User talk:Darren-M/Archives/2020/November

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alice Y. Ting page

Hello Darren-M,

Thank you for reaching out! I'm one of the two contributors that has unfortunately gotten into an edit war. I believe the other one is an IP address (note: from Stanford, Alice Ting's current institution and place of residence), so unsure how to reach out to them, but I would be happy to talk to you if you have the time.

I believe that it is important to include a full picture of the highlights of Ting's research, which is largely quite impressive. However, a full picture must also include low points, if any exist. This retracted article was a major event in Ting's career and a small write-up was included in prior versions of her page (from 2013), but subsequently removed by an anonymous user (another IP address, I believe). Unfortunately, it did not reflect well on her, and some controversy did indeed ensue as a result -- some details can be found in these articles and their comments:

- https://retractionwatch.com/2013/02/15/mit-lab-retracts-cell-synapse-tagging-paper-for-falsification-or-fabrication/ - https://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i8/MIT-Probe-Finds-Former-Postdoc.html

Instead of removing either of our edits on the topic of the retracted paper, perhaps we can attempt to integrate them and include both, as shown below?

In February 2013, Cell retracted a 2010 report by Ting and Thyagarajan on a site-specific technique for labeling synaptic contacts in neuron culture at Ting's request. Ting's retraction noted that the method in the paper could not be duplicated and claimed the data from a post-doc was faked. Also in February 2013, Ting published a paper in PLOS ONE clarifying the science and described a revised method for synapse labeling.[1] [2]

The timeline of the retraction from Cell in February 2013, the submission of the revised paper to PLOS ONE in February 2013, and the omission of the subsequently retracted paper from the Ting laboratory website since the fall of 2011, subjected Ting to criticism from the scientific community. Ting has been criticized for her failure to verify the authenticity of the data, her bullying of whistleblowers and her decision to retract the paper only after a "replacement" paper with similar content was ready to be published. Ting has also has removed questionable articles from her lab website years before actually retracting the papers. [3]

Thank you again for offering to moderate.

References

  1. ^ Liu, Daniel S.; Loh, Ken H.; Lam, Stephanie S.; White, Katharine A.; Ting, Alice Y. (2013). "Imaging trans-cellular neurexin-neuroligin interactions by enzymatic probe ligation". PloS One. 8 (2): e52823. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052823. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3573046. PMID 23457442.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. ^ Drahl, Carmen (Feb 25, 2013). "MIT Probe Finds Former Postdoc Falsified Images". Retrieved Oct 7, 2013.
  3. ^ "MIT Lab Retracts Cell Synapse Tagging Paper For Falsification or Fabrication". Feb 15, 2013. Retrieved 2020-11-17.

Palace Theatre - Jobsworth?

Darren.

Many of the facts contained within this page are not linked against verifiable sources.

There are 'citation needed' posts against other facts.

Why then have you elected to take my sentence down? This feels unfriendly and unnecessary given the general tone of the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.0.35 (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@78.145.0.35: Hi there. :) Any content that is added needs to be cited to a reliable source - many editors like me monitor recent changes to all articles to ensure that they meet our policy requirements. If existing content is not verifiable then that is one issue (and clearly also needs fixing), but we certainly shouldn't add any new unverified content. If you can find a source to confirm the addition you want to make, you're welcome to re-add the content. Best, Darren-M talk 12:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Work Together

I'd really appreciate the help of an editor. This is my first wiki contribution and I'm really proud of the work I done. My mission was to find someone in the public sphere, a figure of note in some way, to contribute to Wikipedia. I was able to find this trove, from the Governor-General's office to the New York Times and public voter records in his home county. I also see someone had addressed an issue with you after receiving information from an artist's record label, therefore this actor's agent should suffice.


Can we work together? I feel like we've been at odds over information that has just been confirmed.

