User talk:Harelx

Note to self: look at Wikipedia:Uploading_images for review of how to upload images.

Hello! or,

Welcome!

Hello, Harelx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Dioxininfood.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Dioxininfood.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have restored this image as requested on my talk page. Note that it was deleted because it matched I4 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Namely the fact that it had the {{untagged}} template added to it for seven days.

The text on that template explicitly states "This template should be replaced with the appropriate copyright tag. Failure to tag an image may lead to its deletion.". Please do so, or the image will be deleted again in another seven days. If you do not know what tag to add, please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --TheParanoidOne 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Don't forget to sign your posts. --TheParanoidOne 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

Hi Harel, I was reading the article on Peak Oil - which is excellent and followed the link to global warming and was very surprised that that article did not refer to peak oil even in passing.

I've added a section with some basic facts effectively inviting readers of global warming to visit peak oil to find out more. I don't know why some of the global warming evangelists are being so upetty about it, but they are giving me hassle. I noticed you were a contributor to the peak oil article, and I am leaving this to ask for some support88.110.38.52 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett E Miller, MD

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Emmett E Miller, MD, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. DGG (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Neva Rockefeller Goodwin

A tag has been placed on Neva Rockefeller Goodwin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. _(criticize)Sp.Kthepurplepixel 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Emmett E. Miller

I have nominated Emmett E. Miller, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmett E. Miller. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre claim regarding "benefits" of NOT getting an operation in a timely manner.

Please tell me how I can read that source you gave for the bizarre claim that it would be good not to magic away a waiting list by giving everyone the operation they need because there would be more deaths due to unsuccessful operations that always occur due to the slim chance of dying under the knife.

It was very old. Has it been re-posted on the web? How did you manage to find out about it?

Even though deaths would of course rise there is the contra risk of dying if you are NOT operated. Your case would only hold true if the risk of dying in the next year from NOT having the operation was lower than the death rate on the operating table. [Note from Harel:the wording of the section only claimed that this "can" happen and that in at least one instance, it did happen. The wording does not assert it "always" or"usually"benefits patients -HB] If the queue was five years long and most people had a risk of dying for not getting the operation was five times less than the operating theater loss rate, them statistically, for one year that might hold true, but the benefits would be clearly better to operate if the window was more than 1 year. But these are people's live so that would not be a consideration, and I find it very hard to believe this argument because the waiting lists in Canada are now about 3-4 months though they many have been longer when that article you claim to have seen was written.

I do need to know more so that I can WP:Verify the claim that you have made. I would still argue that the waiting lists today are such that it is very very unlikely that anyone today could make such a claim [Note from Harel: I'm not sure where your proof is that today it would not happen, but that's also moot, since the very humble wording did not make any claim, about how often this happens, whether its equally common today, etc. It just stated that i. it can happen (a logical argument) and ii. a factual/referenced noting that in at least one significant case (an entire province) it did happen, that instant surgery to everyone on the waiting list would have resulted in more deaths (22) than on the waiting list for waiting a year(15) so that wait so far (not an indefinite-wait) did not cause excess deaths, in fact resulted in fewer total deaths versus instant access to surg. That's all that is claims, and that much is fully documented. Hope this clears it up -HB]. I know that you claim you will do battle with me if I delete it again, but unless you come up with some creditable added information about the source and how you got to it, I will be incline to distrust you and will delete the content. Lack of verifiability and lack of relevance ARE good reasons for deleting material from WP. What may have been just possible 17 years ago is probably not true today for the reasons I have stated.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hauskalainen, I will try to address your questions and concerns. First, you asked "how did you manage to find out about it?" The answer is that I had subscribed to In Health and kept that issue, and that this summer cleaning up I found the original copy..and remembered it has some very interesting data and information. I typed the info for the WP entry directly from the magazine. I might be able to scan it online but cannot promise. I will look into it but no guarantees. I just sent an email, additionally, to an Anthony Schmitz I found online asking him if he's the same one, I'll find out the answer. Again no guarantees but I'll see if there is an easy PDF he has of the article, assuming he's the same Anthony Schmitz. Meanwhile, if you are so suspicious you could try to find the most a very, comprehensive online database of articles, I haven't been able to find it but maybe you can find the complete online references to all articles published by In Health in the past. The inside information says it was "published bimonthly by Hippocrates Partners, 475 Gate Five Rd, Suite 225, Sausalito, CA 94965" Founder are "Denis Kollar, M.D. ; Leslie McCurdy" if you can find them online today.

