![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
![]() | |
magic tools | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 584 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Especially precious: your explanation of what an infobox does for people such as vision-impaired, dyslexic, struggling with English and others, who are all readers, - summary "Perhaps we should spend more time thinking about our average reader, rather than our ideal one.". If you don't mind I would like to quote it on the cabal's page. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Four years now, - quoted, but still needed, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thank you WAID, [1] sometimes it might go "unsaid" by me, but you make a great difference (because of your humanity),,,,,oz-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best-- John Cline ( talk) 17:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Re: "I recently ran across an AFC volunteer who was telling editors that non-independent sources, e.g., an "About our staff" webpage used to support the name of a CEO, were never permitted on Wikipedia. I should follow up to see whether he understood the message that I left him."
(in an unrelated VP discussion) - Please see
this and discussion
here. I have encountered many similar cases.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Got an email today (now hiding my email because of this) ...As i dont want to be involved with this problem. Someone is asking me why all these are being removed. My reply was straight forward....i said they need to bring this up on each talk page...they replied they dont want to be involved with this editor because of pass problems. I when on to explain there is no need for the boxes in such small articles so there really is no need to talk things out. I think we should just keep an eye-out on the articles just in cases there is a problem.....i have no interest in the articles in question ...but think there may be a problem if the person that emailed me does not take my advice to let it be. -- Moxy ( talk) 18:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link). We should also look at problems raised by those that dont like them ...for instance the huge amount of wikicode of an infobox at the top of a page "may" discourages editing.....could this not be solve by the infoboxe being at the bottom and simply trascluded to the top. I think before any community wide RfC we should have some data to present for each side and have proposed solutions for problems like wikicode. Will get back to you on this in a bit. --
Moxy (
talk)
15:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, the non MEDRS brain sex claims are back on the intersex page again, posted by the same user. Trankuility ( talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. A discussion that you were previously involved in at Template talk:Third-party § Wording has new comments. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 19:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You have restored my faith in the capacity to have well explained responses to things. I do really think that the maritime mess is a brilliant example where all the well intentioned principles have failed though, over the 10 years. cheers and thanks for the response, if we ever meet in real life. remind I owe your a beer/coffee whatever. cheers JarrahTree 06:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing,
Another user and I have gotten into a bit of a disagreement about the intention of
BRD policy. It has reached the point where the other user created an administrative incident report out of it
here. This other user and I are simply deadlocked in our disagreement about what BRD is supposed to be. I have noticed that you have made the last major edit to the BRD policy page, and that you are still actively editing WP to this day. I was wondering if you might be able to help us both to better understand the intention of BRD by commenting on our little
administrative incident report, so that we might both be able to better understand its intended purpose?
Thanks kindly,
Scott P. (
talk)
00:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
Thank you for your impact | |
---|---|
in
explaining gently why different readers should be offered the same information in different ways! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
As said above, I included it in the related project talk of QAI. DYK that its talk is up for deletion? And I thought the infobox wars were over ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Gerda, have you ever read Wikipedia:Canvassing? generally considered disruptive behavior... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, please don't comment there. Stay away from the topic, ignore that it exists. I only meant to ask if you know how [insert polite word] ... it is. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Regarding your remark about self-reporting [2], I was unable to find the policy. Could you help out and give me a link? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello! A number of edits have been made on the section that you marked as requiring copy editing, some by me. If you found the time to review it and provide additional suggestions on the talk page or tags, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for the work you have already done on that article and many others. 64.72.65.120 ( talk) 04:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
After 5 years of unstructured discussion since ACTRIAL, a dedicated venue has been created for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also being composed to develop recommendations for necessary changes to policies and related software. It is 'not an RfC, it is a call for genuinely interested users who have significant experience in these areas to join a truly proactive work group. There is some reading to be done before signing up. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:55, 24 September 2016
Hi there, a couple of weeks ago, you commented as part of the discussion on renaming this page, "There might be some value in pausing this discussion, re-writing the page properly, and then re-discussing the ideal page title". I am interested in finding out what, specifically, you mean by this? I am not entirely happy with the page in its current form (amongst other things, the surgical content still reads one-sided to me, a fact that I accept in part because of the additions relating to human rights and lack of clinical consensus), and the consequences of surgery still typically focus on immediate post-surgical issues, rather than longer term consequences of anatomical changes. But I also want to reduce the content on the Intersex page, consolidating some of the material on Intersex surgery. I would appreciate any thoughts or insights you have, now that the current name change proposal has lapsed due to a lack of consensus. Thank you. Trankuility ( talk) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you might be interested in this discussion as you provide arguments for the last one. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 10:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The New York Times (New York). Since you had some involvement with the The New York Times (New York) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 08:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing, a few years ago you said, on a talk page about a sourcing guideline for articles classed as medical, in response to a point of mine about it appearing to reword core NPOV guidelines, "EverSince, I know that you're heavily involved in anti-psychiatry issues, but even in psychiatry, most of the "reliable sources on the subject" have been written by the "experts in the field," particularly when we're talking about basic medical/scientific facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)" I know it's a long time later (though other comments have been made since) but could you clarify what you mean by that? Replying here would be fine. Eversync ( talk) 02:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Ozzie10aaaa ( talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
WAID, Happy Holidays/New Year!-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Good work on the article American Time Use Survey Devopam ( talk) 11:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hey WAID
So when one edits a reference with VE it moves a bunch of stuff around, adds empty parameters, and adds quotes around the ref name such as is seen here [11].
