User talk:Eggishorn: Difference between revisions

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Hi there! Sorry for bothering you, but I noticed that you reverted an edit I made here, where I added the desktop distributions to the “platforms” table. The message you left was “failed verification”. I wanted to ask what you mean by that, as I’m fairly new to this, and I might’ve missed something important. If you’re saying that the downloads don’t exist, you can see them on the downloads page, otherwise I know not what you mean by that.

Once again, sorry if I’m not doing something correctly - I’m new at editing stuff on wikipedia, so I probably just missed something :P

Best Wishes,

- Jab

Jabster28 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eggishorn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Swami Yogeswarananda Giri".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lapablo:, that was not actually an article of mine. As the edit summary noted, it was created as a favor to a new user who had tried to create it as a draft in the wrong place. That user never followed up so it is not of any interest to me to continue. It has already been deleted at this time but I thank you for the notice. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. So I see that you just reverted my edit on Jack O'Connell's tattoo on his arm. I know that there are no source to back up, but I don't go around spreading nonsense on a Wikipedia page. I'm a native Cambodian and I can recognize that the tattoo on his arm is indeed a Khmer script, not a Thai style. You can do research on it. The scripts has three lines. The first line is written ចននីផាទ្រឹក that says Johnny Patrick, the name of his father. The middle line is written អាលីសន that says Alison, his mother's name. The last line is written មីហ្គេន that says Megan, his sister's name. I hope that you will look into this. Yuforiya (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuforiya:, please read the Policy on Original Research and the Policy on Biographies of Living Persons. If there's no source to back a statement up, we can't make it in an article about a person. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand that. But do you have a source to back up that his tattoo is a Thai-style? I saw it as a false information and I'm trying to fix it. Also, he did come to Cambodia a few years back. Yuforiya (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yuforiya: I've removed the statement about the Thai style tattoo because it is also not reliably sourced. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help at the tea house! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer:, you're welcome. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eggishorn, I am 7vik0808 & I had posted a request to Change the name of the District Magistrate of Kanpur on this page [[1]] & you had responded my request by saying that its already changed to Dr.Brahma Deo Ram Tiwari but brother when I saw the page it was still Vijay Vishwas Pant written there I have attached a snip displaying the same.

