User talk:TEMPO156

This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know. This user helps out newcomers. vn-2This user talk page has been vandalized 2 times.

Apology

Hey, Tartan357. Upon reflection, I realize that me intimating anything about you trying to trip AnonQuixote up was out of line and highly inappropriate. You were discussing matters in good faith and, really, had zero control over their mainspace editing. It was very much unfair of me to even hint of it being otherwise. So, I offer you my apologies, without reservations. Again, I will reflect and try to do better in the future. I appreciate and admire your level-headed and calm demeanor throughout this, and especially when suffering the unfairness of the above at my hands. Best regards, El_C 17:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, thanks, apology accepted. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for being gracious, Tartan357. El_C 17:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) El C, this conduct makes me happy. Thank you for your self-critique and willingness to be in the wrong. (We could use more of that on the wiki). ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwennie. What can I say? I still gotta eat the shame and embarrassment in faltering this spectacularly, but sincere thanks for trying to make me feel better! I appreciate that very much. El_C 18:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I'm glad you found it acceptable. This kind of conduct (self-critique and such) is something we should celebrate and encourage on the wiki. It goes a long way toward fostering the environment that allows us to all be as here as we can.

Some admins let the broomstick go to their head and are unwilling to do the honest self-crit we saw above with you. This behavior is very becoming of an admin and a great example for you to show other editors (admins in particular) to help them learn and grow in the same way you do. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of AE appeal

Hi, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AnonQuixote. AnonQuixote (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please do not keep changing the Party leaders of the United States Senate page back to the Republican leadership. Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 21:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

MTATransitFan, I'm just keeping the content factual. Can you provide a citation that the election of floor leaders has occurred yet? Because I think it's not scheduled to happen until 5. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

MTATransitFan, the new senators were just sworn in, so the edit is now acceptable. But my reverts occurred prior, and were thus entirely appropriate. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 Sorry! My bad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTATransitFan (talk • contribs) 21:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

MTATransitFan, no worries! It's always a mad scramble when these transitions occur, and I do inevitably make a few mistakes myself. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

About your note on my talk

While I understand it being unsourced, Big Tent is a meaningless, catch-all colloquialism, not an actual political position. Darubrub (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Darubrub, I disagree that it's "meaningless". The Libertarian Party cannot be placed on the left-right spectrum, and it welcomes people with widely differing views on social issues. What unites members of the party is the general understanding that force should not be used to achieve social goals. There was an implicit agreement in 1974 between the anarcho-capitalist and minarchist factions to not state in the platform whether it is desirable for the state to exist, known as the Dallas Accord. From the lead of that article:

The Dallas Accord was an implicit agreement made at the 1974 Libertarian National Convention to compromise between the larger minarchist and smaller anarcho-capitalist factions by adopting a platform that explicitly did not say whether it was desirable for the state to exist.
The purpose of the Dallas Accord was to make the Libertarian Party of the United States a "big tent" that would welcome more ideologically diverse groups of people interested in reducing the size of government.

Your placement of the party on the left-right spectrum is incorrect and I don't see what you're basing it on. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

MTG

I skimmed that comment way too quickly. I only noticed the beginning and the end, not the part threatening violence in the middle. Removal was the right call. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - February 2021

Issue 9—February 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Happy February everyone. I hope the new year is starting to look better than the last one did. As always, if you have any ideas to improve the newsletter, please post them at the talkpage. Otherwise, here is what's happening around the project:

Newly recognized content

Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom. Maxim Masiutin, reviewed by Vaticidalprophet UPMC Presbyterian nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4

Nominated for review

Louise Boursier nom. Doug Coldwell Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25 Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa Biotin nom. David notMD, under review by HaEr48 Lurie Children's Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, under review by HickoryOughtShirt?4 Urinothorax nom. Steve M. Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet Management of multiple sclerosis Currently a FA removal candidate. Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending featured article review at talk. Major depressive disorder Notice of impending FAR at talk. Influenza Notice of impending FAR at talk. Menstrual cycle Notice of impending FAR at talk.

