After reviewing your request for the "eventcoordinator" permission, I have temporarily enabled the flag on your account until 2022-12-01. Keep in mind these things:
The event coordinator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
The event coordinator right allows you to temporarily add the "confirmed" permission to newly created accounts. You should not grant this for more than 10 days.
The event coordinator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the event coordinator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
Please note, if you were previously a member of the "account creator" group, your flag may have been converted to this new group.
If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the event coordinator right. Happy editing! -- TNT (talk • she/they) 00:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at National Institute for Health Research instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:National Institute for Health Research, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR)!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR)! Your additions to Draft:National Institute for Health Research have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diannaa, Thanks, I haven't rephrased the text enough, I'll try again. As I can't see my previous revisions now, I wanted to ask if the rest of the changes included in those revisions are still in the text? Thank you.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please review WP:CITEVAR, and refrain from changing the citation style on established articles. By plugging a PMID in to this tool, you can generate a citation template in the format most commonly used in medical content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam Harangozó, just a follow-up to the above, in an edit like this, I'm not sure what you're actually "fixing". It looks like you're just rearranging the citation parameters, and adding a URL that does the same thing as the DOI parameter (i.e. your URL https://doi.org/10.3310%2Fhta18180 is exactly what will be followed if folks click on the DOI link). Is there something I'm missing? If not, please refrain from edits that merely tinker with the references. These types of small, tinkering, edits that don't substantially change page content have been the subject of a frankly unbelievable amount of controversy -- Sandy links to CITEVAR above; WP:COSMETICBOT also applies here. To protect us all from further time-wasting controversy, repetitive cosmetic edits (or even non-repetitive cosmetic edits) are frowned upon. If you have questions, please feel free to ask here, or at WP:TEAHOUSE. If there's an issue with NIHR citations that requires repetitive editing to address, you can ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests, and someone can setup a bot to do the task. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are the beer, scotch or tea-drinking type, so I am sending you a sample of my favorite food for this time of year, and hope it brings you some pleasure! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I've been struggling to catch up for several days, and wanted to extend a warmer welcome and regrets for that mess at WT:MED. Ajpolino, Adam was following the MEDMOS instructions that say it's OK to switch a PMC to a direct journal URL, and using the visual editor to do that, which re-arranges citations. Unfortunately, Adam walked into three different messes, not of their making: 1) a citation template tug-of-war that is affecting WP:MED in more ways than one; 2) an already poor article at schizophrenia, not Adam's fault, as they only wanted to update the citation format (but the citation shouldn't have even been there); and, complicated by 3) me making a much-too-hurried post to WT:MED because I was hotspot editing from the car and assumed someone else would address the schizophrenia problem before I even got home (that's how WP:MED used to operate :). The WT:MED thread is much ado about nothing much, and the lesson learned by me is to no longer make assumptions about what may happen if I post to WT:MED in a hurry, so I won't be doing that again. Meanwhile, Adam is off to a rocky start because of me, for which I'm sorry. Although it's not an excuse for my hurried post, Adam, I hope you recognize that most of us do this entirely as a hobby, get no remuneration or compensation for what we do, and sometimes move too quickly when real life pressures occur. Had I just addressed the pre-existing schizophrenia issues myself, and inquired of you what your edits intended, we could have bypassed the whole circus at WT:MED, but too late for that now, and I sincerely apologize. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from End-of-life care into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- EN-Jungwon12:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
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.
Hi, thanks for pointing this out. Is the policy that I should always use the name that is was called at that point in time? And I should only update it if it's about the present or after the name change?
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Eilish.Foxen-McGough/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/persons/celia-l-gregson. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Theroadislong (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
September 2023
Hello, I'm StartOkayStop. I noticed that you recently removed content from Menopause without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. StartOkayStop (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi there, thanks for taking the time to edit the Wikipedia article!
