User talk:Natureium

Nomination of Charles J. Sherr for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles J. Sherr 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/Charles J. Sherr until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Meatsgains (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my WP:AFD nomination for Charles J. Sherr. Thanks for providing additional references! Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Natureium. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Santina Muha

You deleted my Santina Muha page for my class project. Put it back or I will not get credit for it. I worked extremely hard on it and it is a huge portion of my overall grade. PLEASE put the page back. Santina Muha shows diversity in media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfgiovanucci (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jfgiovanucci, Natureium is not an administrator, but like any experienced user, they can recommend pages for deletion. That page should never have been published in Wikipedia article space and consequently was deleted by admin Ad Orientem in compliance of policy. The page was not supported our requirements for asserting notability through WP:Reliable sources. All the sources used are social media or blogs. The article does nottherefore (for the time being anyway) earn a place in our encyclopedia and will therefore not earn you a grade for your course. Experimental pages should be developed in WP:Draft space - perhaps you would like to inform your course manager or teacher. If you would like to recover the content of that article for future use, please ask me or Ad Orientem on our talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Allergan/Naurex

I have removed the merge requests from these two pages, because Allergan is a redirect page and so cannot be merged. If there's a case for a merge, it would be between the actual article pages – Allergan, Plc and Naurex. If you still wish to propose that they be merged, please tag those articles as such and start the merge discussion on one of the corresponding talk pages. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Natureium,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 812 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Monoclonals for tumors

Hi! Are you sure about your clinical trials updates to this template? For example, isatuximab is currently in Phase III [1], and labetuzumab has a Phase I/II study recruiting [2], so it's to soon to say it never got to Phase III. I haven't checked all entries, but maybe you could double-check your edit? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was wrong about the isatuximab. The trial statuses I got are from AdisInsight. I asked about what "never to phase III" means in WT:MED, and the consensus seemed to be that it could mean either that the drug was abandoned before it reached phase III or that it was still in development and hadn't reached phase III yet, which is why labetuzumab has a never to phase III indicator. Natureium (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm, if it means "not in Phase III yet", I assume Phase III trials for isatuximab hadn't started when you added this information. I would have interpreted the § differently, but if Doc James says so, I won't argue ;-) Thanks for the clarification! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher Duntsch

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

Bensci54 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher Duntsch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Duntsch 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/Christopher Duntsch until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Q

Were does the ref say this person is Dr. Death?[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Natureium,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 812 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Natureium. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 00:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Year of death

Hi, just a minor thing. For future reference, when writing biographies of people who have passed away and you know the year of death could you please add Category:yyyy deaths in addition to Category:yyyy births? Not a big deal, but its important both those cats are added :) —Frosty ☃ 23:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I undo the revert you made to my edit?

Hi Natureium,

Thank you for reviewing my edit to the Lily Jan article. You reverted my edit. Based on the official website of the National Academy of Sciences, http://www.nasonline.org/member-directory/members/3001518.html, she was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995, instead of 1996. Her husband Yuh Nung Jan was elected to it in 1996. http://www.nasonline.org/member-directory/members/3001702.html EdYuan (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll undo it. The UCSF Website says 1996, but the NAS website has to be a more reliable source. Natureium (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Edward Scolnick

I have opened a discussion about Edward Scolnick on the talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

quick question an agar plate page

I saw you removed the link I added to the agar plate website. Now: is it a general rule not to use certain youtube link? Or? I added the link again, but at the bottom of the page so people can check it, but is this also not allowed? And if it is not allowed, what type of movies can be linked? There are a few science journals that actually "publish" movies, are those allowed then? Or what are the general rules?

thanks Garnhami (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links aren't usually placed in the body of the article. See WP:ELPOINTS Natureium (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Natureium,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 812 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Sommer Page

Hi Natureium, I believe you were the person who added the "multiple issues" headers on the Alfred Sommer page. I've been working a lot on cleaning it up, adding more citations, and trying to neutralize the tone a bit. I know I could just delete the headers, but as you are an experienced Wiki editor and I am not, I'd appreciate it if you'd look at the page to see if you think it is improved and worth removing, or at least altering, the headers. Thanks. 162.129.44.120 (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks better. I've removed the tag. The issue was an editor adding a lot of material sourced to a "personal interview" and rewriting the article in the format of a story rather than an encyclopedia. Natureium (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Page Review

