Jump to content

User talk:KateWishing

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

Welcome

Hello KateWishing, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

KateWishing, good luck, and have fun. --Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Amanda Marcotte. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Kate Wishing seems to have a habit of removing credible links, and only including a select number of links to the ONE paper she may have read on the subject - even if she doesn't actually read the whole thing. She has ruined a very article on RCVS by the same method of advancing either self-promotion, or someone with whom she has a connection. And she has the hypocritical audacity to claim that others self-promote. She's not published on any of the subjects she edits, but tries to make out she's a leading authority on them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk • contribs)


This is nonsense. Here is the relevant revert, which contains absolutely no commentary of my own or original research and only quotes a reliable source. KateWishing (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why your deletions of citations?

The references added are not "self-promoting." These meet the standard for being appropriate.

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy',Hughes, D., Attachment-Focused Family Therapy, NY:Norton, 2009Becker-Weidman, A., (2010), Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: Essential methods and practices, Jason Aronson Becker-Weidman, A., (2011), The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy Casebook,Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson

These are books published by reliable and well-known publishers and their inclusion supports and adds to the article and the statement these references were tied to. Please do not delete again without first discussing it on the talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJMSWPHD (talk • contribs)

Agree, Kate Wishing seems to have a habit of removing credible links, and only including a select number of links to the one paper she may have read on the subject. She has ruined a very article on RCVS by the same method of advancing either self-promotion, or someone with whom she has a connection. And she has the hypocritical audacity to claim that others self-promote. Laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

potential violation of wikipedia revert policy

Your revision/undoing of my edit to the Attachment Therapy so quickly without any discussion on the talk page is not consistent with policy and practice. NJMSWPHD (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've done it again, without explaining your revision and without discussing in on the talk page. This is not consistent with Wikipedia practice at all. NJMSWPHD (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the removal of reliable sources would seem to be a violation of wikipedia policy and qualify as valdalism NJMSWPHD (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added back the material and hope that if there is a dispute we can discuss it here civilly on the talk page rather than you're reveting it without discussion, which is a violation of wikipedia policy and practice. NJMSWPHD (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that since you continue to disregard discussion on the talk page and ignore that the material added are relevant and reliable sources that you are violating neutral point of view policy by advocating a POV. However if I am wrong, please comment. NJMSWPHD (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're gonna need another sock. KateWishing (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oreophryne furu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dorsal and Specific name. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions, which I corrected, are obvious violations of WP:RS and WP:ASSERT. It's impressive that you've been on Wikipedia for almost ten years and still haven't learned the most basic policies. I will seek a third opinion. KateWishing (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yopie is here complaining that I fixed his formatting error, which is actually encouraged by WP:TPO. KateWishing (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on the Wikipedia article of pedophilia

I am trying to add comments following your discussion with James Cantor. However, it is impossible to add anything contrary to James Cantor or that denotes the relation between gay behaviour and pedophilia. It is inmmediately flaged as unconstructive, which is not. 190.23.112.237 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinella

Micromesistius has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for moving all the Chaunus articles to Rhinella!

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhinella proboscidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Specific name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Ossuary

The source clearly states (if you've read the source) that the patina is authentic which doesn't prove either way it should be added that Jesus(the real one) does not exist all it saying is that the inscription is authentic irrespective of belief READ the paper.Also it should be added (not that you would of known )other such artifact have been discovered they themselves have been confirmed as authentic using with the same method used(such as the Caiaphas Ossuary for example) by the Israel Antiquities Authority.If you can come up with a better method (such as MAGIC for example) then I would be prepared to listen my suggestion is that you go away and look for something else to criticize and stop wasting serious thinkers time Richardlord50 (talk)

Yes, I've read the source. It's open access and can be found here. It clearly states that the findings "strengthen the contention that the ossuary and its engravings are authentic," consistent with my revision, not yours. It does not "confirm" the authenticity any more than the previous studies "disproved" it. Apart from that inaccuracy, your version uses more words to say less. My version explains exactly why the study supports (not confirms) authenticity. You've jumbled some words together in something vaguely resembling an English sentence and left the reader with the impression that the scientists used their science tools to magically confirm authenticity. The presence of microfossils and "biological indicators" alone does not support authenticity. Other studies cited the microfossils to argue against authenticity. The key point of the study is that the microfossils seemed naturally deposited. KateWishing (talk) 21:02, 15

