Hi, I noticed your use of Doubled and quadrupled commas, a notation which I have never seen before. If you invented this notation, I am interested in its genesis. It reminds me of Jacqueline Kennedy's letter-writing style (she tended to avoid periods). Perhaps you might illuminate its meaning for me? What I thought of when reading the edit, was that you were thinking multiple phrases that you were intending to fill in later, but then you cut your edit short, leaving the commas. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)16:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
V.Ebola pathogenesisvia infection of endothelial cells causes cytopathic effect which with cytokine effect, can compromise vascular integrity.[1]
Ozzie, if you've the time, go around to the other articles and let them know about the ivote on the title. Drop a note on the talk pages with a link so they will easily get to it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes
ebola article 2, Navarro College ,Texas/(cover)
Might that not be better placed, due to the low relevance of a singe college in Texas in relation to the wider epidemic, in the U.S. sub article instead section "Call for suspension of visas"? As an example of how (not) to quarantine the virus?
Also it doesn't fit with the timeline since the letter was dated to 2 October per Slate.--Alcea setosa (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic HERE. <!-
Template:ANI-notice-->
Thank you.
III.Ebola Virus Protein-Cross-section of the Ebola virus particle[2]IV.Ebola Virus from Mali blood sample November 2014 during West Africa Ebola virus epidemic 2014-2016[3]I.Genome of Ebola virus-contains the coding regions, a genome contains genetic information, it consists of RNA.EBOV is about 19,000 nucleotides in length (7 genes, including VP40 which is slightly important[4]) single stranded ribonucleic acid,[5][6]II.Ebola virus glycoprotein structure (which includes virion hexamer and transport dimer from VP40 ).[7][8]video/Nature PMC2700032
^Hoenen, T.; Safronetz, D.; Groseth, A.; Wollenberg, K. R.; Koita, O. A.; Diarra, B.; Fall, I. S.; Haidara, F. C.; Diallo, F.; Sanogo, M.; Sarro, Y. S.; Kone, A.; Togo, A. C. G.; Traore, A.; Kodio, M.; Dosseh, A.; Rosenke, K.; Wit, E. de; Feldmann, F.; Ebihara, H.; Munster, V. J.; Zoon, K. C.; Feldmann, H.; Sow, S. (3 April 2015). "Mutation rate and genotype variation of Ebola virus from Mali case sequences". Science. 348 (6230): 117–119. doi:10.1126/science.aaa5646. ISSN0036-8075.
Ozzie, I have noticed how willing you are to always help the Ebola article by offering feedback on the talk page. It has made my editing easier and a much more joyful experience. Your sincere efforts to maintain a friendly atmosphere have been very much appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make sure there weren't any hard feelings about the Ebola article. You're clearly a WP:Good-faith editor, and I don't want to upset or wrong you. The new information about the Liberian infection rate was important and useful, and I hope you don't mind my revising it. I was trying to improve it according to WP:TONE and WP:MOS, as I have needed other editors to fix my own edits.
As to allegations of sockpuppetry, I recognize that I've been unusually active for a new-ish user (evidently I need more of a life). I can totally see where you're coming from, and going to an admin seems like a great response. You're welcome to go through my past and future edits, and follow instructions on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations to report me if you find evidence of misbehavior. Thanks for your efforts!
CONAKRY Hi Ozzie The BBC lead says "Clinical trials to try to find an effective treatment for Ebola patients are to start in West Africa next month." The serum trial hasn't started yet.Bob Robertpedley (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ANI(decision)That's a content dispute. ANI isn't for content disputes.