Anything we can do to get it to stop doing this?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
|last=
(or whatever) as a recommended field, then it will be added. However, that generally helpful behavior is not helpful in the example you've linked. A future version of TemplateData, which will give us a way to say that |last=
is basically the same as |vauthors=
, will solve that problem.![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
You asked to be pinged if anyone was interested in the non-free content issue. I have been trying for months to get help on this subject on Meta. See:
We have a very small community, and the few really competent Ladino speakers do not have time to write an EDP in Ladino. But I think I can get them to translate one if we have one in English. All I'm really looking to do here is to apply the policy from English Wikipedia to Ladino Wikipedia. (Caveat: Ladino is, of course, no country's main language. But based on the location of Ladino speakers, it's possible that Israeli or Turkish law might have to be taken into consideration. I'm no expert on that.)
Can you help me (or get me some help)? (Also, please let me know if I should have addressed this to your WMF username.) Thanks in advance. StevenJ81 ( talk) 17:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
StevenJ81: Just thought I'd add my two cents' worth, since I got pinged. WhatamIdoing mentioned this is no small amount of work, but I don't think it has to be that bad. Translating the English Wikipedia's full
non-free content guidelines would be a lot of work, but all you really need to meet the
requirements is the core
non-free content criteria and a machine-readable way to identify fair use content. For the latter, I'd suggest transferring and translating {{
Non-free fair use}}
and {{
Non-free use rationale}}
. That's really all you need to be able to be compliant with respect to non-free content.
You'll also want to decide on whether or not to host free content, and I'd recommend against it. If you do decide to host free content, it must have source, authorship and licensing information. Files that don't have that and which won't be covered by any acceptable EDP, such as lad:File:Betahayim marrakesh.jpg and lad:File:Esnoga de marrakesh.jpg, will have to be deleted. (The first one is taken from https://www.flickr.com/photos/87762368@N00/2625423666 and should just be uploaded to Commons in full resolution with proper information, and the second seems to be a copyright violation from The Jerusalem Post.) — LX ( talk, contribs) 21:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
{{int:upload}}
. This code will automatically translate that phrase into whatever language the user has set in their preferences, which means that it's guaranteed to match the exact label for that link in the sidebar. (It will say "Upload file" for you here.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
16:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@
LX,
Hammersoft, and
WhatamIdoing: Update: About halfway through the comment period now, no comments.
Separately, I ported over three templates ({{
Non-free fair use}}, {{
Non-free use rationale}}, {{
Non-free use rationale logo}}), along with two infrastructure templates ({{
Non-free media}}, {{
File other}}). I've placed them at
lad:File:El Al logo.jpg and
lad:Hatuna meuheret.jpg. So far, so good, but they have created one red category whose creation I don't understand, and they failed to inhibit a different red category that I assumed would go away when I added the templates. So if anyone can further help me with that I'd appreciate it.
StevenJ81 (
talk)
17:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your assistance. There were no comments at all through January, so I have published this as being adopted as policy. It will take me a few more days to get all of the images properly documented, but I think we're in good shape now. (@ Guillom, I'd still appreciate help in managing the maintenance categories, if you can.) StevenJ81 ( talk) 16:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I want to close this out so that User:WhatamIdoing, who so graciously hosted this discussion, can close it and archive it. I just deleted the last file of questionable provenance on ladwiki, so we're now completely in compliance.
As far as the metadata goes, importantly the category showing that all license/copyright issues are accounted for (one way or the other) is also correct. Some of the other metadata (like author data) isn't, but for these purposes I'm far less worried about that. Thanks to all for your assistance. StevenJ81 ( talk) 15:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Famous web search engine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Oliverrushton ( talk) 19:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
21:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]()
| |
---|---|
Women Philosophers &
Women in Education online editathons ![]() |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 11:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
For your patience in explaining clearly and without rancor the lack of automatic technical or artistic superiority of one method of capturing a human image over another. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
As a top contributor to medical-related articles on Wikipedia, I was curious as to what your credentials are. Do you have a medical doctorate? 2601:285:201:F6F0:1032:1E72:4174:E76B ( talk) 01:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Codename Lisa (
talk)
07:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
you should really read articles, before linking them into a discussion.
