User talk:Fitzrex

This is Fitzrex's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, Fitzrex! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! --Animalparty! (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sprague-Dawley rats (June 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sprague-Dawley rats and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sprague-Dawley rats, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fitzrex! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quaternary numeral system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nucleus. 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) 05:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hi there, please be careful to stick to neutral language or language which accurately reflects the source - re your use of "poignant" in Health and Social Care Act 2008. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tacyarg: luckily, it is stated policy of wiki that you be free to fix the errors that you see. That's what makes wiki such a useful collaborative tool! Isn't it nice that we can have this brilliant conversation over a matter of less importance than a fly in your ointment. Fitzrex (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Health and Social Care Act 2008, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DHSC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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 edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

In reference to your edits at Peter Daszak. Just an FYI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Peter Daszak is subject to a consensus required editing restriction. This is explained under "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" on the article talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. jps (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Thank you.[reply]

Important Notice

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Doug Weller: I have attempted to clean up a few articles which lack balance or otherwise disregard WP:MOS. I'm glad you noticed. Can I count on your support? Fitzrex (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that you understand our policies. For instance, "balance"? What does that mean? Doug Weller talk 16:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your edits have been reverted, which suggests that your "clean up" is not in accord with policy and not supported by other editors. (And as noted above, "balance" is not Wikipedia policy and in fact is often at odds with it. See, e.g., WP:NPOV and WP:DUE). Also, above on this page someone politely pointed out--in regard to the word "poignant" in one of your edits--that neutral tone should be used, and you sarcastically responded off-point saying they could fix it themselves (I actually would but the citation is behind a paywall so I can't determine whether it contains the word "poignant") and suggesting that "this brilliant conversation" was a matter of no importance. This is not the way to gain support. -- Jibal (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry @Jibal: re "poignant". Is an "editor" supposed to, or not supposed to, summarize the external article text? Need an editor copy verbatim from the source, as would seem to be indicated by your "so I can't determine whether it contains the word"? The only way I can understand this is if you meant to verify a quote. Why do you come down automatically on the side of the complainant when you haven't read the article? Perhaps just by chance I summarized the passage accurately... And thanks for highlighting WP:NPOV, which is precisely my point, along with (in the instant context) WP:BLP.

“

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

”

@Doug Weller: re "balance". My work on Christiane Northrup seems to be the instant cause of your concern, although it is nowhere mentioned in your text. Let's take one example.

Here I heard from Robincantin that "Doesn't belong in lead as formulated - gives the impression alleged irregularities actually occur". So I thought "ok, let's adduce the information that the 'alleged irregularities' do actually occur and are not "alleged". And I found multiple reputable sources to back the claim up. Is the MHRA an acceptable source in wiki or not?

Now I hear from "MPants at work" that "rm: none of those sources even MENTION Northrup, and none of them definitively establish that period changes are the result of the vaccine", which is completely beside the point. The point is that the irregularities do actually occur. Have I satisfied you, @Robincantin:?

The "MENTION Northrup" issue looks to me like a Red herring in the context of the "alleged irregularities". If the goalposts move to such an extent only because we are on the page of fringe science woman Northrup, then it seems to me that the field is slanted. Given that I have now satisfied Robincantin, can I count on that editor to revert "MPants at work"'s red herring? I know it will be difficult for some to accept that a trained Ob/Gyn physician has been correct about a matter that falls squarely within her professional remit but the observations are the observations regardless of our interpretation. Isn't that the essence of hypothesis and the scientific method?

And that is an example of what I mean about balance. The lede on Northrup's page has 80% warning about fringe science and fringe views. It's like her life's work is 80% pitch black. It doesn't seem right that, only because of her later adoption of fringe views, the woman be smeared to such an extent by wikipedia.

Fitzrex (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much clearer about what you mean and I haven't read your edits, but what does this have to do with WP:NPOV? Doug Weller talk 07:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do you come down automatically on the side of the complainant" -- again, this is not the way to gain support. It's a false charge and is combative. People have tried to help you here. And the only justification for using a word like "poignant" is if it appears in the citation; otherwise it's your judgment put into Wikivoice. In any case, I won't engage with you further. P.S. Having read the talk page of the predecessor account and its ANIs (which unfortunately went unaddressed), I see that this is a well-established pattern. -- Jibal (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously blocked account

The usual procedure to appeal the block would be using the Magnovvig account. Since talk page access was also revoked, it can be done using UTRS (more details at WP:APPEAL). Using other accounts is otherwise considered block evasion and sockpuppetry and when discovered their contributions can completely be reverted or deleted by policy. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 13:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Buckland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Murray.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sprague-Dawley rats

Hello, Fitzrex. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sprague-Dawley rats, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science Feedback moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Science Feedback, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]