March 2015 (UTC)

What the actually says which seems obviously confusing you is this "We would like to emphasize that in Israel 80% - 90% of the archaeological artifacts are from unprovenanced origins and should definitely not to be overlooked. Archaeometric investigations should be carried out in order to authenticate important artifacts. This study deals with such an archaeometric analysis that is accompanied by a set of images supporting our contention that the inscription of the James Ossuary is authentic." Like I have said before (and it is up to the reader to decide for his or herself) the source does not say "yes Jesus does exist" all it is saying is the inscription is authentic which doesn't say anything one way or another.The previous analysis of the Ossuary is primarily based on: "This is to be good to be true theory".Which is meaningless in it self which doesn't aid scientific inquiry as opposed to adhoc method so often used. If biological indicators doesn't support authenticity,what does support it bad breath and heavy breathing.Science didn't magically confirm the authenticity of the Ossuary all science has done is use a BETTER method that can eliminate doubt: "Other studies cited the microfossils to argue against authenticity".Which is a bit rich when you yourself is using the very same thing to prove your argument (I notice you don't cite these other studies).Lets be reasonable the both of us.Richardlord50 (talk)

I don't care about Jesus or even whether the inscription is authentic. My concern is that your revision misrepresents the source. A "contention" is not "confirmation." One of the previous studies I mentioned was based on oxygen isotope analysis, not speculation:
It concluded that the inscription was probably a forgery, noting that "the fact that only the letters patina from the James Ossuary contain microfossils of marine origin, suggests that it was artificially deposited." Now, should we cite that study and say that it "confirms the forgery?" Obviously not.
KateWishing (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional Newcomer Award

The Exceptional Newcomer Award
In recognition of your well-sourced edits in the field of reproductive biology. Regards, Samsara 15:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision on Polyamory

It was agreed at the end of the discussions that the material was fitting, as sources using the example study were put in the section. Be sure to read all of a discussion before simply saying "per talk". 24.252.141.175 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who agreed to that was wrong, because the deleted material is blatant WP:SYNTH. KateWishing (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:SYNTH to report what a source says. The source specifically discussed polyamory and cites that study. The opposition on the Talk Page agreed. You don't seem to have read the entire discussion that resulted in the consensus. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, WP: SYNTH says "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." However the conclusion is explicitly quoted from the paper, and its conclusion is what Finn, 2012 references. So this is something referred to explicitly by two reliable sources. Did you read them before deleting the material? I'll assume good faith but it seems like you are erasing sources you have not read based off of a portion of a discussion you did not finish reading. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read both papers in full, and you are not reporting what either source says. You are synthesizing them to make an original conclusion about polyamory, when neither source says anything about polyamory (which is consensual non-exclusivity, not non-exclusivity in general). I have explained this at Talk:Polyamory#Source_Reliability. My talk page is not the appropriate venue. KateWishing (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would someone who read both in full be claiming the Finn study didn't talk about objections to polyamory? 24.252.141.175 (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because I know the meaning of "polyamory". KateWishing (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coital cephalalgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

DSM-5 codes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pica
Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cannibis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template mysteries

The error message is gone now, and gone from the earlier version as well. Someone must have been making changes to the underlying templates and your edit got caught in midstream.—Kww(talk) 00:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPeterson (and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/DPeterson, if you haven't seen it). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remedial measures

Thanks for tracking down and fixing so many of those Packersfanam edits. When you start to dig there are a ton of them and I was beginning to despair of the task of fixing them when I saw that you'd been to a lot of them already. Really odd, how he's gone so bad so quickly. It'd be nice if he can be rehabilitated short of an indef block but I'm skeptical. I guess we'll see! JohnInDC (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussing changes on talk PAge

Why won't you discuss your revisions and changes on the talk page first so we can do consensus together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.40.55 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I reverted was not made in good faith. KateWishing (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ageplay

