This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks for your work =]
The issue i'm having is that i can't categorise files on the Commons. And the
Category:Birmingham Gay Village is different here from the one at
The Commons...I'm not sure how that happened...
Category:Birmingham Gay Pride is up though.
The Birmingham Gay Village is basically the equivalent of a Chinese district for gays. Birmingham Gay Pride is a gay pride event, which i assume i don't have to explain to you about. Thanks again ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
hello, may i respectfully disagree with you? Can you please provide a quote from a wiki policy which supports your example of the ninety recent rule? I would appreciate to be enlighted. Ryanspir ( talk) 16:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
hello, could you please tell me why have you selectively asked me to provide pubmed id? Does it mean that all references without pubmed id shall be removed from this article? I hope you didn't ask it because you feel angry that there are peer reviewed studies supporting what you seemingly consider to be a snake oil? I'm calling you to assume good faith, be emotionally detached and be neutral. Ryanspir ( talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Kindly clarify the difference? Wp:undue is refering to published studies by reliable sources. And you were refering to opinions of mainstream healthcare professionals. Ryanspir ( talk) 18:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello whatamidoing. I just wanted to let you know that my latest contribution to synth has absolutely nothing to do with the bca page. I don't plan on using a new addition to "win" an argument against you (I don't plan on arguing with you at all, ever again). That would be gaming the system. In my mind, the "feud" is over. I don't really care as much about the bca page as I used to. It is no longer my main concern here at wikipedia. I hope you wholeheartedly assume good faith about my contributions to synth and that you stop thinking that I'm going to ruin the wikipedia as you know it. My IQ may not be annoyingly high, but I think you'd be surprised. Charles35 ( talk) 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
WikiWomen - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi WhatamIdoing! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its
sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by:
Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
I hope you feel better soon! Biosthmors ( talk) 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are speculating and making assumptions. Generally what you are saying its an original research. But the most important part, that according to published research the situation is opposite. There is only one study made in botswana, which says that cs is not effective in vitro. However, all the rest of the studies are found cs to be effective, and that includes expert bodies such as epa and fda. In the letters in which fda advices against oral consumption by mouth, they do not say that cs was proven to be not effective. What they say in fact is that currently there is no sufficient prove that its effective. And, they refer only to internal ingestion by mouth, because the external application was found to be effective and was cleared by them. The editors who edit this page aren't doctors. It seems that drew their opinions from sensational publication featuring a blue man and misread letters of fda. Ryanspir ( talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm curious about this revert; the {{ cite pmid}} links to a PMC article, which is also a free, full-text version, and the template itself could also be edited to add the url link to the pdf if desired. Also, I was under the impression the cite pmid template somehow automagically used fewer server resources or some such, allowing for a faster page load. Plus it's super easy. Is there a disadvantage you are aware of or a utility to the usual {{ cite journal}}? Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey WhatamIdoing - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi WaID. Thanks for tidying my last edit to WT:N. Was my input welcome? It reminds me of an awkward silence at a party. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. I saw your amusing edit summary. For someone who's so attached to good grammar as you are, is "...the lying liars that..." completely standard? Shouldn't it be (as it is) "...the lying liars who..."? Other than that, were you trying to make some point about the futility of edit summaries? :-) Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Please be a little more careful when closing RFC's, like when you did here for the one for User: Niemti.
I thank you for trying to help, but please try to be a little more thorough next time. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Your rewrote the WP:MEDRS to include the line: If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted. in this bold edit. The emphasized sentence is being used to oppose inclusion of a possible mouse study about blood glucose levels from aspartame consumption cited here. I am still hunting down a medical journal with this published paper. If I'm unsuccessful then it's a mute point but if I am, what is your opinion of this mouse study in relation to your wording of the MEDRS? Thanks. Alatari ( talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology has been opened. You have been mentioned as a potential party by one or more of the current parties to the case. If you would like to become a party to the case, please add yourself to the main case page linked in the same format as the other parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, last time we discussed on the Template_talk:Primary_sources. This time I seek for your comments on my drafted IEG grant proposal here m:Grants:IEG/find_sources_2.0. The basic idea is to enhance source-finding and thus citing practices for contributors old and new by providing lists of online and offline resources and some basic general description on the nature of the sources in these resources (per general research/librarian perspective and per WP policies WP:PSTS WP:V WP:RS.
I hope that you will can provide comments to improve the grant proposal. Thanks. --( comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Here and you'd most likely see it but can't help being the notification system Wikipedia should ideally do already! Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Even as we chew on whether/how "general references" should be defined, I appreciate your work in clarifying some of those places at Citing sources where it has been used ambiguously. Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I have replied to you at WT:Tendentious editing, and feel it is important/amusing enough to message you directly, especially given that you seem to disagree with the inclusion of a bright-line rule. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 23:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
will con't with the sandbox page, watching the COI criteria carefully. Signed up for WP:MED and WP:DENT - didn't know they existed. thx. Ian Furst ( talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing,
I thought I'd better put this here, as I have some misgivings (expressed earlier) as to whether this sort of discussion is permissible at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures.
Please accept my apologies for misleading/giving you false hope in this discussion. For good or bad reasons I had done my testing on an external (slightly obsolete) wiki. So I know at a software level MediaWiki has the capability of doing what you want.
Here is the big "gotcha". Unfortunately I completely forgot about this policy on WikiPedia, which basically bans all the neatest solutions; and puts a severe crimp on the "next-best" ways to approach this.
Not to completely give up; would you please be so kind as to give an example of the sort of effect you want to achieve? Even if the general case is practically ruled out, it might be still possible to do what you want.
(When I say "general case" above, I am thinking about something like a signature inside a template which gives different results when transcluded into different name-spaces, and do so for every single user login. As I suggested: technically feasible; but within the policy very probably impossible!)