Hello there, Hope all is fine with you, I created a page Representative Director (Japan), I have learned that new pages are to be reviewed, can you also review the page and recommend any change? I will be very thankful to you. The page has been linked over 15 times to other relevant Wikipedia pages. Cotespeale3er (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Natureium please be aware that this person just happens to be one of the people blocked as a result of the SPI I linked to below. Strange that. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to encourage people to pester New Page Reviewers, so I decided to continue reviewing pages in the queue in order anyway. I have no idea how this person picked me. Natureium (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Natureium, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP

About Katz, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthinnutrition. There is some ugly stuff going on. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks. Natureium (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Was this accidental?

I assume, in making this edit, that you didn't intend to modify a direct quotation? Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations: "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced."

I assume that you were trying to revert back the IP editor 199.224.16.12's subsequent edit. That is fine and good, but please be cautious, on a fast-moving article, (1) not to remove intervening good edits when reverting vandalism; and (2) please especially don't mechanically template other users. Neutrality^talk 16:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. That was not my intention. Natureium (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! Neutrality^talk 16:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

I responded to your comment on VM's talk page but he removed it. Here was my comment:

The edits on Aug 6 reverted changes introduced on July 17 (diff.) Objections to the July 17 edits were raised almost immediately (talk page section) and are still under discussion. The status quo version (pre 7/17) should remain until there is consensus.

James J. Lambden (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Lambden, your diff does not show what you claim it shows. And you have some nerve so blatantly making revenge reverts and stalking my edits. It's obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes that you are inserting yourself into a middle of a dispute and are trying to provoke a 3RR violation. You are behaving disruptively, dishonestly and disgustingly. Stop stalking my edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought providing a history of the edit record might help settle the dispute. I guess not. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Natureium, you are either completely misunderstanding what I'm saying on my talk or you're pretending that I said something I didn't.

The change by Neel.arunabh had no consensus. And was done w/o discussion. That is what was reverted. It's Neel.arunabh and you who need to get consensus for these changes. It's Neel.arunabh and you who need to open up a discussion and convince others. The version before Neel.arunabh made their edits was the consensus version.

Please stop edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Number of protesters

Hi, thanks for being on top of the Unite the Right rally article. Data on the number of participants was hard to find for me; this was the best I could find, and the article I cite does claim it's the number of far-right protesters. But if you have a source that claims a lower number, please add it. – gpvos (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking for any estimate of the number of far-right protesters that were here, but all I can find is a rough estimate that there were around 1000 people total. Natureium (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Natureium, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Gilead Sciences shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I removed your reversion, as I'm the one edit warring? And an edit summary like "You are thinking of this thing called THE INTERNET." is clearly not "assuming good faith". Try some civility with your fellow editors. Natureium (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Copying public domain material requires proper attribution (Illegal immigration to the United States)

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Howard Scher

Hey Natureium, hope you're well. I saw you reverted some inappropriate changes to Dr. Scher's article back in February, but I noticed only one of the two offending edits got rolled back. I do paid work for MSK and don't want to touch it myself, so would you mind taking a look? The last paragraph of the Career section appears to be highly biased conjecture.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Please comment on Talk:Vaccine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vaccine. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Natureium, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

iOS 11 final build 15A372

There is no need to change the photo as there has been no major interface changes between Beta 6 & Final release, plus iOS 11 is no longer a beta product, which may confuse some people Cuzzystyle (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Biography of Andrea Ballabio

Dear Natureium, I'm Carmine Spamapanato, a collaborator of Professor Ballabio; you can be sure of this checkin on TIGEM website at the page http://www.tigem.it/research/faculty/ballabio in the Research Group's Tab.

Andrea Ballabio ask me to update his personal page with new information using a layout that fit the Italian Page Layout (photos and other).

I've tried to do this but after a few days from the page update someone undo the updates on the page restoring old (actual) page. Checking in the history I've seen that you do this because maybe you are the page creator.

Please let me know how I can make the requested updates and be sure that these remain.