News from around the site

• Another discussion has closed, with consensus supporting continued use of the phrase "committed suicide" in articles.
• The Medicine Collaboration of the Month for February is Cirrhosis. Head to Talk:Cirrhosis to coordinate our efforts. You can nominate future collaborations at WP:MCOTM.
• This month's target maintenance backlog is "articles that need more wikilinks". Just 65 medicine pages have {{Underlinked}} on them, so hopefully we can clean them all up this month.
• Flyer22 Frozen, longtime and prolific editor on medicine and television/film topics, has died. You can read a brief reflection on her Wikipedia work here, and leave condolences at her talk page.

Discussions of interest

• Continued discussion on the role of subject-specific notability guidelines at Wikipedia talk:Notability.
• An ongoing effort to trim talk page banners has brought us a discussion regarding whether {{English variant notice}}s should be converted to editnotices.
• An ongoing discussion at WT:MED considers spinning out parts of the infobox for medicines/drugs into other templates.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal

Hi

Do you have a source? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Panam2014, no. Somebody else made the infobox change and I just changed the lead to match it. It seemed reasonable since he's a member of the NLD. You can change it back if it's wrong. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 13:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Panam2014, it looks like we don't have confirmation he's been removed, although he may have been "disappeared". I changed it back. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 16:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Evidence

The website I use https://michaeljlindell.com/ would be considered "fake" by some. However, my example is when the media blamed a medicine (I cannot remember the name) that Trump said was safe as a "dangerous substance". However, now that Biden is president, they praise that exact medicine. This is contradictory to me, and I am also conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan955 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethan955, you are correct that I consider that website a fake news source. None of what Mike Lindell has said about COVID-19 or the 2020 presidential election has any basis in reality. There is a strong consensus in reliable sources that his claims are false. The plant extract you are thinking of is oleandrin, and I am not aware of any praise of it from the medical community at any point. On the contrary, the scientific consensus continues to be that it is poisonous. If you believe that Lindell is telling the truth, then your editing career will be a short one. Wikipedia deals in verifiable content only. Believing in lies and conspiracies is not a conservative value, and this nonsense only harms the conservative movement. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I reply

Can you help? I cannot figure out where to paste @Tartan357:? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan955 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethan955, sure, I'm happy to help out new editors. The reply template only works if you sign the comment it's added in. You should sign all talk page comments, and indent your replies. See WP:THREAD for instructions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Politics

Sorry if I expressed my opinions for anything, let us not get political... Wikipedia should be neutral... I just tend to be conservative myself, sorry. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan955 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethan955, that in itself is not something you need to apologize for. Everyone has opinions and politics. You are welcome to discuss and write about political content as long as you comply with Wikipedia's core content policies. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hello, I am editing an article called Eritrea, but I am not sure how it wants me to state the source. Should I use MLA or some other format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan955 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ethan955, please sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes: ~~~~. The easiest way to cite your sources is to use the citation templates in the edit window. See WP:INTREF3 for instructions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You may wish to go through the full tutorial at Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg

Well to be honest he was nominated by President Biden to the Cabinet position. He didn't get appointed would using the word nominate work better? Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And he was 38 instead of 39 when Biden selected him. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcometothenewmillenium, sure, you can change it to "nominated". ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wisconsin 2022 Gubernatorial Election page, vandalism problem

I added Real American Politics as a Republican candidate that has said publicly that he was interested in potentially running for Wisconsin Governor in 2022. A bunch of idiots noticed this and started vandalizing the page. Now I can't edit it and put RAP back in. Can you help with that?