Finally, I completely lack artistic ability, so my own signature is best as: MODCHK ( talk) 22:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{TALKSPACE}}| (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine)}}
[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]){{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{TALKSPACE}}| Reply on talk}}
"Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District has an AFD tag pointing at a separate discussion. I have mixed feelings about the expansion efforts. On the one hand, a properly written and sourced article is undeniably a good thing. On the other hand, people who clean up these articles in response to a sloppy, pointy, or wikilawyering nomination are rewarding and encouraging that type of nomination by making an AFD be an effective method of finding someone else who will stop what they're doing (which might be more important) and clean up the nominated articles ASAP. I don't think that we want to reward this kind of nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC) "
I didn't ask anybody to expand any of them. I suggested deleting them all, recreating using a regulated bot and then people can expand at their own will in their own time and not feel pressured to have to clean up a big mess ASAP. You've completely misunderstood the purpose of the deletion. And it's ironic too that I've had to put up with exactly the sort of nomination you describe for years on here. I was simply trying to sort out a mess by nuking it and trying to encourage something greater in its place. If you can't see that then that's your problem.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Most of the articles were unsourced, with basic grammar errors and some had faulty website links. That cleanup is needed first before even trying to make the sub stubs half decent. It's quite a task, that's why I said that because the "keep!!" voters nobody seemed to care about the problem that had been created with the errors or think of a way to tackle it in the aftermath of them being kept. I have a lot of experience on here and trust me, the most productive way long term would have been to delete and restart using a bot feeding off the same data format and to actually not only recreate the 500 odd but create all 12,000 in the same way to they are useful starter stubs without errors, nice and clean, to be expanded by anybody in their own time..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope your ok with this - I realized after I posted it I should have asked first (sorry). I mentioned you here as I was astonished to discover you were not an admin. Moxy ( talk) 20:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, you have helped me with sourcing in the past and I am again looking for help. Most of the articles I work on are related to children--for that reason I have worked on the Bisphenol A article for several years because I believe that BPA (and other chemicals) may be harming our children while our government drags its feet. Yesterday a new editor came on the scene and within a few minutes had deleted numerous primary studies with plans to delete every primary study from the article. This will pretty much gut the article. Of course I'm aware of WP:RS but I do know that dozens of med-related articles, or in my case chemical since I do a lot of work with the pesticide articles, have many primary studies in the articles. If all the work that I have done over the years can be deleted in a few hours I will be devastated. Perhaps one thing I could do is find a book as you did for the pink article... Anyway, please advise. Thanks, Gandy Gandydancer ( talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have many of these all around the 'pedia. See Birthday cake and Cake decorating as well. But they are not mine, they are my daughter Judy's cakes. I've been trying to get her to work on the cake decorating article. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I've initiated the above talk page move. Doc James suggested previously that you might have some useful input to make on this proposal. Relevant talk page discussion found here. Thanks. FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I am completely confused by your comments on the talk page. I wish you would say more so I can make sense of it. Jytdog ( talk) 21:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — T13 ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended )
Research status on manual and manipulative therapy! I respect your editing and could use a critical eye here [3] Regards, DVMt ( talk) 03:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey WAID, I'm wondering if you think this draft request for comment would prove fair and useful? User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
the point I was trying to make was that DALY's measure lack of ability to do things e.g. work, and do not capture aspects of illnesses such as pain and suffering. Many would think humans have now reached a civilisation level where we regard pain and suffering as importat in themselves, and try to prevent them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I've archived the debate [5]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise. Giano 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea to make a proposal to reword Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content pages in the future. After that long talk and edits like this, I am very concerned people are more focused on an apparent loop hole of wording over the spirit of the guides itself. Seeing people site ignore all the rules to use a preferred version that is deliberately dismissing a guide that is part of our founding principles - to bring knowledge to all - is very upsetting to me. I was looking for an essay on accessibility and could not find one - this might be a starting point. Moxy ( talk) 21:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Climate data for Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (1971–2000) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high humidex | 13.1 | 14.6 | 30.0 | 35.1 | 38.2 | 44.0 | 46.0 | 45.7 | 42.5 | 33.7 | 26.1 | 21.0 | 46.0 |
Record high °C (°F) | 12.0 (53.6) |
14.2 (57.6) |
27.2 (81.0) |
31.1 (88.0) |
32.8 (91.0) |
36.1 (97.0) |
36.7 (98.1) |
37.8 (100.0) |
35.0 (95.0) |
27.8 (82.0) |
23.9 (75.0) |
18.0 (64.4) |
37.8 (100.0) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | −6.1 (21.0) |
−4.1 (24.6) |
2.2 (36.0) |
10.8 (51.4) |
19.1 (66.4) |
23.8 (74.8) |
26.5 (79.7) |
24.9 (76.8) |
19.5 (67.1) |
12.5 (54.5) |
4.8 (40.6) |
−3.0 (26.6) |
10.9 (51.6) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | −10.8 (12.6) |
−8.7 (16.3) |
−2.5 (27.5) |
5.7 (42.3) |
13.4 (56.1) |
18.3 (64.9) |
20.9 (69.6) |
19.5 (67.1) |
14.3 (57.7) |
7.8 (46.0) |
1.0 (33.8) |
−7.1 (19.2) |
6.0 (42.8) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −15.3 (4.5) |
−13.3 (8.1) |
−7.1 (19.2) |
0.6 (33.1) |
7.7 (45.9) |
12.7 (54.9) |
15.4 (59.7) |
14.1 (57.4) |
9.1 (48.4) |
3.0 (37.4) |
−2.8 (27.0) |
−11.1 (12.0) |
1.1 (34.0) |
Record low °C (°F) | −35.6 (−32.1) |
−36.1 (−33.0) |
−30.6 (−23.1) |
−16.7 (1.9) |
−5.6 (21.9) |
−0.1 (31.8) |
5.0 (41.0) |
2.6 (36.7) |
−3.0 (26.6) |
−7.8 (18.0) |
−21.7 (−7.1) |
−34.4 (−29.9) |
−36.1 (−33.0) |
Record low wind chill | −47.8 | −47.6 | −37.8 | −26.3 | −10.9 | −1.6 | 4.6 | 1.1 | −6.4 | −13.3 | −29.5 | −44.6 | −47.8 |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 70.2 (2.76) |
58.9 (2.32) |
73.9 (2.91) |
72.4 (2.85) |
79.0 (3.11) |
85.0 (3.35) |
90.6 (3.57) |
87.1 (3.43) |
85.3 (3.36) |
79.4 (3.13) |
80.1 (3.15) |
81.5 (3.21) |
943.5 (37.15) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 25.2 (0.99) |
17.6 (0.69) |
36.3 (1.43) |
60.5 (2.38) |
78.4 (3.09) |
85.0 (3.35) |
90.6 (3.57) |
87.1 (3.43) |
85.3 (3.36) |
74.9 (2.95) |
59.8 (2.35) |
31.3 (1.23) |
732.0 (28.82) |
Average snowfall cm (inches) | 55.2 (21.7) |
46.0 (18.1) |
39.8 (15.7) |
11.0 (4.3) |
0.6 (0.2) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
4.1 (1.6) |
21.9 (8.6) |
57.2 (22.5) |
235.7 (92.8) |
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 17.0 | 13.1 | 13.6 | 12.0 | 12.9 | 12.2 | 11.6 | 11.1 | 12.7 | 13.4 | 15.3 | 17.7 | 162.6 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 4.5 | 3.9 | 7.1 | 10.1 | 12.8 | 12.2 | 11.6 | 11.1 | 12.7 | 12.6 | 10.4 | 5.8 | 114.8 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 16.0 | 11.9 | 9.5 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.4 | 7.6 | 15.2 | 65.6 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 74.0 | 72.1 | 73.0 | 72.5 | 74.9 | 79.6 | 82.4 | 86.8 | 87.6 | 83.4 | 81.9 | 79.8 | 79.0 |
Mean monthly sunshine hours | 101.2 | 129.8 | 159.8 | 189.4 | 230.3 | 253.3 | 276.8 | 246.7 | 171.5 | 136.7 | 83.6 | 82.0 | 2,061.1 |
citation needed |
I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey WhatamIdoing; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
