User talk:Jdphenix

Awareness of sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

January 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 06:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your RfC at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol

Re Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol#RFC: Should this event be characterized as terrorism? - RFCs are not "one per article", they are one per topic of discussion, see WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page. Also, please see WP:RFCST - the opening statement must end with a valid timestamp; I have fixed that one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I fixed the problem with it now. Thanks for the tips. Jdphenix (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No, by removing the timestamp that I added this morning, you broke the RfC statement again - as I mentioned above, a valid timestamp is mandatory. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't mean to break it. I've emblazoned that particular section in my head, but I'm going to stick to the basics for now. I had read through WP:RFC when I opened it, but obviously not to the level of understanding that I now see is necessary. At this point, I'm no longer comfortable touching this. Do I need to do anything else if I wish to no longer participate? Jdphenix (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You can just leave it alone if you like; whether you contribute further or not, others may or may not participate as they wish; and after thirty days, Legobot will remove the {{rfc}} tag and de-list it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft for response at Talk:Ivermectin#RfC about the style of the COVID-19 section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Didn't end up going in

Response Draft Make a stand for neutrality The COVID-19 section is duplicative with the Misinformation section as it is. I propose the following rewrite, citing international guidelines. Additionally, place a notice on this talk page indicating that on the topic of COVID-19 or ongoing research of ivermectin for this article, changes require discussion before they are published. This article is intended to be a descriptive read about the most mundane of topics; one of thousands of drugs. Misinformation Main article: Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic There is a false perception that ivermectin is more effective than current guidelines for the treatment of COVID-19. This has led to some countries adopting clinical guidelines for their use at the detriment to patient safety. Additionally, "Injectable ivermectin formulated for veterinary use has also wrongly been used for treatment of COVID-19." "Recommendation Regarding the Use of Ivermectin as a Treatment for COVID-19". Pan American Health Organization. 2020-06-22. Retrieved 2021-01-08. COVID-19 The efficacy of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 is under study by several researchers. "Ongoing Living Update of Potential COVID-19 Therapeutics: summary of rapid systematic reviews". Pan American Health Organization. 2020-05-08. Retrieved 2021-01-08. Notes Please note, I am not a medical professional. Misinformation Section Misinformation sections aren't common in pharmacology articles, so I'm just applying common sense. This is article about a drug. I'm not sure sure this section is needed, except for a link to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. David Gorski is a noted critic of alternative medicine, and a neutral source should be used for this section. High quality secondary sources are readily available. This appears to be a copy of the linked main article. The focus of this article should be factual statements about ivermectin. COVID-19 Section As is, this section spends far too much of the reader's time trying to understand what exactly it means. High quality pharmacology articles tend not to have a Research section at all, or if so, one with short descriptive statements of ongoing research. This makes sense to me. Policy and Guideline Notes "Research: Include only if addressed by significant sources. See WP:Trivia, and avoid useless statements like "More research is needed". Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers. Avoid promotional descriptions of early-stage interventions." The FDA and NIH are reputable and notable secondary sources, so a COVID-19 section is appropriate. My interpretation of this is that Research sections, when present, should generally be short and descriptive in nature. WP:MEDRS, specifically WP:MEDORG. NIH specifically called out as a national guideline. FA-Class or GA-Class pharmacology articles (with a Research section) Psilocybin Warfarin Metformin Niacin References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help me!

How do I always get this kind of editor UI?

UI I want

When I click on edit next to a section in an article, I am presented with this UI instead. I can reload the page to get my preferred UI, but that's annoying. I clicked around in editor preferences a bit but couldn't find anything about this.

UI I don't want

Jdphenix (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jdphenix, it looks like you have the 2017 wikitext editor enabled in your settings. To disable it, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures, uncheck "New wikitext mode", and then click "Save" at the bottom. — Newslinger talk 23:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Awareness template

Hi Jdphenix, please note that the {{Ds/aware}} template only takes effect if it is placed on your user talk page. You may want to move the one on your user page to this page, since keeping it on your user page will still result in you receiving talk page notices. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 23:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Jdphenix. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edmond Public Schools, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superintendent. 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) 06:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

SPA

Maybe you have not be warned about being an SPA because more than half your total edits are not only about one article but one phrase in that article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:POINT? I'm just saying that dropping a welcome template along with a pointer to WP:5P is a better start to someone coming back to Wikipedia than a stick. If you looked at my contributions as of Jan 8, and taking into consideration timing, I think that "this user is an AmPol SPA" would be a reasonable conclusion. Jdphenix (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What? Asking a user to be civil is "making a point to disrupt Wikipedia"? An experienced editor (even one who has been on a break) should know to be civil (and should not need to be told about the five points). Hell their response to your "polite note" is in essence "do not tell your mother to suck eggs".Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you think there might have been any chance for their response to my welcome be different if they were given friendlier welcome back?

Obviously, asking someone to be civil is not disruptive. Asking someone to be civil when there's little evidence of incivility might be. At worst, they've made a judgment error accusing another editor of bias on an article talk page.

Regarding their bias claims regarding sources, calling out left-learning sources being used to support MOS:LABEL isn't really a bad argument. They're obviously passionate about it, and there's a good likelihood they end up getting blocked or fed up and going away as a result of this ANI and quick escalation to the same.

If you wish to discuss my conduct further, feel free to add me as a party to the current ANI on Greene or open up a new one. Thanks. Jdphenix (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Their second post after coming back [[1]] "reeks of political bias", Then they go on in other posts to accuse users of "cherrypicking", "anti-candidate bias". But this [[2]] is the comment that led me to leave the message, a pure "but what about this user" argument.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've said my piece. The chips will fall where they lay. Thanks. Jdphenix (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)