Therefore I request you to please change it and as far as the spelling is concerned I think the spelling on the website that I inserted would be all right as its an official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7vik0808 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eggishorn! First, I want to thank you for taking the initiative to close and for doing a good job of it. Secondly, in your closing statement you said "this RfC has been open 59 days," (it certainly felt like it), but it was actually opened June 19th and you closed it July 19th = 30 days. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:, thank you for the note. I've made the change to the close statement for strict accuracy reasons. I'm not sure what I saw that made me use a May date to calculate the time it was open but 30 days is still long enough for a NAC. Thanks again for the heads up. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify something about your recent RfC closure? I agree that counting the different !votes likely results in a "no consensus" close. But I think you need to address the fact that the !votes for "public" provided numerous sources for how this precise situation is handled in reliable sources written by experts in this very topic who have had to make the exact same decision but the other !votes provided very few, if any, sources. (I can provide many, many more similar sources if that would be helpful, too.) Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo:, wow, that was quick. As a closer I did take that into account, which is why the plurality of !votes for "state-related" was not accepted as even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS despite said plurality. WP:NHC says that arguments that can be discarded are those that ...flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. Those policy grounds did not provide sufficient justification for completely ignoring the "state-related" !votes, whatever the possible shortcomings on sourcing discussion participants may have perceived. Making my own judgment on that sourcing issue would have been a clear WP:SUPERVOTE and therefore not allowed as a NAC. I hope this clarifies the close. Please let me know if you think this needs further expansion. Thanks again for asking. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo:, there was an edit conflict so I did not see your offer of other sources. I appreciate that these sources may exist and be persuasive to other editors but my purpose as the discussion closer is not to be the one persuaded. I can only evaluate how well the discussion participants persuaded each other. I realize that is probably disappointing, but again I am not an admin and don't feel that it is appropriate to substitute my judgment for the discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when one side of an RfC provides many reliable sources that are directly applicable to the exact question that is being asked and the other side doesn't then it's a pretty clear close no matter the numbers on each side. I don't think the "state-related" !voters showed a genuine understanding of the issue which was solely confined to how the institution is described in the lede and infobox and not how it should be described elsewhere in the article where context and nuance can be provided. We have incredibly clear evidence about how every reliable source has resolved this question and we're ignoring it because...we don't like it or we think we know better than the experts in this field? ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo:, I am explicitly not making any decisions or taking any position on the sources or the experts cited. That is not my place. I recognized already your use of sources but I cannot ignore the positions expressed based on my personal preferences or source evaluations. According to the consensus policy, accepting one editor's arguments that everyone else was wrong or not using the right sources or not understanding the issue would be taking a side and making a supervote. You seem to suggest that the "state-related" !votes did, in fact, "...show no understanding of the matter of issue." I cannot say I agree with that characterization because there were policy-based arguments for "state-related". I'm sorry that doesn't agree with your perception but that is exactly why I suggested that further DR is necessary, probably at DRN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you should not be reading and evaluating the arguments and evidence presented by those participating in an RfC then you have no business closing them. ElKevbo (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo:, I have closed now 96 discussions, many on difficult and controversial topics, only one of which has been overturned on grounds that were impossible to evaluate at the time of the close. I think that is a decent record. It is clear that you are at this point reading what you want to and not what I actually am writing. I said I did not evaluate the expert positions. I did not say I did not evaluate the arguments. I explicitly stated above that it was due to my evaluation of the arguments that I weighted them in the way I have already extensively discussed. It is also clear that you will dispute any close that did not agree with your position. I cannot agree with that. I am truly sorry you are feeling dissatisfied by my responses. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent closure of the RfC at Talk:Project Veritas, which I initiated. Would you mind taking a few minutes to make the necessary edits to the article to reflect the consensus? I would do so myself if not for my declared COI. If you prefer to refrain from getting involved further in this area, I will make an edit request via the WP:COIREQ process, but as the queue there is very long, I thought to inquire here first. Thank you! Sal at PV (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sal at PV:, I think it is inappropriate for me to close an RfC in one way or another and then make the edits I say should be made. Doing raises the possibility that I closed the discussion in that particular way just to make the edits I personally preferred. I hope that makes sense. Thanks anyway for asking here first. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Günter Bechly‎ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination)‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is for a clarification. I saw your entry in the Deepak Sathe afd, I am learning more about wikipedia and researching how things work. As you said unless i have no new point please dont comment. So i thought of sending it here if you could reply. Also in afd discussion i know we cannot compare pages as there is a policy which forbid that. But I wish to know why George Floyd page is live. He became notable only through that unfortunate incident and all news about him came only after that terrible incident. Please clarify . Thanks Jehowahyereh (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehowahyereh:, you seem to be familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yet you are asking an "other stuff" question. To clarify, though, there have been extensive and repeated discussions for months on this project on exactly that question. The ultimate result is that George Floyd did, indeed, become only notable after his death but that death was so important that to not have an article would be ludicrous. The death of George Floyd has changed not only this entire nation but had real effects worldwide. Deeapk Sathe, despite his accomplishments and the official recognition of him as a hero, is simply not anywhere near that same level of significance. I will state that creating a new article or defending an article against deletion requires knowledge of many interlocking and overlapping policies and standards. It is better to understand as many as you can before trying to argue as you have been in the AfD. You can start with Help:My article got nominated for deletion! and Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process and, of course, the WP:BLP and WP:N policies. I hope that helps. 06:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please excuse my lack of understanding, regarding the recent post at ANI. But, is Memon KutianaWala, claiming that they have received threatening emails, via WP’s “email this user” function? I always thought that if I used this function, my WP name would be attached to the msg. Or will it *only* reveal the email address I am using? Or both? (Note: I have a WP-only email address attached to my account.)

It hadn’t occurred to me that a non-WP (unnamed) editor might be able to use this function, without signing in....ie, as an IP.