[5] reviewing this diff though you are correct that his stance is not logical. The material in question was the USA answer and precautions to the Epidemic in west Africa. So it is related and belongs in the article. But that is only my opinion. I think they are suggesting you should put it Ebola virus cases in the United States. This isn't unreasonable. You really just to get with them and talk. Take it to the talk page. If that don't work open an RFC or take it to the appropriate noticeboard. There are plenty of ways to get a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ozzie i did not see your netherlands edit... I have updated it a bit and moved in Alphabetical order.. You may slap my hand, permission granted BrianGroen (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Due to my own dyslexic issues my copy editing skills are next to zero, but i can help provide links to supporting citations and and worldcat IDs for books. I found out about my poor copy editing abilities when i tried ot edit the dyslexia article back in 2009 - 2010. There was a Dyslexia prject set of pages with a few suggested future updates. Not sure if it si still accessable. best wishes dolfrog (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly dated but some of the ideas may be useful Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia and my most recent set of dyslexia links including some research papers can be found on my new Useful Dyslexia links web page which represents more my personal perpsective. Currently I am busy elsewhere but i will try to keep up with your progress with the article dolfrog (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true when it comes to dyslexia the diagnosis is clinical and scientific, the treatment is educational.
That's why my hope is to find a home for the NICHD definition of dyslexia. In 1994 and again in 2002 the IDA lead the Definition Consensus Project in partnership with the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The resulting definition helped align the professional community and laid the groundwork for important public policy initiatives going forward.
Todayl, this definition is the cornerstone for important legislation in the U.S. that is leading to early screening, evaluation and help. It took an extraordinary commitment from a large dedicated team to reach this important milestone and it would be great to find a place on Wikipedia for this important information.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dyslexia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bluerasberry -- Bluerasberry (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dyslexia, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that dyslexia is the most common learning disability, affecting about 3% to 7% of people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dyslexia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
P-123 dyslexics go by different routes of learning they need "sounds" to ascertain what it is they are saying or being said...in this case it simply means an emphasis on the word..example -the train is coming,,,a dyslexic would say - t-h-e t-r-a-I-n I-s c-o-m-I-n-g to get a full appreciation of the sentence, it isn't easy , thanks for asking--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "sounding out words" in the second sentence is clear enough for the general reader, but I cannot think of a better way to say it the moment. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie.. I think that Perhaps these 3 do need a little rearranging.. Guinea with the lowest cases, but the index case has to stay first, Sierra Leone second sounds good, with Liberia last Mostly because of the total case counts. The daily Case counts must be viewed cautiously, how many times has it happened that case counts slow, just before it resurfaces in a new region. Also i'm concerned about the 'Suspected case' counts that are still increasing, as well as the slowness of reports coming out of Liberia. Then again it wont move to "Contained" until WHO confirms... So I see no real problem with a little reshuffle.. GremlinSA13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cite MEDDATE in a lot of discussions, so I wanted to take a moment to clarify that "rule". It's meant to be a rule of thumb, rather than an absolute requirement. It doesn't say just "five years"; it says "five years or so", and those last two words matter. It also says that the rule was written for subjects that receive the most attention, like Hypertension, and not for rare diseases or other subjects that don't see much research attention.
What you really want is to consider the last few high-quality secondary sources, which (depending on the subject) might be professional-level books or review articles. We want to take advantage of what MEDDATE calls the "full review cycle": Alice published a review, Bob published a primary study, and Chris read both Alice's and Bob's papers and wrote a new review. If it took ten years to get through a full review cycle, then MEDDATE actually wants ten years, not five. Conversely, if you get three good review articles every month, then MEDDATE would rather than you used this year's or last year's best publications, instead of going back to anything that was no more than four years and 364 days old. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa. A notification came up that you asked me a question[17], but I then saw you reverted it so assumed you changed your mind. I only just now noticed that you asked it in another format. I know Jytdog gave an answer at WT:MED#Safety of genetically modified foods, but since that thread is getting quite long and relatively stale I though I would give my 2 cents here. Feel free to move it back there if you think that appropriate.
The interactions between GMOs and the environment then the environment and humans are complicated so a straight answer may be difficult. Some of the main environmental concerns covered at the controversies page are; insects developing resistance, horizontal gene transfer to other plants, death of non-target organisms, loss of biodiversity and secondary pests becoming more prominent. The effect of these on the environment are hard to accurately predict, let alone whether they will have any indirect effect on human health. Glyphosphate-resistant weeds resulting from gene flow are unlikely to develop outside of crops as they do not provide any selective advantage in the wild, but insect resistant ones might. Loss of biodiversity is a problem with all agriculture and so is the death of non-target organisms. Everything is interconnected in some way so I can't honestly say something occurring to environment through genetic engineering will never effect human health at some point. I feel that would be true for any technology though. Most people when thinking about human health and GM food are more concerned with the direct relationship. If I eat this will it be harmful to me. I think the article is better off distinguishing between the environment and human health the way it does.
