Efefvoc2

Welcome!

Hello, Efefvoc2, 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome!

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Universal Medicine

Hi

I had to undo your recent edit. Unfortunately I cannot see any evidence of the word "hermaphrodite" in any of the sources.

I am guessing you do understand that we can't make things up, so I advise that you check out WP:OR to understand why I have had to remove it.

I notice there are other references that had to be removed over the last couple of years as the UMers removed their material (even getting Google to help them do so) Chaosdruid (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid (talk. No I don't make things up, the video at the top of page on this abc ref [1] has him stating ' when you orgasm as a hermaphrodite' at 00.35. Can you view that? If geoblocking is occurring a copy of that reference is at 2.10m at youtube [2]. Efefvoc2 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thx, will try again, youtube might be the answer :) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, that worked and that's good enough proof :) Will use the YouTube one for the ref, most of the other videos stop about 5 seconds before he says that - which explains why those other two did not help the inclusion... at least we have consensus now so it can go in as it was originally written I reckon Chaosdruid (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Also noticed it looks much more tidy today ;)

I have undone my removal, restoring the original text on the hermaphrodite statement, though I have not checked the refs Chaosdruid (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Goodreads

Hi! Just as a quick note, Goodreads is not considered to be a reliable source for information about living people. See WP:RSP to check for some common sites and their recommended usage. - Bilby (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Bilby I'm well aware you're taking extrodinary steps to attempt to remove amazon books which is a rel source for the book published, so as to remove reference to the book. Efefvoc2 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The source is used once for the book, but mostly it is being used for information about the subject. Amazon is not a reliable source for general information about subjects - the better source in this case is the one that Amazon seems to have taken the content from, which is a press relesase by Matt Fraser. I'll fix it - we'll keep Amazon for the book, but use the original source for the rest. Is that ok? - Bilby (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Bilby you've now added a press release which is non rel source for content. Please dtop adding non rel sources. Efefvoc2 (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. Amazon copied the press release as the author's bio. This is typically how Amazon get the bios - from the authors. We can link to Amazon, and hide where it comes from, or link the the press release where it did come from. - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Bilby so can you please stop adding non rs to page. You are also involved in your own edit warring. Thank you. Efefvoc2 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear - you added Goodreads, a non-RS, then reverted insisting that Goodreads was a reliable source, then replaced it with Amazon, which is not an RS for biographical data beyond that the subject published a book and was, in fact, a copy of a press release by the author, then reverted a direct reference to the press release to return Amazon which is - once more - not a reliable source for biographical data about the subject. And now you've changed it again to an Amazon link which doesn't support what you are using it for. How about you work with me on this? I'm not removing content - just trying to get the sourcing correct. - Bilby (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Bilby I never insisted goodreads was rs. Please stop pushing non rs, I have tried to clean up your mess left on the page to the best of my ability right now. Will take a closer look another day to do further fixes based on rs. Thanks. Efefvoc2 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "(+1 ref (an rs))", seemingly as a dig at me when you returned Goodreads. That looks like you claimed Goodreads to be a reliable source, assuming that is what you meant by "an rs". - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you imagined that, but cant be held responsible for other's imaginations. I'm highly insulted by the edit war message you plastered above. If you have decency as an editor then please amend your post above to clarify you are also a provocatuer in the so called edit war. Efefvoc2 (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You wrote that it was an RS as you put Goodreads back. I'm not convinced that this is imagination, but I'll assume that it was an accident, so hopefully we can move on. - Bilby (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok then please identify yourself ss a provocatuer in the edit war or remove the slander. Efefvoc2 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I made partial reverts in the hope of getting a compromise. Is that what you are looking for? That said, "slander" seems a bit extreme. - Bilby (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in furthering your edit war, I'm not looking for anything from you or competing on that page with you. Efefvoc2 (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this has caused problems for you. BLPs can be difficult articles to work on. - Bilby (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

No your approach and accusations are my only issues here. You accused me of non rs, whilst you were adding press releases and non rs. And you were plastering edit war warnings on my page whilst you were also edit warring. All the accusations you apply to me equally apply to you. Cooperation is impossible in such a setting. I notice now youre trying to be civil. Efefvoc2 (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I should have used a personal message about the edit warning, rather than using a templated one. I'm never sure which is the correct approach, but clearly I used the wrong one here.

As to the sources, the problem is that the Amazon author's biography is published on Amazon, but is written and provided by the author, and is considered to be self published. In this case, the original source is the press release published by Matt Fraser which he added to his website, and was pasted directly into Amazon. By using Amazon as the reference, we can confuse readers into thinking that the claims are not self published, so my thought was to swap the Amazon reference with the original press release it is a copy of. That way readers will know where the material came from. In regard to press releases you are correct in that they are poor sources, but they can be used with caution. In this case we can use it as a self-published source about the subject, as the subject was the author - however, it would definitely be better to use something else. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for recognising your bull-at-a-gate approach. Your apologies for your contradictions do not instill any trust in you as an editor as far as I'm concerned. Thank you for your sledge-hammer policy advice on the page. It now looks fine, no need for you to continue to argue to add non rs cites whilst reprimanding for others for the same. Your contradictory critism has served its purpose.Efefvoc2 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it seems you really aren't understanding what I'm trying to say. I guess I'm just explaining it badly, but it is unfortunate. - Bilby (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)