Thanks Carmine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spampana (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We have some guidelines here for the way we write biographies. First, we try to use neutral informative language, rather than editorializing (WP:EDITORIAL). We also need sources for things that are written, especially in biographies. Reliable sources are from trustworthy, third-party sources. Articles should be written by unaffiliated authors that can be objective and neutral. We also don't include external links in the body of the article (WP:EL). The Italian wikipedia may have different guidelines than the English wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Richard L. Gage

Hello Natureium,

I removed the speedy tag since being an historian and author of four "notable" books is a plausible claim of notability. You can use another deletion process if you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The same applies to Harry Mortimer Hubbell. If he held a named professor chair, he may well meet WP:ACADEMIC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A book called Studies in Fifth Century Thought and Literature has a page and a half biographical profile of Hubbell. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

The request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined by the committee and closed.

For the arbitration committee,

GoldenRing (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ducati Monster

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ducati Monster. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ZX008

The article ZX008 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

iPhone X

Hi stop now, no people have contested that after days in talk page. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

No people have contested what? There is no consensus on the talk page. Natureium (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Natureium, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Power posing

Just wanted to say thanks for writing this - I remember seeing the Singal articles on it last year and thinking it was a fascinating topic, so I'm glad to see you wrote it up. I'd love to see it submitted as a DYK if you wanted to do that. Blythwood (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do that, but if you want to, that would be great. Natureium (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox element

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox element. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDHOW

Please format with the cite templates similar to the rest of the article. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Acute_lymphoblastic_leukemia&diff=807047550&oldid=805857064

Nomination of Gabriel Victora for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gabriel Victora 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/Gabriel Victora until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Rathfelder (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Fox News shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You also appear to be following me to other articles to make revenge-reverts. Please stop. Volunteer Marek  18:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That's nice, but you are the one who started reverting. And I haven't followed you to any pages, we just happen to edit similar topics. I have seen you accusing other editors of following in other discussions, so you thinking you are a victim is clearly not just an issue with me. Natureium (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edits here look like they were made to "get back" at me for disagreeing with you on the Fox News article. Please self-revert. Volunteer Marek  18:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I won't be reverting that edit because it is constructive and improves the article. There is no way you can argue that that isn't relevant, when it's the topic of major news coverage. I already reverted the change I made to Fox News until a consensus is found on the talk page. Natureium (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

And now you've made a three revert to a different article [4]. Volunteer Marek  19:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything. I removed erroneous tags that didn't apply to the text they were attached to. Natureium (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Which discussion? I don't see anything that relates to me. Natureium (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops sorry nothing bad just the section on "Spam link and user conduct problems" I linked to a talk page post by you as evidence so though I should notify EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

William Allan (geneticist)

He seems to be notable as a geneticist, not as a physician. WP:COPDEF might apply - but its not clear to me what sort of physician he was "in private practice in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he was nationally recognized for his early work in human and medical genetics". Rathfelder (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Power posing article

Hi, I see there's been some problems with the power posing article. A new editor who I understand is (or claims to be) a professor of psychology at Northwestern added some material. I felt that some of the text he added had merit but I definitely agree with you a lot of it was vague or a bit weasel-worded and unsourced. I'd begun a cleanup of some of his text and was working on sourcing it and adding sections and links; if it's OK I'd certainly like to put some of that back in.

What I've done is say to that editor that I'd be keen to collaborate on getting towards a better version of the article but that we can't use unsourced material. I think we can certainly quote Cuddy's point of view, although I'd also be interested in adding other sources like Andrew Gelman's blog. One thing I'd like to do in the article is directly quote Carney's view that the idea is a bust, as I think that's much clearer than summarising to clearly express her view.

Let me know what you think. Blythwood (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Bristol-Myers Squibb Award

Hi. Yeah that's weird. I remember this from this morning, and I could swear I de-linked it, rather than directing it to the vampire academic. None of the folks we have articles on is correct. Thanks for catching it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Natureium. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve NIH grants

Hi, I'm Ajpolino. Natureium, thanks for creating NIH grants!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Any chance you could add more information here? The page could be expanded with more info about the purpose of each grant, frequency/amount awarded, history of particular granting mechanisms (and of NIH grants in general) etc. Ping me if you'd like help. Happy editing!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Ajpolino (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of University of Virginia Cancer Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Virginia Cancer Center 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/University of Virginia Cancer Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

List of OMIM disorders

Hi! You said:

Different purposes for the lists. This is a list of codes, many duplicating disorders and genes. That's a list of disorders.

