User talk:Yspaddadenpenkawr

Would you mind fixing up the John Dewey page? He did promote soviet education. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/abs/john-dewey-and-the-soviet-union-pragmatism-meets-revolution/1C33F6D2504D7042D1346E6E2516A6ED Kelly222 (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know much of anything about John Dewey and/or his relationship to Soviet pedagogy. I removed a sentence from the lede of the Dewey article because it was added with zero sourcing, had no evident support in the text of the article (the word "Soviet" appears twice in the body of the article, neither time in relationship to education), and was added in a hit-and-run edit by an unregistered account. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source I gave you will help you improve the article.Kelly222 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Yspaddadenpenkawr! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! BusterD (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the welcome. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you reverted my edit.

Topic was Camel Urine. I don't understand the reason but I think it was the aource. I don't understand the reason but I think it was the source.

This is what I added:

Lately, an observational study under the supervision of WHO in Medical Oncology Department, Comprehensive Cancer Center, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Palliative Care Medicine Department, Comprehensive Cancer Center King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from September 2020 to January 2022, 20 cancer patients were observed (15 male, 5 female) who insisted upon using camel urine. It was documented the demographics of each patient, the method of administering camel urine, the reasons for refusing conventional treatment, the period of follow-up, and the outcome and side effects. All patients used a combination of camel urine and milk, and treatment ranged from a few days up to 6 months. The average amount of urine/milk consumed was 60 ml/day. No clinical benefit was observed and 2 patients developed brucellosis. Eleven patients changed their mind and accepted conventional antineoplastic treatment but 7 were too weak to receive further treatment and died from their disease. It was concluded thay Camel urine had no clinical benefits in cancer patients, and may even have caused zoonotic infection. The promotion of camel urine as a traditional medicine should be stopped because there is no scientific evidence to support it.^[1]

Please help me add it again. It is an important addition to the topic. I just am confused about the source adding.

Regards. Ammar sh 87 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert your edit. It was reverted by @Roxy the dog, to the version that existed prior to your edits- and I was, coincidentally, the last person to edit the page before you, so my username appeared in the edit summary. My edit on the page was just removing two excess words that rendered a sentence in the article ungrammatical. I have no particular interest in the topic. If you want to discuss adding or removing content from the article, you should explain it on the article's talk page, and why you think it should be added/removed. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, discuss it on the article talk page, but without a WP:MEDRS source, it will not be added. Thanks for the ping. - Roxy the dog 22:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, I'm UndergroundMan3000. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rush (band) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Please discuss your issues/changes over at Talk:Rush (band) before you change 2018 back to 2015 as the disbandment date again. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already brought the change up for discussion on the talk page- a few months ago now. There was indecisive discussion about which year to use as the end date in November 2021, in a discussion now archived; I started a new section on the subject. I don't think anyone's presented meaningful evidence that the band was "active" in any sense after 2015- they were inactive, and when asked said that they had no plans for further activity; even the 2018 Lifeson interview that's touted as being the "official" end date of the band's activity merely contains a statement that the band had no plans for further activity- not a firm "official disbandment statement," and not even a statement made by the band as a corporate unit. Rush publicly kept their options open until Peart's death in 2020, but further activity was actually probably impossible following Peart's cancer diagnosis in 2016. Lifeson's comments in 2018 were just acknowledging what was already the case- that Rush wasn't going to return to activity.

The infobox field is "years active," not "years officially extant," and Rush was last actually active in the year 2015. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the off of the Rush page before I report you for vandalism. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "report (me) for vandalism," as the change I have been pushing for is not vandalism: WP:VAND: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." I am making a good-faith effort to rectify what appears to me to be a pretty clear-cut contradiction between the contents of an article's infobox and the text of the article (as the infobox is meant to summarize the content of the article).

Instead, you need to actually use the article's talk page, and make a case for why an activity end-date of 2018 more accurately reflects the text of the article than a year of 2015 does. I have presented the reasons I believe 2015 to be a more accurate representation on that talk page. Another editor has substantially agreed with me, in a post made to your talk page. You have not presented any counter-arguments- just stonewalled, aggressively reverting the change, and you have now threatened to report me for vandalism (and, incidentally, given the specialized use of the term "vandalism" on Wikipedia, falsely accusing another editor of "vandalism" is considered to be casting aspersions, which is a violation of site policy). Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a message on the talk page, which I hope means you'll stop vandalizing, and shut up and accept the fact that 2018 was the correct disbandment date not 2015. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued my engagement on the article's talk page. I would kindly ask that you retract your accusations of vandalism in the above comments, as they are unwarranted aspersions, and as such in violation of Wikipedia policy against personal attacks. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I apologize. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^[who?]

[1] [who?]

[1]