Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tom (LT). 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
A tag has been placed on Category:WikiProject China articles using collaboration parameters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, you had marked it inactive but when I undid it, the Project still shows as inactive in all the articles. Can you help me out to make it active ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Great to hear that the project is active! You will need to update this template: Template:WikiProject Tamil civilization, which another editor had marked as inactive in 2018. After that, the talk pages will take around a week or so to be updated. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for review the article. I understand your point about external links not working. I have removed them.
I have read the footnote areas again and again but finds it difficult to understand.
Can you please review and see whether there are any other areas I need to work on? Bit worried about resubmitting as it might get rejected again. Agantukaya (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT), per your comment about a distaste for two of our more specialist-focused infoboxes, I ask you: have you seen {{Infobox_gene}}? It boasts many many fields, and most beguilingly, cannot be edited directly as it automagically pulls all its data from wikidata. See e.g. BRCA1 or p53, both famous proteins that a normal person may actually try to read about. I had an issue where I updated the image for Alpha-synuclein (by adding a new image to Wikidata), and then realized there's apparently no way to resize images in this infobox after it pulls them from Wikidata! So now the article has just had a massive image for a year 🤷. Anyway thought you might get a kick out of it. Perhaps it'll even make it to your infobox pantheon. I hope you're staying well! Ajpolino (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I have seen both of those. In my personal opinion, these are almost completely unusable and unreadable for 99% of our readers, who I am sure would be able to understand some plain text fields much better. However, there is little consensus to change them and I guess they do contribute to WP looking quite authoritative as most readers (myself included) assume they contain all sorts of uninterpretable technical details. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2022.
Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk), 2021.01
Moved to WT:PRThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tom, I can't decipher why Wikipedia:Peer review/Power Mac G4 Cube/archive1 is showing up in the March 2021 PR category ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 | The Signpost
|
Feel free to remove.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks @Smallbones for your attention, but I'm not quite sure what this means. I know I just pinged you over at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Remove_inactive_editors_from_the_subscription_list, but that was about whether there should be an automatic census by a bot of the subscription list to remove inactive editors. Do you suggest that last time an editor is contacted (in the "you have been removed from the subscription list") message that this box is used? If that's the case I think it's a great idea in addition to the message. That way they'll have the latest Signpost article on their talk page :). I guess good ideas like this are why you are the esteemed editor! Tom (LT) (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I got pulled away from my computer right after I posted this. I think you have the right idea. I'm a bit leery of just discarding subscribers - or at least of having some bot or "non-specified folks" doing it. But, yeah, I don't want to spam Wikipedians either. Maybe we don't really need a goodbye note at all, just put something at the top of the subscription page like. "Once or twice every year we check this list and remove the names of editors who haven't edited in the last 2 years. But don't worry, when you come back, there will be a box like the one on the right waiting for you, with links to the most recent stories."
- Maybe even add "If you'd prefer the smaller box rather than the larger talk page notice, just add {{User Signpost-subscription|version=0|align=right|links=}} to your user or talk pages and leave your username off the list below." I think that could make just about everybody happy. I'll wait for your reply here and the tomorrow propose something like this on the Signpost talk page. Thanks! Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Smallbones great idea. I like the way that you preserve a connection with the signpost, which is both friendly and keeps the editor updated if they become inactive, but we also achieve the goal of reducing WP spam. I think it's important to leave a friendly message similar to the one you propose above at the time someone is unsubscribed, so that they know to resubscribe and why they are no longer getting updates. Please ping me when you make your proposal so I know which venue it's at :). Tom (LT) (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tom, Im also of the medical, respectively the nursing field doing lots of peer-review. Thanks for your look at the draft "Advanced Nursing Process". Can you please give help and/or a more exact feedback - the tone is a bit rough you used, and utmost short, you wrote: - Likely a copyvio - Notability not demonstrated - Tone is not encyclopedic but rather like an advertisment or textbook
I'm a reseracher writing scientific articles. So I need help, as my article describes a well researched but new concept - the deepened nursing process. I'm looking for advise - what you mean by "more encyclopedic"? This is not meant to sell something: its not a book, resp. articles were published, but the definition lacks in wikipedia. Thanks Mehwei (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Mehwei. You are referring to here: Draft:Advanced Nursing Process. We do not publish original research here (WP:OR), so if you are a scientific researcher you will be better off submitting this to a medical journal. I have made some comments that I feel clearly communicate the reasons for your draft not being accepted. I also note another 3 reviewers over the last year have also put reasons on the article. You are welcome to have a look at the many links that have been included during the review process already to help you along your journey editing this article; I will not be spending my time duplicating the content that is contained within those links. Yours truly, Tom (LT) (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Apologies for this random message. I have a quick question about peer reviews. How long would you recommend a peer review should be kept open? In the past, I was told that I close a peer review too quickly (as stated on this talk page) so I was looking for advice on how to better work within this space. I am admittedly quite impatient so it is something that I am trying to work on here. I hope you are staying safe and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Aoba47 that's not a silly question at all. Peer review is quite a rewarding experience because people seek often general feedback so the kind of feedback you give has a high chance of influencing how someone actually edits. People are often seeking broad feedback about things like readability, use of technical words and so on; usually (in my experience at least) people aren't seeking so much policy compliance type questions, unless they specifically state that or request a pre-GA/FA review. So this is a round-about way of answering your question, which is that in my personal opinion reviews should be allowed to linger, have some conversation and chance for questions and so forth. The "Backlog" is rarely more than 10 - 20 articles and, I think, given the often introductory nature to Wikipedia we serve, far more important than reducing the backlog is helping editors out (which is also more rewarding for both parties!) There are some procedural guidelines (WP:CLOSEPR) but I consider them less important than the spirit of PR. Hope that helps! Tom (LT) (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. I really like what you said about the spirit of the PR as I agree with you that that is more important. I can be quite impatient so that is what really led me to ask you this question, but I need to remind myself of the importance of the experience as a journey and really enjoy and appreciate the conversations that I have with different editors rather than rushing into different projects. Anyway, after my rambling, I just wanted to say that I really do appreciate your response and it is honestly quite refreshing to see another editor who's attitude about Wikipedia really aligns with my own. While policies and guidelines are important and necessary, I think it is equally important to not let the spirit and good will of these process get lost in the shuffle. Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I don't understand Wikipedia:Peer review/PAGENAME/archiveX - should I just check for "archive1" and stop if it doesn't exist, but if it does exist keep going until it finds the highest number using that one? Is there a possibility of in-contiguous numbers like 1,2,4? Thanks. -- GreenC 16:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @GreenC for this particular error category (Category:Peer review requests not opened the page that we are looking for is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/{{PAGENAME}}/archive{{{archive}}}; so use either archive is included as a parameter formatted as archive=X, look for the page archive=X, otherwise look for archive=1. I'm looking at the code on Template:Peer review Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I see, thank you. The bot is done and running daily from cron. I expect there might be unknown unknown problems that can arise such as page renames which is more work than I want to test for at the moment as it depends on which page was renamed, if both were renamed or only one, and when during the 7-day process. Could be some other things like that. Given the very low volume, might be best to wait for error reports and fix any rare problems then. -- GreenC 21:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Logs and data are available at https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/botwikiawk/peerr/
- logsuccess.txt - 1-line per page edit. It shows the command the bot invoked to edit the page
- logerrors.txt - any errors on upload
- list.txt - A CSV with "----" as separator. Field 1 is the talk page where the template is located. Field 2 is the date the bot first became aware of the template. Field 3 is the page being monitored for creation within 7 days of field 2.
- The log shows two pages have been edited as of this time: Talk:Sophie Zhang (whistleblower) and Talk:COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame. -- GreenC 03:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- @GreenC, thanks, both these act as intended - i.e. to remove {{Peer review}} that is not helpful to readers. This bot is much appreciated. If you are able, would you mind changing your message slightly to read: Removing template {{Peer review}} after 7 days without creation of the corresponding peer review page Wikipedia:Peer review/Sophie Zhang (whistleblower)/archive2 per User:GreenC bot/Job 20? I think the extra few words are important to explain to the uninitiated what happened with the edits. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 | |
| Five years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Tom, I would appreciate your checking of my muscle-related edits. A couple of quick queries (shall post others on talk pages) - Would you object to bipennate etc. redirecting to Pennate muscle? And in infobox on Skeletal muscle page, system is given as human specific - I changed muskuloskeletal system to muscular system in lead? Many thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Iztwoz sorry for the delay. Glad to see the country where you live is starting to open up. We are starting to call ourselves a hermit kingdom over here which is kind of depressing. Your edits above sound very reasonable, particularly the pennate and infobox ones. If I have time I will also look over Anatomical terms of muscle. Hope you're well, Tom (LT) (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tom,
I've copied over the transcripted material, edited the intro for length, and formatted it. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report. My main question now is what to do with @Bri and Bri.public:'s question at the end. For both of you - how would you like to deal with this material? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Smallbones It was a really interesting comment from Bri that provoked some serious discussion. I was thinking of putting it in the comment section and leaving a short note in the interview. That way others can contribute to the discussion. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Addit. Forgot to ping you Smallbones; you probably have lots of things you're watching. Tom (LT) (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again. Apologies for this random question. Shouldn't this peer review be closed since the nominator has retired? Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 | This user writes for The Signpost. |
I just wanted to be sure you have one of these. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 |
... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out the interview for members of WP:DAYS. There are editors who are much more involved with the project than I am so I'm not sure if it would be appropriate for me to do the interview, but it does not yet look like anyone has come forward, so if you really need someone then please let me know. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello tom, i have added "The pancreas : an integrated textbook of basic science, medicine, and surgery" (third edition) by H.G. Beger. This is a reliable book. I have also added some other references. I would like to know why lecturio is not a reliable source? (https://www.lecturio.com/magazine/pancreas/) Thermoacidophile (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Thermoacidophile see WP:MEDBOOK. In particular the page is described as a magazine, the authorship of the article is unclear, it seems to be reviewed by a team that also charge for additional features, it is a textbook designed for students and I don't think it is the 'high quality' textbooks that MEDRS refers to. So I don't think it is a suitable source for a fact that is to be inserted in an article's lead. Hope that helps, Tom (LT) (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Tom (LT): If possible, please suggest some points at peer review page of Ronald Reagan 1980 presidential campaign. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh having glanced at the lead, reading through this article will be an absolute pleasure. I'll try and get back to you within the next week.Tom (LT) (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Tom (LT): Thanks, just a note that the article is already copy-edited and I plan to nominate for GA. Would appreciate any suggestion whenever you feel free. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Tom (LT):
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
Hi! Sorry for the delayed response to your message on the Days of the Year talk page. I'm interested in taking part in the interview if you're needing more people. Suonii180 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Suonii180, thanks for volunteering to participate. The questions are here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject days of the year interview draft. I look forward to reading your responses! Tom (LT) (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tom! Could you give me some comments on how to improve the draft I'm currently editing (Praxis EMR)? I added multiple references that, to my understanding, meet every criteria that Wikipedia establishes for notability, but my submissions keep getting rejected with the same template message. Why is it that, for example, none of the books by Mark Braunstein qualify as reliable independent sources with significant coverage? Thanks in advance!
PD: In case you haven't noticed I'm a new editor, so feedback of any kind (specially regarding Wikipedia use in general) is much appreciated.
Astropolar13 (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Despite the denial on your talk page, I still suspect that you are a paid editor. I can't help you beyond the many links already contained in the advice on the draft page. Try looking at similar articles that have been accepted. You need to provide secondary publications unrelated to the topic that demonstrate it is notable. That is more than the bar for just describing it. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): I'm a Spanish speaking college student, and I'm not by any means a professional writer; no company would hire me to write a Wikipedia article. If I was a paid editor, I would disclose so. I thought this would be a fun project to take on, to practice English writing and simply for the fact that I find Praxis interesting. I had no idea the bureaucracy that exists behind any Wikipedia submission, and now it has become a sort of personal challenge. Some editors at the Teahouse already helped me get on the right track, and many references were removed for not meeting the necessary criteria. I still believe the subject is notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article, and that there are sufficient reliable and independent sources to demonstrate it. Astropolar13 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Just wondering whether the August Project Report should be credited to you or @EpicPupper:?
Thanks! Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Smallbones me. I think EpicPupper intended to write a report but unfortunately didn't get any responses. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- How about if I credit both of you as authors? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Smallbones The current interview is with WP DOTY. EpicPupper hasn’t contributed at all to this interview - I am the sole interviewer - have a look at the contribs log. They intended to interview Spoken WP but the draft was empty so I have overridden it (I also notified them at the time). Hope that clarifies things. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, now I've got it. It was my misunderstanding. You are the sole author. Thanks for stepping up!
- Sincerely,
- Smallbones(smalltalk)
- @Smallbones no worries. Thanks for doing a great job as the editor, it's most appreciated and wouldn't happen without you. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying this :) Was unavailable at the time of this thread. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 22:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Smallbones The current interview is with WP DOTY. EpicPupper hasn’t contributed at all to this interview - I am the sole interviewer - have a look at the contribs log. They intended to interview Spoken WP but the draft was empty so I have overridden it (I also notified them at the time). Hope that clarifies things. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Nice job on the signpost DOY piece. Toddst1 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
HiTom (LT). Thanks for taking your time and reviewing this article. Will try to improve as suggested by you getting neutral tone and adding independent secondary sources as references. cheers. Gardenkur (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I made all suggested edits. Hopefully it lives up to standards? Page link Tbplante (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again for this! Best of Everything to You and Yours! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Tom (LT). Hope you are doing fine. I have revised and submitted CIPACA draft article with additional references and with additional updates on summary. Could you please review and guide me to help it move to main section. Thanking you in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Dear Tom,
I've noticed you are active on the Project COVID-19 Wiki page and I was hopeful youd be willing to review this AfC for Dr. Vin Gupta, who is a pulmonologist and prominent medical analyst on COVID-19 for NBC News. He's been on primetime TV nearly every night for the past two years across the US and feel like this is a key void to fill for wikipedia.