How interesting -- I had no idea there was a toolserver to parse active & non-active page watchers. Thanks. As for my 750, I just relied on my mistaken memory. In any event, I was surprised when no comments were posted for almost 5 days. – S. Rich ( talk) 00:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you just reverted my deletion of dead wikilinks in an article. first conversation I've had about this on wikipedia. IMO red links are a sign of draft-ness - unprofessional (for lack of a better term at the moment) for an actual, published encyclopedia, and they should be deleted whenever they appear. I have had a sense that others use them as per your edit note -- as reminders of content that need to be created. I get that. My sense is that there are different styles at play here. Is there some kind of policy or guideline on this? Thx. Jytdog ( talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I had already revived Eleassar's work on inheritance. Now it's there twice? DMacks ( talk) 17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for helping us with this link Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. With it I have found heart rate which needs serious review. It is written only in a sport point of view and can make people afraid. Many references seem to me questionable. I'll try to make this article better. Doc Elisa ✉ 07:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " Jozef van Wissem".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 09:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Josef van WissemPlease note that I filed a DR request: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jozef van Wissem. Please comment there. Thanks.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Need a programI need a java script that would hide on my watchlist any edits related to infoboxs or those involved with them - Is this possible - dont want to end up going crazy like this ..... I am losing it at Talk:Robert Stoepel#Infobox proposal - LOL - ROLF. Moxy ( talk) 09:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Motion to close RFC/UYou have previously commented on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Niemti. As an outside editor, I have moved that this RFC/U be closed. If you wish to comment on the Motion to close, please do so here. Fladrif ( talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC) A question about some content you added/editedSee Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedians#Maths.3F. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Help pleaseSay, could you take a look at the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. India does not allow the name of rape victims to be published however in this case both the victim and her parents said that they did not object. We have a reference for that. Her name is now being used in the UK, US, and elsewhere, except for India. See the talk page, second section re Jyoti's name and to save time scroll down to the April postings. Not using the name makes the article sound awkward and perhaps even lacking in respect for the victim. Since a decision for the use of her name seemed to be stalled, and thinking that at least some Indian news sources were now using her name, yesterday I did a trial and used her name in the lead. Editor Paris instantly responded and I reverted. S/he seems to be knowledgeable but the other editor, 007, seems to be as well. Would you have any advice here? Gandydancer ( talk) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Move discussionAt Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 1#Requested_move. -- Lexein ( talk) 06:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Message added 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. howto in relation to practical information - amazon topicCould you please clarify? Howto is explaining or directing of how to do something. And i'm mentioning about including practical information, in which no explaining or directing how to do something is included. Example: very high number of people who has posted feedbacks on amazon has indicated that d-mannose resulted in miracleous cures for bladder infection. In such a case we don't say that it actually provides cure, but we rather state the facts on the ground. Ryanspir ( talk) 17:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
RS/N DiscussionHello WhatamIdoing! I started a discussion on Venezuela's most-circulated newspaper and I noticed that you are one of the most active users on RS/N discussion board. I was hoping that you would be able to help out and contribute some of your expertise? :) Thanks for any assistance you can provide! Justiciero1811 ( talk) 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Breast Cancer content disputeJmh649 and I do not agree. He states that I can not use this Cochrane Collaboration (CC) web page [ [6]], last updated Oct 20122, as a reference to support the quote "Screening produces patients with breast cancer from among healthy women who would never have developed symptoms of breast cancer. Treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying, e.g. from heart disease and cancer. It therefore no longer seems reasonable to attend for breast cancer screening. In fact, by avoiding going to screening, a woman will lower her risk of getting a breast cancer diagnosis. However, despite this, some women might still wish to go to screening." Zad says the pamphlet referred to on that web page (linked) says Draft, but it's not ("Draft") when you print it out. We don't need the pamphlet anyway, given the CC statement on their web page. The difference is huge (look at the current text). Mammography is no not recommended at any age. Heck, that was on the national news several months age, which is why I long ago looked into the supporting facts (CC) and tried to update Wikipedia. I worked with Jmh and made corrections / additions. Quickly deleted by another editor, see history. I feel Jmh649 does great harm to Wikipedia, smacking of conflict of interest. 32cllou ( talk) 20:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Breastfeeding articleHi there, would you please have a look at the Breast feeding article's HIV section? It seems to be much too involved for the article and I wonder if it should either have its own article or be moved to the Breastfeeding difficulties article. (I wrote a little on the talk page.) What do you think? I asked Doc James and he agreed split or something. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Quick note re: RfC templateSorry, late reply. WykiP ( talk) 11:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I would very much appreciate your help (and talk page lurkers too) in drafting a new policy to deal with assignments, particularly student. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Assignments (student editing) and the draft at Wikipedia:Assignments. Thanks. Colin° Talk 10:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh hey thereThis was an interesting conversation, and it had the potential to become a lot more productive, since it appeared that a few of the right people were participating. I know professors often assign students to participate in online communities of various types, and WP is the biggest and most information-rich environment online. I'm sure that even for professors who don't assign such things, the temptation is enormous. Suggestion: WMF, WEF and the community work together to get on top of the situation, and steer it in a manner that is beneficial to Wikipedia in the form of a Wikiproject. Put someone in charge of it, give that person an attractive title and some other perks. Gather volunteers, and assign them to run a "help desk" for college students who are editing articles as part of a class assignment.Once that's all set up, reach out to certain universities that have a good reputation and a strong online presence, and offer to host their students for a few assignments. Rather than letting professors turn their classes loose on us, we control the situation and steer them in the right, constructive directions. We also create a policy requiring such classes to work through the Wikiproject rather than on their own, at the risk of being blocked. Wikipedia improves, we probably get some new editors in the long term (after their assignments are finished), professors start to respect us a little more (maybe), and the entire process works in a manner that is constructive. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 17:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You can vote there. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Thank youThank you for looking into my problem on the village pump about my edits on Books LLC. I really couldn't understand why Rklawton was accusing me of being in an edit war and threatening me with banning. Well, actually I still don't, since I wasn't and haven't ever. But it was such a relief to hear someone else confirm what I thought had to be so, that this was a damned peculiar definition of edit war and that my edit, which Rklawton reverted, was neither unfactual nor unjustified. I was particularly impressed at how you found out that Rklawton was in fact a Wikipedia Admin (which does nothing to ease my worry, but is useful to know). I have no idea if there is anything I can do about this. But at least I am over my initial feeling of helpless horror and shock, thanks in large part to your matter-of-fact post. Thank you. Artemis-Arethusa ( talk) 09:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing, I had to remove the statement about "faultless victims" etc in the article since the source you gave did not contain anything about it. -- 95.118.36.4 ( talk) 12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