The definition of ageplay currently on the site is totally wrong, the indie I posted is 100% accurate if you have a problem with the truth please email me at daddy_tallica@ yahoo.come — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddy tallica (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia exists to summarize reliable sources, not right great wrongs. You can't add your own personal commentary to articles. KateWishing (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetic nephropathy

good morning...at the behest of CorporateM ,I have decided to write this to you, I will say I still have reservations about what was discussed at the Help Desk...however in the best interest of the article (Wikipedia as a whole) I have been advised to collaborate ...I believe going reference and sentence by sentence this article can be done without trouble ...(perhaps) we could do others depending how this one goes...in any event should you choose to respond to this request I will therefore be at the talk page of the aforementioned article. I am going by Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ozzie. I hope that we won't need to individually discuss each and every reference. The problem is not limited to one or two citations — your entire approach to referencing needs to change. For example, you added this source for the claim that "Normal eGFR is above 90 mm/min/1.73 m2." The reference says nothing of the sort. Do you see the problem? You should only add a source when you are absolutely certain that it says exactly what our article states. If you aren't certain, it's better to leave the information uncited. In many cases, it's not even possible to find a good source for pre-existing information. Someone may have taken it from a paywalled journal or even made it up. That's why I suggested that you focus on adding new information rather than trying to overhaul whole articles. Many medical articles are still missing basic facts about epidemiology, history and so on. KateWishing (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Article

The Medicine Barnstar
KateWishing for your guidance and knowledge in creating the Diabetic nephropathy article I am proud to have collaborated with youOzzie10aaaa (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ozzie. I enjoyed working with you. KateWishing (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter influences and analogues

Should I remove Nadrali's contentious line? He hasn't modified it according to our discussion. Serendipodous 13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited it to my own suggestion. KateWishing (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHARTRES

Can you tell me why you revert my edit; thank youHuntermiam (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit deleted a random portion of the text and made the sentence nonsense. Apart from that, you are obviously a sockpuppet of Whiteflagfl[1][2] (and I noticed your edit via Flyer22's talk page, where it's further suggested that you're a sock of a user I'm not familiar with). KateWishing (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe any information put without any proof, I simply removed false information that the city was in the hand of the same group between1568-1591 plus no reference. Huntermiam (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the above wasn't too big a shock. Had to notify all mentioned whether involved or not. Feel free to comment at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback question

Hi KateWishing, I saw you appear in my watchlist and I noticed that you often revert vandalism/spam. Would rollback rights and reviewer rights be of use to you? If so, I'd be happy to grant them to you. Please let me know what you think. Best. Acalamari 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful, Acalamari. Thank you. KateWishing (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hope you find both tools useful. :) Best. Acalamari 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk page

Last I checked, I'm allowed to edit my talk page the way I want it to be. If you want to delete this comment after you read it, go ahead, it's *your* talk page. I have been trying to make sure that updates I make are without controversy. So far the vast majority seem to have been met with approval, if one every great once in a while upsets somebody, that doesn't seem to be grounds for some big accusation. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May seem strange, but I wanted to apologize if I was unjustly short-tempered. I have every intention of trying to do things the right way, but in my defense, how I edit my talk page, whether I removed things that stress me out or could cause other problems, is my decision (WP:Talk page guidelines). Packerfansam (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Packerfansam, you're free to remove messages from your talk page, but communication is required. My complaint was that you did not acknowledge the problem in any way. It's okay to make mistakes when editing, but not to keep making the same "mistake" over and over again after it's been pointed out to you. You even returned to one article and repeatedly removed the same content three times over months (apparently because witches and rock music are sinful).[3][4][5] That's not good faith. KateWishing (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I like good rock music. We may have disagreements over certain things for different reasons, but I'll freely say I made the edits to Beloit on purpose. You can write somebody won a Tony, there doesn't need to be list of different plays and things they worked on. You can write that somebody is a singer, there doesn't need to be a list of the different genres their songs are considered. I did *not* remove individuals from the list, but I did make their credentials more compact. Thanks. Packerfansam (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

