User talk:Neighborhood Review

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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, I'm MelecieDiancie. I noticed that you recently removed content from Henry A. Wallace without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. •Melecie!• ~talk~ 09:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)<[reply]

retracting warning. •Melecie!• ~talk~ 10:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Please do not promote the hoax by adding "further reading" from promoters. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the material I posted? I don’t know why you would assume bad faith in my work on the article. I added six items for further reading and two of them explain the historical fact of the conspiratorial view that existed at the time and played a role in how the events played out. Two of the items are standard mainstream press articles, one was a primary source article about a documentary, and the last was a book by an Army Officer accused in the Presidio affair which thoroughly debunks conspiracies surrounding satanic ritual abuse and elite pedophile associations. Do you suppose people can’t be trusted to learn about opposing viewpoints without uncritically accepting them? The fact that the “hoax” was believed to be true by so many is what makes it a historically relevant element of the events regardless whether the ideas themselves are true or false. Neighborhood Review (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,I did.

You linked to DeCamp's diatribe promoting the hoax.
You linked to Bryant's credulous account, which repeats the debunked claims made by DeCamp
You linked to a Washington Post article that didn't directly concern the allegations, and was published before the claims were debunked
You linked to an advocacy website, the Reisman Institute, which repeats the debunked claims
You linked to a tangential article that briefly mentions the allegations
And you linked to another book about an entirely separate moral panic

So, yes, you appear to be promoting a plainly debunked hoax. You are warned that a number of people that were accused are still living, and that you may be sanctioned for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy if you do anything like that again. Acroterion (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, it looks like you're doing good work elsewhere finding publications associated with individuals. I've left the link to DeCamp's hoax promotion at his article alone, since it's directly associated with DeCamp, and there's a clear explanation of what it is in the article. But a curated list of articles about a hoax that present the hoax as fact is wholly inappropriate. Articles aren't repositories for perpetuation of accusations that are patently untrue, and which harm living people, and links to fringe points of view should be avoided, particularly if they have been found to be fabrications. Acroterion (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Your edit to Timothy Leary bibliography has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[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 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.

Doug Weller talk 13:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the Unz review as a source

As WP:RSNP says, "The Unz Review was deprecated by snowball clause in the 2021 discussion. Editors cite racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content. The site's extensive archive of journal reprints includes many apparent copyright violations." Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (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) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gottfried

Neighborhood Review, it might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a maintenance template from the Paul Gottfried article. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Thank you. Llll5032 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llll5032, it was my intention to remove the template because it seemed improperly applied to that particular section, the articles subheading under "selected works". In my personal experience on Wikipedia working mostly on bibliographies and formatting citations, it seemed out of place, but I'm happy to entertain other views, so I appreciate you reaching out to me. May I assume you placed the tag there? And may I ask what in particular are your concerns that led to the placing of the template, so we can address them? Thanks. Neighborhood Review (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Neighborhood Review. I placed the tag because the selection criteria for the "selected works" is unclear. Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA says list selection "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". The logic for books appears to be clear, but for articles it does not. On what basis were some articles by Gottfried selected instead of other articles written by Gottfried? Llll5032 (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Llll5032, the selection criteria you linked and quoted is for stand-alone lists, which this is not. Is there another piece of guidance you have that applies here? It seems to me that the works listed in any author's selected works section should attempt to be, among many things, a representative sampling of the author's various subjects covered, span the author's writing career from beginning to end, and demonstrate the various periodicals and publishers the author worked with. Neighborhood Review (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA is a guideline for stand-alone lists -- and it is also referred to repeatedly in the Manual of Style for all lists. Another List MOS guideline is Lists of Works and Timelines, which says, "The content of a list is governed by the same content policies as prose, including principles of due weight and avoiding original research. Ensure that list items have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the item to be included in the text of the article, according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Consider whether prose is more appropriate." I would interpret those guidelines to mean that for Gottfried's articles (and perhaps even his books), Wikipedia:DUEWEIGHT and Wikipedia:PROPORTION policies should apply, and that the correct selection criteria would be discussion and summary by independent third-party reliable sources. Have you seen other interpretations? Llll5032 (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is the inclusion criteria that I typically apply, but the issue you'll find is that demonstrating the discussion or summary by third-party sources requires addition of references and citations that are not allowed in lists of works by authors. I know this because I used to include those kinds of references and was instructed not to by admins more than once. So I guess I'm wondering how you see your interpretation being applied exactly? Neighborhood Review (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and good question. WP:NOTDIRECTORY encourages us to provide "contextual information showing encyclopedic merit", and WP:NOTDATABASE says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", so one solution could be to include short explanations within the list by high-quality independent sources (WP:BESTSOURCES) about what made each of Gottfried's mentioned articles notable. Alternatively, the Lists of Works and Timelines guideline suggests that we should "Consider whether prose is more appropriate", and it may be more encyclopedic to describe Gottfried's influential articles within the prose "Career" section to show how they relate to his own history and thought (again, summarizing explanations by high-quality sources independent from the subject). Can you point to when the admins discouraged you? Perhaps it was a problem specific to the list formatting that would not be a problem in prose style. Llll5032 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jeffrey Steinberg for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeffrey Steinberg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Steinberg until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Location (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Murray Rothbard bibliography for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murray Rothbard bibliography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Rothbard bibliography until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Llll5032 (talk) 04:49, 23 April 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:F. Andy Messing

Hello, Neighborhood Review. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:F. Andy Messing, 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) 05:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:F. Andy Messing

Hello, Neighborhood Review. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "F. Andy Messing".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]