Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:36, 6 January 2021

Reverts

First, thanks for your immense effort on COVID-19 testing. Saw you didn't like the changes I made. Disappointed that you didn't take the time to detail what the problems were specifically so I could address them. Always happy to fix any errors I introduce. Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lfstevens: Hi. Sorry if I offended you. Here are the issues I had with your edits.

You removed a reference to the word “amplified,” along with its definition, for no apparent reason. Amplification is a common word in this area and useful for people to know, and is used later in the article, now without a definition.

In the process describing the extraction of RNA from the respiratory sample you changed it to say that the process allows DNA or RNA to be extracted but DNA extraction is not described by the reference. Here is how the process is described:

The most common method used for extraction of RNA of in an infected person's nasopharyngeal sample is organic extraction. As mentioned before, this method involves isolating the RNA using guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform extraction. The chemicals used in this extraction degrade any proteins or cellular components by breaking down the hydrogen bonds within the molecules, whilst protecting DNA and RNA. The RNA is then separated from DNA with an acidic solution consisting of guanidinium thiocyanate, sodium acetate, phenol, and chloroform. After centrifugation, under acidic conditions, the RNA will remain in the upper aqueous phase of the solution, whilst the DNA and proteins remain in the middle and lower organic phase. The total RNA is then precipitated with isopropanol to remove any remaining salts or chemicals on the RNA.

You replaced “treated with certain chemicals” with “treated with chemical reagents.” Are all the chemicals in this process reagents, or are they reactants? Not all chemical reactions necessarily require a chemical reagent. The word “reagent” was not in the source.

In addition, why mention that DNA can be extracted when this virus has no DNA and it is the RNA that is desired? The clarity of this process was not improved by this edit.

You changed "creating enough to be examined in order to determine if it matches the genetic code of SARS-CoV-2” to “creating enough to be analyzed.” I read on your page that you like fewer subclauses and big words and less minutiae, but we are trying to lead someone through this and pointing out what is being looked for at this point is not superfluous, in my opinion.

You left the first sentence reading: “PCR is a process that multiplies small well-defined segment of DNA many hundreds of thousands of times…” leaving the impression that you were not giving careful thought to what you were doing.

You removed the “including” in this text: “Real-time PCR (qPCR) provides advantages during the PCR portion of this process, including automating it and enabling high-throughput and more reliable instrumentation, and has become the preferred method.” The original was meant to say that the advantages provided by qPCR are not limited to the ones mentioned here but by removing the “including” it sounds like the ones mentioned are the only ones.

You changed “(MIQE) guidelines propose that the term RT-qPCR be used” to “(MIQE) guidelines commend the term RT-qPCR.” But look up the word “commend.” It means to recommend as worthy of confidence or note, or to cite or name with approval or special praise. This is not what the MIQE guidelines are doing.

One of the confusing aspects of RT-qPCR is how it does not have one fixed accepted name. The original said that not all authors adhered to the proposed standard name but you removed that. Perhaps you thought that all the examples made that obvious but making that point explicit is not excess verbiage, in my opinion.

You changed “will enable quarantined people to collect their own samples more efficiently” by removing “more efficiently,” implying that if we aren’t testing saliva people can’t collect their own samples.

You removed “The researchers expect the resulting test to be cheap and easy to use in patient-care settings” but this is a valuable benefit of these tests.

You replaced “coughed up material (sputum)” with “sputum” but not everyone knows what sputum is. I don’t doubt that many people think it is synonymous with spit. The source from which this was taken believed that the definition of sputum was important enough to make clear: “This means that if you take a sample from the lungs of such patients, i.e. what you cough up, sputum, or …” Your editing would change this to “This means that if you take a sample of sputum…” Reader comprehension is not improved.

You removed the information that one CRISPR technique was a new development but why isn’t that useful information?

You removed “The CDC does not currently recommend testing for COVID-19 using a CT scan or looking for low oxygen levels” without supplying any justification for your action. If it was because it didn’t have a reference then explain that, or maybe a would be the first step.

Most of your changes seemed to be simply that you preferred your wording over the existing wording, and without the substantive issues I would have left them. I mean, things like changing “For people tested in the second week” to “In the second week after infection” is innocuous, if somewhat officious, but it was at the end of a long day and it looked like it was going to take too long to go through meticulously and adjust everything that need it. Most people who come through here with “ce” describing their work involve themselves in finding actual grammatical errors or usages at odds with Misplaced Pages standards. Preferring fewer subclauses and big words and less minutiae is your right but sometimes people have put a lot of time and thought into how the material should be presented and don’t appreciate unnecessary adjustments.