Lx 121 ( talk) 20:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
i'm not even going to bother explaining what-all is wrong with your "colour thesis"; but try reading wp:accuracy, wp:npov, & maybe some articles on the physics of colours, human visual perception, the subjectivity of art, & the colour-decay of paint-pigments for a start.
then explain to me how you can prove that painting-x, by artist-y:
a) wasintended to accurately reproduce exactly the colours of the subject, clothing, scene; rather than just "making it look nice.
b) that artist-x did so with your cited "colour of money" level of precision (& btw american money is not exactly a polychromatic wonder.
&
c) that the colours have not decayed over time.
then come up with your rationale for why it is ok to go with the pretty, heroic paintings of people that you "like", such as american presidents; but not for "bad people", like hitler, stalin, lenin, mao, saddam hussein, & the kims of north korea?
or if you want to limit it to b&w photography; hitler, lenin, stalin, mussolini, etc. & the 1st 1 or 2 kims of n.k.
because all of them have nice, pretty, heroic paintings, that show them "at their prime" & in "full colour".
so according to your thesis, & on the princple of npov, surely their "official portraits" should be given lede as well?
& your nice little comment about blocking me because you don't like how i format my talkpage comments rather nicely demonstrates what is wrong with vaguely-worded wikipedia policies, thanks.
Lx 121 ( talk) 21:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You've so far made a decent case for suggesting that all "heroic" portraits, regardless of medium, being somewhat non-neutral/overly flattering. But you've not convinced me that photographs are always accurate (even if we don't know anything about the photo's creation or manipulation), and you've not convinced me that paintings are always inaccurate (especially when we have a source that says it's in the realism school). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I've replied to you at WP:V correcting your misconceptions about the sources at the Jacob Barnett article. It would be helpful if you acknowledged those there, rather than plowing ahead in the article under discussion as if there were consensus to implement these changes. I have added references to secondary sources, with a quotation, containing the exact phrase "This video does not exist." I assume this satisfies your WP:V objection that there are no such secondary sources. And fwiw, the existence of the article in question is rests mostly on the fact that sometimes "child posts video on the internet" can be a sufficient condition for notability under our guidelines. There have been two AfDs where this was established to the community's sayisfaction, however we might disagree with the conclusion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
[13] [14] Just so you know. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 01:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I see you found the announcements page. Feel free to promote WPMED-related activities there if you want to. It's a nifty feature that could do with more use. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing. Funcrunch has proposed creating a transgender/nonbinary task force, and I thought it might be an opportunity to create a small intersex task force as well. Would you be interested in commenting? Thanks! Trankuility ( talk) 03:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for the suggestions! Jackiekoerner ( talk) 00:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC) |
I'm contacting you because you participated in this proposal discussion. While the proposal was approved, it has not received developer action. The request is now under consideration as part of the 2017 Developer Wishlist, with voting open through the end of day on Tuesday (23:59 UTC). The latter link describes the voting process, if you are interested. — swpb T 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Back in November we had a quick discussion ( here) about creating a table similar to m:Research:Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Stub prediction table, but for Start-class articles. I've now written a tool that makes that job easy. Do you have a particular place you want me to create the table? Cheers, Nettrom ( talk) 01:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding our interaction here: I attempted to provide some context here. Best Regards, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grade rationing. Since you had some involvement with the Grade rationing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. Frankly, I love the stuff you posted here [15] and think that should all be in the article (very interesting tidbits!) Next time it goes up for a FAC please email me and I will post a review again. Thank you! (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 13:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 19:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Iam done with this pages update. Was missing alot about the pages themselves and there content. Can i get you took take a look see if the wording and view is correct in your mind. For some odd reason this policy page unlike the others I edit seems to have noone following it....I usually get lots of feedback as I go. I made the changes to the description of types of pages based on this edit you did. Love some help....for some strange reason the past few years has seen a huge drop off in people updating these pages. -- Moxy ( talk) 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't write/respond much. You may wanna look at Dank's comments re VE crashing on talk page of my sandbox Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I am about spent. (I'm giving up.) Lead a horse to water, and all that. As I say in closing there, today, were this discussion ongoing anywhere but here at WP, the matter, as clear as the matter is at its core, things would have quickly been settled. In this case, I think no one wants to take on the chef de ré·sis·tance, and so status quo will remain. Maybe for this, like other of our closeted skeleta, it will take the secret—of our allowing self-publication of medical images—getting out, and the scientific and popular press having a field day, before anything changes.