I have seen your name and comments, over the years, and have considered you to be "a good egg". I do not have an opinion, per se, regarding the issue at ANI, just wished to ask about the email function. Thanks for your time. Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger:, it is very unclear to me from MKW's posts whether he is claiming that he received the threats he claims through his regular (off-wiki) email or through the "Email user" (on-wiki) function, probably due to the obvious language competency issues. Neither is is clear if the legal threats he's making were on- or off-wiki. Most of the documentation on the internal email feature is at Wikipedia:Emailing users. When you send a message with this feature, the email address attached to your Wiki account is passed to the recipient and your WP name. I cannot find and do not remember if non-logged-in users can use the "Email user" feature of Mediawiki so I'm afraid I cant answer that question. You might try asking about that at WP:HELPDESK or WP:VP/T. Sorry I couldn't answer fully your questions but thank you for the nice words. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this reply! Between the language competency issues, and my lack of understanding of the email function, I was rather confused. Your stmt: "When you send a message with this feature, the email address attached to your Wiki account is passed to the recipient and your WP name." (my bold) answers my basic question. So, it *seems* that passing threats thru the system provides some Wiki identification of the sender. The links you have kindly provided, will help me with any further inquiries. (Of course, no matter what else is going on in respect to content matters, etc., editors should not receive threats, nor issue them.) You have been very helpful, as always! My best wishes to you, also, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban proposal -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I read your feedback and I acknowledge your point. I am willing to learn and to defer to more experienced editors. In your opinion, how should the following content be edited in order to fit the standards of Wikipedia? I have asked Snickers2686 the same question.

Ellis oversaw the frivolous Joshi v. Joshi case [5], in which a physician by the name of Jaydeep R Joshi filed a lawsuit against another physician by the name of Jay K Joshi ostensibly claiming the latter had imitated him, and used the Lanham Act as the basis of the lawsuit, proclaiming himself to be a "world famous physician", the "only real Jay Joshi", and an apparent subject matter expert in a wide ranging array of medical topics [5]. In a stunning departure from established legal precedent [6], Ellis allowed the case to survive initial motion for dismissal on the basis of a specious trademark claim despite the absence of any notable evidence and likely perjured statements by the plaintiff, Jaydeep R Joshi [5][7]. The case has since been dismissed with prejudice [8] and it is unclear whether Ellis recommended sanctions against the plaintiff, Jaydeep R Joshi, or the attorney representing the plaintiff [8].

References 5. “Joshi v. Joshi.” https://Www.abajournal.com/Images/main_images/JoshiSuit.pdf. 6. Motion to Dimiss for Failure to State a Claim. www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/motioniqbal_1.pdf. 7. Churney, Dan. “Judge Lets Suburban Doc Continue Lawsuit vs Doctor with Same Name Imprisoned over Opioid 'Pill Mill'.” Cook County Record, 5 Aug. 2019, cookcountyrecord.com/stories/512872512-judge-lets-suburban-doc-continue-lawsuit-vs-doctor-with-same-name-imprisoned-over-opioid-pill-mill. 8. Wood, Lauraann. “Ill. Doctors With Same Name Agree To End Trademark Fight.” Law360, 2020, www.law360.com/illinois/articles/1303127/ill-doctors-with-same-name-agree-to-end-trademark-fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engaged audience1 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Engaged audience1:, thank you for the message. I am always ready to help new users. To start with the sourcing, there are two important points:

1. References 5 and 6 are not really acceptable because they are primary source documents. This is the WP:BLPPRIMARY policy
2. The two news articles (references 7 and 8) do not directly support the claim that Judge Ellis's actions were unusual or unacceptable. The WP:BLP policy requires all claims made about a living person to be directly supported by a verifiable source.

These two points alone mean that the Joshi v. Joshi case is not going to be appropriate for the article about Ellis. None of the sources that are acceptable are going to support a claim that Ellis made a bad decision in allowing the case to move forward. Perhaps granting this type of motion is unusual but stating that in the article would require one source to characterize what is "usual" for motions to dismiss in trademark suits and another to characterize this particular motion. Combining sources in such a way is what we refer to as WP:SYNTH and it is not allowed by the Original Research policy.

Furthermore, the terms such as "frivolous case", "stunning departure", "specious claim" "likely perjured statements" are all clearly not acceptable under the Neutral Point of View policy. Wikipedia is not a forum for arguing a position. These sound like excerpts from a motion to recover attorney's fees and penalties, not an encyclopedia article.