Once you realize this is a real article in a real journal, we can move to the substance. Am I claiming there are benefits from not getting timely treatments? This statement I don't make and the quotation does not make. To make matters simpler, let's suppose that on the waiting list are Andy, Beth, and Chris. Suppose Andy's chances of death in the next 12 months are 1 in 100, Beth's are 2 in 100 and Chris' are 3 in 100 - according to doctors' best estimates of their individual risk profiles. Suppose that 2 in 100 people who get the surgery die on the table (the actual rates were higher, between 2 and 3 percent, on the table, and the death rates from on the table plus afterwards combined were even higher, but for simplicity let's ignore that).

Now, the information I quoted in the WP entry did not say anything about,did not maken any claims about, any of these examples, but, just to try to add clarity in this Talk discussion, what can Hauskalainen and Harel say if they want to make some statement? Well, we could say that Chris should get the surgery sooner if at all possible, because waiting the full 12 months would give Chris a 3 in 100 chance of death while having it right away or soon would give them (if we ignore the after-operation mortality) a lower, 2-in-100 chance. We will ignore Beth to avoid getting into complex discussions (including post-surgery fatalities from complications from the surgery) but just as it was easy to make a statement about Chris, it's also easy to make a statement about Andy. Should Andy get surgery in the next 12 months? By definition, Andy's chance of death are only 1-in-100 if we do nothing in the next 12 months, and 2 in 100 (plus after-surg mortality) if he has it. So if the only choices are have surgery now or wait 12 months, clearly Andy is better of waiting 12 months, since he has a lower chance of death then. Now what happens after 12 months? Maybe there is medication or exercise or a combination of lifestyle improvements plus newmedication, that can solve his problems. Or maybe his condition is worse and now he has (according to doctor's best estimates) a 2.5 in 100 or even 3 in 100 chance of death during the next-year's 12 month period. And suppose the risks from surgery are still 2-in-100. Now, this second year, if this worsening has happened, then it makes sense for Andy to get the surgery right away rather than wait another 12 months (in reality there are more choices than "right away" or "wait 12 months" but to avoid making the quantitative analysis even more complex let's make the simplifying assumption that there are only two choices: he is allowed have surgery either "today" or "wait 12 months and then decide if you want surgery on that very same day after doctors re-evaluate you") So that's how it works. It took me a while to get my mind around this dimension, because is it not very familiar and is not often discussed inh healthcare discussions. Again notice that the WP entry I typed in, does not make any claims as specific as these.

What is does try to suggest is that in some waiting list situations, not ::all patients on the waiting list, to be waiting, to be on that waiting list Certainly if anyone on that waiting list is like Andy, then they are not being harmed, and, in fact, being helped, by being asked to wait (while more urgent cases like Chris' are taken to surgery first). Andy is not hurt by being on that list, and is even being helped. Are there any Andy's on the list? The fact that 22 would have been dead right on the surgery operating table if they all (everyone on the waiting list) gotten their surgery next-day immediately, instead of 15 tells us that the number of dead people would indeed have been higher if the waiting times was zero. I suggest to make things clearer that some statement like that in italics above, maybe you can help with the wording, be put in place. Notice the word "all".