Otherwise, regarding the matter of unsourced vs. unverifiable. As this was a separate, larger matter from the rest of what we tried to cover at WProj Med, I moved this discussion here.
For most intents and purposes, unsourced means unverifiable. Short of chucking whole sections of content that are unsourced, who really has time to check to see if all content is factually correct? At least with sourcing, we have a slim hope of verifiability for the highest profile articles. But even there, no sources, no hope, it's all "just trust us." So practically speaking, I believe the two terms are synonymous, for the most expert and busiest of our editors. And these are the folks that matter the utmost, for the continued health of the place—their (including your) continuing, and attracting others like-minded/spirited to come on board.
By the by, I would offer an educated guess that the demise of your television, and the health of your homelife (and your levelheadedness in extracurricular discussions) are, on some level, correlating phenomena. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 04:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't do that, I don't speak English .... put you on the talk page, to change name title and If you need to write what I wrote ( Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 55#Title)
I'm sorry if you do not understand, I have used Google Translate -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 12:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2016 Cure Award |
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
My small change to a template seems to have caused a small problem at 2 pages...this needs to be addressed. Odd that it took so long for the problem to arise since the change..how can we make this more clear.....we link to WP:CON that explains that all these Page's have the same status as an essay....but I guess the template is not clear on that. What do you think is best here. This does not effect that many pages...as its the cat with the least amount of pages in it. -- Moxy ( talk) 15:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Pls see Wikipedia talk:Project namespace#Supplemental pages.
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You were involved in the previous discussion about cross-wiki search results, so I invite you to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why RFC is unnecessary, but I removed it as you wished me to. BTW, I already notified some related WikiProjects about the discussion, so that should suffice. If RFC is unnecessary, but no one else participates, how else would others know about one discussion without notification? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit with summary "Clarify the person you're supposed to be discussing things with" though this was never in any question in my mind. Its possible we see things differenty the moment a 3rd party enters the D, but for the nutshell, I do think your clarification might help newbies. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know anything about becoming an administrator for the ht wikipedya and remembered you mentioning it sometime in the past. I am not sure what djames question is about. Can you hold my hand through the becoming-an-administrator-process?
Out of all the womens health topics, you would have thought that pain managment during childbirth would have been written years ago. Thanks for the image.
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Serious Hazards of Transfusion, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
PRehse ( talk) 06:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I've been pretty happy about the time that I've been able to put into the ht wikipedya but have some slight concerns that you probably already know about. First of all, a lot of the articles that I would like to translate have referencing problems. I haven't followed the continuing development of MEDRS but my impression is that most med articles were written before MEDRS and now a lot of medical editors are playing catch-up to bring the references up-to-date. I've done this for a few articles. The one that comes to mind is MRSA. I had to literally 'scrub' the article from all primary sources. Jtydog was very active in this edit-a-thon and we worked together very nicely. But it took a lot of effort. I keep looking at articles that I want to translate and see that the referencing is not very good. Breastfeeding comes to mind, for example. Gestational diabetes is another. Do you think this is just because there are not enough of us to keep up with all the updating of references? I really don't like to translate an article unless, at least, the referencing is good. Are my standards too high?
Second concern - I hesitate to add more content to the ht wikipedya because there is still no admin in place that can block vandals from removing all the content that I have translated. I don't want to see the hours (days really) of work disappear in just a few hours. I know you are working on that. I guess I just wanted to explain why I have delayed adding more content. Keep up the good work.
You mentioned that many med articles do not exclusively contain medical content. I have come up with a set of search aids that take your observation into account. See the talk page of Breastfeeding difficulties and tell me what you think.
Hey WAID the software is adding hardspaces on its own such as in this edit [20]
Can you have this looked into? Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Serious Hazards of Transfusion at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ―
Biochemistry🙴❤
20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I was considering asking for a topic ban with regards to our dear friend at WT:V, but after having approached two editors about it, one deleted my comment without responding and the other said they didn't feel they could support such an action at this time. I note that they've been rather quiet for the past couple of days, but I wonder whether that simply means that when they return, it will be with a vengeance. In any case, just wanted you to know that if you're considering such an action, you're not alone in that consideration. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Trusttri ( talk) 03:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
On 13 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Serious Hazards of Transfusion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the UK organization Serious Hazards of Transfusion discourages hospitals from using some blood products donated by women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Serious Hazards of Transfusion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Serious Hazards of Transfusion), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Alex Shih Talk 00:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, about resolving questions not resolved in the earlier RfC. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 17:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I was going over recent changes on the ht wikipedya and found this. I think I might know what this page is about, but I am not sure if I have a role in it. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
![]() | |
magic tools | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 584 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Especially precious: your explanation of what an infobox does for people such as vision-impaired, dyslexic, struggling with English and others, who are all readers, - summary "Perhaps we should spend more time thinking about our average reader, rather than our ideal one.". If you don't mind I would like to quote it on the cabal's page. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Four years now, - quoted, but still needed, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thank you WAID, [1] sometimes it might go "unsaid" by me, but you make a great difference (because of your humanity),,,,,oz-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best-- John Cline ( talk) 17:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Re: "I recently ran across an AFC volunteer who was telling editors that non-independent sources, e.g., an "About our staff" webpage used to support the name of a CEO, were never permitted on Wikipedia. I should follow up to see whether he understood the message that I left him."