The bottom line is: That content cannot be edited to fit policy and be added to the Judge Ellis article. I'm sorry to say that but not everything does fit. As a side note, you're encouraged to sign your posts on talk pages such as this. This can be done easily by typing a row of four tilde characters ~~~~ at the end of your post. Thank you again for your question and I hope this helps explain the policies a little. Stay safe. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn

Okay, I stand corrected. I will accept your decision and refrain from adding any additional content to the Wiki section. Engaged audience1 (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Engaged audience1:, but it's not so much "my decision" as it is just the way this project has decided to run itself. I realize it's not what you want to hear. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is making assertions about you on ANI, at Articles for deletion/Chen Rui. Sorry, can't remember the way to link, etc. Listed as item #39. You are suspected of being a meatpuppet. Unfair not to let you know....Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: Thanks for letting me know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, User:Astghik Manukyan just admitted that they are related to Vazgen Manukyan. Saturdayopen (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saturdayopen:, noted and responded to. Thanks for the heads up. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention this to the other Wikipedia communities? As I mentioned before, this user also edited the Armenian and Russian version. Saturdayopen (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saturdayopen:, please WP:AGF. Ashtghik has just now acknowledged that the COI applies to them. There is no need to notify anyone about anything yet. I am not even certain that ru:wiki and hy:wiki even have the same COI policies that en:wiki does. We could try asking Ashtghik first, after all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope I haven't been too sarcastic in my comments...as my User page states, I try to defend worthy music articles (maybe that should read subjects). If the community consensus is delete, great. If it's keep, great as well. Have a good day. Caro7200 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--WOOLFHOUSE (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) I clicked the TALK button at top of article but I can't find where I can ask my question. Gerry[reply]

Hello, thanks for reviewing the edit request for Aydin Aghdashloo. The issue I have is with the statement that 22 anonymous women have come out with allegations. These allegations are nowhere to be found and the linked Washington Post and IranWire articles do not make any references to this either. Please review the edits one more time carefully with this in mind. Also, based on Wikipedia rules the allegations should not be included in the opening paragraph. An edit request which you seem to have missed. CameliaMTF (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		For making sure whatever criticism you give is always constructive. While it is not always what we want to hear, I can tell that it is done out of genuine concern for my behavior, rather than out of any stance in a dispute. I know I haven't made a good impression for you, but I really do appreciate criticism when it's constructive like yours is. Here's to a bright future! Unnamed anon (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eggishorn. You recently reverted my edit on Ramadan because Wordpress is not a reliable source. The source I added is actually a PDF of a published book which happened to be hosted on Wordpress. I assume this is okay because Wordpress is simply being used as a host for the actual source, which is a book, and not as the source itself. Please clarify when you have the time. — LissanX (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LissanX:, hello and thanks for your question. I'm sorry I haven' been able to reply sooner but I was out of town this weekend. I took another look and I still think a direct link to a Wordpress blog for the AhleSunnah Library is not a reliable source. That said, this PDF has a title and publisher's information page stating it was published by the Islamic Texts Society. If you can find the full publisher's information normally expected for citing published book,s it would probably be acceptable. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I hope you had a good trip. Sorry for my late response too, I was really busy yesterday. Okay thanks for clarifying, I’ll check it out and try and re-add it with a new source. — LissanX (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help regarding my effort to correct my grandmother's Wikipedia page. Can I cite and attach her (Minnie W Collins) Dartmouth MA birth record that shows her born on May 7, 1880, the illegitimate daughter of Eliza Collins? Her mother and George W Ashley, a married man, moved to the Boston area. Minnie's last name was changed to Minnie Ashley although Eliza and George never married and there is no legal document showing when her surname was changed by Ashley and Eliza Collins.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DTK3-G65?i=162&cc=1536925&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AFX85-RQ3