I would suggest, now that I think about it, a second point to clarify that we might want to add to the WP paragraphs on this, so people get the right idea and not the wrong ideas or misunderstandings, would be a sentence saying something like: suppose that exactly 2 people out of 100 die while on the waiting list. Exactly 2 would have died if they all got an immediate tomorrow-morning surgery (actually more, given post-operation mortality, but again put that aside) then a summary sentence after this example could say something like "therefore, having the number of patients dying, even from the medical condition in question, while on the waiting list, does not necessarily indicate that more lives were lost than would have been had there been no waiting lists, for example if the mortality rate from the procedure itself would have produced the same number of a higher number of deaths" (maybe "imply" is a better, simpler word than "indicate" here for WP readability) Maybe you can help tweak this kind of sentence, and hopefully this not only clarifies communication amongst us co-editors but also makes it clearer to readers what is being said, so they don't mis-read it as saying something that it is not saying (e.g. that denying and delaying care is generally 'good for patients' or other wrong conclusion)

As for the date of this data, the WP paragraphs I have put in do not make any claims that the numbers are similar today. In fact the data is real, not hypothetical, but even if we only had hypothetical data it would still make the logical point that of "is not necessarily indicative of..." in the above sentence. The fact that these data are real, not hypothetical, allows us to say something stronger, it is both "not necessarily indicative" in principle by the logic of the statement (the statement saying "IF operation mortality is the same or higher") but further additionally we can say also that "And it is known that this does sometimes happen" as it did in 1990. That's the value of the data being real, this stronger statement that it is known that is has happened at least once. To broader point (the "is not necessarily indicative of") is a general principle. But the data makes it easier to understand it, as well as making the stronger "And it sometimes happens" point. Again this took me a while to become familiar with, it's not commonly discussed. It's a valuable point for today's debates for those defending Canada's system from outrageous exaggerations and even lies.

The point from this In Health article does NOT say that deaths are fine it does NOT say that delays are always good for patients...it DOES say that just because the number of deaths on waiting lists was not zero, does not mean any additional lives were lost compared with had everyone gotten immediate tomorrow-morning procedures (maybe more lives were lost,maybe less, maybe the same, you'd have to look at the data). This is not a point many appreciate. This lets advocates for citizen health both hold the government accountable to fund enough and to keep waiting lists from getting too long AND lets the same citizen advocates defend against dishonest attacks (by certain anti-single payer forces) that one single death while on the waiting lists equals more dead than would have occurred with instant-surgery, which it turns out upon more careful thinking, is a false conclusion; it may be true in some cases, false in others, depending on the data, sometimes even more lives were spared by waiting. (And yes the rich are victim, sometimes,not always, but sometimes, to higher mortality under profit-based medical care when procedures are pushed upon them that might increase, rather than decrease their mortality probability profile for the future..) I hope this all makes sense now...complicated I hope it's clear now so instead of arguing you can help me phrase it so readers can follow the somewhat complex but very important light this sheds on the whole waiting list discussion.--Harel (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now gotten the original author to post the PDF (which I had scanned in from my own paper copy) on his website. I've added the url to the references. The direct url is http://www.healthadvocates.info/HealthAssurance.pdf (see page 43 in orig article which is page 8 of the PDF, for the main figures being discussed). As you can see I did not lie and invent the article out of thin air :-) Again per my talk page if you have suggestions how to reduce misunderstanding by minor tweaks of the language by all means do so. Take care. --Harel (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporatism/Corporativism

