Hi. I reverted your removal of a ref in the Street King (drink) article, which you remove citing ""Horowitz" source removed as WP:SELFPUB". As per the cited policy: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". It's not a disputed or contentious fact that they commited to this, it would be to say that they succeeded in any way. Also, a few quotes on an article from an otherwise reliable source does not make it self-published. Cheers, Nikthestunned08:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation I found the Horowitz source is acceptable, but not exactly for the reasons we are discussing. Please see my full reply here... Zad6813:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ethics of circumcision
I reverted your removal on Ethics of circumcision. Please note that I'm not actually saying that all of those should stay, but at least a number of them appeared to be valid sources with useful information. As such, please discuss on the article's talk page what exactly is wrong with each of the sources you think should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, will do so happily. The gist of the issues with the content was in my edit summary but I will give detail on an item by item basis. Zad6822:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noah has sunk...
Thanks for tagging that - doubts seem to have been raised for a year or more but no-one got round to actually tagging it. Thanks also for the talk page note - helps us admins no end. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had to revert his edit of Estadio Azteca manually because I was looking for Guillermo Canedo so when I saw E.A. article, I was surprised by it because I was certain that it's not the right one, so I need to complain about his edits of articles. Please, can you try to ban his IP address or anything like that because of vandalism?
Hi Rakuten06, thank you for reverting more vandalism from that IP. The correct place for reporting vandalism is WP:AIV. It appears that the IP stopped doing vandalism, so hopefully the article won't have any more problems from that editor now. Cheers... Zad6813:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
blogs by legitimate news organizations
the AfD closed before I got a chance to respond (and would've closed the same way regardless,) but FYI: you are incorrect in stating that a 'blog' post by the sydney morning herald falls under WP:SPS. To quote from that very same policy, '""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The SMH is a respected publication; its official blog articles are perfectly acceptable sources. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, I am aware of WP:NEWSBLOG but don't think it applies here. As an academic exercise I'll take a closer look and give you my opinion if you'd like. Zad6800:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies are wrong. There is no reason why information such as that which I am trying to add should be excluded from this site, especially when it also talks about completely irrelevant things such as random towns in third–world countries that no one's ever heard of. ResonX (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to spend time developing articles on other wikis because those wikis are already okay. This one is BROKEN, and what it represents sickens me to my very core. I don't just want an article on Rainbow Dash on the internet, I want one HERE SPECIFICALLY. ResonX (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
H Zad68 , with regards to my addition to the moorcroft page , i cannot see why my contribution has been removed , it is merely showing the importance of the Walter Moorcroft period , and is not intended as an advertisment , his contribution to the company of over 50 years is largely unrecognised , i would like to add to the page and this part of the company's history is of equal importance to any other , please respond , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.239.96 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the reason is because the content you added included effusive, non-encyclopedic praise and did not cite an independent, reliable secondary source for the content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its articles do not carry such promotional content. Thanks for asking... Zad6816:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zad68 - Thank you for giving me a heads up about the change. Arta Dobroshi's correct date of birth is sited on IMDB. It is the correct d.o.b. as the data has been added by Arta Dobroshi herself to the Resume section of the site as opposed to other sources where the information is not correct.
This is a link to the IMDB page http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1671184/
Thanks again and all the best,
Mquiupm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mquiupm (talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to a school
Just wanted to let you know that the message you sent the other day was actually going to a College. Many students go here, so your message wont reach whoever it was meant for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.196.2 (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no big deal, just wanted to make sure you realized that wasn't my edit. As your summary said Undid revision 522823164 by KillerChihuahua (talk) rv unsourced/original research, please provide a reliable secondary source I was concerned you might have thought I had entered the fray, which I am very happy to say I have zero interest in. KillerChihuahua?!?15:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing at "BI BS"... Understood, you are not WP:INVOLVED in the content at that article, got it. It was perhaps a poor choice for me to use the standard undo-button edit summary prefix that automatically attributed the edit being reverted to you instead of Ubikwit. So, a mistake on top of a misclick. Anyway, I think it's cleared up now. Cheers... Zad6815:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nooooooo, surely the 24 hours will be well-spent reading all the linked policy pages and the next edit will provide an excellent source supporting the content, as requested. That's how it always works, right? Zad6815:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you not an admin? You have experience, you use edit summaries, you clean up vandalism, you do content, you obviously have Clue. We could use a few more admins. KillerChihuahua?!?15:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, very much! I'd like to complete some article-related things I'm working on, and then who knows... Zad6815:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zad68
Thank you for your recent note regarding my update of the page on the USC&GS Patton.