Thanks,

William A Chanler — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamAChanler3rd (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamAChanler3rd:, Thank you for your inquiry but I prefer to keep all discussions about Wikipedia on Wikipedia so I've removed the email address for your security and privacy. The information you've provided above from Family Search is not going to be considered generally acceptable because Family Search is a self-published source. All the information that Family Search provides was given to Family Search by other users. There is no way of verifying this information. The birth certificate is interesting but Wikipedia policy frowns on the use of primary sources such as birth certificates. If you want to edit your relative's article, I would suggest that you are more likely to get your changes accepted if you can find published secondary sources. That's probably not what you'd like to hear but I'm afraid it's the reality of the way these policies work. I hope that helps at least explain the situation. Feel free to contact me with further questions. This is an interesting case to me since I grew up on Buzzard's Bay. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i am asking for a fairly large redefinition of "the holocaust" back to it's traditional definition. the 17m murders number need not be omitted, but the holocaust proper number of 11m dead should be included as well. (that is the X to Y that i am requesting)

the holocaust was the systematic genocides carried out primarily during WW2 by the nazi's, not all "illegal" killings the they were responsible for i am arguing. the wartime deaths of civilians (whether partisans, perceived potential military threats, or other) are not all part of the holocaust proper. i think that this is a rabbit hole that the holocaust museum's interpretation is leading you down. (if you want to count all illegal deaths caused by the nazis then we should have a number closer to 100 million as the regime and war were illegal by pretty much any interpretation.)

this - what you have done on these pages regarding the holocaust - may be a current trend, but i think that it is completely wrongheaded.

the nazis themselves kept pretty meticulous records of the holocaust. hence the solid 11 million number for more than half a century.

and at the risk of being repetitive, i consider it ill advised to move the goal posts and arbitrarily redefine what the holocaust was - and thus change the numbers by around 50% upwards.

if you are willing to consider this position i can provide myriad sources for my 11 million number... pretty much all materials on the topic from between the end of the war through the beginning of this century.

thanks again for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KuzeOri (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KuzeOri:, Please re-read the article: The [United States Holocaust Memorial Museum] puts the total number of murdered during the Holocaust at 17 million: 6 million Jews and 11 million others. If you want to change these figures, you will need to propose the exact text you want changes, the proposed new text, and the sources you feel justify this change. This is more complex than the type of request handled by edit requests and should be a new section on the talk page. To create a new section on any talkpage (such as I have gone back and added here), use the "New section" tab at the top of the page next to the "Edit" tab. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eggishorn, you have replied, "Establish consensus before editing". I have also read the info on consensus. I'm being new to the edit request on Wikipedia, can't find a way for my next step. What should be my next step to establish a consensus? As I explained with the reference, that Female Infanticide is never a community-based thing or specific these community or cultural and ritual based thing to be represented in a Wikipedia page that provides information on representing a community. It is purely independent of communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunmugamsri (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For this comment. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Nagorno-Karabakh" is a region. Artsakh is a country; Stepanakert is capital of Artsakh, not of Nagorno-Karabakh. This would be like having an article on the Rocky Mountains and saying the capital is Denver. You seem to think I'm somehow questioning the existence of Artsakh; far from it. --Golbez (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia The vertebral augmentation page continues to cite the 2018 Cochrane review of vertebroplasty as core evidence that vertebroplasty is ineffective. We published a methodologically sound criticism of the Cochrane review, which has not been challenged by Cochrane authors (DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111171). It is not an opinion - it is methodologically sound description of several fundamental breaches of Cochrane protocol . The Australian Medicare Services Advisory Committee has recommended resumption of Medicare funding in Australia for thoraco-lumbar fractures less than or equal to 3-weeks duration despite the lead author of the Cochrane review being on the MSAC committee . Meta-analysis of vertebroplasty published by Lou et al in 2019 concluded that vertebroplasty was safe and effective for patients with fractures less than 6-weeks duration with severe, unremitting pain (Osteoporos Int. 2019 Dec;30(12):2369-2380. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05101-8.) Evidence review by Lamanna et al in 2019 in its conclusion writes "All RCTs evaluating vertebroplasty exclusively in patients with acute VCFs found it to be superior to conservative treatment or placebo, including a high‐quality sham‐controlled RCT. Despite recent Cochrane reviews, it may be that vertebroplasty has clinical value in treating acute VCFs, particularly in patients with severe pain.") (Lamanna A et al. Vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: An update. First published: 20 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12900) I have included four groups of authors (Clark et al, Lou et al, Lamanna et al and the 20 members of the Australian Medicare Services Advisory Committee) who find vertebroplasty effective for the management of acute osteoporotic vertebral fractures causing severe pain versus one group in the Cochrane review who don't. The Wikipedia page is misleading in its current version and misinforms patients. Please arrange to have it rewritten or removed. Yours Sincerely Dr William Clark Lead author VAPOUR trial (Lancet. 2016; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31341-1) Investigator Kallmes trial (N Engl J Med 2009; 361:569-579 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900563) Author Diamond et al trial 2006 ( doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00148 ) Author Diamond et al 2020 (Diamond, T. et al. Early vertebroplasty within 3 weeks of fracture for acute painful vertebral osteoporotic fractures: subgroup analysis of the VAPOUR trial and review of the literature. Eur Spine J 29, 1606–1613 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06362-2) ^[1]Osteoporos Int. 2019 Dec;30(12):2369-2380. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05101-8^[2]DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111171 Williamxrayclark (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Williamxrayclark:, Wikipedia is a project that anyone, including you, can edit. Please discuss this at talk:Vertebral augmentation or make the changes yourself. good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cesium is absorbed by animal and plant cells in a competitive way with potassium, but cesium has no known function; however, at high concentrations, it can cause toxicity in plants, inhibiting their growth. Indeed, mammalian organisms, during evolution, began to distinguish the useless (non-radioactive) cesium from potassium, which is essential in the Na + / K + pump of animal cell membranes. This is clearly visible in the poor absorption and selectivity for cesium of the liver and fetuses, in the autoradiographs of Nelson et al. (1961) [1]. The human organism in fact expels cesium through three emunctories: the kidney, and also through the salivary glands and, greatly, through the exocrine pancreas, that concentrate, filter it and eliminate it with secrete saliva and pancreatic juice in the intestine, as reported by Venturi [2]. In fact, "Prussian Blue" (ferric ferrocyanide), ingested orally, is able in the intestine to chelate cesium, preventing its reabsorption, and to eliminate it in the faeces, and, in this way, purify the human organism by about half of cesium in 30-70 days.

