User talk:Deep humility

Welcome!

Hello, Deep humility! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! ShadowWarfare (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you for the enthusiastic welcome! --Deep humility (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thymus reference

Hello - on my talk page, you said: How do you think about the reliability of the following source?

Rezzani, Rita; Nardo, Lorenzo; Favero, Gaia; Peroni, Michele; Rodella, Luigi Fabrizio (2013-07-23). "Thymus and aging: morphological, radiological, and functional overview". Age (Dordrecht, Netherlands). 36 (1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 313–351. doi:10.1007/s11357-013-9564-5. ISSN 0161-9152. PMC 3889907. PMID 23877171.

This source is not published by the Medline-indexed journal.
However, the journal is the Official Journal of the American Aging Association.
The source is reviewed.
This source appears to be the most recent update on the topic--Thymus and aging.
This source has been widely cited.

That journal seems fine for impact factor (~ 4) and quality of sources for the topic the article addresses - changes in thymus morphology during aging. I would regard it as a suitable reference in the thymus article. Good luck! 21:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks!! Deep humility (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palmer, Donald B. (2013-10-07). "The Effect of Age on Thymic Function". Frontiers in immunology. 4. Frontiers Media SA. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2013.00316. ISSN 1664-3224. PMC 3791471. PMID 24109481.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

This article is published by Frontiers.
This article has been cited more than 200 times, in part by some articles in well-known journals such as Journal of Clinical Immunology, PLoS, and PLOS Biology.
This article is peer-reviewed.
The journal is Medline-indexed.

Hello again. This Frontiers article would meet some resistance by medical editors because a) it is 7 years old (see WP:MEDDATE) and b) it is published in a Frontiers Media journal, a concern due to possible predatory publishing practices. The journal's editors may use unrigorous practices, and the author may have been recruited to actually pay the journal for publication - practices contrary to rigorous review. See other Frontiers Media journals at WP:CITEWATCH, where the disclaimer explains the background for treating these journals as dubious sources for Wikipedia, and an editor has to judge source quality as "hit or miss". There are numerous Frontiers 'review' articles which I regard as untrustworthy, misleading, and unusable. If you have further questions, you can ask them here, as I am watching this talk page. Zefr (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Deep humility (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

According to Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, I would like to respectfully ask why the check user proceeded with the case even though I defended myself at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/It's_gonna_be_awesome/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_18? Does it mean that the accusation against me was given precedence over my statements based on WP:NPOV, one of the WP:5 Pillars of Wikipedia? But the presumption of innocence is central to American law.[1]. This means that the accusation was judged valid over my statement prior to checking users' privacy. Can I ask why the accusation was judged given precedence over my statement? Thanks. Deep humility (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are deeply confused. Wikipedia is not a U.S. criminal court. Furthermore, this is not an unblock request. Please stop trolling. Yamla (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.