(in an unrelated VP discussion) - Please see
this and discussion
here. I have encountered many similar cases.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Got an email today (now hiding my email because of this) ...As i dont want to be involved with this problem. Someone is asking me why all these are being removed. My reply was straight forward....i said they need to bring this up on each talk page...they replied they dont want to be involved with this editor because of pass problems. I when on to explain there is no need for the boxes in such small articles so there really is no need to talk things out. I think we should just keep an eye-out on the articles just in cases there is a problem.....i have no interest in the articles in question ...but think there may be a problem if the person that emailed me does not take my advice to let it be. -- Moxy ( talk) 18:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link). We should also look at problems raised by those that dont like them ...for instance the huge amount of wikicode of an infobox at the top of a page "may" discourages editing.....could this not be solve by the infoboxe being at the bottom and simply trascluded to the top. I think before any community wide RfC we should have some data to present for each side and have proposed solutions for problems like wikicode. Will get back to you on this in a bit. --
Moxy (
talk)
15:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, the non MEDRS brain sex claims are back on the intersex page again, posted by the same user. Trankuility ( talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. A discussion that you were previously involved in at Template talk:Third-party § Wording has new comments. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 19:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You have restored my faith in the capacity to have well explained responses to things. I do really think that the maritime mess is a brilliant example where all the well intentioned principles have failed though, over the 10 years. cheers and thanks for the response, if we ever meet in real life. remind I owe your a beer/coffee whatever. cheers JarrahTree 06:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing,
Another user and I have gotten into a bit of a disagreement about the intention of
BRD policy. It has reached the point where the other user created an administrative incident report out of it
here. This other user and I are simply deadlocked in our disagreement about what BRD is supposed to be. I have noticed that you have made the last major edit to the BRD policy page, and that you are still actively editing WP to this day. I was wondering if you might be able to help us both to better understand the intention of BRD by commenting on our little
administrative incident report, so that we might both be able to better understand its intended purpose?
Thanks kindly,
Scott P. (
talk)
00:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
Thank you for your impact | |
---|---|
in
explaining gently why different readers should be offered the same information in different ways! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
As said above, I included it in the related project talk of QAI. DYK that its talk is up for deletion? And I thought the infobox wars were over ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Gerda, have you ever read Wikipedia:Canvassing? generally considered disruptive behavior... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, please don't comment there. Stay away from the topic, ignore that it exists. I only meant to ask if you know how [insert polite word] ... it is. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Regarding your remark about self-reporting [2], I was unable to find the policy. Could you help out and give me a link? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 21:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello! A number of edits have been made on the section that you marked as requiring copy editing, some by me. If you found the time to review it and provide additional suggestions on the talk page or tags, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for the work you have already done on that article and many others. 64.72.65.120 ( talk) 04:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
After 5 years of unstructured discussion since ACTRIAL, a dedicated venue has been created for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also being composed to develop recommendations for necessary changes to policies and related software. It is 'not an RfC, it is a call for genuinely interested users who have significant experience in these areas to join a truly proactive work group. There is some reading to be done before signing up. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 21:55, 24 September 2016
Hi there, a couple of weeks ago, you commented as part of the discussion on renaming this page, "There might be some value in pausing this discussion, re-writing the page properly, and then re-discussing the ideal page title". I am interested in finding out what, specifically, you mean by this? I am not entirely happy with the page in its current form (amongst other things, the surgical content still reads one-sided to me, a fact that I accept in part because of the additions relating to human rights and lack of clinical consensus), and the consequences of surgery still typically focus on immediate post-surgical issues, rather than longer term consequences of anatomical changes. But I also want to reduce the content on the Intersex page, consolidating some of the material on Intersex surgery. I would appreciate any thoughts or insights you have, now that the current name change proposal has lapsed due to a lack of consensus. Thank you. Trankuility ( talk) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you might be interested in this discussion as you provide arguments for the last one. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 10:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The New York Times (New York). Since you had some involvement with the The New York Times (New York) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 08:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello WhatamIdoing, a few years ago you said, on a talk page about a sourcing guideline for articles classed as medical, in response to a point of mine about it appearing to reword core NPOV guidelines, "EverSince, I know that you're heavily involved in anti-psychiatry issues, but even in psychiatry, most of the "reliable sources on the subject" have been written by the "experts in the field," particularly when we're talking about basic medical/scientific facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)" I know it's a long time later (though other comments have been made since) but could you clarify what you mean by that? Replying here would be fine. Eversync ( talk) 02:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Ozzie10aaaa ( talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
WAID, Happy Holidays/New Year!-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Good work on the article American Time Use Survey Devopam ( talk) 11:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
Hey WAID
So when one edits a reference with VE it moves a bunch of stuff around, adds empty parameters, and adds quotes around the ref name such as is seen here [11].