I noticed some content I added was removed. Can you please explain why you didn't inform about that in your edit summary? You remove this content:
The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists ethanol in alcoholic beverages as a Group 1 carcinogen in humans and argues that "There is sufficient evidence and research showing the carcinogenicity of acetaldehyde (the major metabolite of ethanol) which is excreted by the liver enzyme when one drinks alcohol."[1]
As of 2021, the 15th report of the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) classifies the consumption of alcoholic beverages as "known to be a human carcinogen" while acetaldehyde is classified as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen".[2]
In 2010, a systematic review reported that moderate consumption of alcohol does not cause harm to people with cardiovascular disease. However, the authors did not encourage people to start drinking alcohol in the hope of any benefit.[3] In a 2018 study on 599,912 drinkers, a roughly linear association was found with alcohol consumption and a higher risk of stroke, coronary artery disease excluding myocardial infarction, heart failure, fatal hypertensive disease, and fatal aortic aneurysm, even for moderate drinkers.[4][non-primary source needed] The American Heart Association states that people who are currently non-drinkers should not start drinking alcohol.[5]
Why did you move:
Alcohol_(drug)#Austrian_syndrome placed moved from #Alcoholism to #Mental_disorders -- it's not supported by the article
Alcohol_(drug)#Withdrawal_syndrome moved from #Alcoholism to #Cardiovascular_disease -- it's not supported by the article
Hi, thanks for reaching out and keeping an eye on the article. Most of what you mentioned I removed/changed to make the article shorter and friendlier to the average reader looking for information about alcohol. I believe these changes match with WP:MEDMOS but here are some further details and I'd be happy to hear what you think:
The International Agency for Research on Cancer lists ethanol in alcoholic beverages as a Group 1 carcinogen in humans and argues that "There is sufficient evidence and research showing the carcinogenicity of acetaldehyde (the major metabolite of ethanol) which is excreted by the liver enzyme when one drinks alcohol."[1]
This I only shortened both in the lead section and the main text. The important information here is that alcohol causes cancer. I kept the wording about being in group 1 but the name of the organisation is not really relevant here and readers can learn about it if they click on the wikilink on "Group 1 carcinogen". I thought that the second part with the quote is very far from plain English and unnecessarily specific in the lead and health effects section. Information on acetaldehyde is included in the Mechanisms section.
As of 2021, the 15th report of the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) classifies the consumption of alcoholic beverages as "known to be a human carcinogen" while acetaldehyde is classified as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen".[6]
This only repeats the previous information and adds unnecessary, country specific info about the source. If important the citation could be added to the line "Ethanol is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen".
In 2010, a systematic review reported that moderate consumption of alcohol does not cause harm to people with cardiovascular disease. However, the authors did not encourage people to start drinking alcohol in the hope of any benefit.[7] In a 2018 study on 599,912 drinkers, a roughly linear association was found with alcohol consumption and a higher risk of stroke, coronary artery disease excluding myocardial infarction, heart failure, fatal hypertensive disease, and fatal aortic aneurysm, even for moderate drinkers.[8][non-primary source needed] The American Heart Association states that people who are currently non-drinkers should not start drinking alcohol.[9]
This is my pet peeve so apologies in advance. The majority of Wikipedia's readers don't know (and don't have to know) what a systematic review is, what's roughly linear association. Including these is alienating for readers, contains no extra info (the citation states the year and the type of study) and makes it more difficult to find the main information. It would also become unreadable if every sentence would say the year, type and more details about the cited study. So I rephrased this bit but kept the information and added a newer, secondary source. I also kept the AHA reference but it is an issue with many medical articles that they are very US-specific while English Wikipedia is read and written by many other English-speaking countries (and beyond). There are ways of adding country specific information if necessary but this way it overwhelms the article.
Why did you move:
Alcohol_(drug)#Austrian_syndrome placed moved from #Alcoholism to #Mental_disorders -- it's not supported by the article
Alcohol_(drug)#Withdrawal_syndrome moved from #Alcoholism to #Cardiovascular_disease -- it's not supported by the article
This was accidental, I was reorganising so that section lists the more common and serious effects first and didn't see that there were different levels of sub-sections. I fixed it now but left Austrian syndrome at the end as it seems to be a rare thing.
Thank you, I restored and rephrased "In 2010, a systematic review reported that moderate consumption of" to make it easy to read and understand. --94.255.152.53 (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR). This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ambulatory care (United Kingdom), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
We're a group of editors who want to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles, such as your edits to the article Long Covid; it's great to have a new 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 our 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 group's talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some help!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens behind the scenes and through the editing policy. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
I really appreciate having a NIHR Wikipedian-in-Residence take an interest in the Long Covid entry, and saw your first changes were reverted because of the type of sources used, so I wanted to send some information about Wikipedia sourcing policies for medical content that may be helpful. Happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I do know about these policies but my reasoning was that long COVID is relatively recent and there aren't many secondary studies yet. I raised the issue with the reverting editor. Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. It might be a good idea to have that conversation on the entry’s talk page, since other editors are likely to raise the same concerns (my own view is that when evidence is limited, that’s what we should say, rather than making claims on a lower evidentiary basis). Innisfree987 (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
^Costanzo S, Di Castelnuovo A, Donati MB, Iacoviello L, de Gaetano G (2010). "Alcohol consumption and mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis". J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55 (13): 1339–1347. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.006. PMID20338495.
^Costanzo S, Di Castelnuovo A, Donati MB, Iacoviello L, de Gaetano G (2010). "Alcohol consumption and mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis". J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55 (13): 1339–1347. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.01.006. PMID20338495.