OMIM is a database for all genetic disorders in human, hence its content can be listed in "List of genetic disorders" and we still can maintain the codes. I'm intending to merge the duplicated disorders, in a column for each. This would be the most comprehensive and organized list of all genetic disorders. Also it is worth mentioning that there is almost no viewers for the list of codes, on the other hand, the list of genetic disorders gets 1500 viewer on average everyday. Brainist (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I asked for opinions on how to organize the list on WT:MED and the suggestion I got was to separate them again. This makes sense to me because the list of genetic disorders is a list of disorders, and includes one or several genes in each row that are associated with that disorder. The OMIM list, on the other hand, is a list of codes. A lot of the rows have duplicate disorders because disorders are associated with more than one code, and there are even more rows for all the different subtypes of a disorder, even though they all link to the one article that covers all the subtypes. This makes for an extremely long, unwieldy list. If you want to look up a disorder by the OMIM code, a list of codes would be useful (although for that purpose, you could just use the website), but a list with dozens of entries all linking to the same page is unnecessary. Natureium (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

hi

this source [5] click orange box synopsis on left and [6] was used for Frey's syndrome?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It does say that, but it also says "Frey's Syndrome is a rare neurological disorder that may result from injury or surgery near the parotid glands (which manufacture saliva), damaging the facial nerve", so how could it be inherited? Natureium (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

perhaps we need to rethink using OMIM?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Natureium, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of entry in List_of_biological_databases page

This is in regards to your deletion of my entry of Cell image library perturbation database in the list of biological databases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biological_databases). I fail to understand why you removed this. The database doesn't seem to be listed anywhere else on the page and it is a biological database. Tmfs10 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've further cut the list to fit within Wikipedia's guidelines (see WP:CSC). Additionally, links to external sites are not to be used in lists. Natureium (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I referenced a published paper in a journal with an impact factor of 7.5. I don't see why that's not notable. Tmfs10 (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not about having references that are notable, it's about the list item itself (database in this case) being notable enough that a whole article could be written about it. Natureium (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would gladly write an article about it if I had the time. In the past, it's by tolerating small changes like this one that wikipedia grew. The article on the United States was a single line without any references when wikipedia started out. By setting the bar so that a whole article has to be written about something (which itself is hard as a culture of deletion seems to have evolved here) before you can even add it to a list is going to destroy the editorial culture that let wikipedia grow Tmfs10 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Natureium! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Breakthrough of the Year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Copanlisib - 'slow injection in the vein' - please doublecheck 'Rituximab' article

Accept your change on iv Infusion. Proposal: also adapt in rituximab article, where I got it from? Wowbagger2 (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Natureium, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Harold L. Moses) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Harold L. Moses, Natureium!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged as needing more independent sources.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Biotech industry in Boston

Hello, Natureium,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Biotech industry in Boston should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotech industry in Boston .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Jamez42 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you help update some BLPs?

Hey Natureium, hope you're doing well. I'm working on updating and improving the articles for a handful of MSK doctors, (currently for Craig B. Thompson and Joan Massagué Solé) and I was wondering if you had time to check out some of my proposed changes. I saw you active on Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and you were very helpful reverting the changes for Howard Scher. I posted on their respective talk pages (Thompson, Massagué) quite awhile ago, but I haven't gotten any feedback there. My focus was on cleaning up the pages, as well as adding in missing refs. Could you take a look if you've got a minute?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: thank you so so much for your help! I know it was a lot of material to look over, so I really appreciate you taking that time to review it. I've got one more question for you, if I may, regarding Joan Massagué Solé. Do you think that with these new changes it would be appropriate to remove the COI maintenance tag? It was added 3 years ago, and I think the article as it stands today is significantly different from the version that prompted the maintenance tag. (Diff here.) Thanks again!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Natureium (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

your reverts on opioid epidemic

Well, thanks for nothing on my part. As for the blocked user's contributions that you obviously do not like, I kindly request you to give at least an indication of what was wrong with them, instead of just referring to the fact that he or she is blocked. In other words: please make your motivation explicit unless you want to leave the impression that there is something like ideological warfare involved here. -- Kku (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. WP:LINK describes appropriate linking in articles. The text added by the banned user was highly promotional, sections of it were not at all related to the north american opiate epidemic (the topic of the article), contained many inappropriate external links, and more than half was an editorial. Natureium (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Active count of WPMED articles

Where can one see the listing and count please? --Zefr (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Right here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Statistics Natureium (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss your reversion of my cited edits on talk