Again, sorry if I offended you but I get the impression that maybe if you slowed down and considered whether all of your changes really are needed, there would be less disruption and conflict. Just my opinion. — Swood100 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As you note, I seek simplicity. - “amplified” is jargon. I try to do with out it. Using it does not add anything. - DNA or RNA - PCR says "Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample". I was trying to connect this article to the world. - Reagent - Reagent says "A reagent /riˈeɪdʒənt/ is a substance or compound added to a system to cause a chemical reaction, or added to test if a reaction occurs". - "in order to determine" - this para was on PCR, not on S2. The use of PCR should come after describing what it is. - "leaving the impression" - because of the typo? Isn't it better just to fix the typo? - "including" - OK, but those others are not germane to the piece. Noting them is just a distraction. - "commend" the phrase "commend the use of X" is common usage. Pick better nits. - "other terms" - That not all authors use a single term is the only reason to mention other terms... - "more efficiently" - There's some other way for them to collect their own samples? I.e., more efficiently than what? - "expect" - What researchers expect is speculation and does not belong in WP. - "sputum" - People can look up sputum. It's an ordinary word. It's not our job to guess what they don't know. - CRISPR - It is new now, but that quickly changes. We should describe things as they are and put developments in the (missing) history section. - CDC recommends - Sentences with "currently" in them are suspect, especially as they relate to this hyper-dynamic topic. Also, the statement was uncited. - preferred wording - yes, that's what copyediting involves. My changes sought to compress, simplify, clarify and refine. - long day - I encourage you not to subject us to the end of your long days. I take your point about a more detailed edit summary, but hey it was at the end of a long day. - "unnecessary adjustments" - eye of the beholder. This article is epic and needs a thorough scrubbing.

As I said at the beginning, I am happy to make/accept adjustments to what I do, but unexplained reverts harsh my mellow. I don't edit war, but I hope you will consider working collaboratively instead of reflexively. Lfstevens (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it was rash of me to revert your edits. I should have discussed them with you on the talk page. Sorry about your mellow. — Swood100 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Misplaced Pages articles should be written from a neutral point of view. WMSR (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please see the discussion on the talk page. — Swood100 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Your recent editing history at Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have gone over 3RR—please self-revert your last edit related to the scare quotes or you risk being blocked. {{u|Sdkb}}  08:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: You can't be serious. Answer the questions on the talk page. — Swood100 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

2020-11 Melanie Phillips

FYI https://rationalwiki.org/Melanie_Phillips Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk

Hi, please familiarise yourself with https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines Talk page discussion requires specific improvements for the article, not simply complaining about content. We are not here to debate the truth of claims in reliable sources, but to reflect claims from reliable sources...nothing else. Bacondrum (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You're clearly POV pushing, we are done with having the same argument linked to dodgy or misrepresented sources. Numerous editors have dismissed your dubious claims outright. Please stop. Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Don’t be ridiculous. This language is for unconstructive edits to an article. You are referring to my question on the talk page as to why a quote from Michael Walsh would be rejected if added to the article. Please identify the text that you believe is unconstructive in the context of a talk page and that “will be reverted,” and provide your reasons. — Swood100 (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing is completely unacceptable, if it doesn’t stop I’ll involve admins. You’ve both been told many times now. Bacondrum (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You've got too much free time on your hands. Stop bothering me. Swood100 (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding content against consensus and personal attacks

Hey, you can't just ram your views into an article against consensus. You've been asked to stop POV pushing, your constent attempts to contest the antisemitic nature of CM conspiracy are at odd with the majority of editors who are fairly dismissive of your claims. You've been pushing this POV for some time now and it is disruptive. You've been given plenty of chances to avoid being dragged to the dram boards. Now you accuse me of vandalism, which is a personal attack, and thus prohibited. Please stop, I don't like taking editors to ANI, but we are out of options in dealing with your POV pushing. Move on, it's an antisemetic conspiracy theory, there's no amount of carry-on that's going to change that, it'll most likely just get you blocked form the article if you keep it up. Bacondrum (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)