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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with 2024 elections in India. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cyberpower678: — Very nice bot! That closeout was accidental and I undid the edit a minute later. I know nothing about bots, but is there a way to maybe check to make sure the edit in question was immediately undone? Keep up the good work! WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Gilead Sciences has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Take a dose of neutral editing; read and apply WP:NPOV. Zefr (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: To avoid an edit war, I'll refrain from reverting your revert for now, but I would very much appreciate an explanation. As you can well imagine, I have plenty of opinions on how Gilead conducts itself; that being said, I am familiar with policy and am confident my edits are not in violation. Specifically re: tax avoidance, in addition to the two RS's cited in the sentence I added, there are several others that specifically discuss the $10 billion number as well, including Bloomberg, The Chicago Tribune, The Journal] (Ireland), and industry outlets like Pharmacy Times. The Motley Fool evidently considered the controversy notable enough to publish a short article for investors concerned if Gilead would face an IRS investigation/have to pay back-taxes, interestingly. Some other thoughts:

• First, the claim, despite being covered in multiple reliable sources, came from an ideologically biased research report — for that reason, I made sure to specify the source and its political bias, and use "argued" rather than "demonstrated" "proved" etc. This is in keeping with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
• There is no WP:UNDUE issue because there are no reliable sources that defend Gilead's actions or, to my knowledge, challenge the assumptions of the AfTF report. It is well established that the tax structure described therein is indeed widely used in tax avoidance.
• The section name change to "tax avoidance" was accurate, more so than "tax structures", because the corporation's tax structures are not the subject of any notable coverage, at least to the degree to which its tax avoidance is. There is no reason to maintain the original title absent sources that analyze Gilead's tax structures per se.

Thanks in advance for your response. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removal of the tax structure section, as this is projection and interpretation not founded in any government or corporate source regarding Gilead. I made my comments on the talk page. An article is made better by editors collaborating and even disagreeing on content and sources, then finding the best solution. Your edits today impressed as having a negative undertone in a way similar to the cat disease discussion, i.e., non-neutral and based only on news or opinions not supported by government, scientific or corporate sources. Zefr (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Li Jiaqi (beauty influencer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that China's "lipstick king", Li Jiaqi, once sold 15,000 lipsticks in five minutes in a faceoff against Alibaba Group's CEO? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Li Jiaqi (beauty influencer). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Li Jiaqi (beauty influencer)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I do not know how you accomplished this, but your edit [1] somehow made part of the Talk page disappear and made it look as if you wrote a contribution starting with "The far-right label needs to be removed" (someone else wrote that) and ending with "whether or not the political leanings are relevant" (you wrote that). --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]