So long as the article is named USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal, it's reasonable to presume that all related sexual abuse where the USAG heard legitimate complaints yet failed to protect those in its charge should be included. If the charges on this page are limited to the Nassar case, do you suggest a new article pagename where I can include the dozens of other proven or confessed cases? As my previous comments on the talk page can verify, I'm very sensitive to issues of BLP. Yet this story is untold on the exact pagespace where it belongs. Please comment on talk. BusterD (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I already did. Read the talk page. The article title is not plural. This article is about the specific scandal that has garnered a lot of media attention in the past several months. It's not about all abuse of gymnasts through the years. Natureium (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:209 (number)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:209 (number). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Natureium, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 in science

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 in science. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Whaaaaambulance

HA! I expected this from you Natureium; I saw your large list of edits--often contested, btw--and foresaw you would intrude sooner than later. I was correct. Look, I get it. You in fact proved my KGB/Gestapo analogy: You are a closely knit group of hyper-sensitive "patrollers." You tolerate no dissension nor can see outside the box. Deleting anything remotely considered un-fawning makes it easier to avoid the larger issue and shields you from any kind of dialogue. What's amusing to me is that I really have no dog in the fight. I live in Spain. I am not part of the Stanford project whose links I posted. Just trying to add to the world of information out there, and disease research. So your deletion of a comments means nothing to me--except to confirm my stated observation that indeed, you are like members of ISIS: constituents of a small, fanatical group who demand utter obedience to the organization that they serve, and destroy all references to that which they disagree. ISIS uses explosives; you use the delete key. Power, even in the most banal form such as a Wikipedia patroller, is so intoxicating. Now run along, there are more heretics and infidels to slay! Davieinspain (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

LOL Natureium (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

List of scientific misconduct incidents

Can I bug you for an opinion? In editing this article, which of these two, general formats do you think is best:

  Joe Shmoe (US), a nuclear physicist, committed plaigarism.(RS)
  Joe Shmoe. Shmoe, a nuclear physicist working in the US, committed plagiarism.(RS)

Of course if you have another format to suggest, I am all ears/eyes. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to either, but if someone is looking for information by country, it would be easier for the location to be in parentheses after the name. Natureium (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Catechol-O-methyl transferase

Glad to see someone is watching the article. I'm trying to fix the use of DISPLAYTITLE and after I made the change, I was walking through the history and found that the article and references appear to be inconsistent as to whether there is a space after the methyl and whether there is a hyphen prior to the O. Could you please take a look at making the article consistent? Naraht (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, methyltransferase is more common (and has 5000 results on pubmed vs 800, and even more extreme on clinicalkey, with 5300 vs 38), although I believe either could be accepted. However, when you changed it, it was displaying with an underscore between methyl and transferase. It seems to also be more common with a hyphen on both sides of the O, although I think both are accepted as well. I can't search that because the hyphens aren't respected by the search engine. Natureium (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I messed that up by including the underscore instead of space. But glad this has come to at least two user's attention who know more about the subject than I.Naraht (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Uncvility and personal attacks

On Talk:List of school shootings in the United States, you've accused me of POV pushing without evidence, and you've labelled a list of criteria as a "tutorial", insinuating that I'm incapable of reading and understanding for myself. If you continue this sort of behavior, I'll ask for sanctions at WP:ANI. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You can ask for whatever you want. Arguing for inclusion of something that doesn't fit the inclusion criteria in a politically charged list is POV-pushing. "Tutorial" doesn't mean you are incapable of reading. It means that I broke down the criteria in a way that demonstrates what is and isn't inclusion criteria. Natureium (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That someone disagrees with you over what fits the inclusion criteria is not POV-pushing. You also said I was warned over it previously, which isn't true. Please retract this claim. If it were, I could turn it around and say that you are POV-pushing by trying to have an entry removed despite it clearly fitting the inclusion criteria. Calling your table a "tutorial" is patronizing. In this case, the content is also potentially dishonest, as you've left out "mass" in the one place where it matters, despite it clearly being in the text, and my insistence that this incident qualifies for the list since it's not a "mass shooting by...". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You can start a request for comment on the inclusion criteria if you'd like. Natureium (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Toby Hansen proposed deletion

I still have more information to add including references, which I will add as soon as possible. Thank you!

Earlygrrl (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)earlygrrl