potential violation of wikipedia revert policy

You redirected the Face Lift Dentistry without any discussion, why you think you have the right to do this? You are now invited to join a dispute discussion of the conflict through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request, hope that now you are willing to discuss and please provide solid evidence of your behaviours. Thank you.Indepentten (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Kate Wishing seems to have a habit of removing credible links, and only including a select number of links to the one paper she may have read on the subject. She has ruined a very article on RCVS by the same method of advancing either self-promotion, or someone with whom she has a connection. And she has the hypocritical audacity to claim that others self-promote. She's quite happy to vandalize quite well-written articles and direct the majority of links to one paper that she might read and then, only when the original author complains, does she pitifully back down with a request to talk. Personally I think she deliberately does this to provoke a reaction,. and the number of similar complaints forma wide number of people across a wide number of subjects shows clearly where the common problem lies. She is the common denominator is acting as some sort of article owner, particularly on subjects where she is not published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk • contribs)
Indepentten is referring to this edit, which was not a revert or violation of any policy. It was discussed here. KateWishing (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KateWishing, and I joint in the discussion. But before you did a major edit, you don't think you should at least notice me or leave a reason and discuss it with me? Based on other editors, this is not the first time you did this.Indepentten (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laser-assisted new attachment procedure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bone loss (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help needed

help me by making wikitable that has brand names of medicine. check post on talkpage of wikiproject medicineMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, Kate. --Blue Indigo (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[6]

--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

neuroscience of sleep

Thank you for solving my dilemma; I didn't know what to do with user Dumb Daisy. Perhaps you found the problem(s) yourself; perhaps you saw my plea on Materialscientist's talk page (with the same headline as this comment, #37 at present). No matter which, we agree that she's quite impossible to just edit. ///// Oh, now I see that you followed up at ANI and DD was blocked this morning. Good job! --Hordaland (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your comments at my talk page with regard to tagging. I am always open to refinement of the tag that I leave. Often, what appears to be duplication of tags, is a matter of their be numerous issues in various parts of articles, where, on address of a subset of the issues, one of the set of the tags can be removed. I understand it is unsightly, but the issues are real, and it is unfair to the students who are such a large contingent of our readers to believe articles are sound, when in fact they re not. With regard to unilateral versus consensus, I believe I am both in my rights as an editor, and on sound footing with regard to WP policy, to tag as extensively as I do, and will defend it as necessary.

Again, as I said, I am open to tag revision, but not to pretending articles (e.g., unsourced articles) are anything other than the plagiarised or WP:OR morasses that so may of them are. FInally, if you have access to routes to improve tag design, I will gladly put effort there. The fact that there is no plagiarism tag, and the fact that so many tags are not quite what is needed in particular cases, means that there will be overtagging, or mistagging, to make complete communication of issues clear to readers and fellow editors. See also User_talk:Liz#Thank_you. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With resect to a couple of specifics that you mention in your tagging critique—and thank you for engaging, instead of the standard revert-without-discussion approach:
  • First, while we know that the poem appearing is by Dora Maar, we do not know from what published work it was taken. It may indeed be DM's poetry, and may indeed be fully accurate in its transcription, but until a published source is provided that tells us where the poem was actually drawn, it has to be considered suspect. (Per WP policy, quoted material must be sourced, and per standard academic definitions, unsourced quoted material—including poetic works—is plagiarism.) I could have put [This quote needs a citation] or [citation needed], but [attribution needed] seemed best at the time.
  • Second, I am generally willing to check sources, and make sure that the placement of inline citations is accurate (see next point). I am generally unwilling to do post hoc sourcing of large blocks of unsourced material, both because it encourages sloppy initial scholarship (much the same as with parents, who must eventual stop cleaning their children's rooms, I stopped cleaning up after the myriads of others that place their own textual creations into the encyclopedia); moreover, fixing clearly miscreant text makes me complicit in the plagiarism or WP:OR that often is accurate diagnosis of a large tract of in-place unsourced material.
  • Third, and perhaps most subtly, and seemingly ridiculous: placing inline tags—making an article look a mess—is often the only, and best first step toward resolving plagiarism and misattribution issues. For instance, vis-a-vis the L. Shankar mess, the text material was a mix of plagiarised material, editor WP:OR, and the former types of material into which good faith citations had been placed as an attempted corrective.
The result of that good faith post hoc citation addition was most often a resulting revision where the citations that appeared were inaccurate with regard to the text. (The inline citations added did not support all of the text to which they were attached—the facts appearing in the sentence were not in the citation.) Moreover, when a systematic plagiarism or lessor sourcing matter is discerned, the lack of inline tags makes unclear the progress toward dealing with the issue, while giving the errant impression that sparse citations that do appear—for instance, a single tag, at the end of a substantial paragraph—cover more material than they actually do. As an example, see Talk:L._Shankar#Example_of_deep_sourcing_issues_of_article. Before hitting the roof over the large number of inline tags in this article, read that talk section and the next one, and realize that the better part of the three main non-list sections were plagiarised (material now appearing in short and long quotes, with sources), as were the vast majority of the lists of collaborators (in Career) and Discography (separate section). Likely more plagiarism will be found at that article, and until the whole of the article is reviewed, the inlines are our only guide to what is checked and valid, and what is not.
Hence, the first step toward an accurately sourced revision of a very bad article is sometimes to place thorough inline tags that subsequent workers can easily remove as they progress through their fact checking and source additions.
All on this for now, from me, but in summary, the Dora Maar tag was sound (if strange to your ears), though perhaps not the ideal one to choose, and the articles that are thoroughly inline tagged—the most egregious cases of content creation that is either sloppy (best interpretation) or dishonest (how at university we would eventually assess the matter)—often simply need to be so, at least for a time. Cheers, Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user:Thedawgbelongmem