Hi,

I'd prefer using "Corporativism", rather than "Corporatism", but I'm not a native English speaker. So I would tend to leave this debate to others. The term "Corporativism" is derived from the Latin word "corpus", not from "corporation" (which itself of course is derived from "corpus"). Cs32en Talk to me 07:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi Harel. Thanks for the new material over at ocean acidification. I just wanted to advise about the use of references though. Firstly, you appear to have included the same references multiple times but haven't used the standard formatting for this. If you want to re-use a reference, make sure that the original occurrence has a "name" ... <ref name="my_name"> ... </ref>, and when you come to another place you'd like to re-use it, do this ... <ref name="my_name"/>. It avoids having to repeat the same information, and makes it easier to see when material is sourced to the same reference. Secondly, you appear to have linked to references within references in places. For instance, you cite a Nature paper on volcanic vents, but appear to really be sourcing the IPCC report that appears as citation 2 in this paper. It would be better to source the IPCC report if that's what you really want. Finally, you appear to have used a couple of secondary sources (the EPOCA blog; ScienceDaily) where you could have tracked down the original work. It's probably snobbishness on my part, but tracking back to the original is probably better here; in part to avoid the "Chinese whispers" that can result when journalists interpret scientific papers (or, as is sometimes the case, when they interpret other journalists who are in turn interpreting scientific papers). Anyway, thanks again for your edits - they've pointed me in the direction of some new material. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to by email contact -Harel

Syria

It doesn't need its own section. We just group the alleged suicide bombings together. THe Mcclatchy report just describes responsibility. Sopher99 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keeping in one section (for now, unless Al Qaeda role grows significantly) and just grouping together,is ok with me..

Agreed. Sopher99 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern history of Syria

Hey, can you drop the all-caps in your edit summaries please? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, can you help me stop his unilateral deletions? I put in caps simply because he was not going to talk page, and him deleting/undo'ing and putting commetns like "no evidence" as 'justification' instead of reading the references provided (5 and counting) In short I put in CAPs because he was not reading the previous comments (that is the generous interprataion; there is a less generous one..) After a half dozen non-Caps attempts on my part, a Cap or two will not kill wikipedia to alert him to read, it seems to have worked, too, to get him to Talk. But his antics continue. First his comments said "no evidence" while ignoring the 3, then 4 references; then, now he is finally on Talk and he says, "well, I can find 100 'scholars' to say anythign, therefore, I can ignore your multiple sources' is the argument he is making Harel (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011%E2%80%932012_Syrian_uprising#CIA_1949_coup_.3B_I7laseral_please_read_.26_stop_policy-violating_deletions

BTW, please see WP:EW. You may think you're right, and you may be, but that's still edit-warring. A suggestion, you ask? Explain on the talk page--don't refer cryptically to other wiki articles in edit summaries. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to be cryptic; I was referring not to another article but to the TALK page of the main article on teh 2011 Syrian uprising (or civil war), should I duplicate exact same comments on this Talk page (due to his duplicate behavior)? Harel (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for your research and contributions to that page. Often, when faced with vague opposition to something you want to add, its best to try to pinpoint what the problem is by asking those opposing it to be clearer. If they aren't or you still disagree, its best to use whichever noticeboard is relevant. Bringing other eyes to the page always helps. In the subject area I edit in, there is conflict pretty much every day and I have found that instead of repeating circular arguments where people get entrenched, looking for ways to bridge the gaps either together or with others can work if people are editing in good faith. Ad if they re not, when other show up, they shape up pretty quickly or face some problems for their intransigence. Good luck wit future challenges and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 16:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism

Hi Harel, question for you here in case you missed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to alert you that I added a much more concise and I think clearer explanation of my concern - an d why it has to do with wanting to make sure we avoid misleading the readers of the article about the findings. See Talk of veganism. (I take it from the message at top of your own Talk page, where I almost posted this, that you will be alerted to any and all replies..) Harel (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Hi, Harel. According to the page editing statistics you have been among the most active editors of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. There is a request for comments if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Related sections for this discussion are also this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, and sorry for taking a while..needed to catch up with things, both off-wikipedia and to be honest took a time to read through such a large Talk section to get (partly) caught up on that. Just posted a comment Harel (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Hi, Harel. You have been an active editor on Deepwater Horizon oil spill and/or its related articles. During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up that article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank for the heads up. Second (not your fault but) I can't come close to keeping up on the 51 int hat category, not even 5 let alone 50+...but I did try my best to contribute to Talk page just now, in the main article, which I think can help lead to common ground, in particular between your posts and Petrarchan47's on the ongoing leakage subsection. Third, could you remind me how one finds the stats on the most active contributors, and fourth and last, could you clarify the difference between the "series" page and the "category" pages? Harel (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input at the talk page and sorry not responding immediately. Answering your questions about stats, there is a special wikitool showing number of edits at the page by all editors as also the time of the first and last edits. I notified all editors with over 20 edits, excluding (i) editors currently active at the article; (ii) retired and blocked editors; and (iii) bots. As of the difference between "series" and "categories" is that category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill includes also entries, which although having connection to the spill, this connection is not an essential part of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article (e.g. Ship Island (Mississippi)). "Series" includes articles which correspond to the sections of the main article. In addition, there is a special template at the page to make these articles more visible. Not the perfect solution, of course, but it is better than nothing. Of course, all important aspects should be described in the main article but taking account the size of that article, that means that we have avoid overloading that article with unnecessary (non-core and too technical) details which suits better in the slit-off articles. Beagel (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Swire

Hi - I removed the 'Dr' from his name per WP:CREDENTIAL - except of course in the quote. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure if it was clear but I just jumped in and changed "Dr" to "Dr." I was not the one who put in "Dr" in the first place. Since I do not regularly edit that page I will leave it for those who do to debate whether to include or not include (the "Credential" link along with looking at the page of Dr. Andrew Weil on wikipedia suggest to me you are correct) but you will need to take this up with, or, I would suggest, at least mention it to, others, on the Talk page.

I appreciate your courtesy in letting me know, of course, but I suspect others who edit that page more regularly, including the person(s) who added reference to Swire, will be confused and wonder why that is gone (I was merely insisting that *if* or *so long* as "Dr" was there, that it be with proper punctuation.) I would suggest you put a short little blurb - virtually idential to the one you put on my page, on the Talk page in question, just to clarify for others why it was removed. It's up to you but that would be my suggestion. Thanks again for the courtesy post here.Harel (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for 1953 Iranian coup d'état

On 22 August 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 1953 Iranian coup d'état, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 06:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 2013 Ghouta attacks. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Please note that since this article is related to the Syrian civil war, it is under a 1RR general sanction as discussed here. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you reference the article talk page. There is no consensus on the talk page for the edit you made, and indeed you appear to have not edited the talk page again. This is a contentious article; please use more caution in assessing consensus and avoiding behavior that resembles edit warring. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, I can understand completely your wondering where the heck my Talk page comment was...It took me over an hour to get it typed in and then the struggles with the formatting, formatting, formatting...as you will see when you see the heavily documented and referenced Talk section just created, you can see why it plus the formatting took so long. Please note that while the subject is contentious, the date of the official delivery to Syria of the request is not contentious, not in dispute, is an objective (not subjective) fact. I am not sure if Sopher99 even read his own link, his own link said, August 22, for what? It said August 22, for the "is being requested" announcement to the press. As the multiple references, plus the youtube video of the actual exchange with a reporter and Haq himself, and the trancript of it on top shows, while the U.N. rep "squirms" a bit given the pressure/embarrassment of why it did not deliver the official request sooner, nevertheless, there is no ambiguity, none, about the fact that the official request (as I pointed out, governments don't respond to press statements, but to diplomatic official requests - for the same reasons we would be completely unimpressed if the Syrian government gave a press conference "it's ok with us" if the Syrian government did not actually give the formal legal "ok" diplomatically) the official request was given on the 24th. This is straight from the horse's mouth, from the UN official.

So this part is not in contest, at all. Sopher's link was merely for the 22nd statement about the request is being made, and Angela Kane was, it's true, on her way -- to deliver it. Anyone who looks at the links I put in the original (which Sopher99 appears not to have done) will see that the UN official fully conceded, at a later date, that there was a press statement (22nd) and the official, legal diplomatic delivery to the Syrian government(on 24th) and it is the latter that governments do (or for that matter, can) respond to.

