Wikipedia

User talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive 2

< User talk:Gtoffoletto
Latest comment: 2 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The WikiEagle - January 2022
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

COVID-19 pandemic/sandbox

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Did you create COVID-19 pandemic/sandbox in mainspace intentionally? Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: yes an editor asked me to do it as we are working on a big restructure of that article (see talk). Did I not do it properly? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Gtoffoletto, I've only seen sandbox pages used in userspace. I think userspace and draftspace are the regular options for working on non-public content. You might ask at WP:Help desk if it's okay to do it this way. It might be something editors do that I just haven't seen before. (Sorry for the extra ping, I forgot to remove it from my comment when I used the reply script.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd Thanks for the heads up I'll do that. Maybe it shouldn't be in mainspace... -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd definitely looks like I should have placed it in userspace with the {{Userspace draft}} template... hmmm not sure how I can fix this now though. I wrote at the help desk. Might be better to wait to avoid causing more damage on my own. If you have any ideas let me know and thanks for the heads up! Greatly appreciated. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
You should be able to just move the page. Thanks for letting me know though, I wasn't sure on the question myself! Schazjmd (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Schazjmd Asked another editor for some help and he just moved it to be safe. He's also not certain if it's ok or not to make sandboxes like that. It will remain a mystery I guess :-) thanks again -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight newsletter notification

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
WikiProject Notification
This is a one-time notification to all active WikiProject Spaceflight members.
The Downlink project page
I am notifying you, that thep The Downlink newsletter is starting up again, the first new issue will be published on the 1 November 2020.

Thanks, Terasail [Talk]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 October 2020 — 31 October 2020

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 November 2020 — 30 November 2020

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 December 2020 — 31 December 2020

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Interview request

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Gtoffoletto!

My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.

I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.

Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dalorleon: sure! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 16:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Gtoffoletto!
Thanks so much for agreeing to speak with me. My questions are below; let me know if you need me to clarify any of them.
1) How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you been an active editor of the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article?
Over 12 years. I've been following different projects and started editing the Italian version of Wikipedia. I'm from Milan so COVID-19 hit pretty early here and I quickly realised it was a world altering event. I started editing related pages and joined as member number 100 of Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19 at the end of March 2020.
2) When adding content to the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are relevant / notable enough to warrant inclusion?
Following established Wikipedia guidelines and especially WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEDRS (crucial for medical articles).
3) When removing content from the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are irrelevant / non-notable enough to warrant deletion?
Same as above.
4) Are there any particular Wikipedia policy / guidelines pages that you rely on to guide your editing? (Like “Wikipedia:Editing policy,” “Wikipedia:Writing better articles,” etc.)
Same as above.
5) Do you feel that Wikipedia’s “official” editing guidelines are helpful, or do you generally ignore them? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?
Absolutely crucial. Without the guidelines adopted by the community Wikipedia would descend into chaos. Those guidelines represent the Wikipedia:Consensus of the community. So nobody can ignore them (although anybody can propose to edit them!).
6) Has adding or deleting content from the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article ever brought you into conflict with another Wikipedian? If so, how were those disputes resolved?
Surprisingly very little compared to other editing areas. I think we are all aware of the information war we are fighting against misinformation and of the crucial role of those articles. Especially within the COVID-19 Wikiproject there is a very strong feeling of collaboration. We are all volunteers and try to help each other out.
7) Do you identify more as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither / something else?
I would say inclusionist (but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia see WP:NOT). In general "the more the better" on Wikipedia. Especially with users. There is a worrying trend right now on Wikipedia with the number of editors declining/stagnating (despite readership and articles growing)[1]. This has led to some "super users" amassing huge numbers of edits and influencing significantly the Encyclopedia. This is a grave existential threat to the project and the community should do everything in its power to become more inclusive and welcoming towards new users. Unfortunately some users don't think this is a problem and actually believe this is a good thing. This is a grave mistake. The overall environment has definitely become more toxic since I joined over 10 years ago and something must be done to change this. We need to always remember the Wikipedia:Five pillars
Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! Feel free to weigh in on anything I didn’t specifically ask in regards to your editing practices. I’m primarily curious to learn about what factors you consider when deciding what content ought to be added / removed from Wikipedia articles.
Finally, if I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! --Dalorleon (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dalorleon: here you go. Good luck with your thesis! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your response, Gtoffoletto! I really appreciate it; your answers are extremely helpful. I'll let you know if I have any follow-up questions. But, for now, I wish you the best of luck! --Dalorleon (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Downlink The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
1 January 2021 — 31 January 2021

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A question about "Symptoms of COVID-19" editing

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Gtoffoletto,

I've mentioned you have undid the minor revision of the Symptoms of COVID-19 (particularly this revision) and indicated "source is not WP:MEDRS compliant".