You gave an example that increased pesticides used on GM crops may lead to increased risk of cancers.[18] The theory being that GMO crops have increased pesticide use and high levels of pesticide are a risk factor for some cancers. Currently there are two main groups of GM crops on the market (Bt crops and glyphosphate resistant crops). Bt crops actually use less pesticide since they are modified to be insect resistant (so need less synthetic pesticide). The Bt toxin itself has been shown through multiple studies to be harmless to humans and even non-target insects[19][20][21]. Glyphosphate is relatively safe to humans (see Glyphosate#Human toxicity) compared to other herbicides. Any chemical application is going to be regulated under various governmental acts designed to keep toxicity levels below a certain level and this will apply to all crops including GMO ones. You also have to take into account that most toxicity studies are done using straight round-up or a similar product, whereas in practice the final food product will at most have only residue of the chemical and in most cases virtually none of the pesticide will remain. Again all this is all regulated (with-holding periods and the like) and not unique to GMO.
Anyway, I am not trying to convince you to become a supporter GM. I don't even really know where you stand on the issue. I personally see huge potential and most of the risks as being speculative, especially those related to human health. I knew a group of researchers that were trying to put vaccines in bananas. One idea being that they could be used to vaccinate kids in regions with unreliable or no power. I think this factor and many other similar ones get overlooked and the discussion is dominated by Monsanto's involvement and much of the opposition is because of them. AIRcorn(talk)05:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on GM food
Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being around on the WP:MED board. I feel like your presence and short comments have encouraged other people to be more forward in sharing their ideas, even brief ones. Also the direct impact of your contributions are a benefit to everyone. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk)14:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate the way you tell people that you've commented on a discussion and encourage them to do the same. Please keep it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although we have not directly communicated with each other I have followed your diligent, fair and outstanding work towards making Wikipedia work in an otherwise unintelligible labyrinth. WikiProject Medicine is working at its best , better than formerly because of the team work you have promoted. I quit editing last year disappointed but you have tackled the same issue with more success and fairness. Stay vigilant for scholarship and justice! In the meantime have a cherry coke and a cheeseburger from me! Thank your for the vindication of my previous editing work! LeBassRobespierre (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
|}[reply]
Ozzie, I've had your page on my watch list because we work on the Ebola article together. I noticed that you deleted Waid's note. Was it by accident? I've known Waid for years and can hardly say how many times I've gone to her for advise. IMO, she's one of our best editors and I've never seen her to display the arrogance and lack of good intent that is not uncommon for this project. If she tried to help me I'd consider it an honor that she was willing to spend the time on me, a less experienced editor. Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
actually it was to place inline cites on articles that need it, which I will,(some individuals simply have a different way, though she is professional), ,,BTW now that I have your attention I wanted you to know its always been a pleasure to work with you (and I spoke with Brian he added some info to the article...he's OK), --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your work on the Cerebral amyloid angiopathy article is excellent and has made the encyclopedia a better place for medical content. Thank you for your hard work - it is noticed and appreciated. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"On the same day, the tree were the outbreak began, was identified.[23]" That reference is about Liberia, so should I move it out of the Guinea section? Art LaPella (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I barrow your thoughts? Comment /Collaboration of the Month/(wikiproject med)^
I have been working on Stab wound for a little bit and I am working to get it up to GA status hopefully but I really am sort of limited in what else I can add. It is a very niche subject and I have juiced all my sources dry. If you have a moment would you mind taking a look at it and giving your input? Anything is valued. Peter.C • talk • contribs14:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to thank you for all fo the hard work you put into MG over the past week, we have made a lot of progress. What else do you think we need to tackle before trying for GA? Peter.C • talk • contribs20:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, before I do that though I want to try to find a proper source for the physical exam, probably need to find a review article from Up-To-Date or some other source. Will also try to expand the lead a slight bit and remove the refs to conform to MEDMOS. Will try to nom by the end of day. Also - know any good CE who could do a quick run through of it? Peter.C • talk • contribs14:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You recently edited the article on Heyde's syndrome and added a lot of 'medical reference needed' tags with no explanation or anything else. Could you please check the talk page for that article and let me know what I need to change? There are a lot of old references in the text, but I think they are valuable. Thanks for your help. Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page looks so good compared to this morning, great job! If you need any more help(on anything), just let me know, I am glad to help you out! XxX ellen