I'd love to format this to Wiki entirely to make it compatible for publish. After publishing, more people will have a chance to see anything they see correct or amendment worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faits1789 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Faits1789: Yes, happy to help. These are my initial comments (in order of importance)
  • If you know the article subject personally or have any other connection to them, you should disclose your connection via our conflict of interest procedures.
  • You then need to establish that the subject qualifies for an article. As they're an actor, they need to satisfy the criteria for actor notability. The main element is that we'll need to see that they have had multiple substantial roles in performances that are themselves notable (i.e. have Wikipedia articles).
  • We then need to see that every single claim in the article is cited to a source. This is usually a website, book, academic journal, or so on. Things that we can't use are other wikis, IMDB, your own personal knowledge, and anything else that can't be independently accessed by an interested reader.
  • My final point (which is actually probably the most important despite its place in the list) is - please assume good faith when interacting with other editors. This is one of our core beliefs, and simply put means that you need to assume that other editors are acting with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and not to assume that they are being malicious (or are 'trolling'). You can see more about this at [{WP:AGF]].
I think those 4 elements are the key ones to work towards as first steps. Let me know if you have any queries. Best, Darren-M talk 16:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darren-m (No I do not know how to hyperlink thihs lol)
Thank you for that. I have no conflicts of interest
To get work, all you have to do is google his name or read the New York Times. I removed political commentator from my original bio, although it seems he does write for a conservative Canadian newspaper called The Post Millennial. As I noted elsewhere, the nobility claim comes from his agency and his grandfather's name was provided when I requested who the baronet came from and asked who in the family has it etc. Seems to be male only bbecause his grandfather was born in the British Empire and male-primogenture barontries in the colonies was quite popular. The colonial titles got converted into self-determined Knighthhoods for the countries that optended into the commonwealth. Some countries kept the Monarch but did not allow kinghthoods or peers after their soft independence. Canada is a prime example.
A nobleman who currently practices art who was in one of New York City's largest productions, which has gone on with exclusive casts for over six decades, is relevant and noteworthy.
If I can provide any further understanding or if there is some gap certainly let me know. Otherwise, I feel (and hope) I've satisfied any factual concern and where the information is from. His agent at one of America's largest and premiere acting agencies (Abrams Acting Agency) officially represent him as spokesperson. The woman's name was Bonnie.
Thank you for truly trying to make Wikipedia the best place it can be. That's what I want too! I want to write and hopefully someday publish good articles of notable things that haven't bbeen filed. As an archivist by trade, I wanted to begin my process with something that delivers information someone could maybe find in seperate pieces online. That's what I think Wiki is about.
Again, if you have any final notes to make please do! If not, I'm happy to get to work. So far I did remove two things. I removed political commentator. Although this Post Millennial seems to be something (has a wiki page), this doesn't contribute relevance to thhe page. His agent told me he was 6'1" but I could not verify that like I was able to with other artists so that was taken out too.
He certainly fits the guideline of a person of note, according to wikipedia standards. Thhhere are many published pages here with less than Maier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faits1789 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks :)
@Faits1789: My main question is - which of the criteria at WP:NACTOR does the individual satisfy please? Darren-M talk 18:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe read more about the public theatre and Shakespeare in the Park here on Wikipedia and your query will be satisfied. I’ve approved the changes you’ve made and it’s ready to publish. Faits1789 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Faits1789, No, the onus is on the person publishing the page to justify that it meets our requirements for inclusion. Best, Darren-M talk 20:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Covid in Isle of Man

Hi,

I noticed you reverted my changes on the Covid in Isle of Man page, both updates I made to the page were factually correct (I included citations to a local media provider) and were relevant to the page, they included no 'original research' and were based on statements made by the Government in relation to Covid. Could you please elaborate on why they were removed?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.39.193.173 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. I reverted on the basis that you were confirming the intent behind the claim. "... in order to maintain the Island's Covid-free status the Government denied this amounted to community transmission". If you can remove the suggestion that they denied it to keep the island 'Covid-free' and instead just state that they denied it, I'd be comfortable with the additions. Best, Darren-M talk 17:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@92.39.193.173: Sorry, forgot to ping you in my reply! Best, Darren-M talk 17:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Darren-M/Archives/2020/November,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Safe listening

You appear to have made an error in your AfC review of Draft:Safe listening. You incorrectly nominated it for speedy deletion on the basis of a few paragraphs with what appears to be close paraphrasing [1]. Speedy deletion applies "only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving". I'd recommend that you provide a new review. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), I don't think the CSD tag was in error - around half the article is either direct paste or egregiously close paraphrasing, and there's no compliant version to revert to as it was added in one lump sum. WP:TNT would suggest deletion is the correct route here. Darren-M talk 18:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
The CSD criteria are clear that speedy deletion only applies when all of the text is infringing, not half. The proper course of action is to point out to the user what text needs to be rewritten or removed, and give them a chance to rewrite it. In this case I will work with the author to get the issues fixed. But you need to keep in mind that many submitters to AfC are new editors who require helpful advice, and a perennial problem with AfC is that being overly aggressive denies Wikipedia the chance to develop new editors. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to peruse this, but unless you have technical accolades to say that what I said was incorrect, ignoring the arguably poor format in which I wrote it, then I dont see how you should revert it.

I know what I am looking at, and only 4 of the 37 or so wires (depending on how you count them) are for carrying electrical power. I see 3 telephone neighborhood distribution lines and one cable tv breakout hub and trunk, the rest are telco/cable feeders for local customers.

It would have been better to leave it there, or correct the language to be of a more diplomatic tennor.

"Pictured here are marginally organized wires on a utility pole." or the like.

They are not power wires, generally speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.215.121 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 18

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past three months (September, October, and November 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 18th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Updated scripts Twinkle has made a number of improvements, including using a change tag to identify actions made with it and automatically filing edit requests for protected XfD nominations.
SD0001's shortdescs-in-category is now compatible with scripts modifying category listings, such as Equazcion's CatListMainTalkLinks
GhostInTheMachine's TalkHelper2 is a newer version of their prior script, TalkHelper
GeneralNotability's spihelper updated to 2.2.10, fixing a number of small bugs, automatically tagging globally locked socks as such in the sockpuppet template, and restoring open cases following an SPI history merge.
Enterprisey's script-installer gadget has been updated with more internationalization of messages, as well as addition of a user preference, window.scriptInstallerInstallTarget to allow controlling where new scripts are to be installed.