Again I regret that it too so long to put up the section of the Talk page - there are those, I must say, I have seen, those who delete inconvenient facts, no matter how well documented.. which then means those of us bending over backwards to only put fully documented things on wikipedia, have to work that much harder. Thanks for your note. Harel (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Harel. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Harel~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

00:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know; in fact I put the wrong reference for the primary. As for the summary, it's better to have Dr. Greger, M.D. summarize than one of us on wikipedia which de facto is what otherwise happens anyway right? In fact there isn't a more reliable person than him to provide the summary; he's the only expert I know of, who personally reads every singles English language peer reviewed research paper on nutrition in the world every year. I.e. he's a national or international expert, a fortiori, a reliable source, for summarizing the article (again, de facto alternative is one of us summarizing anyway) but should his summary be the second reference listed rather than the first? I'll follow up on the Talk page of the article, thanks. Harelx (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Harelx. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve William Douglas Street, Jr.

Hi, I'm Hydronium Hydroxide. Harelx, thanks for creating William Douglas Street, Jr.!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for your work. It's a bit marginal as to whether he meets WP:CRIMINAL. Please add WP:Categories and WP:Wikiprojects to articles you create.

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.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Cryonics. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self, August 2017, regarding preceding by AlexBrn

Reminders to myself in case I decide to pick this up later:

AlexBrn had reverted my adding a fully cited peer reviewed publication on religion and ethics to the ethics section, without any explanation, literally just one vague word, “undue”

I expressed a willingness to discuss and find consensus, and just requested he please leave it in place until we discuss it or at least he express a clear reason (meanwhile including the new reference in Ethics section) he reverted again

Result: Two back-to-back reversions by AlexBrn, in both cases without any explanation, reasoning, justification, beyond one very vague single word, stating that addition is, “undue” (How? In what sense? And any justification about Why it's “undue”? None given)And when asked directly that question, repeating that exact 1-word "explanation" in the edit comment for the second of his two back to back reverts. This is no way to work cooperatively with fellow editors who repeatedly request explanations that he ignores. Not only ignores but refuses to discuss given that what he ignored included no only my edit summary request to discuss but a short comment on his Talk page requesting he discuss and state his reasons for his removal of my contribution, on that Talk page...which he still wouldn't do.
On his talk page at this time one finds items like:

1. User_talk:Alexbrn#WP:CIVIL
“Please remember to be civil to other editors, especially those who are new to Wikipedia, regardless of how much you disagree with them.[By user Bradv] 18:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)”
2. User_talk:Alexbrn#Pattern_of_Edit_Warring
“You [AlexBrn] currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made...” The same user and comment (Cyintherye (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)) also notes that “Your user and Wiki talk pages and contributions contain comments by multiple editors feeling dismissed and bullied by your revisions...” And adding: “. I urge you to reconsider the impact that your contributions have and could have on the community and the body of knowledge that Wiki represents. You may want to talk a closer look at WP:con and actually engage in the consensus process beyond simply stating and restating your opinion, while deriding others' contributions” (Alex dismissed that comment, again without a word on its substance with just "If you have a behaviour problem take it to WP:ANI. You received some sage advice about consensus at WP:DRN, I advise you take it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)")
3. Another one (Herbxue (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)) summarized their reaction to AlexBrn's work in the title of the comment or section: “Not ok” After Alexbrn made a quip they responded that by admitting they found it 'clever', despite Herbxue saying to AlexBrn that they “dislike your [AlexBrn's] hegemonic ways.”

