User talk:Edgar181

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Please add new topics to the bottom of the page. You can use the "new section" button above to start a new topic.
  • In general, I will respond here to comments, rather than on your talk page, so that the conversation isn't scattered.



 • Jan 2015 -

ANI Close[edit]

Thank you for closing the ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#conflict_of_interet_and_fraudulant_editing. I had proposed a boomerang there Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Boomerang_proposal for a block on BigBaby for COPYVIO and NPA. I believe (for what that is worth) that there was consensus for it. Even if you don't think so, I would appreciate it, if you would at least include a warning for BigBaby - those are both serious issues. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Will you please explain why you decided to close the incident? You quoted my edit saying there was no consensus but that wasn't really the case. If you read through the discussion you will see several editors were opposed to formerly 98s style of editing with only jytdog offering a defense. My plan was simply to move the discussion to the more relevant forum once I figure it where that is since the issue was getting quite long and there was minimal feedback in defense of formerly 98.

Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I will continue to keep an eye on Bigbaby23. The personal attacks are definitely a concern (though my impression was that Formerly 98 is more than mature enough not be bothered by that childishness) and the copyvio issue seems to have been unintentional at first and then just stubbornness later, rather than a real lack of understanding of the problems with introducing copyrighted text. Overall, maybe this is more an issue of competence than anything else.
Doors22, I don't think WP:ANI is the place to address the types of concerns you have. It is geared toward incidents that require rapid administrative action and I don't believe there was consensus for any such action against Formerly 98. Your last statement suggests that you agree, and there are other outlets as described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks for your reply! makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for closing. My personal perspective is that while the personal attacks by a single editor are not troubling, it does get a bit tiresome to deal with it coming from multiple sources on a regular basis. Shooting from the hip, I'd estimate that the words "shill", "COI", "POV pusher", "biased", and "liar" appear prominently in roughly half of the Talk page discussions that I find myself involved in. As noted by @Kingofaces43: in the ANI discussion, there is a contingent of editors here who regard corporations as evil, and who start every Talk page discussion by accusing the editor they differ of being a shill. On many pages I think the "big bad corporation" viewpoint has dominated for many years for the simple reason that many editors who might want to see a more balanced POV simply don't want to deal with the personal attacks and lengthy ANI sessions that potentially follow any removal of negative material, no matter how WP:UNDUE or poorly sourced.
I realize that you have been here much longer than I, and in many ways see things from a higher perspective. But from where I sit, it would be very nice to see a more aggressive enforcement stance against editors who persistently engage in personal attacks and insinuations. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll chime in and say that in my experience, behavior like casting aspersions about COI, schilling, etc. rarely seem to be taken seriously at ANI. It seems rare to even get a warning for the user(s) in question, but often the common response is just for the person to deal with it or ignore it. Without a warning, the users casting aspersions just seem emboldened and continue on sniping or halting discussion with the accusations and it just poisons the well. I've had an entirely unrelated case of a single user hounding me with very similar issues, so I can definitely see Formerly's frustration when multiple users are doing this and there ends up being nothing more than a close rather than a warning. Ed, do you have any suggestions on how to get these matters taken more seriously when the problem becomes persistent and disruptive to the pages in question?
It's obviously tough because ANI posts can get long and sprawling when trying to describe WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior rather than very isolated diffs in addition to drama kicked up by the troublesome user. I can't really fault uninvolved editors and admins with that in mind, but any advice on getting such behavior to actually stop and getting the point across that it is problematic is very appreciated. Kingofaces43 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 17:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, everyone, for doing this and then not being around for a few days (family medical emergency). Regretfully, it will still be a awhile before I have time to give the kind of response everyone deserves. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes Ed. Thoughts are with you. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, Kingofaces43: the personal attacks Formerly 98 experienced from Bigbaby23 were unacceptable. As far as I can tell, they haven't repeated them since the ANI discussion, so I don't think that there is anything further that needs to be done at this point. But I will continue to watch and block as necessary if the problem returns. Unfortunately, there doesn't currently appear to be any good way of handling problems caused by disruptive editors (ANI tends to inflame issues, WP:RFCUC is no longer active, ArbCom is too busy to deal with anything but the largest issues, etc.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I am back at ANI again just one week later. As the admin who closed the last ANI complaint against me, your input would potentially be helpful to the community in providing some feedback on the appropriateness of my actions as well as deciding on any sanctions. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This looks like it has now been amicably resolved, so well, "never mind". Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


Ed Are you sure that ach-3102 is Odalasvir?? I found one refrence , but I'm not sure is it accurate Odalasvir Do you have more references??? Thank you. talk Drsciencewiki (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall at the moment what source I used to make the connection between ACH-3102 and odalasvir. It may be wrong. Please feel free to revert my changes if you think they are inaccurate. I'm sorry that I don't have time at the moment to investigate more thoroughly but I will do so when I have the chance. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable source that makes the connection between ACH-3102 and odalasvir, so I have restored ACH-3102 to its former state and converted odalasvir to an article containing data for that compound. If at some point we can find a reliable source that confirms that they are the same, the two articles can be merged. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Cassandra Leah Quave page undeletion[edit]

It seems that this is where I'm supposed to reach out for an undeletion request, with regards to item 3 on the Deletion Review page: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page"

We would like to point out some things which may warrant review or undeletion:

Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc.

also, Quave has two published works we would like to add:

Quave, C.L., Editor (2014) Innovative Strategies for Teaching in the Plant Sciences. 312 p. Springer Press, New York, NY, USA. ISBN 978-1-4939-0422-8 Pieroni, A.

C.L. Quave, Editors (2014) Ethnobotany and Biocultural Diversities in the Balkans: Perspectives on Sustainable Rural Development and Reconciliation. 255 p. Springer Press, New York, NY, USA. ISBN 978-1-4939-1491-3

Please let me know if this is even the proper way to go about this? Thank you!!

Miremory (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the text at Draft:Cassandra Leah Quave. Please feel free to work on the article there and then when you think it is ready, you can submit it through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. Regards, -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Missing edit summary[edit]

Without an edit summary, it is difficult if not impossible for me to know why a particular edit was made. It is outright rude to not include a sufficiently descriptive edit summary given that someone else may be left wondering why an edit was made. This matters especially when content, i.e. one or more statements, is removed from the article. Wikipedians apparently have yet to adequately adopt the concept of a descriptive commit message; one that the revision control world unquestionably adopted decades ago.

Yes, I can probably put in the effort and take the time to work out why the entirety of an edit was made, but there are times when I will disagree with the editor; it is this which makes edit summaries even more valuable. --IO Device (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I almost always leave an edit summary and I'm sorry that I missed that one. If you have specific questions about the edit, just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Turns out these are coming from a school.[1] Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really a surprise, is it?  :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
No, looked likely just from the actions and names. Anyway, I've blocked the IP address and account creation. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That sounds like the best way to handle it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for Arp-Madore 1. I'm the guy who created that article, and recently I found out that you saved it from undeserved Speedy Deletion: its content was considered a hoax! Alexrybak (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad to help. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)