TalkbackHello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at
TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) bisphenolThere is no way in hell I am going to rewrite the tox section of the article. Gandydancer is very invested in the work she did there and she already thinks I am creepy or something as per discussion between her and others on her Talk page concerning work we were doing on the BP article, from which I have withdrawn (see here and surrounding edits. So I am going to take it very slow on the bisphenol page and deal with content that exists piece by piece. She and I work on overlapping articles so I have no desire to further antagonize her, as I don't like people to be upset because of things I do and because bad relationships make it harder to do work on wikipedia. But the article as it stands is a train wreck (as per comments by other editors on the MEDRS talk page) and I want to fix it. Jytdog ( talk) 11:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Visual editorIs this similar to the thing that is deployed at Wikia? And does it function better than the thing at Wikia? -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor and FlowYou wrote:
Actually, the entire talkpage system will be replaced with a system called Flow. The documentation page is here. Flow will be released before VE according to this, which means in a month or two. Incidentally, you might want to advertise Flow, since NO ONE seems to have heard of it, even though it's an enormous change. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 03:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way at all to stop them from making all these huge changes? I'm afraid my reaction is to step back from communicating with other editors unless they seek me out - I can't deal with the weird form of threading MediaWiki prefers and learning things like getting interwikis onto WikiData is taking all the time I could devote to schmoozing. With a new system replacing talkpages I'm afraid I don't think I'll be able to welcome people or help them out nearly as much because of the learning demanded. Also, it is demonstrating again and again that the developers just don't care about editors, only about new, new, new. It's too much, they respond arrogantly when we explain on the Village Pump that we were not told about the latest change or that it is having an unfortunate side effect (latest instance - failing to realize IPs need the orange bar or some other highly noticeable sign so they can be made aware of warnings before someone blocks them), and I'm not persuaded of the usefulness of 90% of it. Sorry to unload, but your post at WikiProject Trains was the first I'd heard of "Oh by the way talk pages are going away". Rah, rah. New! Exciting! I don't think I'll bother complaining anywhere else - but if there is any way to get them to STOP, please! Get them to STOP!!!!! It's hurting the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
WPPThank you for your words and participation, the project has attracted some interest despite not being really announced. With the grudge that they have against me, the best thing I can do is ignore their editing areas for now. The effort to disrupt and drive off supporters is a part of the goal and I will not feed that fire further. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to be sureWhatamIdoing, just to make sure I haven't left any wrong impressions, our friendly discussion at wp:rs was a reminder that I wanted to bring up FAQ's at the talk page guidelines, but was NOT the reason for it. Also, the title of the thread at wp:talk page guidelines is NOT applicable to this situation. Both the original text and your revised text that I was advocating dropping were and are purely good faith efforts to provide useful advice. Also, I left that thread at wp:rs about two weeks ago, considering the end result to be OK if not ideal. I should have been clearer on that. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
TalkbackHello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at
Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace.
Message added 00:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Unforgettableid ( talk) 00:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
You beat me to the punchHah! I was going to start building out a version of mw:Flow Portal on enwiki tomorrow (which is my WFH day). But you beat me to the punch. I'm going to go ahead and start moving content in. Thanks!-- Jorm (WMF) ( talk) 22:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
AwesomesauceThat comparisons table is just magnificent. Thank you!-- Jorm (WMF) ( talk) 20:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
My bad.Madam, I can explain, but I cannot deny. Please accept my apology. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 21:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Help with another matterI wondered if you could help me with another matter. I ask you the following reluctantly. If I have a complaint about another Wikipedia contributor, where do I turn? There is another Wikipedian who makes minor changes and occasionally major changes because of something like an idée fixe that animates him (I think it is a him) to concentrate his editorial fire on occupational health psychology as it appears in the entry and as it appears in the applied psychology entry. I have asked him on his talk page a number of times to discuss edits but he doesn't respond. I think it was he who had a similar bent back in January under a different name. What can I do? Thanks. Iss246 ( talk) 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Earlier I included a link to his talk page after I fixed one of his many changes to an entry. The link is in my comment on reversing a change. Iss246 ( talk) 01:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
edit summariesPlease be more cautious in using edit summaries [7] -- I'm pretty sure that particular discussion is well beyond lame. NE Ent 11:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
TalkbackHello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
Message added 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Re: RfC/UJudging from the RfC/U Talk page, you're the "go to" person for questions like this one. I'm trying to start an RfC/U regarding User:Xenophrenic. The main allegations are that he's tendentious and a POV-pusher. There's already substantial support from at least four different editors. The two certifiers are myself and User:Malke 2010, and we've posted diffs of our efforts to resolve the matter with Xeno on the Talk page of Tea Party movement (where this long simmering dispute came to a boil). Actually I've been encountering Xeno and his editing habits on several articles related to U.S. poli tics for years, starting out with Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009. This has reached the point of Xeno edit-warring over whether the RfC/U meets the minimum requirements, repeatedly moving the RfC/U up to "Candidate pages" from "Certified pages" on the UsersList: [8] Please review the RfC/U and the diffs provided. If he's correct, and it doesn't meet the minimum requirements, please let me know what the problem is — with a note on my User Talk page. If I'm correct, and it does meet the minimum requirements, please let Xeno know on his User Talk page. Thanks ... Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Mrm7171I appreciate your encouraging words to Mrm7171 today. Iss246 ( talk) 02:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: ListsHello, JAWS reads the lists separately, like so: "Definition list of 1 items, Rose colors, list end; list of 2 items, bullet white rose, bullet red rose, list end". NVDA also reads them separately, but doesn't distinguish between the two types of list. Graham 87 00:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Seneca Valley virusHi, I undid a change you made on the Seneca Valley virus-001 page, I started a discussion on the talk page if you'd like to discuss it further. Viraltonic ( talk) 13:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks for your work =]
The issue i'm having is that i can't categorise files on the Commons. And the
Category:Birmingham Gay Village is different here from the one at
The Commons...I'm not sure how that happened...
Category:Birmingham Gay Pride is up though.
