Hello, Galerita! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! 220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antisemitism
Before bringing the issue to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard you should discuss the matter on the talk page of the article. I think you are confusing two separate issues, as I have already noted. If you do not get a satisfactory resolution of the matter after debate, then you can take it to DRN. Paul B (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a regular volunteer at DRN. Let me also add that while I closed your request for lack of talk page discussion, you also listed it there less than two hours after raising the issue on Singularity42's user talk page and only six minutes after raising it at Rainbowofpeace's. You need to give them a chance to respond. People edit Wikipedia from all over the world and have busy schedules in the real world, so allowing 24 hours for a response is not at all unreasonable and 48-72 hours is not beyond the pale. Indeed, I would note that neither editor has made an edit to Wikipedia since you posted to their user talk pages. If discussion does arise, try to keep it on the article talk page, not on user talk pages, so that the record of discussion can be easily found by future editors of the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, forgive my misunderstanding of the process. I'm relatively inexperienced. However, the reversions took place without any attempt to discuss the changes; without any discussion by the other parties of the points I raised for the changes; and citing what I regard as bogus reasons. In fact an additional contribution I made to the lede - after researching the citing references and finding their use to be inaccurate - has been reverted by you WITHOUT explanation. This is hardly scholarship or neutral.Galerita (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was reverted because the you changed the sentence without changing the source, nor did your edit summary say that the source is misrespresented, or explain how. In any case, edit summaries allow little room to make useful points. That's why talk pages were invented. Paul B (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of unusual units of measurement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of unusual units of measurement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rate of change. 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.
I just tweaked your latest edit by removing the word deliberate. I rather think it is a case of WHO and goverments under tremendous strain to report each case. See this extract from WHO
"The World Health Organization acknowledged weeks ago that despite its efforts to tally the thousands of cases in the region, the official statistics probably “vastly underestimate the magnitude of the outbreak.”
The discussion was concluded and I accepted the article for deletion. Should the above tag be modified or removed to reflect that the discussion is not current?Galerita (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Harris until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hergilei (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:RuddTintin.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RuddTintin.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Let's take this discussion to the article talk page rather than engage in further edit warring. Per WP:3RR, any further edit warring could lead to blocks on both of us. So discuss this on the talk page, and let others contribute their opinion as well. And whatever we decide, the article will reflect. For now, stop the edit warring with me. Smartyllama (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:: Please direct all comments to the RFC section at this point rather than responding to three-year-old sections or creating a bunch of new ones. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Nevermind, I misread the timestamp as EST instead of UTC. You posted it before I opened the RFC. The point stands, but you did nothing wrong. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
January 2016
Hello, I'm Smartyllama. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of people with autism spectrum disorders without 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; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not remove that content again while the RfC is still ongoing. This is what we have an RfC for. To discuss major changes to the criteria for inclusion before we implement them. Thank you. Smartyllama (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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. CptViraj (📧) 11:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I contest the speedy deletion of this page. No explanation has been provided by CptViraj, which is unsatisfactory. Furthermore when I visiting the page I did not find a contest the nomination option, giving me no ability to contest that deletion as per instructions. I belive the RCP pathways should be graphically included on Wikipedia. I could find no other graph that does this. The data appear to be an accurate respresentation of the source, however as I previously noted RCP 2.5 should be labelled RCP 2.6 in the legend. This is only a minor correction, not a ground for deletion. Galerita (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding the deletion, the graph is still there on Commons. Only the local description page is deleted which has nothing to do with articles. Please see WP:F2. Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 02:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a typo. In any case it's a semi-log plot. I will correct that.
And yes a Poisson regression is appropriate for counts, although is less important as counts rise. I'll update today (29.1.2020) using the same methods (i.e. linear regression), but will implement Poisson regression and add the R code when I work it out.
File:NCoV20200209_Hubei_China_ROW_cases.png is one of the most useful plots on Wikipedia right now - excellent work :). A suggestion: separate out the Diamond_Princess_(ship) new infections from the ROW counts. Epidemiologically, this is strongly justified because of the nature of the Diamond Princess as a more-or-less closed box that over the past week has contributed about half the total ROW counts every day. My guess is that almost everyone on the Diamond Princess, except those whose governments have finally decided to evacuate them, is fairly likely to become infected. This would make it easier to see the ROW situation. The abbreviation ROW would still work if you put Diamond Princess before ROW in the legend.