Hi, I've uploaded an image to commons for this article, but being new to this stuff I wasn't able to provide necessary information on the copyrights status. The image actually is all around the internet and I'm fairly sure it's free. An admin on the commons told me that my only chance is to contact the original creator and ask for permission. I traced the image to here.(NYtimes article attributes it to them) But I was unable to find the image on that site, nor could I find the creator of the image.(though I found who the eye belonged to) I'm overwhelmed by the amount of work this needed and I feel like it's a newbie mistake. Is there an easy way to do this? The image obviously not essential, but I think it would be nice to have it. Hope you have time, thanks in advance. Darwinian Ape talk21:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time to reach out to me regarding my article. I do have a question regarding the Clinical studies section. I happen to have the clinical study documentation on hand, but I'm not sure these have actually been published online. How do I cite this properly? Can I just include the study title, ref number date and company that conducted the study? Thanks for your help. James Schultz (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article about Medical Citations and it stated that studies where animal test subjects are used do not qualify as a "Clinical Study" and should be referred to as "Pre-Clinical Studies". Each of these studies were conducted on laboratory animals. Should I list them as "Pre-Clinical" rather than "Clinical"? Thanks James Schultz (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James Schultz (in response to both posts) ...yes you may list them consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles but first it needs to be PubMed indexed, (it needs to not be a primary study only with exceptions, are they included per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)), any article (journal) needs to be a review or meta-analysis thus a secondary source (I should point out that it is important that you not have a conflict of interest with the article either as primary, secondary or corresponding author)....you may also use a source such as a position statement from CDC,WHO,HHS,NIH and so forth or a medical textbook, please feel free to ask should there be any questions, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ozzie10aaaa. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the initial studies referred to were primary studies conducted for a particular manufacturer. In any event, I have removed them and found some on ClinicalTrials.gov. I only used completed studies with documented results. Thanks again for your help. If you have further suggestions to improve the article, I'd really appreciate it. James Schultz (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on my WikiProject Medicine Announcement. Is this something you would be interested in participating in? Not sure of your location- or would the project or the Wikipedia Foundation support or sponsor someone involved to attend and present? Feel free to contact me or pass along this request to others who might be interested/available on-wiki or by email (richardjam *at* gmail *dot* com) Richardjames444 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richardjames444 ...while I do live in Florida, I would probably have little problem attending (Spring 2016)...in regards to Wikipedia Foundation and funding probably DocJames would be most knowledgeable, in the meantime I will in fact pass this along to a couple of editors which should be interested...thank you for this very kind gesture--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are to be commended for your tireless work on the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article. You are one of the few that have been willing to not only work on the article when the epidemic first broke out but to keep the article up-to-date with your timely addition of new information. Thanks Ozzie! Gandydancer (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very much for the very kind holiday wishes. You always so kind and courteous toward me - your positive attitude has a lot to do with my continued editing. Best Regards,
Thank you for the xmas greetings. Dont take this the wrong way, but the bright red is so bright, and fugly, that I'm going to remove it as it hurts my eyes. It was nice of you though, thanks. -Roxy the dog™woof17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for your recent edits to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. I see that a broken reference has appeared in the intro to the article. I had a quick try at fixing it, but just made things worse, so I reverted my change. Could you please take a look to see if you can make a better fix? -- The Anome (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hearing from the elves that you've been a little worried about how Santa's list is looking for you. They say he's almost done with his second check, and so far it looks like you've hardly been naughty at all! Thanks for the work you do and the help and nice words that you have shared with me. You have brought joy into my work here.