In any case, here, to the extent that “two out of three” makes something borderline, then Alex's two back to back reverts would be borderline war-editing...Worse, his refusing to discuss or to even state his reasons (see above but especially below)

And without any sense of irony, he sense a “reminder” in a warning type of way to me after I a) Performed one (1) single revert while at the same time I had (2) Openly requested a discussion to sort things out – get sent by him a “reminder” in a warning type way, about...Not edit-warring.

Given 1,2,3, above and his own edit history (“contributions” list) which I have screenshots (or copy paste of text) of his, which were largely reverts and with what was difficult not to see as a consistent pattern of going after and opposing anything remotely non-mainstream, such as Cryonics in this case, it was hard to assume good faith, but I did assume good faith on his part, and put a comment on this talk page asking him (at User_talk:Alexbrn#Cryonics_Talk_page ) writing to request we use the cryonics Talk page so that

constructive discussions may be had which avoids deletion sans clear explanation (as happened to my one sentence addition linking to peer reviewed journal article) should you wish to provide more constructive input

In other words I requested again – as I had done in the edit summary of my 1-time revert to re-include the citation – that he please provide his reasoning for why or what part he didn't like in that addition. He refused to do so.

That was a very short request that's easy and simple to respond to in the spirit of finding consensus, whether or not he wished to address the broader issues I included in my several paragraph Talk page comment. (See “One sentence addition to Ethics Section; and missing Science/Research section(s) (See “Harelx (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)” at Cryonics Talk page)

AlexBrn ignored the above-quoted very short and direct request I had put on his Talk page and referring to the inclusion in my Cryonics Talk page of broader issues (in part to put on the table for discussion what a non-POV unbiased article would look like, on which avoided rejecting anything that 'felt' non-mainstream and going by the evidence of peer reviewed, etc) gave the reason for another non-reply as being that this wider ranging comment of mine is in essence, “too long, didn't read” or in his style,

4) "Your "warnings" are getting weird, please explain or stop"
User_talk:Alexbrn#Your_.22warnings.22_are_getting_weird.2C_please_explain_or_stop
(By Great floors (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC) _
5) "2nd misuse of 3RR warning, please be more careful or accurate"
User_talk:Alexbrn#Your_.22warnings.22_are_getting_weird.2C_please_explain_or_stop
"I noticed that you've now twice put "warnings" on my Talk page (one, two) where you claim "repeated reverting" of edits. In both instances I had only made a single revert, and each was to revert what appeared to be an error (someone reverted one of my edits without giving any reason, so I undid their revert; my edits were explained in the edit summary and on the Talk page before making my edit). You're warning me about a behaviour that I patently have not engaged in." Great floors (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Very much as Alex did to me. Regardless of what one thinks about items 4 (and 6 below) which like this one I hadn't delved into, this is what Alex did to me in at least two ways: not only false claiming I did repeat reverts (I had done only one single 1-time revert) but also Alex claiming falsely in the preceding comment on my Talk page above, that "You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Cryonics".

Worse than falsely claiming I had "repeatedly" done so to him, his reminder/warning to me were even more a case of Alex being directed against "behavior that I patently have not engaged in" -- because he claimed I did so not only with him but with other editors of the Cryonics article. Completely false given I had not reverted any other editor's contributions on the Cronic's page (this was my first pair of changes at all to the article) but also a copy I made of of my contributions page on the date show I hadn't reverted anyone else's (on the Cryonics or on any other article during that entire time period shown in my Contributions page, anywhere on Wikipedia) at all

So did Alex make this claim knowing it was false, or did he make it without even looking and just asserting I 'repeatedly' revert other editors contributions on the Cryonics page, despite knowing he never saw me revert anyone else's, and without checking my contributions history which would have proven no other editor, ever, other than 1 time to revert his own revert, was done, and none in the entire time period of my Contributions page at the time, to any other editor in any other article, Cryonics or not..