This edit was based on the 2021 article in the scientific peer-reviewed journal "Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease" journal which has impact factor 4.6. Thus, the source is completelly WP:MEDRS compliant. The publication is in open access, in case you would like to read it.

Please could you either explain in details why you undo the revision, or return the editing back? Thanks in advance, --Borisbikbov (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey Borisbikbov, thank you for your question. In the medical area the standard for "reliable" sourcing is a bit more stringent than for the rest of Wikipedia. Have a read over at WP:MEDRS. Basically we don't use peer-reviewed papers (primary sources) directly but try to only rely on reviews and other secondary or tertiary sources. Have a good read over at the MEDRS page where this principle and the rationale behind it are explained in detail. I hope this clears things up. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 09:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Gtoffoletto, the article we are talking about summarize the evidence from 6 different sources, and is not an original study with the primary data analysis. Please note that the reviews have to be peer-reviewed also to guarantee the high quality. Actually, it seems there was some misunderstanding for the quality of data source used, and due to this you undid my minor correction with the update from the recent literature. Now, when this misunderstanding is resolved, please could you return the editing back? Thanks, Borisbikbov (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey Borisbikbov, the source in question is a letter to the editor and therefore does not qualify as a strong WP:MEDRS source. Those letters are often not even peer-reviewed and if you see the detail on WP:MEDASSESS would qualify probably as "expert opinion" so the lowest on the scale. We need the strongest levels of evidence especially for such critical claims. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Gtoffoletto, this particular manuscript has the following information at the journal web-site: "Received 7 July 2020, Revised 7 September 2020, Accepted 14 January 2021, Available online 18 January 2021" - thus, it has been peer-reviewed and even revised according to the reviwers' suggestions. The wiki article Symptoms_of_COVID-19 we are talking about contains references to all types of publications, including a dozen of references to "NEWS" section of medical journals (for example the reference 8 with the doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03141-3). And the "News" section is not even listed at the WP:MEDASSESS hierarchy of medical data sources. However, you have not had any objections about it. The reason for this is rather obvious, because in the emerging field of data about COVID is not always possible to wait many years untill more evidence will be summarized in a meta-analysis or a guideline. And sometimes important and reliable information about such emerging topics is published in the "News" or in the "Correspondence" secion of respectable medical journals. The major criteria of whether it could be trusted or not is the presence of peer-review (and the article we are talking about has been peer-reviewed) and the impact factor of the journal showing its credence by other sientists (the journal "Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease" where the article was published has the impact factor 4.6). Sometimes the initial decision is not correct, and the subsequent clarification could change it. It is a general rule in the field of biomedical research where I work.
In case my arguments would not convince you, please apply the same logic to other references in the Symptoms of COVID-19 page, and remove all News, Correspondence, etc already presenting in the references since they have the same value as the reference to the manuscript we are talking about.
It seems I have provided enough details for supporting the return back of my editing on this important subject to the Wikipedia page. I hope you agree with me, and will return the editing and the supporting reference. Borisbikbov (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Borisbikbov, you are absolutely correct. The other references should be removed as well. That article is in poor conditions unfortunately. If you have time to do so or you can find more suitable references to substitute the inappropriate ones that would be great. Another useful guideline is WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia should be up to date but it's an encyclopaedia. It is not meant to be on the "cutting edge of research". But only to report established and reliable information. This standard is what has been decided for Bio-Medical claims to avoid spreading misinformation and risk causing harm to people. See also: Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?. I understand your frustration in this area. But in the end I think you will agree it is for the best. Remember that guidelines by entities such as national health agencies and the WHO can be used and comply with MEDRS standards. So if something major were to happen those sources usually will update their guidances even before systematic reviews are published. I hope this helps! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear Gtoffoletto, it seems we have very opposite points of view on this topic.
I proposed this editing for the article Symptoms of COVID-19 based on several reasons:
  • the value of the fact that in 5-10% of SARS-CoV2 infected persons the onset of symptoms (i.e. duration of the incubation period) could occur after the 14 days that has important implications to the public health and individual decision making;
  • the manuscript indicating this has been published in the respectable scientific journal "Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease" with the impact factor 4.6;
  • the manuscript has been peer-reviewed that guarantee its quality and independent evaluation by other scientists;
  • the manuscript represents the findings from six different studies;
  • in the emerging field of information about COVID is not always possible to wait many years until more evidence will be summarized in a meta-analysis or a guideline. And sometimes important and reliable information about such emerging topics could be inserted in the Wikipedia based on other publication types listed in the WP:MEDASSESS hierarchy of medical data sources.
You undid the minor editing I've performed based on this manucript ((particularly this revision) and indicated "source is not WP:MEDRS compliant"), and continue to propose different arguments against it. It seems very strange that in every step of our discussion you propose somewhat different arguments. First you suggested that Wikipedia doesn't use peer-reviewed papers (primary sources) directly but try to only rely on reviews and other secondary or tertiary sources. When I indicated that the manuscript summarises 6 data sources and is not an original study with the primary data analysis, you proposed this reference does not qualify as a strong WP:MEDRS source because it is a letter to the editor. When I indicated that according to the journal information this manuscript has been peer-reviewed and even revised according to the reviewers' suggestions, and the same Wikipedia article contains a dozen of references representing short commentaries in the "News" section of scientific journals (for example the reference 8 with the doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03141-3), you proposed to me to edit the existing Wikipedia article and remove from it other references and data supported by not-meta-analyses and not-guidelines publications. I have no idea why, but it seems you are trying to apply different rules to the same type of evidence: keep one not-meta-analyses and remove another not-meta-analyses, and you have no discomfort that other not-meta-analyses used as references at this page, but persisting each time with new arguments that the not-meta-analysis reference I proposed should be abandoned. I think it is not appropriate to apply such double-truth logic.
As a summary, taking into account the emerging nature of the topic and the reliable data source from high-impact scientific journal, I believe it is fine to add this important information to the Wikipedia article supported by the given reference. I think we need the judgement from other Wikipedia editors to define whether my minor editing should be returned back.Borisbikbov (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo Gtoffoletto, I have posted your deletion up for discussion on the talk page. Thanks Gryffindor (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: Thank you for the notification! I've replied on the talk page. See you there! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaty (talk • contribs)

