admin later today, see what their advice is, and then get back to you. Until then we'll have to see if anything develops out of the current COIN thread. Axad12 (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

An admin has now opened an SPI (link over at COIN) without me needing to ask anyone directly. That may potentially take over a week to be resolved as there is a long queue. I would suggest that we let that take its course for the time being and not take the matter to ANI. If the SPI comes up positive then the speedy deletion under G5 can probably proceed, which would be the simplest way of resolving the whole issue. If the user continues to edit war and argue in the meantime then he'll just be digging himself into a hole.

Usually the article in question only attracts about 5 views a day, so there is no hurry. Yesterday it attracted over 120 views, so there are eyes on this situation. Axad12 (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm happy with leaving this as well. I'm glad things are being taken care of. Thank you again for your help! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that after the article was previously deleted in May 2017, it was then recreated at some point and re-deleted in Aug 2017.

Following the deletion today I predict that the sockmaster will return at some point, possibly in the near future.

Therefore I will check from time to time to see if the article has been recreated. If you would do the same I'd appreciate it. If we see it recreated it can be speedy deleted again.

Thanks for raising this at COIN. Keeping Wikipedia in good order needs people with sharp eyes who report this sort of thing. Axad12 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I was about to nominate it for deletion just before an admin went ahead and deleted it. I also suspect that sockpuppets will pop up and plan on monitoring things as well. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

When I said would return "possibly in the near future" I didn't imagine he would resubmit the draft [1] within 30 minutes of it being deleted. He must think that everyone else on Wikipedia is a complete idiot... Axad12 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

GARC and reviewing experience

Hi and thanks for submitting an article to GARC! I saw that you noted that you have only ever reviewed 3 GAs. Looking at one, John Sterling (American football), leads me to believe that you may benefit from gathering more experience in this area before joining in at GARC. Your questions at WT:GA (while good to ask, don't get me wrong!) and the lack of suggestions for improvement at the above-stated GA review (as well as the lack of a substantive prose review at your other two) make it seem like you may not be 100% ready for GARC. Of course, I could be wrong, but we had an issue a few weeks ago with a newer reviewer not being ready to participate, so I just want to make as sure as I can that all reviews are of as equal quality as possible. Thanks! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS This is completely understandable! The sterling article was definetly a challenge for me and my review reflected that. Prose is something I really struggle with as a writer as well and that could be why my reviews don't go in as much depth there. Is there any suggestions you have for improving this area? Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrenal crisis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adrenal crisis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a small sidenote

Hey, friendly note that any responses at AE should stay inside of your own statement section, so you should move this down into your statement section. Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know I've never dealt with AE before and didn't know this! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem, there's always a first time to the different behind the scenes areas on Wikipedia.

AE has a fairly formal format, so each statement by users is limited to their own statement section and 500 words, so each user can edit their own section (as long as they stay within the 500 word limit) stating their case.

Sometimes when replying to something new a user has added, you may add a @ mention if it's not quite clear who you're referring to in part of your statement. Raladic (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrenal crisis

The article Adrenal crisis you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Adrenal crisis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)