The Birmingham Gay Village is basically the equivalent of a Chinese district for gays. Birmingham Gay Pride is a gay pride event, which i assume i don't have to explain to you about. Thanks again ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 09:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
hello, may i respectfully disagree with you? Can you please provide a quote from a wiki policy which supports your example of the ninety recent rule? I would appreciate to be enlighted. Ryanspir ( talk) 16:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
hello, could you please tell me why have you selectively asked me to provide pubmed id? Does it mean that all references without pubmed id shall be removed from this article? I hope you didn't ask it because you feel angry that there are peer reviewed studies supporting what you seemingly consider to be a snake oil? I'm calling you to assume good faith, be emotionally detached and be neutral. Ryanspir ( talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Kindly clarify the difference? Wp:undue is refering to published studies by reliable sources. And you were refering to opinions of mainstream healthcare professionals. Ryanspir ( talk) 18:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello whatamidoing. I just wanted to let you know that my latest contribution to synth has absolutely nothing to do with the bca page. I don't plan on using a new addition to "win" an argument against you (I don't plan on arguing with you at all, ever again). That would be gaming the system. In my mind, the "feud" is over. I don't really care as much about the bca page as I used to. It is no longer my main concern here at wikipedia. I hope you wholeheartedly assume good faith about my contributions to synth and that you stop thinking that I'm going to ruin the wikipedia as you know it. My IQ may not be annoyingly high, but I think you'd be surprised. Charles35 ( talk) 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
WikiWomen - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi WhatamIdoing! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its
sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by:
Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
I hope you feel better soon! Biosthmors ( talk) 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are speculating and making assumptions. Generally what you are saying its an original research. But the most important part, that according to published research the situation is opposite. There is only one study made in botswana, which says that cs is not effective in vitro. However, all the rest of the studies are found cs to be effective, and that includes expert bodies such as epa and fda. In the letters in which fda advices against oral consumption by mouth, they do not say that cs was proven to be not effective. What they say in fact is that currently there is no sufficient prove that its effective. And, they refer only to internal ingestion by mouth, because the external application was found to be effective and was cleared by them. The editors who edit this page aren't doctors. It seems that drew their opinions from sensational publication featuring a blue man and misread letters of fda. Ryanspir ( talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I'm curious about this revert; the {{ cite pmid}} links to a PMC article, which is also a free, full-text version, and the template itself could also be edited to add the url link to the pdf if desired. Also, I was under the impression the cite pmid template somehow automagically used fewer server resources or some such, allowing for a faster page load. Plus it's super easy. Is there a disadvantage you are aware of or a utility to the usual {{ cite journal}}? Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey WhatamIdoing - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi WaID. Thanks for tidying my last edit to WT:N. Was my input welcome? It reminds me of an awkward silence at a party. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. I saw your amusing edit summary. For someone who's so attached to good grammar as you are, is "...the lying liars that..." completely standard? Shouldn't it be (as it is) "...the lying liars who..."? Other than that, were you trying to make some point about the futility of edit summaries? :-) Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 17:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Please be a little more careful when closing RFC's, like when you did here for the one for User: Niemti.
I thank you for trying to help, but please try to be a little more thorough next time. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Your rewrote the WP:MEDRS to include the line: If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted. in this bold edit. The emphasized sentence is being used to oppose inclusion of a possible mouse study about blood glucose levels from aspartame consumption cited here. I am still hunting down a medical journal with this published paper. If I'm unsuccessful then it's a mute point but if I am, what is your opinion of this mouse study in relation to your wording of the MEDRS? Thanks. Alatari ( talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology has been opened. You have been mentioned as a potential party by one or more of the current parties to the case. If you would like to become a party to the case, please add yourself to the main case page linked in the same format as the other parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, last time we discussed on the Template_talk:Primary_sources. This time I seek for your comments on my drafted IEG grant proposal here m:Grants:IEG/find_sources_2.0. The basic idea is to enhance source-finding and thus citing practices for contributors old and new by providing lists of online and offline resources and some basic general description on the nature of the sources in these resources (per general research/librarian perspective and per WP policies WP:PSTS WP:V WP:RS.
I hope that you will can provide comments to improve the grant proposal. Thanks. --( comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Here and you'd most likely see it but can't help being the notification system Wikipedia should ideally do already! Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Even as we chew on whether/how "general references" should be defined, I appreciate your work in clarifying some of those places at Citing sources where it has been used ambiguously. Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I have replied to you at WT:Tendentious editing, and feel it is important/amusing enough to message you directly, especially given that you seem to disagree with the inclusion of a bright-line rule. -- UseTheCommandLine ( talk) 23:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
will con't with the sandbox page, watching the COI criteria carefully. Signed up for WP:MED and WP:DENT - didn't know they existed. thx. Ian Furst ( talk) 02:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing,
I thought I'd better put this here, as I have some misgivings (expressed earlier) as to whether this sort of discussion is permissible at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures.
Please accept my apologies for misleading/giving you false hope in this discussion. For good or bad reasons I had done my testing on an external (slightly obsolete) wiki. So I know at a software level MediaWiki has the capability of doing what you want.
Here is the big "gotcha". Unfortunately I completely forgot about this policy on WikiPedia, which basically bans all the neatest solutions; and puts a severe crimp on the "next-best" ways to approach this.
Not to completely give up; would you please be so kind as to give an example of the sort of effect you want to achieve? Even if the general case is practically ruled out, it might be still possible to do what you want.
(When I say "general case" above, I am thinking about something like a signature inside a template which gives different results when transcluded into different name-spaces, and do so for every single user login. As I suggested: technically feasible; but within the policy very probably impossible!)
