Archives Archive 1: Apr–Nov 2006 Archive 2: Nov 2006–Jan 2007 Archive 3: January–March 2007 Archive 4: March–April 2007 Archive 5: April–May 2007 Archive 6: May–June 2007 (aka "The RfA files") Archive 7: June–July 2007 Archive 8: July–August 2007 Archive 9: Aug–Sep 2007 Archive 10: Sep–Oct 2007 Archive 11: Oct–Nov 2007 Archive 12: Nov–Dec 2007 Archive 13: Jan–Feb 2008 Archive 14: Feb–Apr 2008 Archive 15: Apr–May 2008 Archive 16: May–June 2008 Archive 17: July 2008 Archive 18: Jul–Sep 2008 Archive 19: Sep–Nov 2008 Archive 20: Nov–Dec 2008 Archive 21: Jan–Feb 2009 Archive 22: Mar–Jun 2009 Archive 23: July 2009 Archive 24: Jul–Sep 2009 Archive 25: Sep–Nov 2009 Archive 26: 2010 Archive 27: 2011 Archive 28: 2012–2016 Archive 29: 2017–2020

Please add a neutrality box (POV) to the page that was reverted by a SPA user (EdgarAllanFrost), and take into account that libellous elements have been "sedimented" in the page as it is now. The simple fact to have asked for an "non EU administrator" in order to protect it seems like wanting to evade the law: its in general a sign that something is not going on well. Reading the page in diagonal and the lack of encyclopedic respect of basic rules (hierarchy of information) should be sufficient to understand it. Living personalities pages can't become on wikipedia bashing tools SarahMonteiro23 (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the dispute/POV tags. Please note that if you or the subject of the article have concerns about potentially libelous material, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 10:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I disagree with your re-inclusion of the dispute/POV tags which I removed in accordance with policy (When to remove: "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given"). There are no factual elements in dispute, merely unsourced accusations of "bulshit" [sic] and a "gross tentative to destroy an individual". Other administrators have already been involved (notably here). As for the substance: I defer to the convincing arguments made by C.Fred on the talk page. The article has quite the illustrious history; if you are fluent in French I'd suggest reading this article (archived here). I consider it bad form to be accused of being a "SPA" by an account created today. EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fvasconcellos, there remain issues regarding this article that I feel the need to come back to.

I have to say I am somewhat miffed by your insinuation that D.Lazard and I are "autoconfirmed users potentially acting on [the subject's] behalf". I understand that the history of the article in question is a mess and you are acting in good faith, but I fear you have misunderstood a few things...

• I was the one who requested the protection of the article (thanks for obliging this request btw).
• I made the request after the subject started tweeting about the article and it was subsequently (yet again) vandalized and turned into a hagiography by him and/or sockpuppets and/or his followers.
• You then "restored the dispute/POV tags" based on the request of User:SarahMonteiro23, whose account was apparently created primarily for this purpose and to [harass.
• There is still no discussion on the article's talk page regarding the alleged "neutrality" issues and no serious concerns regarding specific facts have ever been raised. I understand that the legal threats call for a prudent approach, but adding the POV and Dispute tags seems questionable as a matter of policy.
• In fairness to the subject: The COI-tag has no basis, as the article was specifically rewritten to get rid of the previous hagiography.

Again: I understand that the history of the article is a mess. I have no objection to the continuous protection. But since you chose to get involved, you should have familiarized yourself more with the matter before accusing me and D.Lazard and accidentally muddying the waters.

I apologize if I come off as strong, but I have already been threatened and insulted based on my involvement in this article. In the past, the subject of the article went so far as to write threatening letters to employers of other editors. I remain committed to stop this kind of blatant abuse.

EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Let's take this one step at a time, shall we?

• I was not referring to you or D.Lazard in the log; not sure what would give you that impression.
• As I have noted in the Talk page, subjects of articles have immense leeway under our BLP policy to object to how they are presented in the encyclopedia, to the extent where blanking of content by the subject of an article is not considered vandalism, and complaints about potentially libelous or defamatory statements are not considered legal threats.
• I have not chosen to get involved—quite the contrary. My only involvement has been administrative; I have no intention whatsoever of diving into any content issues which remain. That would be inappropriate. I deliberately did not familiarize myself with the matter—that would have muddied the waters. It was a straightforward request for protection, which I obliged, and later discussed with another administrator.
• The article is no longer fully protected. You are free to edit it as you see fit, as long as you stick to BLP policies and guidelines.

Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing things up. Since D.Lazard and I were the only non-IP contributors to the page, I thought you meant us and might have overreacted slightly. I apologize for being pushy. I don't want to get into the nuances of the debate - suffice to say that I think other administrators rightfully considered this "I am preparing criminal prosecution against you via a lawsuit (...) before the senior investigating judge." a legal threat.

Kind regards (and a belated Happy New Year)

EdgarAllanFrost (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Citations do not present evidence of what is being stated, and rather lead to arbitrary websites with no related information. • Websites listed as references lead to websites seemingly hostile to the Catholic Church. • The only seemingly valid reference source seems to be a website that lists a concordat existing between the Church and the state of Poland, which itself seems to be a biased and hostile website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.127.214.94 (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you have declined this request. I feel you have made a very wrong admin call. That user is not even replying to my requests to engage, how on earth do you expect me to have a dispute resolution in this case? I cannot report him to AIV as his edits are not technically vandalism, but a disruptive edit. Edit warring noticeboard needs more than 3 reverts to be reported. I have already made 3 reverts. That user has already restored his shitty nonsense in the current article version as of now. You are basically refusing to help and would not allow others to help. Just resign from Adminship or at the very least stop taking shitty calls on Page protection by just pressing buttons, I believe you should find a more productive admin work where you are not meddling with others who are trying to help. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. looking at the busy template, if you are too busy to look into an issue you should let others who are willing to spend time in looking into it. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have very clear policies on page protection and disruptive editing. The user's changes were not disruptive, and there was no indication for protecting the page. The fact that you requested protection so as to circumvent committing a 3RR violation yourself is also quite concerning.

Calling others' edits "shitty nonsense" and complaining about "shitty calls" really doesn't help your case here. If the user is refusing to engage, post a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos, good so you respond to questioning of your shitty admin calls by attacking my edits now. Way to go! Yes, those edits are disruptive. What exactly are you suggesting me to do there once that DISRUPTIVE editor made 4 edits? Ignore the shitty edits and leave the article in its shitty version, because we have a shitty admin who will patrol the admin noticeboard to help the vandals and the disruptive editors? I left the article as I did not wanted to break the 3RR, and waited on the talk page. As expected no response came.

I have read those pages you linked for me to read and it is clear that Page protection is an acceptable response to prevent edit warring. May be you should also read the pages you are asking others to read.

Grow a thick skin and learn to take criticism on its merits when you are going to make shitty admin calls. Through your reply you have just proved why my suggestions for resigning, not doing RFPP calls is applicable to you. If you take another shitty page protection call on that page, (in addition to that disruptive editor) I would also take your admin calls to Admin Noticeboard for a review, as it deserves scrutiny. Have a good day. Bye. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful and informative response to my request for page protection for 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. I hope the rest of your day is enjoyable (like this kitten) and productive (not like this kitten but then again, nobody's perfect.)

HouseOfChange (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Management of multiple sclerosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Respirator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dräger. 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) 06:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that you were the one to post the information with regards to a study on Ivermectin use for COVID-19. I don't have a high enough level to edit the article and nobody else seems to want to do so, but the information you have written is incorrect and requires rewording, removal, correction or all of the above. Please have a look at my comment on the Talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research To summarize, you state: "no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs nor in viral load" The study indicates the viral load was 18 times lower: "18-fold lower at day 7 (p = 0·16 for gene E; p = 0·18 for gene N)"

If you could change it to "no difference in PCR-positive nasal swabs and non-statistically significant reduction of viral load (3 times lower by day 4 and 18 times lower by day 7) between patients who received ivermectin and those given placebo, thus failing the primary outcome of the study but warranting further study in larger trials" it would be a more balanced and accurate reflection of the actual study outcome.

Much appreciated!Adriaandh (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the current wording is neither misleading nor incorrect. For all intents and purposes, especially for a general encyclopedia, a nonsignificant difference is no difference. I am happy to add a statement to that effect. "...but warranting further study in larger trials" would be redundant—the following paragraph already states "Additional evidence from RCTs and dose-response studies are needed". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't have a scientific or statistical background, but 18-fold lower with a p = 0·16 is not "no difference" - it is a huge difference which is very close to the standard p=0.05 which is generally chosen to mean statistical significant. It is indeed misleading to claim a negative result if such a result was not found. Your statement tries to say that it was proven to not reduce viral load, while it is for sure not the outcome of the study and the study authors also did not make that claim, to the contrary, they said what I recommended as an updated wording. If you insist on reporting on the study in a misleading manner, then please remove the report on the results completely or add the results from all published peer reviewed studies for ivermectin. Instead of cherry picking studies and reporting on them in a misleading manner. Adriaandh (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fvasconcellos.