Instead of revert war, please try to explain what was wrong in user's edits and invite for discussion. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please keep in mind that unless it is a clear-cut stupid WP:VANDALism, it is good to provide a decent edit summary. In case of dispute it will work in your support. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I normally provide edit summaries when reverting good-faith edits, but I mistook Thedawgbelongmem for a sneaky vandal because of edits like this (fake date with fake edit summary) and this (incorrect period with fake edit summary). KateWishing (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying he is not. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Call-Fleming Sydrome - RCVS page ... You're not an authority on this subject, so please don't act like you are.

I'm surprised that you've removed my addition to the RCVS write up, considering that you don't actually know the symptoms I, or other patients, have been through and are being researched by University College London and the UK's other leading authorities on this disease. That research is being undertaken as a longer-term project, so is not yet fully published. But, the text addition is accepted by CCUs. If you bothered to read your own added source papers, or the ones you've previously removed, you would clearly see that encephalitis is noted as a symptom in a few reported cases, including mine. Having looked through your edits to this article, it's clear that you are making yourself out to be some sort of authority of the matter, which you're not... I've researched who you are. You're neither published in the subject and have simply splattered over previous authoritative and quoted text that has been submitted by others. Sadly, this is trait that less-frequent users of Wikipedia see all too often, when someone of Wiki-self-importance acts in a way to, effectively, take over ownership of an article, and reject any and all edits - even though that defeats the whole ethos and point of Wikipedia - and simply reverts every reasonable or informed edit without exception. I wouldn't be surprised to see the three reverts rule kicking in very soon...I won't hold my breath. You have already committed one autocratic revert...you only have two left before you are reported.

I have not done you the discourtesy of removing any of your text; I have simply added additional info based on my own medical case history, of which I am not, at this stage, prepared to put my own personal medical files on Wikipedia...I'm sure that you will understand the reasons why not. Therefore, kindly afford others the same courtesy, and desist from blanket removals that are uncontroversial, simply because they might not fit in with your personal choice of sources. It is noted that you have splattered over the previous sources to the publications of Drs Call and Fleming in favour of another published source. Perhaps you could explain why you have denied the discoverers of this syndrome the common courtesy of their original papers being left as links. Looking through your edits, you have removed vast tracts of valued and respected source links, and deleted blocks of text that gave very good commentary on the illness.