Since we are the current owners of the Gyrflacon (nee Patton), I feel that my information is reliable!
Very good, but for future reference, you're better off citing a verifiable reliable source when making a data change like that (Oregon to Washington). People make little changes like that all the time and if there's no source to back up the change, it looks like vandalism. As the article currently has no sources at all, Washington is as good as Oregon, but please do try to find some sources for her. Cheers. Zad6805:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have already noted in my edit summary that the reasons for adding those lines were these:
I am a graduate in Biotechnology, a Jew and interested in wikipedia.
I wanted to add current scientific information to the article.
I will be highly pleased if you can guide me if I went wrong somewhere or didn't follow some procedures.
I am relatively new to wikipedia.
* I also strongly believe that Modern Science can lead to much needed decline in trifle quarrels and
misinformation with which we surround ourselves even today.
106.51.90.53 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for taking the time to reply. I have provided a list of problems at the article talk page here, let's discuss it there. Zad6820:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the section title because of your comments, which pointed to ambiguities in my intent for this talk page section discussion.[1] I have thick skin. Please continue to make such reasoned comments if I make erroneous, unsourced, or ambiguous comments. 16:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkSehJik (talk • contribs)
Metzitza b'peh
First, let me commend you on all the good work you have done on the Circumcision article. Thanks to your efforts, the article is in incomparably better shape now than it was before. I disagree, however, regarding your removal of a recent edit inserting two sentences about harmful effects of metzitza b'peh. In my opinion, this would not constitute undue weight, given the risks associated with the procedure.--89.204.135.51 (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, it is very much appreciated! Regarding metzitza b'peh: On Wikipedia, how we determine whether something is WP:UNDUE is not based on our own assessment of the importance of something, but rather we look to the weight the reliable sources give it. To gauge the relevance of the material removed from the article, which detailed the number of babies over a 10 year period who contracted herpes after a bris that included metzitza b'peh, we assess how many reliable sources that talk about circumcision also talk about that. Do a Google news search for "circumcision" (I get 21,100 results) and then "circumcision orthodox suction herpes" (I get 2 results, one's a blog). Same searches on Google Scholar yield 17,800 results vs. 12. (These sorts of search results counts aren't going to yield perfect information, but good enough for this sort of assessment.) From this, we can see our reliable sources show this particular topic of the contracting of herpes from metzitza b'peh to be nearly irrelevant to the general topic of circumcision, and that's why the material doesn't belong in the article. Cheers... Zad6823:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying so quickly. For "circumcision", Google gave me 14 million results, for "circumcision orthodox suction herpes" (without quote marks) I got 17,600 hits. In Google Scholar, the first search returns 152,000 results, the second 42 results. I should note, however, that I reject Google's "personalization" feature and never use it when logged into my Google account. Perhaps this explains the discrepancy? Also, it was important enough for the AAP to include in their Technical Report.--89.204.137.63 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We generally don't just use a straight Google search (as opposed to Google News and Google Scholar searches, like I did) because there is absolutely no quality control on the kinds of results you're getting back. We need to look at reliable sources, not just any Web page. For the Google Scholar search, I forgot to mention: Uncheck the "patents" and "citations" checkboxes, and that'll probably give you results very close to what I got.