I've seen it written in the notes for Ralph Breaks the Internet that the statement that it is the first Disney sequel since Fantasia 2000 instead of Winnie the Pooh (2011) should not be changed. The main argument for this is that the production notes for Ralph Breaks the Internet happen to declare that there has not been a Disney sequel since Fantasia 2000. I find this to be problematic, essentially suggesting that Winnie the Pooh (2011) does not exist, is not an official Walt Disney Animation Studios theatrical feature film, or breaks the rules of qualifying as a sequel, none of which are things that I feel any person can honestly conclude. It is a well-known informality that Winnie the Pooh (2011) tends to be ignored and forgotten simply because it was not a popular film and made substantially less money than Disney's other in-house animated films (this is also true of the two previous hand-drawn Disney sequels). When sources are used for later Disney films, Winnie the Pooh (2011) regularly goes unmentioned because the people writing these articles are human beings, which means they are selective and fallible. Because the widely published source we are discussing (the production notes) just so happened to mention that Fantasia 2000 was the last official Disney sequel until Ralph Breaks the Internet does not make it accurate in the face of its actual reported status within Walt Disney Animation Studios. There are many articles that do acknowledge its existence, so merely ignoring it no matter how forgettable it is does not change its status as a sequel.

I realize that I'm not the only person making this argument. Since there is this much debate about the subject, and the one source currently being used can be refuted by other sources, I would strongly recommend simply removing the phrase "and is the first sequel from the studio since Fantasia 2000." The new sentence would then read "It is Walt Disney Animation Studios' first animated film sequel to be created by the original film's writing and directing team." while still citing the production notes, so the new sentence would both be accurate and still be backed-up by the same source, and it would prevent people like me who disagree with the "Fantasia 2000" statement from wanting to change it. It would allow people on both sides to decide for themselves how they want to classify the other sequels. It would also simply be a more concise statement and would not cause unnecessary drama from persistent editors on this particular article, especially since Ralph Breaks the Internet has almost nothing to do with the other Disney sequels in the first place. The sentence as it currently stands is simply inaccurate for the reasons I already stated in addition to many more (which can be sourced) that I don't have the energy to discuss at this moment. Even if it were true, it would be irrelevant (and arguably childish) to insist on mentioning it since it is not the first of its kind and its status has little impact.

I hope you or someone with authority will consider at least my minimal request. You can also have my assurance I will not make any changes to the article on my own terms regardless of the outcome. Thanks.

DESERTSCHo0L20 (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I protected the Ralph Breaks the Internet page because of a long history of silly vandalism from sockpuppets of blocked users, not because of any content disputes—I am not familiar with the issue you describe.

The best way to go about this is to make an edit request at the Talk page, where you can discuss the proposed change with other users and have an administrator implement it if there is consensus. Like other admins, I have no authority over any other user; we only have access to an additional set of tools. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting section title, less exciting topic: just wanted to drop a note to let you know that I've swapped PANDAS from semi-protect to pending changes protection. SandyGeorgia and I are both watching the page to deal with any pending edits. If it seems quiet for several months, we'll try unprotecting as well. I'm mildly pessimistic about the net effect of IP/new account edits at a page about a fringe-y topic, but hey, maybe I'll be surprised. Just wanted to let you know since you set the current protection in 2017. Anyway, I hope you're staying well! Best, Ajpolino (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stellastarr Jenny.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello there! My mother asked me whether Levolet is a trade name of Levofloxacin or not. I'm not well-versed in terms of medicine, so I'm asking you right this minute. I googled "trade names of Levofloxacin", and I opened medinda. com (or org. In a word, I don't remember exactly), so, according to the afore-mentioned site, Levolet is a trade name of Levofloxacin. I don't know whether medinda is a liable source. Could you recommend me a good source which deals with the trade names of Levofloxacin?

P. S. Anyway, could you add this trade name in the article on Levofloxacin? Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm not sure where your mother is, but in Russia, Levolet (Леволет) is indeed a trade name of levofloxacin. If she is unsure, check if the package also says "Левофлоксацин" or "levofloxacinum".

In other countries, "Levolet" is a trade name of levothyroxine, so that might cause confusion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed. really appreciate your answer. I visited a therapist several hours ago, and, accordingly, my therapist confirmed your words. But, you know, could you give a liable source which proves your statement? Sorry for being rather captious, and meticulous. I'm thought to be rather meticulous. Dunno whether this trait is quite harmful or not, though.Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Semaxanib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 09:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Mildmay Mission Hospital at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating Mildmay Mission Hospital! IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgnatiusofLondon thank you! :-) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:شعار مؤتمر الحوار الوطني.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]