Anything we can do to get it to stop doing this?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
|last=
(or whatever) as a recommended field, then it will be added. However, that generally helpful behavior is not helpful in the example you've linked. A future version of TemplateData, which will give us a way to say that |last=
is basically the same as |vauthors=
, will solve that problem.![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
You asked to be pinged if anyone was interested in the non-free content issue. I have been trying for months to get help on this subject on Meta. See:
We have a very small community, and the few really competent Ladino speakers do not have time to write an EDP in Ladino. But I think I can get them to translate one if we have one in English. All I'm really looking to do here is to apply the policy from English Wikipedia to Ladino Wikipedia. (Caveat: Ladino is, of course, no country's main language. But based on the location of Ladino speakers, it's possible that Israeli or Turkish law might have to be taken into consideration. I'm no expert on that.)
Can you help me (or get me some help)? (Also, please let me know if I should have addressed this to your WMF username.) Thanks in advance. StevenJ81 ( talk) 17:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
StevenJ81: Just thought I'd add my two cents' worth, since I got pinged. WhatamIdoing mentioned this is no small amount of work, but I don't think it has to be that bad. Translating the English Wikipedia's full
non-free content guidelines would be a lot of work, but all you really need to meet the
requirements is the core
non-free content criteria and a machine-readable way to identify fair use content. For the latter, I'd suggest transferring and translating {{
Non-free fair use}}
and {{
Non-free use rationale}}
. That's really all you need to be able to be compliant with respect to non-free content.
You'll also want to decide on whether or not to host free content, and I'd recommend against it. If you do decide to host free content, it must have source, authorship and licensing information. Files that don't have that and which won't be covered by any acceptable EDP, such as lad:File:Betahayim marrakesh.jpg and lad:File:Esnoga de marrakesh.jpg, will have to be deleted. (The first one is taken from https://www.flickr.com/photos/87762368@N00/2625423666 and should just be uploaded to Commons in full resolution with proper information, and the second seems to be a copyright violation from The Jerusalem Post.) — LX ( talk, contribs) 21:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
{{int:upload}}
. This code will automatically translate that phrase into whatever language the user has set in their preferences, which means that it's guaranteed to match the exact label for that link in the sidebar. (It will say "Upload file" for you here.)
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
16:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@
LX,
Hammersoft, and
WhatamIdoing: Update: About halfway through the comment period now, no comments.
Separately, I ported over three templates ({{
Non-free fair use}}, {{
Non-free use rationale}}, {{
Non-free use rationale logo}}), along with two infrastructure templates ({{
Non-free media}}, {{
File other}}). I've placed them at
lad:File:El Al logo.jpg and
lad:Hatuna meuheret.jpg. So far, so good, but they have created one red category whose creation I don't understand, and they failed to inhibit a different red category that I assumed would go away when I added the templates. So if anyone can further help me with that I'd appreciate it.
StevenJ81 (
talk)
17:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all for your assistance. There were no comments at all through January, so I have published this as being adopted as policy. It will take me a few more days to get all of the images properly documented, but I think we're in good shape now. (@ Guillom, I'd still appreciate help in managing the maintenance categories, if you can.) StevenJ81 ( talk) 16:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I want to close this out so that User:WhatamIdoing, who so graciously hosted this discussion, can close it and archive it. I just deleted the last file of questionable provenance on ladwiki, so we're now completely in compliance.
As far as the metadata goes, importantly the category showing that all license/copyright issues are accounted for (one way or the other) is also correct. Some of the other metadata (like author data) isn't, but for these purposes I'm far less worried about that. Thanks to all for your assistance. StevenJ81 ( talk) 15:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Famous web search engine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Oliverrushton ( talk) 19:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller
talk is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk)
21:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]()
| |
---|---|
Women Philosophers &
Women in Education online editathons ![]() |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 11:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
For your patience in explaining clearly and without rancor the lack of automatic technical or artistic superiority of one method of capturing a human image over another. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
As a top contributor to medical-related articles on Wikipedia, I was curious as to what your credentials are. Do you have a medical doctorate? 2601:285:201:F6F0:1032:1E72:4174:E76B ( talk) 01:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Codename Lisa (
talk)
07:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
you should really read articles, before linking them into a discussion.
