User talk:BlancoNino99

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

BlancoNino99, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BlancoNino99! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

PRODS

Hi there,

Please be more careful when nominating articles for deletion. For example, Julie Shah easily passes WP:NPROF and a simple WP:BEFORE search would've shown this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Which criteria of WP:NPROF does the subject meet? BlancoNino99 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Per google scholar, she should pass #1. MIT profs are also generally pretty notable. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Neel Shah: Unproven accusation of racial bias

Hello BlancoNino99: It’s surprising to see that you continue posting this content at this time. The allegation that Dr Shah said or did anything inappropriate in any way has not only not been substantiated, there is at present no evidence on record supporting it. It will be many months, and perhaps years, before any allegation involving him is adjudicated. That’s why I in your position would be very careful with publishing any accusations that might be false or which later turn out to be unproven. Particularly these days, when the Internet contains so much false or misleading information, and the conduct of those who post is rightly under scrutiny, we have a responsibility not to post accusations that are not proven. I would therefore ask you again to remove the content. If at the end of the legal process it is determined that Dr. Shah was specifically proven to have done what has been alleged in your content, that will be a different matter. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a daily tabloid medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respicefinem (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. At no point does the content indicate that he did or did not do anything, just that the lawsuit was filed. The filing of the lawsuit itself is the noteworthy event and did happen. There is no publication of an unproven accusation of Dr. Shah, the lawsuit is the relevant content. In my view, the lawsuit is germane to his career due to the nature of the lawsuit and the nature of his career, as reported on his wiki. This is not misleading content because it is true. BlancoNino99 (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your view of things. However, I cannot quite follow your logic: On the one side you admit that Dr Neel Shah has not been found or established to have done anything inappropriate or wrong. On the other hand, you claim that it was "germane to his career". It would only be "germane" if Dr Shah actually been found to have done something wrong in some respect. Or ... if exactly this impression should be created with intention. The prominent presentation in the form of a separate section implies an unproven culpable behavior and it almost looks as if you wanted to create exactly this impression and thus discredit him. Again, Dr Shah is not the defendant, nor is he explicitly accused of anything in this matter. In my view, the case belongs - if at all - to the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who is the actual defendant. I also noticed that you tried to put down the article of Neel Shah's wife Julie Shah almost at the same time you added the lawsuit section @HickoryOughtShirt?4:. It looks quite like a personal vendetta with the goal to attack the reputation of the Shahs. If you are unwilling to see reason, the matter must be brought up for a larger discussion. Respicefinem (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Respicefinem and thanks for the ping. Per WP:WEIGHT, I have to agree that a whole section dedicated to a filling of a lawsuit is undue. I think it should be deleted and we should wait for the outcome. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Now that is an unfounded accusation. There is no personal vendetta, only a desire to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information. I am a new editor and I am trying to understand the guidelines. I disagree completely with removing this content in its entirety, but perhaps that section could be trimmed. BlancoNino99 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, your phrasing implies that to Be considered as someone who “sees reason” I would have to agree with you. Hopefully this is not what you meant because clearly there is room here for people to see things differently and still be reasonable. BlancoNino99 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi BlancoNino99, sorry for the „unfounded accusation", but to me it seems really strange that with Julie Shah you misjudge the (undeniably high) relevance of her page in attempting to delete her page and with Neel Shah you take a low relevance as a basis for detailing unproven and damaging details of the lawsuit. I agree with HickoryOughtShirt?4 that per WP:WEIGHT filling a lawsuit is undue and should not be mentioned at the risk that this could permanently damage a career. Officially, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health is the defendant and maybe (!) the relevance is given there. But this would have to be discussed as well, since, as mentioned before, it is only a filling and the risk of unjustified reputation damage is also given. Beyond that, I think Wikipedia articles should not leave room for seeing things differently but simply meet relevant facts.Respicefinem (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello BlancoNino99, I assume that we have reached a temporary consensus in which we take the prominent section out of the article until there is a resilient outcome from a trial. Thanks for your understanding. @HickoryOughtShirt?4: Thank you very much for your support! Respicefinem (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please give me a few days to reply BlancoNino99 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

We have reached a partial consensus. First, you assert that Julie Shah has "undeniably high" relevance. However, when I reviewed her page, the last substantive update was in 2014 and it was tagged as autobiographical. I understand that a good editor fleshed out the page, but that was only after I tagged it. Second, while I agree that per WP:WEIGHT the racial bias lawsuit was given too much weight (due to my inexperience as an editor), I am concerned the text you have left there is potentially misleading. While the lawsuit was against the school, Shah was her supervisor and he is directly named in the lawsuit. Right now, it seems disconnected from Shah which it is, in fact, not. In addition, the lawsuit was not only about the employee being promoted and so I would add a few additional details about the lawsuit. I would suggest the following edit: "While a focus of Shah's work has been racial disparities in maternal care[13], on September 28, 2020, a Black former employee of Shah's filed suit against Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health complaining that Shah "operated in a racist manner" and that she was not promoted at the same pace as white counterparts." BlancoNino99 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello BlancoNino99, thank you for your feedback. I now understand where you made the mistake with Julie Shah. Instead of checking the relevance of the person (e.g. by a simple Google search at scholar.google.com), you used the information published in the wiki article as a basis for your assessment of the relevance. But this is not the way we want to improve articles in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. If we find errors or missing/outdated information in an article, we try to improve the articles by researching good and valuable information validated by an accessible source. If we do not find anything ourselves, we ask the community to add more sources and tag the article accordingly. Regarding Neel Shah: I have taken the trouble to look at the original case file document at courtlistener.com in detail and not just the Law360 publication. In fact the latter is rather misleading. The allegation against Neel is just one of many many points in the complaint, all of which have yet to be proven. Nor does the filing indicate that Neel Shah was the plaintiff's direct superior (which would imply that he had some "power" over her). Compared to the original document, the statements in Law360 are at some point out of context. Against this background, I would now even tend to keep this topic completely out of the wiki article until some substantial outcome of a lawsuit is available. Respicefinem (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Charlie Tatum

Hello, BlancoNino99. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Charlie Tatum, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Charlie Tatum

Hello, BlancoNino99. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Charlie Tatum".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)