Finally, I completely lack artistic ability, so my own signature is best as: MODCHK ( talk) 22:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{TALKSPACE}}| (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine)}}
[[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]){{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{TALKSPACE}}| Reply on talk}}
"Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District has an AFD tag pointing at a separate discussion. I have mixed feelings about the expansion efforts. On the one hand, a properly written and sourced article is undeniably a good thing. On the other hand, people who clean up these articles in response to a sloppy, pointy, or wikilawyering nomination are rewarding and encouraging that type of nomination by making an AFD be an effective method of finding someone else who will stop what they're doing (which might be more important) and clean up the nominated articles ASAP. I don't think that we want to reward this kind of nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC) "
I didn't ask anybody to expand any of them. I suggested deleting them all, recreating using a regulated bot and then people can expand at their own will in their own time and not feel pressured to have to clean up a big mess ASAP. You've completely misunderstood the purpose of the deletion. And it's ironic too that I've had to put up with exactly the sort of nomination you describe for years on here. I was simply trying to sort out a mess by nuking it and trying to encourage something greater in its place. If you can't see that then that's your problem.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Most of the articles were unsourced, with basic grammar errors and some had faulty website links. That cleanup is needed first before even trying to make the sub stubs half decent. It's quite a task, that's why I said that because the "keep!!" voters nobody seemed to care about the problem that had been created with the errors or think of a way to tackle it in the aftermath of them being kept. I have a lot of experience on here and trust me, the most productive way long term would have been to delete and restart using a bot feeding off the same data format and to actually not only recreate the 500 odd but create all 12,000 in the same way to they are useful starter stubs without errors, nice and clean, to be expanded by anybody in their own time..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I hope your ok with this - I realized after I posted it I should have asked first (sorry). I mentioned you here as I was astonished to discover you were not an admin. Moxy ( talk) 20:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, you have helped me with sourcing in the past and I am again looking for help. Most of the articles I work on are related to children--for that reason I have worked on the Bisphenol A article for several years because I believe that BPA (and other chemicals) may be harming our children while our government drags its feet. Yesterday a new editor came on the scene and within a few minutes had deleted numerous primary studies with plans to delete every primary study from the article. This will pretty much gut the article. Of course I'm aware of WP:RS but I do know that dozens of med-related articles, or in my case chemical since I do a lot of work with the pesticide articles, have many primary studies in the articles. If all the work that I have done over the years can be deleted in a few hours I will be devastated. Perhaps one thing I could do is find a book as you did for the pink article... Anyway, please advise. Thanks, Gandy Gandydancer ( talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have many of these all around the 'pedia. See Birthday cake and Cake decorating as well. But they are not mine, they are my daughter Judy's cakes. I've been trying to get her to work on the cake decorating article. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I've initiated the above talk page move. Doc James suggested previously that you might have some useful input to make on this proposal. Relevant talk page discussion found here. Thanks. FiachraByrne ( talk) 02:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I am completely confused by your comments on the talk page. I wish you would say more so I can make sense of it. Jytdog ( talk) 21:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — T13 ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended )
Research status on manual and manipulative therapy! I respect your editing and could use a critical eye here [3] Regards, DVMt ( talk) 03:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey WAID, I'm wondering if you think this draft request for comment would prove fair and useful? User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
the point I was trying to make was that DALY's measure lack of ability to do things e.g. work, and do not capture aspects of illnesses such as pain and suffering. Many would think humans have now reached a civilisation level where we regard pain and suffering as importat in themselves, and try to prevent them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCJC777 ( talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I've archived the debate [5]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise. Giano 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be a good idea to make a proposal to reword Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content pages in the future. After that long talk and edits like this, I am very concerned people are more focused on an apparent loop hole of wording over the spirit of the guides itself. Seeing people site ignore all the rules to use a preferred version that is deliberately dismissing a guide that is part of our founding principles - to bring knowledge to all - is very upsetting to me. I was looking for an essay on accessibility and could not find one - this might be a starting point. Moxy ( talk) 21:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Climate data for Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (1971–2000) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
Record high humidex | 13.1 | 14.6 | 30.0 | 35.1 | 38.2 | 44.0 | 46.0 | 45.7 | 42.5 | 33.7 | 26.1 | 21.0 | 46.0 |
Record high °C (°F) | 12.0 (53.6) |
14.2 (57.6) |
27.2 (81.0) |
31.1 (88.0) |
32.8 (91.0) |
36.1 (97.0) |
36.7 (98.1) |
37.8 (100.0) |
35.0 (95.0) |
27.8 (82.0) |
23.9 (75.0) |
18.0 (64.4) |
37.8 (100.0) |
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) | −6.1 (21.0) |
−4.1 (24.6) |
2.2 (36.0) |
10.8 (51.4) |
19.1 (66.4) |
23.8 (74.8) |
26.5 (79.7) |
24.9 (76.8) |
19.5 (67.1) |
12.5 (54.5) |
4.8 (40.6) |
−3.0 (26.6) |
10.9 (51.6) |
Daily mean °C (°F) | −10.8 (12.6) |
−8.7 (16.3) |
−2.5 (27.5) |
5.7 (42.3) |
13.4 (56.1) |
18.3 (64.9) |
20.9 (69.6) |
19.5 (67.1) |
14.3 (57.7) |
7.8 (46.0) |
1.0 (33.8) |
−7.1 (19.2) |
6.0 (42.8) |
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) | −15.3 (4.5) |
−13.3 (8.1) |
−7.1 (19.2) |
0.6 (33.1) |
7.7 (45.9) |
12.7 (54.9) |
15.4 (59.7) |
14.1 (57.4) |
9.1 (48.4) |
3.0 (37.4) |
−2.8 (27.0) |
−11.1 (12.0) |
1.1 (34.0) |
Record low °C (°F) | −35.6 (−32.1) |
−36.1 (−33.0) |
−30.6 (−23.1) |
−16.7 (1.9) |
−5.6 (21.9) |
−0.1 (31.8) |
5.0 (41.0) |
2.6 (36.7) |
−3.0 (26.6) |
−7.8 (18.0) |
−21.7 (−7.1) |
−34.4 (−29.9) |
−36.1 (−33.0) |
Record low wind chill | −47.8 | −47.6 | −37.8 | −26.3 | −10.9 | −1.6 | 4.6 | 1.1 | −6.4 | −13.3 | −29.5 | −44.6 | −47.8 |
Average precipitation mm (inches) | 70.2 (2.76) |
58.9 (2.32) |
73.9 (2.91) |
72.4 (2.85) |
79.0 (3.11) |
85.0 (3.35) |
90.6 (3.57) |
87.1 (3.43) |
85.3 (3.36) |
79.4 (3.13) |
80.1 (3.15) |
81.5 (3.21) |
943.5 (37.15) |
Average rainfall mm (inches) | 25.2 (0.99) |
17.6 (0.69) |
36.3 (1.43) |
60.5 (2.38) |
78.4 (3.09) |
85.0 (3.35) |
90.6 (3.57) |
87.1 (3.43) |
85.3 (3.36) |
74.9 (2.95) |
59.8 (2.35) |
31.3 (1.23) |
732.0 (28.82) |
Average snowfall cm (inches) | 55.2 (21.7) |
46.0 (18.1) |
39.8 (15.7) |
11.0 (4.3) |
0.6 (0.2) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
4.1 (1.6) |
21.9 (8.6) |
57.2 (22.5) |
235.7 (92.8) |
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 17.0 | 13.1 | 13.6 | 12.0 | 12.9 | 12.2 | 11.6 | 11.1 | 12.7 | 13.4 | 15.3 | 17.7 | 162.6 |
Average rainy days (≥ 0.2 mm) | 4.5 | 3.9 | 7.1 | 10.1 | 12.8 | 12.2 | 11.6 | 11.1 | 12.7 | 12.6 | 10.4 | 5.8 | 114.8 |
Average snowy days (≥ 0.2 cm) | 16.0 | 11.9 | 9.5 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.4 | 7.6 | 15.2 | 65.6 |
Average relative humidity (%) | 74.0 | 72.1 | 73.0 | 72.5 | 74.9 | 79.6 | 82.4 | 86.8 | 87.6 | 83.4 | 81.9 | 79.8 | 79.0 |
Mean monthly sunshine hours | 101.2 | 129.8 | 159.8 | 189.4 | 230.3 | 253.3 | 276.8 | 246.7 | 171.5 | 136.7 | 83.6 | 82.0 | 2,061.1 |
citation needed |
I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey WhatamIdoing; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
