User talk:I enjoy sandwiches/Archive 19

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.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 5th century BC page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chemical shift

added a link pointing to Nucleus

The Unknown Known

added a link pointing to New Yorker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roux-en-Y anastomosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afferent. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We have compiled a list of guidance for new editors:

1. Use high quality sources for medical content. This is described at WP:MEDRS. High quality sources include review articles (note this is not the same as peer reviewed), position statements from national and internationally recognized bodies (think CDC, WHO, NICE, FDA, etc), and major medical textbooks. Lower quality sources may be removed.
2. References go after not before punctuation (see WP:MOS)
3. We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
4. Do not use the url from the inside net of your university library. The rest of the world cannot see it.
5. If you use textbooks we need page numbers.
6. Please format your references as explained at WP:MEDHOW or like the ones already in the article. This is simple once you get the PMID / ISBN.
7. Every sentence can be referenced. We reference more densely than other sources.
8. Never "copy and paste" from sources. We run copy and paste detection software on new edits.
9. Section order typically follows the instructions here at WP:MEDMOS
10. Please talk to us. Wikipedia works by collaboration and this takes place on the talk pages of both articles and user.

Again welcome and thank you for joining us.

P.S. Please share this with fellow new editors.

James Heilman a.k.a User:Doc James
MD, CCFP(EM), Wikipedian
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine
University of British Columbia

and

The Team at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Le Fort fracture of skull

added a link pointing to Lateral

Parapharyngeal space

added a link pointing to Alveolar nerve

Zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture

added a link pointing to Comminuted

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Re your revert - you are just negating the obvious - the 'arrangement' has to be the same for the cardiac notch only the difference in length is not marked enough to warrant its own 'name'. --Iztwoz (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You mention an excellent example which supports my point. Is the lung shaped like that to accommodate the heart, or is the heart shaped like that to accommodate the lung? There is no "obvious" answer about this. To actually answer that question you would have to trace back the evolutionary tree to show that one structure existed before the other, and then modified its shape over time through natural selection to "accommodate" the other organ.

The answer, per peer reviewed literature, is unknown for either the position of the right lung, or the indentation of the left (as far as I know) though certainly if you have a reference showing the relationship to be causal, please reintroduce the wording. We have to be very careful with language in describing anatomic relationships, to avoid suggesting causal relationships that are not there. Overall, it is a minor wording change, and if you feel very strongly about it, I do not really mind. Incidentally - thank you for your additional edits. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human lung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Costal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pelvic floor dysfunction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coronal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Just a reminder! Stephenb (Talk) 13:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Past computer crashes have resulted in multiple lost edits so I am resistant to this method, but I'll do my best. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Plumpy Humperdinkle,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Burch colposuspension for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Brian heim composer (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As I just wrote on Talk:Burch colposuspension, I made this judgment in error and have since removed the nomination for speedy delete. Sorry for the confusion! Regards, Brian heim composer (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bankart lesion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labrum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

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)

Hi, I removed the A10 speedy tag you placed on Big A sign and instead made the article a redirect to Big A Sign. Per WP:A10 if an article title is a plausible misspelling or alternate name for the duplicated article then it should be converted to a redirect instead of deleted. I'll admit I originally goofed on this one by redirecting it to Angel Stadium of Anaheim first instead of the correct target. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up KuyaBriBri. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. That's great news. Do you know what the uptake is like now? Is it becoming a standard part of diagnostic practice, or has it found its way into clinical guidelines yet? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Anthony, sure no problem -- it is the clinical standard of care in neuroradiology and at neurology specific centers in the United States (Barrow's, UCSF, etc) as imaging is not useful for the disease without SWI (ie. SWAN on GE magnets and 3D-FLASH on Siemens) or T2* sequences. I am not sure whether it has been included in published clinical guidelines, I will check it out and update when I have a moment. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I enjoy sandwiches. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 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 02:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I enjoy sandwiches. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pterostilbene, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Review Health effects of natural phenols and polyphenols; there is no sound in vivo evidence of pterostilbene having any biological activity or human relevance. Zefr (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. It does seem that there are a substantial number of secondary sources discussing its in vitro and animal work, but you're right the human data is lacking. I will reintroduce a qualified statement, I think being reviews they still fall under WP:MEDRS. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that source is a review of primary research, which is too vague, unconfirmed in humans, and unencyclopedic to include; WP:MEDANIMAL. It is not a useful MEDRS source, and is not worth mentioning in the article as "research in progress"; WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6-7. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, but I don't agree. There are several secondary sources out there summarizing a conglomerate of data, some of which is better than others -- this is a different situation than reporting a single study. I agree that effects have not been 'confirmed' in humans, and in I do not believe indicating this exact point to be a violation of WP:NOTJOURNAL. I'll try and update with a better sentence later to illustrate. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Today for many articles, you added content supported by alternative medicine sources, none of which are reliable. Alternative medicine is quackery - we don't cite such sources for medical content on the encyclopedia. Please don't do this. --Zefr (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are large blanket statements that I do not believe the consensus supports based on the articles I've seen here. I will be careful to discuss alternative medicine, but if it is accurately referenced by high quality peer reviewed sources I have difficulty seeing why it cannot be included on the site. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 5:36 pm, Today (UTC−8)

