User talk:NedFausa
 |
Ellipses
Hey Ned, just a heads up, per the manual of style here on Wikipedia, we don't use the pre-formed ellipses character. I undid your edit that seemed to just be the ellipsis stuff, but didn't check to see if you made that change anywhere else. Cheers, Nole (chat·edits) 17:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
December 2019
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 12:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Jewish American journalists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Open Technology Fund
Ned, Please don't try to place the disputed content back in. That's possibly the worst thing that you could do. Yes, you , I and Drmies believe this content isn't BLP. Gamaliel and Cellarpaper believe otherwise. That's not really consensus. Also , be aware that I've contacted a functionary on Wikipedia about a COI that I believe one of that participants on the page has about this subject. I won't say who or give any details on Wikipedia as some information isn't available on Wikipedia and could be considered outing. I'm waiting to hear from the functionary about this.
That said - PLEASE DO NOT place any COI tags in that article, as the COI is suspected as this point, not proven, also don't place any COI tags on anyone's page either for the same reason. Even though I think my evidence is strong, I also will not place any COI tags on the article or anyone's page either. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Removing Alexey Guzey's research from Why We Sleep?
Hiya. I appreciate your devotion to WP:RS related to Why We Sleep, but do you realize that the citation and statement you removed had explicit research, as well as cited journal articles behind it? The entire debate around the book was _started_ by this researcher. Removing this changes the factual accuracy of the article negatively (by removing the credit for the person who started the debate), and devalues the statements associated. Statements should not be removed simply because they come from people who aren't field insiders. Wikipedia is collaborative, and by definition, many of the editors do not have field-specific credentials. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @NicatronTg: You need to read WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." That is not the case here. NedFausa (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I fail to see your point. The statement in the article was true -- that an independent researcher raised claims, and that those claims were corroborated by a credentialed expert. I assure you, I am very familiar with WP:BLOGS. The point is not that Guzey's work was referenced. He made a statement, which was picked up on by credentialed experts, and then discussed. Nowhere did the article cite his research. The only citation was the claim. If I make a claim in the media, and then someone comments on my claim and says that's true, then the statement that I lead that expert to back up my claim is true. That expert does not become the author of my claim simply by virtue of being an expert. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @NicatronTg: Please take this discussion to Talk:Why We Sleep#Criticism_section and allow editorial consensus to form before restoring disputed material. NedFausa (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't restored any disputed material. All the best. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- @NicatronTg: Please take this discussion to Talk:Why We Sleep#Criticism_section and allow editorial consensus to form before restoring disputed material. NedFausa (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I fail to see your point. The statement in the article was true -- that an independent researcher raised claims, and that those claims were corroborated by a credentialed expert. I assure you, I am very familiar with WP:BLOGS. The point is not that Guzey's work was referenced. He made a statement, which was picked up on by credentialed experts, and then discussed. Nowhere did the article cite his research. The only citation was the claim. If I make a claim in the media, and then someone comments on my claim and says that's true, then the statement that I lead that expert to back up my claim is true. That expert does not become the author of my claim simply by virtue of being an expert. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)