Hey Almaty, I've left a message on your talk page. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 22:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
On COVID-19 Pandemic we reached an impasse, you clearly knew I disagreed, I was starting a RfC, requesting third opinion, and you kept reverting. Then you follow me to another page to immediately revert my edits without discussion. Please disengage with me per WP:HOUND --Almaty (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Almaty: you decided to start and RfC on how to best describe COVID-19 Transmission which is totally fine. I think you could have waited for others to comment in our discussion (remember: there is WP:NODEADLINE) but let's see how it goes. There is no reason to fight over this. We disagree on minor wording of one sentence and the RfC will decide. However you are editing other pages in a similar way and with additional problems (see my revert edit summary and I can be more specific in the article page if you want). I suggest you slow down and wait for the results of your RfC before you make other edits on this subject so that we won't waste time if the consensus of the community is not what you think. And please calm down. I have nothing against you and am not WP:HOUNDing you. You know perfectly well you are modifying my edits as I've told you here. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not the one who has broken 3RR, maybe I'll go edit some UFO stuff for a while. --Almaty (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Have a nice day Almaty -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would ask you to refrain from commenting on my talk page

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You bring discussions about article content to my talk page which is against talk page guidelines, and you do so in an inflammatory way. I see that you have done similar with Ufology. I agree with other editors that you are extremely hard to work with, and I support your topic ban after a review of your edits and behaviour. --Almaty✉✎ 18:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Writing to you on you talk page is against talk page guidelines? Don't know why I waste time with you Almaty. I'm trying to help you out. I don't think that's possible sadly. I won't reply to you further in the future. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 12:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
You're not trying to help, you are the one who is disruptive and WP:Casting aspersions with no basis in fact [2], edit warring [3] [4] [5] [6]. I also recommend you take a look at here Talk:Ufology#Proposed improvements and work out if there are any similarities. WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, you will find that all of my edits substantively in many topics have been accepted by the community, including the last RfC on this exact issue. At the moment, there are 3 !votes for option 2, more than any others, and my alleged WP:BLUDGEONing gets people to change their !votes. That isn't bludgeoning, it is persuasion, and compromise. I have no idea when I very clearly meet you half way with Option 4b you refuse to move a budge. You are indeed very difficult to work with, IMO. --Almaty (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 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) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements
  • After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
  • On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
  • Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
  • The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
  • The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
  • The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
  • The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members

New Members

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

  Featured Article assessment

  Good Article assessment

  Deletion

  Requested moves

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.
Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Total
  FA 142
  FL 15
  A 56
  GA 505
B 4,573
C 11,878
Start 15,082
Stub 18,754
List 2,539
Category 11,638
Disambig 653
File 2,713
Portal 629
Project 89
Redirect 1,518
Template 2,489
NA 66
Assessed 73,339
Unassessed 1
Total 73,340
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 251,826 Ω = 4.91
New/Ongoing Discussions

On The Main Page

Did you know...

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive_2&oldid=1099431388"