Thanks in advance, GreatPondWiki (edit, I managed to put it back in, I think. Good now!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatPondWiki (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

GreatPondWiki, I've never edited that page, but I appreciate you reaching out. It looks like the problem user was blocked and the page was protected. Let me know if you need help with anything else. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

2020 Election page and Kanye

I wasn't trying to cause trouble with that. I just added him because he was was one of the most notable and famous candidate in the race other than Biden or Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historybufffanatic2005 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Historybufffanatic2005, this is obviously something that we've discussed before, which you'd know if you looked at the WP:CONSENSUS notices on the talk page. You are not the first person to have an idea about who should be in the infobox. Only candidates who received 5% of the vote or any pledged electoral votes are included. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Historybufffanatic2005, here's the consensus link for the 5% rule: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 12#RfC on 5% threshold. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Historybufffanatic2005, looking back on this, I see that it was inappropriate of me to assume you were deliberately editing against the consensus. Please accept my apologizes. You are not the first person to try to add Kanye to the infobox, and you probably won't be the last. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Repeated links

On repeated links Thanks I am aware of repeated links guideline now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannylenwinn (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Dannylenwinn, thanks for reaching out, and no worries. I knew that you were just trying to improve the articles. Welcome to Wikipedia! You may wish to read WP:TPHELP to learn how to properly create and sign talk page comments. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :) Looking forward to it and more good to come. Thank you for the warm welcome and the wonderful job you guys are doing - keep up the great work. Dannylenwinn (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Duke Montana

Hi Tartan357, I have removed some of the content at Duke Montana as it was apparently reinstated without a citation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, okay, thanks for letting me know. I was on RCP and this was definitely a borderline case. The edit summary (claiming to be editing on behalf of the subject) and the previous revert led me to believe it was an unconstructive removal. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the clarification. I can definitely understand this; I also believe that it has been done disruptively. To prevent further disruption, I have now semi-protected the page for a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Leach edits

Hi Tartan. Thanks for the feedback. Not clear though, on how links to Chronicle of Higher Education and news sites are not considered reliable sources for citation? Everything added was cited. I made a few tweaks, and will await further feedback if you think it's needed. Thx again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OasisMentality (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

OasisMentality, thanks for reaching out. It appears I made a mistake. I only meant to revert your second edit as unreferenced (the part about the tweet being deleted). Your first edit was caught in my rollback. That being said, I have not examined the rest of the content you've added, so there may be other problems with it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

2020 Myanmar general election

Am admittedly a total novice at Wiki editing, so I have no idea how this should work. But since you seem to have made a decision over what you think the election annulled text should look like, does this mean that every single other page with this same text now needs it changed to be italicized? Since this is currently the only page with that text and another result displayed where it's in italics? PaKYr (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

PaKYr, thanks for reaching out. Most editorial decisions on Wikipedia are made locally; there's nothing wrong with italics being used on one page and not on another. We discuss and consider what is best for each individual article. Consistency with other articles is not generally a useful argument, since the nature of Wikipedia means anyone can change any article; that's the essence of WP:OTHERCONTENT. The exception is when a policy or guideline exists, such as in the manual of style, that applies to multiple pages. I don't think a guideline exists that addresses this particular issue. I'd be happy to discuss with you whether italics are appropriate for this article on the article talk page. If we reach a WP:CONSENSUS there, it will only apply to that article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

PaKYr, I've decided I don't feel too strongly about this, so I'm going to change it back for you. But what I said in my above comment still applies, and I'd be happy to discuss this with you on the article talk page if you still want to :) ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on my talk page BTW, I can see it being useful in the future. Didn't really know there was a forum like that to ask questions, much appreciated for bringing it to my attention. PaKYr (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

PaKYr, you're welcome! It's a great resource for new editors. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 El_C 09:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