Grateful in advance for your review as you have time. Kind regards,
CG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vin_Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caroline grossman23 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the use of {{PRV}} was abandoned about 8 months ago. If you are no longer using that template and do not intend to use it again, can you please tag it with {{db-g7}} so that it can be deleted? I'm working on a list of untranscluded templates, and getting this one off of the list would help. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comparison of COVID-19 Vaccines is needed. Similar to:
- Comparison of text editors
- Comparison of Linux distributions
- Comparison of web browsers
- see: "Comparing the COVID-19 Vaccines: How Are They Different?". Yale Medicine.
- 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Sterilizing immunity Redirects to Neutralizing antibody:
- Lead paragraph quote: Immunity due to neutralizing antibodies is also known as sterilizing immunity, as the immune system eliminates the infectious particle before any infection takes place.
- Dutta, A; Huang, CT; Lin, CY; Chen, TC; Lin, YC; Chang, CS; He, YC (6 September 2016). "Sterilizing immunity to influenza virus infection requires local antigen-specific T cell response in the lungs". Scientific Reports. 6: 32973. Bibcode:2016NatSR...632973D. doi:10.1038/srep32973. PMC 5011745. PMID 27596047.
- can you rewrite the sentence to: {{anchor|Sterilizing immunity}} "Sterilizing immunity is ....."
- 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not sure what these messages relate to, or why you are asking me. Perhaps you can seek some general help relating to editing at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
- AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
- The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:PRV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
| |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Acute myeloid leukemia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I am a new Wikipedia editor and want to join this wiki project. What do I have to do? Dr.Sayan900 (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Tom, thanks for reviewing CABG. Concerning your last comment, , I have some questions for you, but I will go one by one. I didn't quite understand what you mean by " think in particular the non surgical course before and after the operation could be more fully explained," [underlining, mine] Which field should I expand? Should I expand on indications? CAD? Pre-operative medication? Something else? Thanks. Cinadon36 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Tom, I see you are a very experienced editor and reviewer of articles; I noticed during your GA review of the COVID-19 pandemic article that you mentioned the 'herd immunity' material about Iceland was effectively similar to the endemic phase content(You said I'm not sure how this is in fact any difference), I was just wondering what WP:PAGs you were employing here—it could be argued, and is being argued elsewhere on a similar type of content that since the sources don't mention endemicity then it would be WP:OR to harmonize them. Trying my best to navigate the subtleties of the policies and guidelines here when the content isn't quite so clear. Thanks, SmolBrane (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I can see that the Iceland statement has been removed. It struck me as WP:BIAS and WP:RS to include it. BIAS is because from my understanding it was basically a combination of vaccines and then letting the virus become endemic within less vulnerable groups to maintain a herd immunity around the vulnerable. Which is almost the same intention as other countries; however if it is announced by a developed country it gets called 'herd immunity' whereas if it is a developing country is is labelled 'endemic' (I take into account that these are not technically the same meaning but I think this is the way it is portrayed in the lay press). WP:RS is relevant because, as the article now states, achieving such a level of immunity is unlikely to impossible and, to me, the WHO opinion constitutes a more reliable opinion to include than the original source. Both issues are now not relevant as the statement has been removed. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Tom! Thank you for reviewing my article for creation on the Translational Research Institute for Space Health. I have made the requested edits and the article is ready for review. My user page is here. Thank you - I will make any requested edits quickly. From, Catherine Tyson (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, at your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology you wrote "asking her prior". I think you meant "asking here prior". I thought about fixing it, but decided to let you know here instead. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
| |
| Seven years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Template:Thoracic plane structures has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I am not sure why factual information about dr. Ombelet's education and work is considered a copyright violation. One cannot rephrase 'Journal of the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy', or 'Willem Ombelet was the President of the Flemish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (VVO. Or how should I go about this? Karzel666 (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- There were full sentence matches on the copyvio check. You will have to find a way to overcome this yourself. I don't provide further information to draft bio creators outside of exceptional circumstances, as users are generally self promotional or paid. Yours, Tom (LT) (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Tom (LT):
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Edmund Ætheling has been nominated for a 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. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
| Eight years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Conjunctival pallor has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 13 § Conjunctival pallor until a consensus is reached. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Kowloon Walled City has been nominated for a 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. ltbdl (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Rodentolepis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 5 § Rodentolepis until a consensus is reached. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