"High quality" and alt med are contradictory terms, just as "high-quality quackery" is an oxymoron. If quacks review each other's publications, that's peer review, but it's not good sourcing for the encyclopedia. Alt med sources don't meet the standards of WP:MEDREV and WP:MEDSCI - please review these as the quality needed. Another thing you can check is the journal's impact factor by a Google search (such as "The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" having an impact factor under 2) or reviewing this list of high-quality medical journals. For WP:MED, an impact factor greater than 2 is usually acceptable, but care is needed when choosing sources for herbal extracts, Ayurveda, etc. because such topics have not been investigated with high-quality clinical research or rigorous reviews, yet the articles are acceptable to journals with low standards. --Zefr (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a search engine to automatically up a specific article's impact factor (as in, how many times its been referenced by other articles) or a journal's overall impact factor? You mentioned a google search for the journal, but I remember there was a specific tool back in the day. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the best I know, but there are others. Click on Nature Reviews for its individual data. If I find something else, I'll post it here on your page. Good luck. --Zefr (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to follow up, that first link is fascinating. Very helpful. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You said: Is there an online tool that you use to determine whether an article is a reliable resource? I remember being able to evaluate an articles 'notability' using an automated search from back in the day, but can't recall the link. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No, just knowledge and experience. Best just to avoid using any alt med sources partially listed here. Beall's list contains predatory publishers and journals where alt med often appears. The article on herbalism and its See also section provide sources to avoid. --Zefr (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I have difficulty ignoring 'alternative medicine' if it is being discussed in a more mainstream journal because at it begs the question, at what point is it no longer alternative? I will try to be more discerning in my references though. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Came across WP:CRAPWATCH -- quite the list of unreliable journals, and of course for sources within Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself! Worthwhile to become generally familiar to avoid using them and warn others. Good work on HRT -- I'll return in steps to review and edit. --Zefr (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I follow discussions on your page, so we can continue this topic here. Further points for checking credibility of a journal: 1) when reading an abstract on PubMed, example here PMID 28863045, first establish that it is "Indexed to Medline" (lower left of abstract - that means the NLM has deemed the journal having sufficient literature presence to record it); 2) click on the journal title (upper left, example, Epidemiology) and click on Search in NLM catalog to retrieve bibliographic details, giving further evidence for credibility; 3) if not Medline indexed, with no NLM catalog or impact factor, I would conclude the journal is either obscure in history or origin, is not peer-reviewed, or is so new it is unestablished, and not a place where we would find WP:MEDSCI-quality sources. --Zefr (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Once again, much appreciated. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you keep your talk page blank? Are we allowed to do this? I noticed so many other editors seemed to keep archives, I thought it was expected of more experienced users. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OWNTALK - I like a clutter-free desk. Moving a discussion to the visitor's talk page allows that person to own it. Removing a discussion from mine acknowledges it's been read and answered. Keeping, moving or discarding is the owner's choice. --Zefr (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Has been listed as predatory so best to avoid it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, journals with high impact factors can still be poisoned. Thank you for the catch. Is there a bot or tool that can automatically highlight the citations from WP:CRAPWATCH? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No tool solution, but background here and here. Headbomb may shed light on screening and replacing MDPI sources. --Zefr (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