sign User:A-Venturi Sebastiano (assumed) 28-10-2020

Nelson A, Ullberg S, Kristoffersson H, Ronnback C (1961). Distribution of Radiocesium in Mice. Acta Radiologica. 55, 5: 374-384. doi:10.3109/00016926109175132.
Venturi, Sebastiano (2020). "Is there a correlation between radioactive cesium and the increase of pancreatic cancer ?". Reseachgate. Aug, 16: 1–13. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.27682.86728.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.249.207.36 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

I don't really know what is expected of me from posting this here. Wikipedia is not a place to promote one's journal articles, but this isn't a specific request. Possibly it content that the anonymous editor should be part of the related to the cesium article and if so, this should be an actual edit request at Talk:cesium. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eggishorn. I sympathise strongly with your feelings, but I really don't think that your reply is for the good of Wikipedia (and neither is it likely to have the slightest effect on the IP editor). --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine:, for the record, I wasn't just blowing off steam. I didn't think the IP editor's demand for a retraction should have gone unaddressed and I was making the absurdity of the demand clear. I was snarky, sure, but I wasn't uncivil or otherwise out-of-bounds. I hope that explains my reasoning. Thanks for your feedback. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've noticed the second level of indentation you used in this reply: Special:Diff/988356286#Joe Biden bio makes an impression you answer to User:Khajidha instead of the OP IP-user.

I fixed it. Feel free to revert my change if I did it wrong. --CiaPan (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CiaPan:, that's OK. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed your recent work on restructuring archives and I think you may be interested in a simple way to reduce it.

You can just create a little index page in your User: space and then include it as a template in your talk page and in archive pages. Then you add a link to every new archive page in one place only.

