User talk:Looie496

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

My response to you[edit]

The vast majority of the material on the talk page for "Chinese Room" [[1]] is not cited. You wrote on my talk page that discussing the topic is prohibited, yet that is exactly what you did on the page -- discussed the topic. Nn9888 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that you can't use talk pages to post personal opinion essays. You can struggle and thrash and make all the noise you want to, but none of it is going to change that bottom line. If you don't believe me, ask other editors. You are all alone on this. (You're right that I discussed the topic, but I was responding to a question, and the question bore on the validity of the Wikipedia article. This isn't a "zero tolerance" situation.) Looie496 (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The important topics[edit]

Hi Looie. I loved your analysis of FAC and importance at the time. I agree fully with It's better to have problematic featured articles about important topics than for all featured articles to be about trivia. I have the general view that the work on Wikipedia can and should be nudged toward the more important tasks. But these thoughts are evidently very controversial in the Wikipedia community. I would very much like to see a corner of Wikipedia where this be discussed in a positive spirit. My hope is also for SW support to provide feedback on importance and value. Such SW could consider for example number of links to articles in other languages, number of downloads the last quarter, subjective importance ranking. A a complement to editcount, a user could be able to se how much value they have added today, the last quarter. Such a figure could also be based on size of contribution, removal, reversing by others etc. Even if not perfect, such summary statistics could be much better than the current editcount. Do you know of any such discussion that you can point me to? --Ettrig (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much faith in automated measures. The one that is probably most meaningful is page views -- an article is important if lots of people want to read it. I don't think edit count or other editing statistics are very meaningful. Beyond that perhaps the most useful thing is WP:Vital articles, a hand-curated list of the most important articles, showing the current status of each. Looie496 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, WP:Vital articles is a subjective importance ranking expressed by a clique. Of course page views is also subjective. But it is much more imortant because it shows the total actual interest that the readers have shown. --Ettrig (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case