User talk:Ultra Venia

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Sungazing, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. __meco (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been in error when I removed that information. Your argument on my talk page seems correct. __meco (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I went ahead and added the citations to avoid any future issues. I appreciate you taking the time to review! Ultra Venia (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Yes we need to use secondary sources for medical content. Please remove the primary sources and the content they support unless you can find secondary sources that support the content in question. Drop me a note if you encounter problems. I aggressively remove poor quality content / sources all the time and we need more people who are willing to do so.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few changes and moved some of the content to the disease related article. We try not to duplicate to much between articles on diseases verses infectious agents. See Hepatitis C and Hepatitis C virus or HIV/AIDS and HIV as examples. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 19:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phytosterols

beta-Sitosterol is used for prostate cancer and hyperplasia and there is actually at least one Cochrane review. I suspect this is easily much more important than all the dubious cholesterol business. Both articles need fixing anyway. Richiez (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Ultra Venia

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Vitiligo. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on [email protected]. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.Hydra Rain (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aliyamustafina

Don't worry, I'd be surprised as hell if it turned out to really be her, too. This is really just about accomodating and being fair to a user who may well have been a well-meaning fan—outside of the Olympics, names of gymnasts don't generally register in our eyes when we look over new user accounts (perhaps one of the bots could be programmed to make such a match; granted it would be difficult). And the edits seem to have been ones we would welcome. As for not using talk pages in a year of intermittent editing, I don't think that's so unusual. You'd be surprised how many people here didn't use them for a while when they were new, actually.

I'll probably give them about a day from the warning. Remind me if I seem to have forgotten. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just have a feeling she's one of those non-communicators, you know, the ones that eventually have to be shock-blocked to get their attention. I hope it doesn't come to that though. It's just a lot of people are looking at these pages right now and I don't want an international situation to develop out of it.

I wish there was a way to turn the "You have new messages" link into a big red warning "PLEASE READ AND RESPOND OR YOU RISK BEING BLOCKED!" for these occasions. Ultra Venia (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked her indef. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

What tags are you looking for? Maybe I can help! You can leave a response here, I'm watching your talk page.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I finally found what I was looking for under WP:TAGGING. The WP:TAG page is about copyright tagging, and none of the notes at the top said, "did you want to put a tag on an article? Go to WP:TAGGING". Why is the TAG shortcut given to such a specific subject? Ultra Venia (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I think this has probably happened before. Some pages have a statement at the top along the lines of "If you were looking for x, go to y". I can add such a statement to the page. Thanks for your feedback. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Ultra Venia. This is regarding the edit on the David Miscavige page. I have posted an explanation as to why I removed this section on the DM talk page. I actually posted three separate times. I am pasting this below:

Regarding the status of Shelly Miscavige: there has been much speculation about this -- but that's all it is, speculation. Wikipedia is not a collection of hearsay and speculation. Based on WP:SPECULATION, every instance of such doesn't need to be recorded in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPECULATION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball) "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable."

An official statement from her lawyer has been published, proving that these speculations are not verifiable. This unequivocal statement should put all speculation to rest. Please see source here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9441711/Mrs-Shelly-Miscavige.html. (I have posted it as a counterstatement to better this section) In the interest of neutrality, brevity and based on WP:SPECULATION, I therefore propose that the whole section about Shelly Miscavige being "missing" be removed from this BLP. It doesn't enrich this BLP -- it is irrelevant. Although the previously posted counterstatement certainly helps, the article would be better off without the mention at all.NestleNW911 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you actually read the source that I provided. Let me share the exact text of the telegraph bit here: "In our article on Katie Holmes and Scientology (5 July), we stated that renewed attention has been paid to the whereabouts of Mr David Miscavige’s wife, Shelly. Mrs Shelly Miscavige’s lawyer has categorically confirmed that she is not missing and devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology. We are happy to make this clear."

There is no speculation about the fact that is "missing" or her health and whereabouts. The statement above says explicitly and categorically that she is "not missing" and "devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology." This is confirmed by her lawyer. To attribute a different meaning to what was categorically stated is inference and original research. What is the confusion there? That is the main reason why this bit should be removed; it causes confusion and false speculation on the part of the reader.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

With no response to this discussion, I have removed the section in question. Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

On the reinstatement of Lawrence Wright's statement on Shelly Miscavige: I disagree with this - it is confusing and questionable. This is now what falls under speculation, and as established Wikipedia is not a record of speculations. The cited source (The New Yorker) was applicable up to the moment that it was updated with more recent policy-adhering information from telegraph.co.uk that Shelly Miscavige's status is NOT unknown, and she is "not missing and devotes her time to the work of the Church of Scientology." There is no point then in recording this speculation on this BLP.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both statements are sourced, both can stay. The way to say one is not missing is through a statement signed by her, or maybe even appearing in public. Until then, she hasn't been seen, which is sourced and completely accurate. We also have a statement by a man who claims to be her lawyer, that's it. No statement from her at all. No appearance from her at all. I think the fact that she has not been seen has been verified and removing it is a whitewash. Please direct other comments to the talk page of the article. If you have a problem with it, you can always ask BLP noticeboard and try to get some consensus there, but I won't remove RS material. Ultra Venia (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"What is your reference regarding the idea that a person missing can only be verified as not missing "through a statement signed by her, or maybe appearing in public"? That she is not missing was categorically confirmed by her lawyer, and this fact is published in two Reliable Sources: Telegraph and DailyMail. Here are my two sources: : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9441711/Mrs-Shelly-Miscavige.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2179035/Clarifications--corrections.html. My point is that even if its been speculated that she's been missing in RS, these sources are now moot, in the light of the new information contained in Telegraph and DailyMail.

Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the talk page article. I prefer all content-related conversations to take place on the talk page. It makes it easier for others to collaborate. Ultra Venia (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Ultra Venia; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answers in Genesis - Anonymous Authority

Hello Ultra Venia, I'm just trying to figure out how this could be worded more clearly. 'Scientific consensus' is an appeal to anonymous authority; can that be clarified or pinned down to a specific group, however broad that group may be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.159.101.6 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not authority as in a ruling body, but authority in expertise. More than 98% of biologists accept the TOE as the theory explaining life on Earth. If you need a modifier, you could say "overwhelming scientific consensus." But I think the way it's been worded is fine. Ultra Venia (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]