W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: DoItFastDoItUrgent

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!



Hello, DoItFastDoItUrgent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions ↗, especially your edits to :Yuh-Line Niou ↗. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure ↗, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse ↗ to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center ↗.

Please remember to sign ↗ your messages on talk page ↗s by typing four tilde ↗s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions ↗, ask me on my talk page ↗, or {{edit|Special:MyTalk|ask for help on your talk page|section=new|preload=Help:Contents/helpmepreload|preloadtitle=Help me!}}, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome-retro --> JesseRafe (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on Circumcision controversies ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Circumcision controversies ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20DoItFastDoItUrgent&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Circumcision controversies}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1174989784 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

vandalism?



I saw your report ↗ about the IP editor. It wasn't obvious vandalism, so I think it's in the wrong place. See WP:RAA ↗. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, the editor who addressed my report was of the same opinion. I just left a formal, good-faith warning on the IP editor's talk page, so that, if they continue making similar edits, there's documentation that they've had false balance explained to them. I assume that any block that was placed on their account in January 2025 mandating that they formally register in order to make any further edits was only temporary. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'', you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic here ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> <span style="color:black">'''—'''</span><span style="color:black">''Fortuna''</span> ↗, <span style="color:#8B0000">imperatrix</span> 16:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:My edit was in no way disruptive (in either intent or effect) and was carefully explained in the edit summary. Thanks for your concern, though. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethics_of_circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=1297352178 ↗ "some editors" comment is pretty bad though. Any more of that and you can expect to be in line for sanctions. Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1322758940 -->

Your edits to sociological and cultural aspects of autism



I agree broad-strokes with your recent edit, but it's worth noting that some of the terms you mention as redirecting didn't ''always'' redirect and may have been linked at a time that they weren't redirects. (This doesn't change that it was still overlinking. But it's relevant.) The mention of them redirecting now in your summary is a good note for the future, but it's possible it was linked by someone who considered links to the at the time different articles as both worth linking and not someone intentionally (or "intentionally" in the "didn't know it was a guideline not to" sense) overlinking. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

:Fair point. It is possible (and even likely) that these were legacy sections of the article that merely needed a proper dusting off. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Amy Lutz Page and Neurodiversity Paradigm



Why did you include the neurodiversity paradigm on Amy Lutz' page? While her page heavily focuses on autism, it specifically states "Lutz opposes the neurodiversity ↗ paradigm and is critical of those who treat autism as "an identity, not a disorder"." So having that box with the neurodiversity paradigm on this page seems inappropriate, unless you want to post it for everyone who is an autism advocate. Helium2003 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you for your question. I am fully aware that Lutz is staunchly and unambiguously in opposition to the neurodiversity movement. The Wikipedia neurodiversity paradigm template includes a list of critics, which she appears on. I set the template to automatically default to the list of critics, as that seems to be common practice.
:More generally, I did my best to clean up the article, which was apparently created by a conflicted editor and was wildly unbalanced. If you'd like to improve it further, the article could certainly benefit from a more thorough accounting of Lutz's personal beliefs and the official positions of the anti-neurodiversity group she helps run. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Richard Frye Page



I looked through what you did to the page on Richard Frye and quite frankly, thee edits make no sense. You cannot just put in claims about pseudo-science and topics that have nothing to do with his research there. It is one thing if you have a reference to back this up, but if you just write comments with no reference then this gives a completely wrong impression. For example, there is no evidence whatsoever that he did anything related to anti-vaccine work. So why would you make that claim?

Also, he has over 20k citations and an h-index of 74 on google scholar. Many of his papers are in top journals and I am not aware of a single one that was retracted. So why would you label someone like this as pseudo-scientist? If you make these statements then you need to back them up, otherwise you are spreading misinformation (and in this case about living people and there may even be legal liabilities involved). Otherwise I am just going to revert your changes (or some other editor should). Helium2003 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:Also if you bring up the Hannah Poling case for a claim of "pseudo-science", then you need to do this in the right way. The government settled the case and paid a seven figure amount to Hannah Poling; so as far as the legal side is concerned what you label as "pseudo-science" won in the final settlement. They even acknowledged her position for the most part:
:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/
:Her case was a special case and so I would not bring this up to draw any general conclusions from it, but then I was not the one who brought it up. Helium2003 (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::Every claim I made in the Richard E. Frye ↗ article was appropriately cited ↗. This article in particular ↗, which was among the citations you inappropriately deleted, goes into depth about Frye's pseudoscientific work, including his demonstrably false belief that autism is sometimes caused by vaccine injuries, his obfuscation of conflicts of interest (including in the Poling case study), his previous promotion of hyperbaric oxygen therapy as an alternative autism treatment, and the generally unfavorable opinions of his work amongst other researchers/academics (which Frye himself admits to when he explicitly says many of his peers label his work quackery ↗).
::If you were referring to claims in the lead section of the article, claims that are repeated and cited later in the article don't require citations in the lead ↗ and serve merely as a summary of the content to come. This is the kind of thing that you might not learn or realize in the first few days or weeks that you're editing Wikipedia, but that you should nonetheless make yourself aware of before you engage in the mass reversion of others' work.
::Further, labeling my edits "defamation" (as you did in this edit summary ↗) would imply that the content I added was false and/or unsubstantiated; it was not. It's also not appropriate to insult or cast aspersions ↗ about other editors, as you did in that same edit summary when you assumed I was editing in bad faith ↗ and "had an axe to grind" against Frye.
::You also seem to be inappropriately marking major edits as "minor". I'd suggest reviewing this guidance ↗ about when and when not to mark edits that way.
::More generally regarding your recent edits to articles related to fringe science and pseudoscience (including the Frye article and the Autism Research Institute ↗ article), I would strongly recommend reviewing this guidance on fringe theories ↗ and this guidance on false balance ↗. I am going to leave a contentious-topic alert as a courtesy on your user talk page, which will contain a number of other helpful resources. I would strongly advise reviewing the alert and the resources it contains (as well as all the resources I've linked above) before editing further. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I am sorry but I have to disagree with you there. You cannot label science as pseudo-science simply because you do not like them. You have to point to some actual evidence of pseudo-science such as a number of retracted papers or so. If someone publishes extensively, including in good journals, has other people citing their work, and does not have their work retracted then clearly this is not pseudo-science. They may be in a minority opinion on a topic, but this does not make it pseudo-science, as they may be a good scientist who just happens to look at things from a different angle.
:::What you did was that you labeled people and institutions as pseudo-scientific and added anti-vaxx statements about a number of items you do not like. This is indeed defamation and has nothing to do with trying to be objective.
:::Quite frankly, I have a full time job and have no interest in getting into fights with people on social media. I do have an interest in having access to an objective encyclopedia and so it would be nice to have wikipedia serve that role. However, if wikipedia thinks it is ok to label everything as fringe without even providing some facts to back it up then maybe it is no better than facebook for obtaining information (which would be sad) and I have other ways to spend my time. Helium2003 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)