Talk:Xian Jun Loh

COI

Just saw the COI comment. Article has been checked and verified for factual content. I propose to remove the COI template2001:240:2416:68B7:B36B:D89C:E799:85FF (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably better to wait for an experienced long-term editor to review the page and remove the tag if appropriate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It has been discussed and results have been obtained,I support to remove the COI template.Athena-en (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Athena-en: There is zero discussion on the COI nor any explanation that COI issues have been resolved. It is very interesting that you noted that there was a discussion, kindly point out where the discussion took place and this comment is your 5th edit on wikipedia. Thanks --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Justanothersgwikieditor: ，sorry，i don't think it makes sense about that COI.Athena-en (talk)07:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Athena-en, as you are a new editor, you went for the COI template almost immediately which usually indicate you have a COI with the article. I will suggest you to work on other areas of wikipedia, before tackling COI issues. If you have a COI with the subject topic, it is usually better if you declare it earlier rather than later.

For the time being, please let other experienced editors handle COI issues. Thanks -- Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Over years, there have been at least five removals of the COI tag, all reverted by experienced editors. New-to-Wikipedia editors should refrain from removing the tag. David notMD (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD:,@Justanothersgwikieditor:,eh,received,i checked its contents, especially those edited by David notMD ,now,i propose to remove the COI template.Athena-en (talk)08:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. I looked at all refs. Many are dead (6, 7, 14), or else are do not support the wording of the text. Examples of latter: #4 and the refs for mention of Clarivate Analytics. The Books section should be deleted, as that description is for authors, not editors (even there, he is listed as editor for several books while reality is co-editor). Until this article is improved, it represents the flawed original that was creation by Zertyz81 back in 2017. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)