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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@NedFausa: Hiya, thanks for your expansion. I will remove this content for now as on a second review, i think it's unclear what it is trying to achieve and as you say, fails WP:RS. Best, Darren-M (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Browning Auto-5
Hi, I see you removed my addition of In Popular Culture and the reference to the Turnpike Troubadours songs. I'm not sure how to cite lyrics and I don't want to violate WP:RS whatever that is, but both the songs I mentioned are (or were, the band -- which is significant enough to have a dedicated WP page -- is on hiatus) regular staples at their live shows, generally attended by high hundreds or low thousands of fans all across the middle part of the US, and The Housefire has more than 800,000 Youtube views.The Bird Hunters is sitting with about 915,000 right now. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ZW0pA5COc ) - Also, other firearms have "in popular culture" sections, which seems congruent with what I was trying to do here.
See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer#In_popular_culture which has a long list of un-cited references to popular culture appearances of this pistol.
@71.174.59.202: I hate to sound arrogant, but if you don't understand WP:RS ("whatever that is"), you have no business posting anything at Wikipedia. I recommend that you take this discussion to Talk:Browning_Auto-5 and allow editorial consensus to form before restoring disputed additions. NedFausa (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! Thanks for your advice regarding alternative accounts. My account isn't an alternative account (at least as far as I know?!); I certainly don't intend to be posting via anything other than my primary account name. Did I post something that seemed to indicate I was using an alternative account? If so, please let me know. I'm still quite a novice editor here, so any guidance you have is appreciated! (Also, if there's a better way to resolve this than writing on your Talk page, let me know that as well!)
Still learning! Snoqualmie7 (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Snoqualmie7: thanks for your reply. I was struck by the overlap between your edits to pages devoted to radio stations in Virginia, and edits to the same pages by Neutralhomer. Without meaning to cast aspersions on either of you, I thought it would be better to clear up any confusion as to the possibility of your being Neutralhomer's alternative account. If you were, it might be best to identify yourself as such. Since that isn't true, however, no such action is required. NedFausa (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my alternative account is Neutralhomer has Escaped. The two will geolocate to around the same area. I only use my alternative account on my phone and very rarely. Please feel free to request an SPI to confirm. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:46 on January 30, 2020 (UTC)
Nice job
Hey, just wanted to say nice job on the AN/I report. Too often reports there are confuzzled and meandering; yours was concise, to-the-point, and easy to understand by readers unfamiliar with the situation. Thanks! Schazjmd(talk)18:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your message on Talk:clarithromycin led me to wonder if the Image Lab could perhaps fix the erroneous image of clarithromycin. Would you kindly point out for me which methyl group is depicted incorrectly? I'm not a chemist. If you were to number them, starting with the two attached to the nitrogen, and going around the molecule clockwise (13 methyls), ending up at the center one, which one would it be? I could probably figure it out myself, but the chances of being wrong would be around 40%. Thank you.Edit: I only made out around 11 methyls on the other clarithromycin diagram...woe is me!--Quisqualis (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see 2 H3Cs in that image that image. Is one of them wrong in some way (not a chemist here)? Let me know; I believe it possibly can be fixed.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, I am going to ask kindly that going forward you do not make assumptions about my motives or intentions and that you do not make statements about me personally that are not supported in facts or evidence. Saying I "don't want to give a gay man his due" is false. I hope that we can work together to make Wikipedia accurate, verifiable, and do this is a respectful way. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Darren-M. I noticed that in this edit to RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Darren-M (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