AE case

Thanks for pointing out that there was a civility in infoboxes ArbCom case. I had no idea. Do you think I should withdraw my current request for enforcement or maybe take it to ANI instead? I really don't like the drama of drawn-out AE or ANI discussions with experienced users, but I reached my limit with this user's incivility last night. I've tried to meet the rudeness with kindness and gently prod the user in the right direction, but they're not stopping. Unfortunately, it's impacting my ability to enjoy Wikipedia. I either have to steer clear of pages they edit or face this behavior. I don't get why infobox formatting is so contentious. Can you give me some advice on how to handle this situation? I'm really not doing this out of spite or anything; I just want to be able to edit AP2 infoboxes without getting trolled. Thanks. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. As I was telling Gerda (ping to annoy!) the other day, I don't think I've ever seen an ARBINFOBOX2 case at AE before. And I suppose this only kinda qualifies, since it is that, but wasn't formally invoked... Anyway, I'm wary to advise, but I will say that greater drama is likely at AN/ANI than at AE. Ultimately, the other user seems content with having a 2-way WP:IBAN imposed. So, happy to do that for both of you. Give me the go ahead and I will make it happen for you two. Kind regards, El_C 14:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I'd rather not do a two-way IBAN since it will hinder my ability to edit and I don't feel I've behaved inappropriately. If that is the only remedy, I'd rather no action be taken. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357, okay, noted and understood. But, just so you know, I can ensure that the IBAN is expressly stated as no fault (i.e. no blemish on your respective records). I'll add that a 2-way IBAN basically only consists of a prohibition against reverting and speaking to or about the editor in question. You may also seek a one-way IBAN, but of course, there's a definite burden of proof that will need to be fulfilled for such a request. Finally, if you wish to me close the AE complaint as withdrawn (without prejudice), I am happy to oblige with that, as well. Best, El_C 19:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, thanks, but I'm not interested in a two-way IBAN. It is frequently my impression that WP:CIVIL is not a policy that is enforced except in the most egregious cases, so I'm leaning towards withdrawing the request and just dealing with getting trolled when it comes up. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, I'd like you to close it as withdrawn without prejudice. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Tartan357. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverted edit on 1998 Arkansas Senate race

Incorrectly rolled back my removal of the Tom Prince link. It linked it to the MLB player and not the mayor. You mistakenly said that I “didnt provide a source” and therefore had to remove my change. But it takes one glance at the linked page to see the two are different people. Please fix. Thanks Ziggypower (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ziggypower, what are you talking about? My revert was on the 2020 United States Senate election in Arkansas article, not the 1998 one, and your edit was unreferenced. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding of Myanmar government status

Hi we let you know that President of Myanmar still Mr U Win Myith “present” State counselor still Daw Aung San Su Kyi “present” Min Aung Hlaing was chief of army currently world criminal, military coup. As mention above please put back to original status. If not we consider your are supporting of coup and criminal too. We know that this page it own by your, if not happy remove it all. Don’t change all this nonsense status. Minminnyinyi (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Minminnyinyi, please see Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/FAQ, which answers your question. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi

Hi and thanks for the welcome! The protected page on this subject is noted and understood. I can understand that was getting a little annoying. I won't keep labouring the point, however, it seemed that we were close to a consensus on the minor change being acceptable (Former -> Deposed). Any further thoughts on amending the page? Avanti21 (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Avanti21, I'm actually open to making that change. I objected to your claim that the outcome of the coup is not yet definitive, which is counter-factual and is what led to your edit request being collapsed with others containing similar claims. Another editor has continued the discussion on changing "former" to "deposed" at Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi#"former state counsellor" -> "deposed state counsellor". You are more than welcome to participate in that discussion after the protection on the talk page expires next week or your account becomes autoconfimed, which happens when your account has been around for 4 days and you've made 10 edits. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks Tartan357. I'll have a look in a few days. I think it's worth picking up again next week, perhaps when the discussion has calmed down a bit. Avanti21 (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Avanti21, the change has been made. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: User talk:ActuallyAlexSmith84

Great pickup here. Confirmed to be the article subject in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LWzhZCvST0 (starting at 2:07). Cheers, Spencer^T•C 03:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Spencer, I find it funny that they think the username ActuallyAlexSmith84 constitutes "going undercover". ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