A separate issue is the statistics of untraced cases outside of China, but there are too few for plotting so far: Template:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_data/Singapore_medical_cases - 10 untraced cases in Singapore per our Wikipedia table. As long as they remain untraced, they're time bombs for exponential growth. See the talk page there; for official numbers of untraced cases, see the main Singapore page, e.g. this update from 7 to 8 officially untraced cases with an update from 13 to 15 Feb. Probably this should start out as a referenced table instead of a graph. You could use this as justification for separating out Singapore from ROW too. Boud (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Boud I've added an ROW excluding the Diamond Princess trace. I agree it's very informative. A lot of the noise outside China disappears and the recorded cases outside China excluding the DP appear flat rather than growing at the moment. My concern is that the plot is beginning to get cluttered. I'll stick to "Diamond Princess" for the labeling at the moment as this is clearer to readers than "International conveyance" and it avoids complications with the Westerdam. Galerita (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new versions look good - I don't think people will complain about "DP" too much. It's impressive that the absolute (not relative) infection rate in non-Hubei-China - a region of about 1.5 billion or so minus 0.05 billion - seems to be dropping faster than in a cruise ship of 0.000004 billion which in principle should be a highly controllable environment. The Singapore untraced cases (separate template now) look like (fortunately) they may avoid becoming usefully graphable - at least for the moment. The JP non-DP cases are growing, but slowly - also no point in graphing these - for the moment. My guess is that Westerdam infections will mostly remain under the radar and in 2-3 weeks' time suddenly Cambodian medical authorities will discover that they have an epidemic on their hands. Boud (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Galerita, I must apologise for any unintentional offence caused by removing the semi log plots. Academically, I defer to your expertise. The reason I WP:BOLDly removed them, fully anticipating to follow WP:BRD is because I'm in a somewhat unique position of being a clinical doctor that is currently just starting to study outbreaks and epidemiology at uni. So I have a little bit of an idea as to how graphs may be misinterpreted casually by the general reader (because in epidemiology, I'm still a generalist).
Firstly thank you for taking the time for creating the graphs. I have one main question for you at the moment:
Given that China has used such different control measures to other countries, modifying the R0 for that country, is it better to use separate graphs for china vs rest of world? I don't think they should be directly compared on the same graph, personally. --Almaty (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Almaty. I prefer to keep China and Rest-of-the-world on the same plot to show the contrast between the two and illustrate, for the moment, how the outbreak in the ROW will soon be worse than in China. I'm not sure the issue is R0, the basic reproduction number, which seems to be in a similar range around the world - the estimate is 2-3 in most research. The key parameter is Reff, the effective reproduction number. Controlling an epidemic involves getting Reff under 1.0. By extreme and sometimes brutal social control China has brought Reff well under 1 outside Hubei and a little under 1 in Hubei. I suspect getting Reff < 1 is not achievable in much of the world and we are looking at a pandemic similar to the 1918 Spanish Flu. Regional comparisons are useful to compare the the relative effectiveness of Public health measures in the absence of a vaccine. It's interesting that a few other East Asian countries/regions have dramatically slowed the epidemic - Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and perhaps Japan. I'm assuming their numbers are accurately reported - unlike many countries. Although Japan has about 300 cases, the virus has been there much longer, and growth has not been as explosive as in several European countries where the epidemic has taken hold.Galerita (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its all a little bit ridiculously interesting, each day seems to be either very good news or very bad news, and each day seems to contradict the last. --Almaty (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Galerita, thank you very much for your very helpful plots. I plan to make similar plots for Germany. Can you tell us, what tools do you use? Up to now I made such plots with Excel, but I am thinking about using R and storing data and logic to generate the plot in a git repository. So that it is easier for other people to adapt the plots for their needs. What do you think about this? Malanoqa (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malanoqa I honestly don't have the time. Sorry. These are the number of cases I have for Germany at the moment. No deaths so far. These number exclude the last 24 hours so cases is past 260 at the moment. Germany worries me.
Total 239;
Date/cases;
2020.01.27/ 1;
2020.01.28/ 3;
2020.01.29/ 0;
2020.01.30/ 1;
2020.01.31/ 2;
2020.02.01/ 1;
2020.02.02/ 2;
2020.02.03/ 2;
2020.02.04/ 0;
2020.02.05/ 0;
2020.02.06/ 1;
2020.02.07/ 1;
2020.02.08/ 0;
2020.02.09/ 0;
2020.02.10/ 0;
2020.02.11/ 2;
2020.02.12/ 0;
2020.02.13/ 0;
2020.02.14/ 0;
2020.02.15/ 0;
2020.02.16/ 0;
2020.02.17/ 0;
2020.02.18/ 0;
2020.02.19/ 0;
2020.02.20/ 0;
2020.02.21/ 0;
2020.02.22/ 0;
2020.02.23/ 0;
2020.02.24/ 0;
2020.02.25/ 2;
2020.02.26/ 8;
2020.02.27/ 22;
2020.02.28/ 26;
2020.02.29/ 4;
2020.03.01/ 51;
2020.03.02/ 35;
2020.03.03/ 38;
2020.03.04/ 37;
Galerita (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Malanoqa I don't know whether these are helpful. I've started doing them daily for every affected country. I'll put them on the German discussion page. Although I spent 2 years in Germany that was 30 years ago so my German is not good.
Germany vs World (excluding Mainland China) Covid-19 cumulative cases and deathsGermany vs World (excluding Mainland China) Covid-19 daily cases and deaths
Log options on Graph:Chart are now implemented (originally at de:Modul:Graph; I did the update here on en.Wikipedia after someone at the PL page found it). See Oz global counts (scroll down a bit) or per state counts (scroll down a bit) or my user page or the PL page (scroll down). A CC-BY-SA bash script for downloading and processing the medical cases chart data from en.Wikipedia pages is available. This is just to keep in the info circulating at an obvious place - I'm not trying to convince you to change methods. @Malanoqa: you may be interested too - you won't need to regenerate png or svg images now; mediawiki will do the work. See the AU and PL examples linked in the previous sentences. (I haven't updated the documentation.) Boud (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Boud, thank you very much, this is very helpful. I will remembert this the next time I propose plots. I do not know when I have time to change current plots.Malanoqa (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
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.
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.