Lx 121 ( talk) 20:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
i'm not even going to bother explaining what-all is wrong with your "colour thesis"; but try reading wp:accuracy, wp:npov, & maybe some articles on the physics of colours, human visual perception, the subjectivity of art, & the colour-decay of paint-pigments for a start.
then explain to me how you can prove that painting-x, by artist-y:
a) wasintended to accurately reproduce exactly the colours of the subject, clothing, scene; rather than just "making it look nice.
b) that artist-x did so with your cited "colour of money" level of precision (& btw american money is not exactly a polychromatic wonder.
&
c) that the colours have not decayed over time.
then come up with your rationale for why it is ok to go with the pretty, heroic paintings of people that you "like", such as american presidents; but not for "bad people", like hitler, stalin, lenin, mao, saddam hussein, & the kims of north korea?
or if you want to limit it to b&w photography; hitler, lenin, stalin, mussolini, etc. & the 1st 1 or 2 kims of n.k.
because all of them have nice, pretty, heroic paintings, that show them "at their prime" & in "full colour".
so according to your thesis, & on the princple of npov, surely their "official portraits" should be given lede as well?
& your nice little comment about blocking me because you don't like how i format my talkpage comments rather nicely demonstrates what is wrong with vaguely-worded wikipedia policies, thanks.
Lx 121 ( talk) 21:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
You've so far made a decent case for suggesting that all "heroic" portraits, regardless of medium, being somewhat non-neutral/overly flattering. But you've not convinced me that photographs are always accurate (even if we don't know anything about the photo's creation or manipulation), and you've not convinced me that paintings are always inaccurate (especially when we have a source that says it's in the realism school). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I've replied to you at WP:V correcting your misconceptions about the sources at the Jacob Barnett article. It would be helpful if you acknowledged those there, rather than plowing ahead in the article under discussion as if there were consensus to implement these changes. I have added references to secondary sources, with a quotation, containing the exact phrase "This video does not exist." I assume this satisfies your WP:V objection that there are no such secondary sources. And fwiw, the existence of the article in question is rests mostly on the fact that sometimes "child posts video on the internet" can be a sufficient condition for notability under our guidelines. There have been two AfDs where this was established to the community's sayisfaction, however we might disagree with the conclusion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
[13] [14] Just so you know. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 01:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I see you found the announcements page. Feel free to promote WPMED-related activities there if you want to. It's a nifty feature that could do with more use. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing. Funcrunch has proposed creating a transgender/nonbinary task force, and I thought it might be an opportunity to create a small intersex task force as well. Would you be interested in commenting? Thanks! Trankuility ( talk) 03:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for the suggestions! Jackiekoerner ( talk) 00:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC) |
I'm contacting you because you participated in this proposal discussion. While the proposal was approved, it has not received developer action. The request is now under consideration as part of the 2017 Developer Wishlist, with voting open through the end of day on Tuesday (23:59 UTC). The latter link describes the voting process, if you are interested. — swpb T 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Back in November we had a quick discussion ( here) about creating a table similar to m:Research:Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Stub prediction table, but for Start-class articles. I've now written a tool that makes that job easy. Do you have a particular place you want me to create the table? Cheers, Nettrom ( talk) 01:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Regarding our interaction here: I attempted to provide some context here. Best Regards, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grade rationing. Since you had some involvement with the Grade rationing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
While I did not add additional comments since January 2017, I had been following the Acne FAC. I think it could be a FA someday, but still needs significant work. Frankly, I love the stuff you posted here [15] and think that should all be in the article (very interesting tidbits!) Next time it goes up for a FAC please email me and I will post a review again. Thank you! (just fyi: I am putting a similar note on a few user pages) -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 13:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- My Core Competency is Competency ( talk) 19:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Iam done with this pages update. Was missing alot about the pages themselves and there content. Can i get you took take a look see if the wording and view is correct in your mind. For some odd reason this policy page unlike the others I edit seems to have noone following it....I usually get lots of feedback as I go. I made the changes to the description of types of pages based on this edit you did. Love some help....for some strange reason the past few years has seen a huge drop off in people updating these pages. -- Moxy ( talk) 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't write/respond much. You may wanna look at Dank's comments re VE crashing on talk page of my sandbox Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I am about spent. (I'm giving up.) Lead a horse to water, and all that. As I say in closing there, today, were this discussion ongoing anywhere but here at WP, the matter, as clear as the matter is at its core, things would have quickly been settled. In this case, I think no one wants to take on the chef de ré·sis·tance, and so status quo will remain. Maybe for this, like other of our closeted skeleta, it will take the secret—of our allowing self-publication of medical images—getting out, and the scientific and popular press having a field day, before anything changes.