MDPI is borderline/questionable, rather than flat out predatory. I wouldn't dismiss something solely because it's published by MDPI, but I'd treat them as I would arXiv. Likely fine for routine information, acceptable for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff like establishing a claim of precedence if a discovery was published in an MDPI journal, but I wouldn't use them for establishing a 'breakthroughs' or WP:MEDRS claims. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take this into account with their publications. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Temporal bone cartoon.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronhjones The image is original work done by me. This has been extensively addressed. I gave OTRS permission when I uploaded it here locally using the Wikipedia interface. I also modified the file description to reflect that it is my original work in response to your notice. Let me know if something else is needed or if I did something wrong. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronhjones what do you feel this is a derivative from? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If you have OTRS permission, then tell me the ticket number(s) and I can add it to the image. I don't see one at User_talk:Doc_James#Photoshop_images. I do see the images in several places on the internet. If you think you have commons images deleted wrongly - let me know and I will look at undeleting them if shown to be incorrect (I'm admin there as well) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ron, my understanding is that I gave OTRS permission by clicking the box during the upload process to Wikipedia (not Wikicommons). I do not recall a ticket number that I received during this process. Would this be located in my edit history? Also, it is my understanding that I do not need to give OTRS permission as long as I created the image entirely by myself, so this may not even be an issue. Is this not correct? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No. OTRS is only done by going to c:COM:OTRS after uploading. I've now had a long look at the original, checked all the dates and sizes of various copies on the net and restored it c:File:Temporal bone - The Hungry Artist Multimedia.jpg Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. To clarify for future work, if I make an image entirely by myself, do I need to give OTRS permission? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

In theory no. However, we if see a painting or a drawing on commons, then it does tend to get tagged as a derivative. Commons always plays safe - c:COM:PCP. It does not hurt to use OTRS - everything sent is private. Just add {{tls:OP}} to the image if you do send in an e-mail, as the response time at OTRS is long - do add the full url of the image to the e-mail - that will allow KrdBot to read it and add "OTRS received" to the page (only works for commons images - I think). And as you noticed on commons, do not re-upload if deleted - those are flagged by a script and get deleted (usually by me) as "reuploads out of process" - undelete requests at c:COM:UDR Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Extremely helpful, thank you. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ruminococcus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vitamin K2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Concerning this edit, are these sources really reliable? Your new one is 'correspondence' with no content a typical user can read, and the other is a 2-case report. Based on WP:MEDASSESS (pyramid left), is it worth even mentioining this rare event mentioned in just two non-MEDRS sources? I challenged the edit the first time because I felt the content was too rare and weakly sourced to include (WP:WEIGHT). Whether lipoid pneumonia is a real risk seems unfounded and somewhat sensational. Considering again your restored content and refs, I'd say the same. Best regards. --Zefr (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fair. I guess I'm letting personal bias sneak in because I have seen it clinically and it was a part of the curriculum in medical school, but you're right even these references kind of suck. If I can't find a better reference I will remove the statement. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Would you like to review this choline draft article and suggest/make improvements to it? Parts of it could be incorparated to the existing choline article or vice versa. See also the talk page, if you are interested. 5-HT2AR (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the request. I'll try to give it a look but unfortunately I am extremely busy through the end of the year. Be bold, be humble, the encyclopedia can handle it. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med 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 thematic organization 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 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for having me. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The known unkown. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 6#The known unkown until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello again - these journals present a challenge for an editor to read the article and judge its data and reference quality with warning lights blinking in the background. It's not only negative factors of author payment-for-publication and weak or absent editorial purview, but too often there is wingnut content included in the article from pseudoscience, alternative medicine or supposed anti-disease mechanisms overinterpreted from in vitro studies. On occasions though, the content seems fine, particularly as noticed in some vaccine literature over the past year. I don't follow the general CITEWATCH landscape, which I'll leave to Headbomb as the expert and updater. IMO, best to apply skepticism and search Pubmed for a better review, sometimes provided in the right margin of a PMC article. Good luck. Zefr (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll follow up with Hb. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to explain why I reverted a change you made to Eileen Ryan. In this edit, you added a birth date, but you didn't cite a reliable source. Wikipedia has strict rules on content in biographies of living persons because this can impact real peoples' lives. Please be aware the many sites on the internet purport to give information about celebrities, but few of them of reliable. Sites like the IMDb use user-generated content, and they should not be cited in biographical articles. Similarly, celebrity gossip websites should not be used because most of them don't have a history of fact checking or publishing corrections. Fan sites and blogs are self-published and have no editorial control. We also can't use primary documents, such as government birth databases. This means that the number of available sources is quite slim, and we often have to either go without this information or wait until a source like Entertainment Weekly or the BBC publishes an interview that includes a birth date. If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, you can ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I would note that the fifth reference already present in the article does state her birthdate, though it is an IMDB type website. Perhaps that should be removed/revised as well. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hard to say. Unlike the IMDb, that site doesn't seem user-generated, and the claim that she appeared in a play seems pretty uncontroversial. I don't know how trustworthy it is beyond credits, though. I tried looking for a better source for the birth date. I couldn't find a readable English-language version of the authorized biography on Google Books, but I found a German translation. My German is pretty bad, but it's obvious enough what it's saying. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow -- thank you for the very thorough response and follow up. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hormone replacement therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)