XZora

Hey, I am not S2K-Lynx. Im just reading some articles and making them better I don't vandalize them or competency. Im just editing with reliable sources. :) Tartan357, how do i protect pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XZora (talk • contribs) 01:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

-XZora  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XZora (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - March 2021

Issue 10—March 2021

WikiProject Medicine Newsletter

Here is what's happening around the project:

Newly recognized content

17q12 microdeletion syndrome nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Bibeyjj Urinothorax nom. Steve M., reviewed by Bibeyjj Lurie Children's Hospital nom. Andrew nyr, reviewed by HickoryOughtShirt?4 Biotin nom. David notMD, reviewed by HaEr48 Imprinted brain hypothesis nom. Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by Lee Vilenski

Nominated for review

Friedreich's ataxia nom. Akrasia25 Kivu Ebola epidemic nom. Ozzie10aaaa, under review by Casliber Diaphragmatic rupture nom. Steve M. Mihran Kassabian nom. Larry Hockett Sophie Jamal nom. Vaticidalprophet Menstrual cycle Undergoing FAR, contribute at talk. Alzheimer's disease Notice of impending FAR at talk. Major depressive disorder Notice of impending FAR at talk. Acute myeloid leukemia Notice of impending FAR at talk. Influenza Notice of impending FAR at talk. Autism Notice of impending FAR at talk.

News from around the site

• There is an ongoing drive to review good article nominations through the month of March. Pick up a review if you have time. Instructions here.
• The Medicine Collaboration of the Month is on temporary (perhaps) hiatus. You can still nominate future candidates at WP:MCOTM.
• This month's target maintenance backlog is "articles with a dead link". Each typically takes around a minute to fix, so please hit one or two when you have a moment.
• The desktop site's default "Vector" skin is being gradually modernized. Details here. Opt-in at Preferences>Skin preferences to begin getting used to the new look.

Discussions of interest

• A large discussion is reconsidering deprecating the aliases for some citation template parameters.
• Please look over edit-protected medicine pages to consider whether some could have protection levels safely lowered.

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Ajpolino (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Why revert?

Why did you revert my change? I fixed a typo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myanmar&oldid=prev&diff=1010840106&diffmode=source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corevette (talk • contribs) 04:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A note about recent ANIs

Hi Tartan. Just a note to let you know I left messages for Marcus MT and Zin Win Hlaing on their talk pages.

I hope this helps (I know its unlikely). Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  14:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Marjorie Greene

I am not a supporter of Ms Greene. Far from it but did you see the following which was on talk for the article on her, which was very recently removed::

         "Actually I have checked the references 2 and 3 and some of the others. Apart from the lead nowhere in the article says she is a conspiracy theorist.Neither do the references I have checked. However the article does say she is a believer in and a promoter of conspiracy theories. This does not make her a conspiracy theorist. I think a theorist is one who composes a theory. To give another example: I believe in the Theory of Evolution but I am not an evolutionary theorist. The theorists were Charles Darwin,Alfred Wallace and (probabl;y)TH Huxley. If I write an article in support of the theory that does not make me a theorist unless I add some original thought to it. Should we change "far right conspiracy theorist" to "far right promoter of conspiracy theories?" Spinney Hill (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC) .

OK, I see what you are saying now, yes we could change it. Not sure its all that different.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC) It still won't satisfy the fascists. Any more comments? Spinney Hill (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course not, she will still deny it, and decry being held accountable for her words. But we can't do anything about what Marjorie Taylor Greene says.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)"