Otherwise, regarding the matter of unsourced vs. unverifiable. As this was a separate, larger matter from the rest of what we tried to cover at WProj Med, I moved this discussion here.
For most intents and purposes, unsourced means unverifiable. Short of chucking whole sections of content that are unsourced, who really has time to check to see if all content is factually correct? At least with sourcing, we have a slim hope of verifiability for the highest profile articles. But even there, no sources, no hope, it's all "just trust us." So practically speaking, I believe the two terms are synonymous, for the most expert and busiest of our editors. And these are the folks that matter the utmost, for the continued health of the place—their (including your) continuing, and attracting others like-minded/spirited to come on board.
By the by, I would offer an educated guess that the demise of your television, and the health of your homelife (and your levelheadedness in extracurricular discussions) are, on some level, correlating phenomena. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 04:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't do that, I don't speak English .... put you on the talk page, to change name title and If you need to write what I wrote ( Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 55#Title)
I'm sorry if you do not understand, I have used Google Translate -- SrpskiAnonimac ( talk) 12:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2016 Cure Award |
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
My small change to a template seems to have caused a small problem at 2 pages...this needs to be addressed. Odd that it took so long for the problem to arise since the change..how can we make this more clear.....we link to WP:CON that explains that all these Page's have the same status as an essay....but I guess the template is not clear on that. What do you think is best here. This does not effect that many pages...as its the cat with the least amount of pages in it. -- Moxy ( talk) 15:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Pls see Wikipedia talk:Project namespace#Supplemental pages.
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You were involved in the previous discussion about cross-wiki search results, so I invite you to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why RFC is unnecessary, but I removed it as you wished me to. BTW, I already notified some related WikiProjects about the discussion, so that should suffice. If RFC is unnecessary, but no one else participates, how else would others know about one discussion without notification? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit with summary "Clarify the person you're supposed to be discussing things with" though this was never in any question in my mind. Its possible we see things differenty the moment a 3rd party enters the D, but for the nutshell, I do think your clarification might help newbies. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know anything about becoming an administrator for the ht wikipedya and remembered you mentioning it sometime in the past. I am not sure what djames question is about. Can you hold my hand through the becoming-an-administrator-process?
Out of all the womens health topics, you would have thought that pain managment during childbirth would have been written years ago. Thanks for the image.
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Serious Hazards of Transfusion, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
PRehse ( talk) 06:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I've been pretty happy about the time that I've been able to put into the ht wikipedya but have some slight concerns that you probably already know about. First of all, a lot of the articles that I would like to translate have referencing problems. I haven't followed the continuing development of MEDRS but my impression is that most med articles were written before MEDRS and now a lot of medical editors are playing catch-up to bring the references up-to-date. I've done this for a few articles. The one that comes to mind is MRSA. I had to literally 'scrub' the article from all primary sources. Jtydog was very active in this edit-a-thon and we worked together very nicely. But it took a lot of effort. I keep looking at articles that I want to translate and see that the referencing is not very good. Breastfeeding comes to mind, for example. Gestational diabetes is another. Do you think this is just because there are not enough of us to keep up with all the updating of references? I really don't like to translate an article unless, at least, the referencing is good. Are my standards too high?
Second concern - I hesitate to add more content to the ht wikipedya because there is still no admin in place that can block vandals from removing all the content that I have translated. I don't want to see the hours (days really) of work disappear in just a few hours. I know you are working on that. I guess I just wanted to explain why I have delayed adding more content. Keep up the good work.
You mentioned that many med articles do not exclusively contain medical content. I have come up with a set of search aids that take your observation into account. See the talk page of Breastfeeding difficulties and tell me what you think.
Hey WAID the software is adding hardspaces on its own such as in this edit [20]
Can you have this looked into? Thanks Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Serious Hazards of Transfusion at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ―
Biochemistry🙴❤
20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I was considering asking for a topic ban with regards to our dear friend at WT:V, but after having approached two editors about it, one deleted my comment without responding and the other said they didn't feel they could support such an action at this time. I note that they've been rather quiet for the past couple of days, but I wonder whether that simply means that when they return, it will be with a vengeance. In any case, just wanted you to know that if you're considering such an action, you're not alone in that consideration. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 17:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Trusttri ( talk) 03:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
On 13 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Serious Hazards of Transfusion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the UK organization Serious Hazards of Transfusion discourages hospitals from using some blood products donated by women? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Serious Hazards of Transfusion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Serious Hazards of Transfusion), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Alex Shih Talk 00:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, about resolving questions not resolved in the earlier RfC. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 17:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I was going over recent changes on the ht wikipedya and found this. I think I might know what this page is about, but I am not sure if I have a role in it. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)