This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Dialogues
I'll respond here to any comments, as is usual, to keep the entire dialogue in the same place. If I take a long time to respond, which I regrettably sometimes do, I'll say that I've responded on the Talk page of the author of comments signed by a named user (I have nothing against users with only IP addresses, but the address may no longer apply to the same person). I unfortunately responded to some of the earlier comments on this page on the author's Talk page, leading to incomplete dialogues here. Pol098 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first sections here are general, and may be updated from time to time (edited, not appended to). --16:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Guidelines
Wikipedia has many guidelines, some contradictory, which are not to be taken as rules. In case of doubt I use WP:BRD and WP:BOLD, sometimes WP:IAR.
Thanks for being a top WP medical contributor!
please help translate this message into the local language
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)
I think this can be misinterpreted as in "the opponents are right, there is no such right". In my opinion it would be more accurate to say "it hasn't been implemented", leaving it's legitimacy open for discussion.
Sure, I'm happy with whatever. My point in adding "this right does not exist" was to add information, not express a view - the introduction waffled about details, but didn't explicitly say that the right did not, in fact, at present exist - fine for people who know the history, but not useful for someone who came to the encyclopaedia to find out about it. I note that my addition has simply been reverted; I'd hope that somebody would add the simple fact, using whatever wording is considered appropriate. I could do this, but don't want even to hint at edit warring. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply write "As of 2024 this right has not been implemented" and leave it up to the reader to decide whether it should be. If that's okay with you, can you edit it in? I don't have edit rights on the article yet. Thanks! MagnificentTurtle (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I don't remember. The article originally said May 2024; I remember getting from somewhere an actual date; I think I assumed it was from a source in the article, but it obviously isn't. I'll have a look and add the source if I can find it, but am not sure. Thanks for letting me know. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in a research
(summarised by pol098)
survey of ... what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention.
WMF Research Team
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
I removed "at first she refused" as it didn't make sense in the context at that time. But in the context, you've updated, of "at first she refused but then appeared to consent/agree" I understand what was intended by the earlier version. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Camden Town.
Hello. I am FeistyRooster. I noticed that you added or changed content from Camden Town, but it was not in the article body. As you may see in MOS:CITELEAD, content in lead is a summary of content in the body and does not need to be sourced. That only goes when that content is also in the body. If not, it violates Wikipedia's policy of citing sources. I have reverted your edit because of that. I have also seen that you followed the logic of my revision, but you personally disagree. If you are still feeling that way, I would recommend reading MOS:CITELEAD. FeistyRooster (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I register my disagreement, I don't propose to act on it. However, I note that the generic use of "Camden", and CT having been in St Pancras parish, aren't in the body, and hence also needed deleting. The article is, in my opinion, poorer for it. If all the guidelines in Wikipedia were enforced rigorously, Wikipedia would be much less useful (and a lot smaller). Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AE Industrial Partners 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 until the discussion has finished.
Hello Pol098. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to AE Industrial Partners, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Pol098. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose β e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Pol098|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken β you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits β please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. scope_creepTalk13:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is total nonsense. If you have a look at edits I have made over the decades you will find no pattern suggesting that; if you disagree please supply examples (typical, not cherry-picked, I've made enough edits for a very few to perhaps look suspicious). (When I see an article that I suspect of being COI, the first thing I do is look at the editors' contribution history.) For total clarity I state explicitly that I have never had any financial or advocacy motive to make edits either in favour of or against any organisation, person, or topic (or about myself). I edited AE Industrial Partners into an article instead of a redirect because I found that they had acquired as yet redlinked Israeli spyware company Paragon Solutions; you can maybe accuse me of minor (negative) POV because I want to point that out, I'm not a fan of people selling spyware. The original redirect for AE Industrial Partners pointed to Belcan, one of presumably many companies that they owned for a few years (but no longer); if AE are considered not notable, that redirect should simply be deleted. I continue to think that that company is notable, for reasons that (objectively, not my opinion) do not show it in a good light, and will see what is happening with edits to the article and see about it being an article rather than an incorrect redirect. (I had initially referred here and elsewhere to Pegasus (spyware) instead of Paragon, an error.) Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article as part of the WP:NPP process. The behaviour you exhibited was similar to what a upe or coi editor would have done to maintain the article in mainspace, particularly in light of the poor state of the references that show no significant coverage per NCORP. I've came across many editors, established editors in the past 10 years who have suddently got shares or family members working there, or there is some other link, that compels them to ensure the thing stays in mainsapace. You wouldn't be the first and won't be the last. I didn't see or read anything about spyware, apart from aquisition news, which again is not significant nor notable. You have said your not a upe/coi editor. That is fine. But the notice is there now. scope_creepTalk07:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I didn't see or read anything about spyware, apart from acquisition news, which again is not significant or notable" My original edit said "The company is believed to have acquired spyware manufacturer Pegasus, probably in 2024". That sentence was the reason for my edit. Little seems to be known about the company, but that they are involved with particularly dangerous spyware is in my opinion both significant and notable. And, whatever else, the redirect to Belcan, which also was indirect, ==> Belcan, LLC ==> Belcan was and is pointless; the article is better deleted than left as a redirect to an article that gives no information about AE. By the way, I originally misremembered and only later corrected that AE had bought Pegasus, a notorious spyware company with an article, rather than non-article (yet) Paragon, which produced nasty state-used spyware and was recently in the news. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being a little to zealous under this rubric. The guidance says "It is common to add a little additional information", and gives an example. It is especially useful when the little extra information helps distinguish between two otherwise identical entries. All the best: RichFarmbrough14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for comment. As a reader and user of disambiguation pages, I got frustrated at having to waste time wading through masses of text to find which article is appropriate, so have tended to trim as much as possible without losing actual disambiguation. Information that helps distinguish between two otherwise identical entries is obviously necessary, that's what disambiguation is. In general I try to say things in as few words as possible; extra words just make for slower reading with nothing added. This is due to the fact that at this point in time ... (an example that could have been "because now"). I suppose I may go too far sometimes, but am not tempted to make each disambiguation entry an edit summary. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedback. The edits I tagged as minor were immediate smallish modifications to an edit that wasn't minor. If I had made only those edits I wouldn't have marked them as minor. If I'd included these edits in the previous ones, they'd have been adequately covered (I think!) by its edit summary (a summary, not a complete description). Technically, as you say, not exactly per guideline. I sometimes make such edits with summary simply "+", as an addition to what I'd previously written, instead of tagging as minor. This is an explanation, not necessarily a justification; what do you now think? Maybe I should stop doing this. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My golden rule is not to tag as M if there is any doubt whatever. "Minor" means a trivial change to spelling or grammar with no effect on meaning. An edit summary of '+' is terse and may annoy some people but it identifies the edit in the history as one that may worthy of examination for what led up to it, making it a far more useful indicator than an M. I have summarised with "CE more", using the same logic so I understand where you are coming from. πππ½ (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. If you can be bothered to search for "minor" there are a few comments here about tagging as minor (a few, in 20 years; I do modify what I do in response to comments). I have tightened my use considerably over the years (so my earlier comments are largely outdated), and should perhaps tighten more. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. My main reason for using the "minor" tag: if I'm making a change which, while not "minor" as per guideline does not make a change that I consider significant or likely to be controversial, I save the time of anyone who would otherwise want to checkβbut this is exactly what I've just been criticised for. If editing a controversial topic I use the minor tag less. I also make small but not tiny changes and summarise with the word "minor" without tag. Pol098 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that explains the issue. The tags and edit summaries are for other editors benefit, not yours. So yes, something like "minor tweak" works well. An M says to editors following an article "no need to take time to check this, it was trivial". (That logic says that, if you have made a large edit and then spotted a typo in it, you shouldn't tag the correction as M. "My typo" would be a good summary.) Btw, maybe '+' is just a bit too terse. "Cont'd" or "more" would be better. Of course the article matters. If the topic is highly controversial, tiny details can be significant. If it isn't, then less so.
Just to clarify: I now choose to make my use of the "minor" tag stricter, but don't necessarily agree about all these details. My general attitude: I sometimes deliberately do things that are strictly against guidelines but seem sensible (WP:IAR), with the intention of changing if I get significant criticism. I've had criticism about m for about 0.005% of all edits. I've had AFAIR one criticism of use of m without edit summary, so continue to do it. I think I've said everything (I've gone into detail because I view this as something general I need to get right, not a one-off, and for anyone else who comes to this overlong Talk page.) Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I would. I've designed the page so many comments should be sticky (e.g., I've added to them to keep them up to date), and have long intended to do a long and messy manual archive of the less generally relevant sections, but I suppose it's more important to get it done than to have grand ideas. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, just give the bot time to get around to it. I set the archive to "anything older than 365 days" as a start. Mine is 90 days. I updated your introductory 'dialogues' section to keep it active but nothing is lost, it will all be in the archive. I use my home page and my sandbox for anything I want to keep, maybe you could copy the 'good stuff' there?
Hello, I'm DMacks. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. User forums are not WP:RS, especially for human-med-adjacent claims.DMacks (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you can add the following to the death section, something worded along the lines of βIn late September 2011, Savile went into hospital with pneumonia. Although he was initally reportedly recovering (second source), two weeks later, Savile was not feeling well (first source). In an interview he conducted four days before he died, Savile acknowledged his health had worsened, βI've got a bounce back-ability, but this time I don't seem to be bouncing backβ (third source). He was found dead on October 29. This was discussed on the talk page of the article but I think it could elaborate as to when Savile grew ill and died. 78.150.15.34 (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can do this yourself, even without a Wikipedia account. You need to make sure that what you say is supported by the sources. To insert a a reference, add <ref>details of the reference</ref> after the text supported. The URLs you list become, in a form you can copy and paste:
<ref>{{cite news| last=Ferguson | first=Brian | title=Sir Jimmy Savile: The medallion man with a heart of gold | newspaper=The Scotsman | date=29 October 2011 | url=https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/sir-jimmy-savile-the-medallion-man-with-a-heart-of-gold-1655782}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news|author=<!--not stated-->| title=Pneumonia alert as Sir Jimmy admitted to hospital | newspaper=Yorkshire Post | date=1 October 2011 | url=https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/pneumonia-alert-as-sir-jimmy-admitted-to-hospital-1920193}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite news| last=O'Sullivan | first=Kyle | title=Jimmy Savile's chilling comments in Big Brother house that won't air again | newspaper=[[Daily Mirror]] | date=6 April 2022 | url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jimmy-saviles-chilling-comments-big-26648447}}</ref>