Do you dispute my definition of theorist or have you found a source which demonstrates she composed a theory? There was one which called her a theorist in the title but didnt live up to it in the text. She may be Q herself fo all I know but I have never seen anything to show it.Spinney Hill (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Spinney Hill, this is a content dispute and therefore belongs at article talk. There is a strong consensus to call her a conspiracy theorist established through a lot of discussion, and supported by the sources that overwhelmingly call her that. Guy Macon undid your edit un-archiving that discussion with the edit summary Your edit request was answered. The answer was "no", so it may not be advisable to re-open that discussion. However, article talk is the proper venue to continue this dispute if you wish to do that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 16:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:EDITREQ; "Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves. Requests should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change, and consensus should be obtained before requesting changes that are likely to be controversial". (Emphasis added). Spinney Hill made an edit request. Another editor answered that request., The answer was "no". This shows that the edit is likely to be controversial and thus that consensus should be obtained. It does not mean that the editor who answered no automatically wins. Spinney Hill is free to open up a new section and make their case.

In my opinion (and I may be wrong) Spinney Hill is insisting on a definition of "conspiracy theorist" that is at odds with common usage. The way it is commonly used it means someone who believes or promotes a conspiracy theory, not the creator of a conspiracy theory. If Spinney Hill seeks consensus for their version they are likely to get as an answer twenty or thirty reliable sources that call Marjorie Greene a conspiracy theorist (Google "Marjorie Greene" "conspiracy theorist" with the quotes) and a note saying that we call Greene what the sources call Greene whether we agree with the sources or not. They will also most likely get many more examples of high quality sources using the phrase "conspiracy theorist" to refer to someone who believes or promotes a conspiracy theory but is not the creator of the conspiracy theory. (Google "conspiracy theorist" with the quotes.) Nonetheless, I may be wrong and Spinney Hill is free to see if the consensus is with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

After an intial response of "no" I thought I had convinced the responding editor of my argument and there being no further response from anybody else I made the alteration. However I'm not going to press the point further.Spinney Hill (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Spinney Hill (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

What do you think about the recent addition of content in the Tatmadaw lead section? Seems as original research, synthesis, not written in NPOV way, even oversimplified (no mention of the way to socialism, for example), every link is renamed etc. Much better covered under the history section. For lead section maybe better to be said to The Tatmadaw has played a central role in Burmese politics since 1962 after the coup and then followed decades of the military rule etc. Some like that. Thank you. 109.93.43.90 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Alex Smith

Check the link below to see Alex Smith making all those edits to the Alex Smith wikipedia page. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LWzhZCvST0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverting edit on Rachel Levine's birth/former name

You undid my edit including Dr. Levine's birth name as 'unhelpful'. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Levine&oldid=1013116962 It is in no way shape or form 'unhelpful' to have the birth name. I don't feel I need to justify this, as this is an encyclopedia and not a forum of opinion, but I followed the format of not only wikipedia articles with folks that have changed their names, but also with people who have themselves transitioned. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Page

Wikipedia, as a source of information, warrants (demands) objectivity. This is the whole purpose of its existence: to "...present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, just-the-facts style".

Would 'formerly Richard Levine' be more appropriate?

Opertinicy (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Opertinicy, see MOS:DEADNAME, which I already directed you to. This page has a near-continuous influx of disruption over this exact issue (people deadnaming Levine, which is often used as a form of harassment of trans people), and there are many warnings against doing exactly what you did, including one in the article text that you chose to ignore. I won't entertain any further discussion about this with you. If you wish to change the guideline, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Continuing to violate MOS:DEADNAME would be grounds for arbitration enforcement sanctions. Also, I never used the word "unhelpful" to describe your edit. Please don't fabricate quotations. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You said something to the effect that her birth name wasn't contributing to the article. Regardless, I opened a conflict resolution on this. Welcome to participate if you'd like
Opertinicy (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrative sanctions

I did not think including the future Assistant Secretary for Health of the United States was remotely controversial. There is no instance whatsoever of her being opposed to her birth name being public (and there's evidence to the contrary). I also think it's very important to normalize folks who have transitioned, especially in an encyclopedia. Regardless, I should've exercised better judgement and not have undone your undo on the edit pending, and should rather have engaged in a meaningful discourse through the traditional channels (e.g. the Talk page).

Best Opertinicy (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)