See User talk:CiaPan/archives for a primitive example of such index, and the lead section of my talk page for its use. --CiaPan (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CiaPan:, thank you again. I do it manually intentionally to make sure I have control over everything and know what is happening. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's allowed (indeed preferred) to leave the thread in the archive and close it there, then let one of the regulars know to put it on RSP. That way it doesn't clog up current discussions, and one doesn't have to update the RSP links once the thread is archived. (t · c) buidhe 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:, I have seen it done both ways recently so I'm honestly wondering if normal preference is changing. I did a close recently and left the thread in the archives and was contacted with a recommendation to do the opposite. That's why I linked WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE in the edit summary, which says: If a thread has been archived prematurely, such as when it is still relevant to current work or was not concluded, unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive. So maybe we need a VP on whether closes requested at AN/RFC should be left in the archive with a note on the current page or unarchived. I think both are kind of problematic, either way you look at it. Would you help with such a discussion if I started it? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can see that there is a downside to not posting the close to the noticeboard. (Perhaps the right compromise would be to copy the closing statement to the noticeboard with a pointer to the closed discussion.) I'm not well versed in VP, but would be happy to help; it would be good to have some kind of common practice at least. (t · c) buidhe 17:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for closing the RFC and emphasizing how the purpose of the RFC was not clear at all. You’ve logically stated that their is no consensus and thus the article should be brought back to the initial version prior to the adding of the sentence with Afghanistan and Myanmar, however the user who initially added that and was edit warring with 6 different users about it and opened the very weird unclear RFC simply re-added the content by simply putting an “ Albeit” in front of the sentence and implied in his edit summary that this edit was done per your RFC closure(?). Here is the diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/989963621 . This is definitely not going according to the rules, the outcome of the RFC is just simply ignored by him, please intervene. Best regards Xerxes931 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xerxes931:, I am not an administrator and I do not know how definitive my "intervention" can be. I can do not more than you as a fellow editor can. I will post a message on Aditya Kabir's talk page and see what the response is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure anyone can edit to "retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" (WP:NOCONSENSUS), only it would probably take a bit to find which prior version and which bold edit. I hope you wont mind if I state that I have edited into the article what I saw as the version prior to the bold edit (regretfully with concessions), and can't see how I can do better without some enlightened instrtuction (details regarding that in the other part of this discussion, on my talk page). I am sure process will prevail. Cheers. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 18:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir:, it is poor practice to split discussions between multiple talk pages and I had already started this discussion on yours. I will reply as needed there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have edited Aditya Kabir 's talk page lately. It is very sad to let you know that he is no more. I have worked with him about 13 years back in a featured article and it's very hard for me to tell this to you. But I thought about letting you know. --Tarif from Bangladesh (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarif Ezaz:, thank you for letting me know. I'm sorry to hear that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely false information. Ahmadis are not even Muslims, according to The Holy Quran and Hadees. How they get the right to edit Wikipedia in such way to hurt Muslims all over the world. A stick action must be taken on this... Thank you.. Waqas Ahmad Jan (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Waqas Ahmad Jan:, I strongly suspect you are not ever going to see this and have no interest in anything but stating your doctrine and therefore giving yourself a lovely righteous glow but I will assume at least a minimal level of good faith and reply anyway. Wikipedia has nothing to do with your complaint. Furthermore, I certainly have nothing to do with this statement so I'm puzzled as anything as to why you chose to message me. What you are seeing is the result of Google's algorithms mistakenly taking something from an article and calling it the answer. Our article on the Ahmadiyya Caliphate already makes it clear that the belief of who is the 5th Caliph is a minority one: Since the Ahmadiyya is widely viewed as a heterodox movement by the mainstream of Sunni and Shi'ite Islam, most Muslims outside the movement do not recognise Ahmadi claims to a caliphate as valid. If you had taken even 5 seconds to verify this for yourself instead of simply following a YouTuber's dictat you would have already discovered this information. Please never contact me again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used the thanks button for your ARCA analysis but that was for the effort to be response to my request. Then I read your results and it's super illuminating. I want to let community members who've been pushing for older dates to have a chance to read and comment on it before I respond, and I'll credit your analysis when I do, but just want to thank you for the time and rigor that went into that work. The results are quite stark and should, I think, inform our response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:, you're more than welcome. It is gratifying to hear that my analysis was of some use. Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange your ping didn't come through here or at ARCA. I didn't think twice about it ARCA but not sure why it didn't come through here... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your very useful analysis at ARCA [2]. That was a great deal of effort and will be invaluable. Its folks like you who are willing to put in extraordinary amounts of work that keep Wikipedia going! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]