In all, this was a page that was a good source of info for Call-Fleming Syndrome patients like me, steam-rollered by someone who clearly has another agenda that clearly demonstrates some personal an non-impartial influence - another breach of Wikimrules. And before you kick off, I will be quite happy to show the Wiki senior editors that you have broken Wiki protocol, as evidenced by your edits, by altering the entire article to be skewed to personal interest sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.250.21 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because it was unsourced. Wikipedia's policies do not allow original research (you stated "The source research is currently being conducted on me and several other patients.") You're welcome to alert WikiProject Medicine to the dispute. If you revert again, I'll do it myself. By the way, the original paper of Call and Fleming is reference #4 in "my" version. I only added a secondary source to support it in accordance with our WP:MEDRS guideline. KateWishing (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the ref. Happy now?! (Probably not!) You sound like a right one. I've read some arrogant, dismissive responses in my time, but threatening users with "revert again, I'll do it myself"!!! Wow, what an attitude. You know Jack on this subject, as evidenced by your childish defence of your actions, in trying to trump someone who talks to the leaders in this illness on a weekly basis. Good day, little Miss Pompous. And your previous suppression of good reference info will, yes, be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.250.21 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You added a book of case studies after previously claiming that the source research was unpublished. I just downloaded the book, and unsurprisingly the page numbers you cited do not even mention RCVS -- they're about infective endocarditis. So no, I am not satisfied with your fake reference. KateWishing (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A paid copy or a pirated PDF version? You fell for a simple exercise to see if you will now proactively go and find the correct page reference, or you are just interested in being an antagonist to try and get your own way, and delete ANY additional text offered. I gave you an opportunity to do a simple check on the link between RCVS and encephalitis and you simply chose to remove rather than provide any of the well-known links. Even some of your own sources include references to encephalitis. If you had ANY knowledge of this condition, then you would know that a primary trigger of encephalitis presentations is caused by the bulging on cerebral arteries, and minor leakage that can then be interpreted as a foreign infection; hence the swelling. It's clear that you're not an authority on this subject, and from the looks of it, you've read one paper, and have trashed a previously good article in favour of one author. BTW, I didn't write the original article, merely added the odd grammar correction and I note that author has also complained about your trashing, no, let's actually call it vandalism. So, let's see if you are simply a page vandal, or will now reference the link that you can now easily look up, and are genuinely interested in the subject. I doubt it, as the numerous comments above on your talk page indicate quite clearly that you slash and burn first and then ask questions later when other users hit back. In the meantime, I am still awaiting the links that show your authoritative or published knowledge on this subject. In the meantime, I'll go back to working with the consultant's team in the UK who are studying this. As someone who has read just about every paper on it, having suffered from it for 30 years, and being used as a consultative patient for study by two of the top two medical universities in this country, I can smell amateurism and BS when I see it and you, Missy, are full of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you've backed away from your original attempt to add unpublished research to the article. And no, the book does not support your claim on any page. You obviously picked a random source from Google Books and faked the page numbers. And despite all your bluster about "amateurism and BS", you've cited no errors whatsoever in my text.
Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome is present in a small minority of RCVS patients, but that was not the extent of your original claim. Your newer edits are still problematic, though. You turned the sentence about clinical trials into nonsense, and you restored a source that fails WP:MEDRS. KateWishing (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't backed away at all - you fell into the obvious trap where you defiantly insisted it wasn't referenced anywhere, and now you don't like it that someone has proven you so very, very wrong. Go read some research on a subject about which you pretend to know something. In the meantime, your latest edit shows that you know absolutely nothing about medicine, let alone encephalitis. Reversible encephalopathy syndrome stills presents as swelling i.e. encephalitis. so whether it's short term swelling, or longer term requiring anti-inflammatories, sedation, etc., it is STILL encephalitis. Even the Wiki article states as much... that's before you go off and alter that to fit your agenda, and make yourself out to be right. Which piece of this don't you get? Do you actually read, or do you make these edit changes for some sort of joke, or a bet? Pathetic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To quote from the very Wiki page, before it's altered by you... "Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), also known as reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome (RPLS), is a syndrome characterized by headache, confusion, seizures and visual loss. It may occur due to a number of causes, predominantly malignant hypertension, eclampsia and some medical treatments. On magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, areas of edema (swelling) are seen. The symptoms tend to resolve after a period of time, although visual changes sometimes remain." That's assuming that you know what a cerebral edema actually is! So, you've just contradicted your own edit.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KateWishing&oldid=692674233"