How interesting -- I had no idea there was a toolserver to parse active & non-active page watchers. Thanks. As for my 750, I just relied on my mistaken memory. In any event, I was surprised when no comments were posted for almost 5 days. – S. Rich ( talk) 00:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you just reverted my deletion of dead wikilinks in an article. first conversation I've had about this on wikipedia. IMO red links are a sign of draft-ness - unprofessional (for lack of a better term at the moment) for an actual, published encyclopedia, and they should be deleted whenever they appear. I have had a sense that others use them as per your edit note -- as reminders of content that need to be created. I get that. My sense is that there are different styles at play here. Is there some kind of policy or guideline on this? Thx. Jytdog ( talk) 14:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I had already revived Eleassar's work on inheritance. Now it's there twice? DMacks ( talk) 17:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for helping us with this link Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. With it I have found heart rate which needs serious review. It is written only in a sport point of view and can make people afraid. Many references seem to me questionable. I'll try to make this article better. Doc Elisa ✉ 07:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " Jozef van Wissem".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 09:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Josef van WissemPlease note that I filed a DR request: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jozef van Wissem. Please comment there. Thanks.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Need a programI need a java script that would hide on my watchlist any edits related to infoboxs or those involved with them - Is this possible - dont want to end up going crazy like this ..... I am losing it at Talk:Robert Stoepel#Infobox proposal - LOL - ROLF. Moxy ( talk) 09:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Motion to close RFC/UYou have previously commented on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Niemti. As an outside editor, I have moved that this RFC/U be closed. If you wish to comment on the Motion to close, please do so here. Fladrif ( talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC) A question about some content you added/editedSee Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedians#Maths.3F. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Help pleaseSay, could you take a look at the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. India does not allow the name of rape victims to be published however in this case both the victim and her parents said that they did not object. We have a reference for that. Her name is now being used in the UK, US, and elsewhere, except for India. See the talk page, second section re Jyoti's name and to save time scroll down to the April postings. Not using the name makes the article sound awkward and perhaps even lacking in respect for the victim. Since a decision for the use of her name seemed to be stalled, and thinking that at least some Indian news sources were now using her name, yesterday I did a trial and used her name in the lead. Editor Paris instantly responded and I reverted. S/he seems to be knowledgeable but the other editor, 007, seems to be as well. Would you have any advice here? Gandydancer ( talk) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Move discussionAt Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 1#Requested_move. -- Lexein ( talk) 06:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Hello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Message added 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. howto in relation to practical information - amazon topicCould you please clarify? Howto is explaining or directing of how to do something. And i'm mentioning about including practical information, in which no explaining or directing how to do something is included. Example: very high number of people who has posted feedbacks on amazon has indicated that d-mannose resulted in miracleous cures for bladder infection. In such a case we don't say that it actually provides cure, but we rather state the facts on the ground. Ryanspir ( talk) 17:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
RS/N DiscussionHello WhatamIdoing! I started a discussion on Venezuela's most-circulated newspaper and I noticed that you are one of the most active users on RS/N discussion board. I was hoping that you would be able to help out and contribute some of your expertise? :) Thanks for any assistance you can provide! Justiciero1811 ( talk) 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Breast Cancer content disputeJmh649 and I do not agree. He states that I can not use this Cochrane Collaboration (CC) web page [ [6]], last updated Oct 20122, as a reference to support the quote "Screening produces patients with breast cancer from among healthy women who would never have developed symptoms of breast cancer. Treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying, e.g. from heart disease and cancer. It therefore no longer seems reasonable to attend for breast cancer screening. In fact, by avoiding going to screening, a woman will lower her risk of getting a breast cancer diagnosis. However, despite this, some women might still wish to go to screening." Zad says the pamphlet referred to on that web page (linked) says Draft, but it's not ("Draft") when you print it out. We don't need the pamphlet anyway, given the CC statement on their web page. The difference is huge (look at the current text). Mammography is no not recommended at any age. Heck, that was on the national news several months age, which is why I long ago looked into the supporting facts (CC) and tried to update Wikipedia. I worked with Jmh and made corrections / additions. Quickly deleted by another editor, see history. I feel Jmh649 does great harm to Wikipedia, smacking of conflict of interest. 32cllou ( talk) 20:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Breastfeeding articleHi there, would you please have a look at the Breast feeding article's HIV section? It seems to be much too involved for the article and I wonder if it should either have its own article or be moved to the Breastfeeding difficulties article. (I wrote a little on the talk page.) What do you think? I asked Doc James and he agreed split or something. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Quick note re: RfC templateSorry, late reply. WykiP ( talk) 11:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I would very much appreciate your help (and talk page lurkers too) in drafting a new policy to deal with assignments, particularly student. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Assignments (student editing) and the draft at Wikipedia:Assignments. Thanks. Colin° Talk 10:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh hey thereThis was an interesting conversation, and it had the potential to become a lot more productive, since it appeared that a few of the right people were participating. I know professors often assign students to participate in online communities of various types, and WP is the biggest and most information-rich environment online. I'm sure that even for professors who don't assign such things, the temptation is enormous. Suggestion: WMF, WEF and the community work together to get on top of the situation, and steer it in a manner that is beneficial to Wikipedia in the form of a Wikiproject. Put someone in charge of it, give that person an attractive title and some other perks. Gather volunteers, and assign them to run a "help desk" for college students who are editing articles as part of a class assignment.Once that's all set up, reach out to certain universities that have a good reputation and a strong online presence, and offer to host their students for a few assignments. Rather than letting professors turn their classes loose on us, we control the situation and steer them in the right, constructive directions. We also create a policy requiring such classes to work through the Wikiproject rather than on their own, at the risk of being blocked. Wikipedia improves, we probably get some new editors in the long term (after their assignments are finished), professors start to respect us a little more (maybe), and the entire process works in a manner that is constructive. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 17:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You can vote there. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Thank youThank you for looking into my problem on the village pump about my edits on Books LLC. I really couldn't understand why Rklawton was accusing me of being in an edit war and threatening me with banning. Well, actually I still don't, since I wasn't and haven't ever. But it was such a relief to hear someone else confirm what I thought had to be so, that this was a damned peculiar definition of edit war and that my edit, which Rklawton reverted, was neither unfactual nor unjustified. I was particularly impressed at how you found out that Rklawton was in fact a Wikipedia Admin (which does nothing to ease my worry, but is useful to know). I have no idea if there is anything I can do about this. But at least I am over my initial feeling of helpless horror and shock, thanks in large part to your matter-of-fact post. Thank you. Artemis-Arethusa ( talk) 09:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing, I had to remove the statement about "faultless victims" etc in the article since the source you gave did not contain anything about it. -- 95.118.36.4 ( talk) 12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
TalkbackHello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at
TheOriginalSoni's talk page.