Postscript I didn't look into but also found this on Alex's Talk page:

6) User_talk:Alexbrn#Professional_and_personal_bias
You work for a digital publishing company and are paid to optimise digital content for clients. You have not declared this as a conflict of interest.
You have personal bias against proven medical treatments, physiotherapy, nutritional therapy, acupuncture and homeopathy, declaring these "magik" in your personal blog.
You contribute significantly to argue against complementary cancer treatments, that aren't proven to be harmful, and snip quote organisations that promote complementary cancer therapies (Cancer research UK)
I've raised a topic with wiki administrators to assess your contributions to medical pages, against wiki standards of good practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny ko (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
(Alex's reply consisted entirely of no more than this quip: "
If nothing else, I'm glad somebody reads my blog! Alexbrn (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)")

How funny. Lastly for now, also

7) “Please stop reverting with no edit summary" on Alex's Talk page:
"I took the time to explain my edit on the talk page and you revert with the summary "Well, no".
Please stop this extremely discourteous behaviour. Great floors (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)"

To which Alex replied again ignoring the facts of lack of explanation for his (Alex's) reverts with nothing more than “Please stop damaging the encyclopedia with bad edits. Alexbrn (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)"M

Given the pattern of behavior towards me (two back to back revert, each without any explanation why beyond one single repeated vague word, then refusal to discuss it on Talk page because 'too long' despite extremely short summary I put on his Talk page), and towards others (including doing the same to others, including item 7) above) and criticism to him, many others above, and criticism about his behavior to wikipedia administrators as his Talk page shows have been done, yet the pattern continues.

Therefore, should I expend life energy equal to, no, greater than this summary for myself, in trying to respond to him, given the overwhelming evidence it will lead to no change at best, and even more false accusations against myself as was done to others too? The administrators have let this pattern stand, apparently, with "hegemonic" behavior against us who put real effort into improving wikipedia with highly relevant and documented peer reviewed studies, ignored, without any explanation, and if you push back in the least, false accusations along with refusal to actually name what the objection (causing his repeated back to back reverts) are. If only for others, or for myself if I have the energy to do so and prospects ever seem less dim of being given a chance to discuss and come to consensus, in the future, some notes on the context. Not only frustrating to me, not only frustrating to many others, but directly and obviously harmful to quality of wikipedia both directly (without reasons given, reverts of quality contributions) and indirectly (the "why bother adding this high quality item, since it may be reverted?" effect on many of us) Harelx (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Relevant keywords may include wikipedia atmosphere bully bullying censorship fairness bias biased abuse abusive POV collegiality collegial cooperative discussion participatory inclusiveness inclusive exchange examples history[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Harelx. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Paul Glover (activist)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Paul Glover (activist), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Glover GoFundMe link

Using an archive link to get around the blacklist is not a good thing. The site was blacklisted for a reason. You need to go to WP:WLIST and ask for the link to be whitelisted and explain why the normal reasons we don't link to GoFundMe's don't apply and this should be an exception. Ravensfire (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just logged in today..bottom line is on one hand, I disagree but don't have the energy here, or WLIST...However, I found: https://weaversway.coop/event/all-paul-benefit-paul-glover-friend-co-op which confirms January 2019 stroke, and is not Facebook like the other two links are.

I log in infrequently and I know that by now GREATER-THAN ref LESS-THAN OPEN-SQUARE-BRACKET https://weaversway.coop/event/all-paul-benefit-paul-glover-friend-co-op Title Here CLOSE-SQUARE-BRAKET LESS-THAN /ref GREATER-THAN is not liked, and some complex thing I can never remember(but try each time to copy from other working links) is the way to go with Cite and curly braces...I thought I saw some year or two ago some Bot automatically fix such links, but apparently not. So next time I have time to login and try, in some weeks. I'll try to add this weaversway.coop link (some of us don't use FB, by choice or necessity) and will try to figure out how to get auto-fix or help and to add it, if you don't plan to veto that link too (Pardon that I won't log in for another many days..life is busy..unexpected nearly an hour today helping needy person) Harelx (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]