Open tasks

Miscellaneous

My apologies for the delayed issue. As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, help is appreciated. Stay safe, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Darren what do you know about Centage?

Before you edit you should research the link. The company sells books. Students buy books and later find out the books are inferior. The company then recommends you buy the study guide. If you are on a scholarship with limited funds you will likely fail your initial testing or the entire class without the study guide. The business plan appears unethical. How is this supposed to be reported in a neutral manner? The only thing I did was report. I will let you edit the article. Look forward to your demonstration of how to do so. Alternatively, don't edit the article and try to figure out how much harm you did to unsuspecting students.Notjustforprofit (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Notjustforprofit (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. All of the content in articles needs to be cited to a reliable source. Your addition was an unverified claim, so it was removed. If there are examples of reliable sources covering the point you added, then feel free to re-add the content (with a reference to that source, using [[WP:REFBEGIN]). Best, Darren-M talk 08:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Notjustforprofit: apologies, forgot to ping you. Best, Darren-M talk 12:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Dark matter new page.

Hello I am Its dark rishi. I would like to know if you would help in creating a new page of dark matter. Please I would be glad to know if you help me. Your Wikipedia friend. Its dark rishi Its dark rishi (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Question

Dear Darren, I wanted a direction page to be deleted in order to change another article's name to that name in Turkish Wikipedia. I created a request in Afd page about that in Turkish Wikipedia and User:Vito Genovese stated that this is not afd business and that I had to create a move request although my primary intention was deletion of the direction page. Nevertheless that didn't change his mind. And this page states that wikipedia is not a bureacracy and that "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." I explained them why this deletion needs to be done clearly but they are creating me difficulty with all this formalism. What should I do? Best regards.--Visnelma (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Visnelma, I'm a little confused - which article are you talking about, and is it on the English Wikipedia or on the Turkish Wikipedia? Best, Darren-M talk 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Darren-M, It is on the Turkish Wikipedia. To explain briefly, on English Wikipedia Modern history is mentioned in Human history page. The subpage modern history's Turkish equivalent is "modern tarih". Turkish translation of the Contemporary history page must be "çağdaş tarih". But çağdaş tarih already redirects to modern tarih which is wrongly linked to Contemporary history. That being said, I created an afd to delete the "çağdaş tarih" page, so could rename (move) the article "modern tarih" to "çağdaş tarih" but my request had been deleted, when I asked why, User:Vito Genovese said that I had to create a move request not an afd. And that was the sole reason he deleted my afd. Then I told that him he was being too bureaucratic. He didn't answer directly. Before all these I had got this page which wrongly redirects to İnsanlık tarihi deleted on afd. Because the name "dünya tarihi" was equvialent of the page World history. I think because I critisized him, he recreated that page without citing a proper reason. As you see there is a huge web of wrongly linked pages, and instead of helping me correct them, he makes my job more difficult by refusing my request only because I had not created a move request but an afd and recreating pages which were deleted to make Turkish Wikipedia more coherent with English Wikipedia. Sorry, this was the briefest way I could describe it. What do you suggest me to do?--Visnelma (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Visnelma, I can't help you with the Turkish Wikipedia I'm afraid - their rules and policies are very different to ours. You'd be better off asking at whatever their version of the Help Center/Teahouse is. Best, Darren-M talk 17:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 19

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (December 2020).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 19th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Open tasks

Pending requests Pending requests

Miscellaneous

As always, if anyone else would like to contribute, help is appreciated. Stay safe, and happy holidays! --DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A message from Usmanakhwanzada

Daren Usmanakhwanzada (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Listen to me it's Urgent Usmanakhwanzada (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes? Darren-M talk 00:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Usmanakhwanzada What do you need? Darren-M talk 00:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Kindly Delete that post of mirza masroor Ahmed he's not a Muslim he's non Muslim he don't have faith in finality of Prophet Muhammad SAW so kindly remove it otherwise i directly report your this edit directly to encyclopedia Usmanakhwanzada (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Dlete it asap Usmanakhwanzada (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Usmanakhwanzada, I'm comfortable with the edit as it currently stands so I won't be taking any further action. Please avoid threatening editors going forward, though. Best, Darren-M talk 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Ahmadi are non Muslims be aware everyone if you freshly or newly accepted Islam don't get in these so called Muslims wearing Muslims dresses and calling there self a Muslim they are the toxic people they are more then non.Muslims Usmanakhwanzada (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok fine I'll directly launch a complain and report to encyclopedia you are Qadiani too open your eyes before it's too late one day you will Answer Allah open your eyes before its too late to came back yo real islam Usmanakhwanzada (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Usmanakhwanzada, stop threatening users. Final warning. And stop trying to use the encyclopaedia as a vehicle to litigate religious convictions. If you have a content issue, raise it on the article talk page. As it stands, you appear to be here for the wrong reasons. Blablubbs|talk 00:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Moved to own section, created header and indented. User now indeffed by CaptainEek – thanks. Blablubbs|talk 00:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Darren-M/Archives/2020,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darren-M/Archives/2020/November&oldid=1002312659"