Message added 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) bisphenolThere is no way in hell I am going to rewrite the tox section of the article. Gandydancer is very invested in the work she did there and she already thinks I am creepy or something as per discussion between her and others on her Talk page concerning work we were doing on the BP article, from which I have withdrawn (see here and surrounding edits. So I am going to take it very slow on the bisphenol page and deal with content that exists piece by piece. She and I work on overlapping articles so I have no desire to further antagonize her, as I don't like people to be upset because of things I do and because bad relationships make it harder to do work on wikipedia. But the article as it stands is a train wreck (as per comments by other editors on the MEDRS talk page) and I want to fix it. Jytdog ( talk) 11:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Visual editorIs this similar to the thing that is deployed at Wikia? And does it function better than the thing at Wikia? -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor and FlowYou wrote:
Actually, the entire talkpage system will be replaced with a system called Flow. The documentation page is here. Flow will be released before VE according to this, which means in a month or two. Incidentally, you might want to advertise Flow, since NO ONE seems to have heard of it, even though it's an enormous change. -- Ypnypn ( talk) 03:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way at all to stop them from making all these huge changes? I'm afraid my reaction is to step back from communicating with other editors unless they seek me out - I can't deal with the weird form of threading MediaWiki prefers and learning things like getting interwikis onto WikiData is taking all the time I could devote to schmoozing. With a new system replacing talkpages I'm afraid I don't think I'll be able to welcome people or help them out nearly as much because of the learning demanded. Also, it is demonstrating again and again that the developers just don't care about editors, only about new, new, new. It's too much, they respond arrogantly when we explain on the Village Pump that we were not told about the latest change or that it is having an unfortunate side effect (latest instance - failing to realize IPs need the orange bar or some other highly noticeable sign so they can be made aware of warnings before someone blocks them), and I'm not persuaded of the usefulness of 90% of it. Sorry to unload, but your post at WikiProject Trains was the first I'd heard of "Oh by the way talk pages are going away". Rah, rah. New! Exciting! I don't think I'll bother complaining anywhere else - but if there is any way to get them to STOP, please! Get them to STOP!!!!! It's hurting the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
WPPThank you for your words and participation, the project has attracted some interest despite not being really announced. With the grudge that they have against me, the best thing I can do is ignore their editing areas for now. The effort to disrupt and drive off supporters is a part of the goal and I will not feed that fire further. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 04:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to be sureWhatamIdoing, just to make sure I haven't left any wrong impressions, our friendly discussion at wp:rs was a reminder that I wanted to bring up FAQ's at the talk page guidelines, but was NOT the reason for it. Also, the title of the thread at wp:talk page guidelines is NOT applicable to this situation. Both the original text and your revised text that I was advocating dropping were and are purely good faith efforts to provide useful advice. Also, I left that thread at wp:rs about two weeks ago, considering the end result to be OK if not ideal. I should have been clearer on that. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
TalkbackHello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at
Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace.
Message added 00:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Unforgettableid ( talk) 00:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
You beat me to the punchHah! I was going to start building out a version of mw:Flow Portal on enwiki tomorrow (which is my WFH day). But you beat me to the punch. I'm going to go ahead and start moving content in. Thanks!-- Jorm (WMF) ( talk) 22:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
AwesomesauceThat comparisons table is just magnificent. Thank you!-- Jorm (WMF) ( talk) 20:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
My bad.Madam, I can explain, but I cannot deny. Please accept my apology. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 21:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Help with another matterI wondered if you could help me with another matter. I ask you the following reluctantly. If I have a complaint about another Wikipedia contributor, where do I turn? There is another Wikipedian who makes minor changes and occasionally major changes because of something like an idée fixe that animates him (I think it is a him) to concentrate his editorial fire on occupational health psychology as it appears in the entry and as it appears in the applied psychology entry. I have asked him on his talk page a number of times to discuss edits but he doesn't respond. I think it was he who had a similar bent back in January under a different name. What can I do? Thanks. Iss246 ( talk) 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Earlier I included a link to his talk page after I fixed one of his many changes to an entry. The link is in my comment on reversing a change. Iss246 ( talk) 01:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
edit summariesPlease be more cautious in using edit summaries [7] -- I'm pretty sure that particular discussion is well beyond lame. NE Ent 11:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
TalkbackHello, WhatamIdoing. You have new messages at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
Message added 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Re: RfC/UJudging from the RfC/U Talk page, you're the "go to" person for questions like this one. I'm trying to start an RfC/U regarding User:Xenophrenic. The main allegations are that he's tendentious and a POV-pusher. There's already substantial support from at least four different editors. The two certifiers are myself and User:Malke 2010, and we've posted diffs of our efforts to resolve the matter with Xeno on the Talk page of Tea Party movement (where this long simmering dispute came to a boil). Actually I've been encountering Xeno and his editing habits on several articles related to U.S. poli tics for years, starting out with Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009. This has reached the point of Xeno edit-warring over whether the RfC/U meets the minimum requirements, repeatedly moving the RfC/U up to "Candidate pages" from "Certified pages" on the UsersList: [8] Please review the RfC/U and the diffs provided. If he's correct, and it doesn't meet the minimum requirements, please let me know what the problem is — with a note on my User Talk page. If I'm correct, and it does meet the minimum requirements, please let Xeno know on his User Talk page. Thanks ... Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Mrm7171I appreciate your encouraging words to Mrm7171 today. Iss246 ( talk) 02:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: ListsHello, JAWS reads the lists separately, like so: "Definition list of 1 items, Rose colors, list end; list of 2 items, bullet white rose, bullet red rose, list end". NVDA also reads them separately, but doesn't distinguish between the two types of list. Graham 87 00:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Seneca Valley virusHi, I undid a change you made on the Seneca Valley virus-001 page, I started a discussion on the talk page if you'd like to discuss it further. Viraltonic ( talk) 13:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
|