I did see that the AAP 2012 Technical report mentions the oral suction herpes complication, but note that it does so describing complications so rare that they are only considered as individual case reports. Again, this is more information that herpes from oral suction is so rare that it isn't even considered any sort of complication commonly considered to be associated with circumcision. By now I have reviewed the discussions of complications from circumcision in about 12 different excellent-quality reliable secondary sources. (I actually spent time today in a university library and pulled four more med school textbooks on the subject.) The only reliable secondary source that goes into that level of detail is the AAP 2012 Technical Report, it is not mentioned anywhere else. Generally for writing a general encyclopedia article we look for consensus across the sources, and the consensus across the sources is that oral suction herpes is too rarely discussed to include. As previously mentioned elsewhere, this subject is indeed covered at brit milah, that is the right place for it. Zad6821:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are now a reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Sure, replied at Dufus. You might not be keen on wiki-bureaucracy, I understand that. But, it's a two-way street: many experienced editors are not keen on having to deal with awful articles that require a lot of our time and energy to fix, or shepherd through AFD. Zad6820:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm participating! I'm just stoopid. I don't think I've ever actually filed a DRN before and so I wasn't sure where to put my 'statement'. I'll be commenting now. Zad6803:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LGBT Parenting
Our edits on Marks got reverted. I would be interested in you commenting on whether Marks or Allen should be included to help overbome the rv. jj (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jason, I'm still considering a number of things I see as problems with the article. I'll respond at the Talk page but maybe not immediately. Thanks for the notice. P.S. Only one notification is necessary here, I got all of them. Zad6816:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim! If you hadn't done it, I would have. I would have done it this morning but didn't have time to pull together the diffs. Thanks for filing it. Zad6821:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the very first newsletter for WikiProject Articles for creation! If you find any errors or have suggestions on what to improve/include in future newsletters, please leave a message here.
v4.1.16b2 is now available in the beta channel! Reviewers can use the beta version of the script by following the instructions here and should report bugs here! Release notes can be found here as well as in the source code.
If you are JavaScript savvy, please contact Nathan2055 (talk·contribs) if you wish to help with development.
Reviewing articles and more since 2005!
Delivered 00:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.
Protandim
Dear Zad68 Edits made to Protandim are due to misrepresentation in the article. There are 13 research studies, it only highlights one that didn't have specific outcomes after 7 days, still had results but not for alcoholics in the way they hoped. There are 12 other studies and one artical that show the Nrf2 activation validity. The person who is editing this page had a bias slant. the writing is done in a way that leads to negative thinking vs investigation or information. I have edited out the bias but you all revert it back without really looking at it. Check out pubmed.gov, its a valid source backed by doctors, peer reviewed, not some random editor. There are many citations that are opinion of bloggers which is not a reliable reference. Some of the refrences are good but much is left out. HOW does one edit and have it researched not just reverted? How can Wiki become a reliable source of unbias information. I have to tell people right now to go to google scholar and Pubmed.gov and not wiki or blogs since its opinion that is not objective.
Since im not a pro at this editing wiki its very hard to figure out how to talk to someone or discuss with the other opinions how to have correct info. I know about the account offerings but dont have time to post all the time.LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.17.4 (talk • contribs)
Hi LM, I understand your frustration. Wikipedia has a learning curve. Here is the answers to your specific question: You do exactly what you just did by writing to me here, but you do it at the article Talk page. Discuss your edits at the article Talk page and convince the editors that the changes you would like to see in the article would be improvements. The article Talk page for Protandim is here: Talk:Protandim. Click on that link, click on the "New section" tab near the top, and start a new discussion about what edits you would like to see in the article and why. In fact, I will go ahead and do this for you, using what you just wrote to me here. Zad6803:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zyad, im not sure how to navigate all these back doors and talk to the right folks. I want fact based objective info and it's hard when you edit and it gets reverted and then try to find the presons to chat with to come to a mutual edit is a bit difficult to figure out. Thanks for posting! is this how i respond to you?
LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.17.4 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... are you editing now as user Brschlis47? You should 1) Make sure your edits are in compliance with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, 2) Use edit summaries, 3) If you get reverted, do not revert back, but instead open up an article Talk page discussion about the edit. Cheers... Zad6819:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zyad,
Thanks for all your info I think i did it, and i blew it somehow. I put the edit suggestions on the talk page and got a little feedback, waited a while, then put some more suggestions. one feedback was good, so i didnt mess with that but did the other edits again bc i didnt get feedback on the talk page. SO i made the edits, they auto reverted almost immediately (probably from me trying to figure it out the first time) and now im blocked. I would like to be unblocked and also know how to make sure folks see the suggested edits so when i do 3 or 4 others dont come in an revert without looking at the rational. Im not a savy computer person and ive tried to read a bit about even how to sign my name but that eludes me also that's why i put my initials. can you take a look at the edit talk page and give suggestions? or how do i reply to all? i would think they would review the comments before messing with it but that doesnt seem to be the case.
