User talk:Natureium

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Signature

I have reflected on your feedback and modified my signature slightly. I hope this resolves your concerns. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No, still too friendly. Natureium (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive Raymond Sackler reversions

Hi Natureium,

I am curious to learn more about your reversion of my edits to Raymond Sackler's page. The edits I made were in good faith and removed a significant amount of content from the article that was unsourced and/or unencyclopedic, including lists of donations that read like a resume entry and as such do not belong on Wikipedia. I left much of the information that appears encyclopedic and improves the quality of the article, tagging any of those items that lacked a proper citation. These edits were constructive to the page and improved its quality and readability and worked to solve issues on the page identified by other editors. You marked your reversion as due to being "overkill" for its removals and for my removing sourced content. I removed one sourced item, which listed awards paid for by Sackler and had little to no encyclopedic merit. Other removals were unsourced content which violated WP: PROMOTION, WP:ADVERTISING, and/or WP:COI. I am happy to provide more thorough explanations for that reasoning for these removals if you are interested.

I would like to improve this page and, of course, the best way to do this is with a consensus between editors. Reverting constructive revisions is unproductive. I'm hoping we can work together to improve this page and remove much of the problematic material; even before my revisions the page was tagged as needing additional citations and being written like an advertisement. I am interested in fixing these problems and improving the page, and I would be eager to work with you to solve this. I am curious of any improvements to the page you would recommend to fix these problems, and I hope you do not continue to insist on reverting the work of other editors acting in good faith to improve the article and fix previously identified issues. SiliconRed (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There have been a lot of bad faith edits to articles surrounding the Sacklers since the media published articles blaming them for the opioid crisis. Removing unsourced information is appropriate in certain circumstances, but attempting to remove information that shows someone in a positive light while leaving the information that shows them in a negative light is not. Natureium (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response—I've re-edited the page adding tags seeking more sources for the material. The significant press about the family represents a significant part of the biography of Raymond Sackler, and therefore is worthwhile to include in detail on the page regardless of whether it portrays the family in a negative or positive light. The philanthropy, meanwhile, lacks sourcing and seems intended to impart positive bias on the page—problematic for a Wikipedia entry. If you have any issues with my edits feel let me know, as I mentioned earlier I am eager to improve the page as constructively as possible. To that end I would encourage you (or any other editors) to gather resources to cite the content that currently lacks reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siliconred (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mistake

I apologize for putting misleading info on Zoey Tur's wikipedia page. A friend of mine told me that she changed back to a male so I was trying to get the pronouns right on the page. I should've fact checked first. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Austino The Captain (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I did actually worked with Category:BLP with no sources today. You can check them. 00:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday (Feb 28) as of now. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mea culpa

Very poor assumption on my part. My edit summaries are intended to be pretty sarcastic there; I want to make sure you know that the apology part was not. [1]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Floquenbeam. I support your blanking of the page, but we'll see how long that lasts... Natureium (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Daratumumab

Hi Natureium, thanks for your feedback on the edit of the Daratumumab article. I think it's not complete, since the DTT treatment of the RBC is not the only method to overcome Daratumumab interference, nor is it necessarily the best. I agree with you that a reference to the manufacturer's site is not the best reference, however, there's only little other literature so far, and the manufacturer's site currently gives the best explanation of the mechanism. If you think there should be other references, consider these:

N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 5;379(1):90-91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1804751. F(ab')2 Fragments to Overcome Daratumumab Interference in Transfusion Tests. Selleng K, Gebicka PD, Thiele T.

Transfusionsmedizin 2017; 7(04): 229-232 DaraEx Prevents Daratumumab Interference in the Indirect Antiglobulin Test Clemens Schneeweiß, Daniela Grüger, Hans-Gert Heuft (German, English abstract available)

Transfus Med Hemother. 2018 Sep; 45(Suppl 1): 1–91. First experiences with DaraEx in cross-matching red blood cell concentrates under Daratumumab therapy A. Rosner, I. Chocholi, and K. Hölig

best regards 217.91.155.161 (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI

You forgot to leave the ANI notification message on my talk page. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not. Natureium (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard: so have you retired or not ? I'm fucking confused. I do hope this retirement wasn't a sanction avoiding exercise (given we still seem to be witnessing CiR issues with you). Nick (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, didn't see that. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)