I want to thank you for all your constructive edits to my editing in the past. The article I created, Neonatal infection is scheduled to appear on Main page sometime in the "Did you know..." section in about a week. If you would like to help make it even better, please feel free to polish it up with me. Thanks again and Best Regards,
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 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, and we would love to collaborate further.
I was about to respond to the RFC re: Deepak Chopra under your comment, but I wanted to make sure I'm doing it right first... Am I supposed to reply directly on Talk:Deepak Chopra or is there a separate page like for AFDs? Also, is that the right place to go into detail about anything in the lead that I have an issue with or do you think it's only for discussing POV issues? Sorry this is a dumb question. I guess I never participated in in an AFC before. Permstrump (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you think over your position concerning the pertinence of the image on bipolar disorder. It is present in numerous sources and strongly associated with the topic. CFCF 💌📧11:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. /(wikiproject med)^
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey/(wikiproject med)^
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you so much for taking the initiative to tidy up the article on medullary cystic kidney disease. I did not expect such a rapid response from anyone. Though I've been on Wikipedia for quite a long time, I still consider myself a newbie, and so I'm still learning proper etiquette. Thanks man! NJ (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie10aaaa, I just had to remove the transclusion of a non-existent nomination template for this article from the DYK nominations page. You'll want to consult the DYK instructions for nominators and follow the steps there. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. You have seven days to complete the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind: I've restored it—I just saw your post on the DYK talk page, and fixed the nomination template. I'm still not sure how you managed to get one name for the template page and another inside that very same template, but it's all set now. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and would like to ask for advice from a top medical contributor. The page I've been editing is Dan Riskin. I think the page is ready to move out of draft space. Would you be willing to help me by reviewing it, providing feedback as needed, and moving it out of draft space if you think it's ready? I've been seeing a lot of bad information on people involved in value-based healthcare and would like to put up real, fact-based content. If I'm successful in this one, I want to move on to other key figures in the field. Thank you so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NimbleToad (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your comments! I'm only related in that I also work in value-based healthcare and am frustrated by how many people are claiming credit for hard work from a relatively small group of people. I'd like to put up pages for key people. I'll work on adjusting the article so it reflects why the figure is notable and only lists fact-based commentary. If those changes are made, is it a reasonable next step to move it out of draft space?NimbleToad (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Your revisions are great and make the page much more readable. I updated formatting and added citations where missing. I don't see any objection on the talk page. Could I ask you to please help in moving this out of draft space? NimbleToad (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've asked colleagues and they feel the information is balanced and represents important history as we go through rapid changes in health policy and clinical data use. Unfortunately, I don't know other Wikipedia editors to leave comments. I haven't seen any objections to move the page out of draft space. Once this is done, I'd like to go on to work on John Halamka, another influential individual in the field. Thanks for helping me to learn the process! NimbleToad (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't have permission to move this out of draft space. You offered to move it out of draft space as long as there is consensus on the talk page. You've made the article much stronger and there have been no objections in talk. Could you please help with the move out of draft space? Thanks! NimbleToad (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[35]posted at wikiproject med(if no answer, then ill have to move article, there should be more comments) in the future please comment at talk/article THX--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ozzie10aaaa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
I just taught an online Wikipedia class at Wikipedia:Cochrane online classes October 2016. I told the participants to check in at WP:MED for support. It happened that you responded to many of the participants. Thank you so much for that.
Thanks for all your help re Influenza vaccine and health care workers. I will have time to sit down and go through your suggested references tonight. I greatly appreciate the helpful and positive feedback. JenOttawa (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Season's greetings and best wishes for the coming year. (I guess that Santa felt that his reindeer needed a little rest before heading home.) Sincerely, Gandy
Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
Comprehensiveness.
(a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
(b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
(a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
(b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly
Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process
Over the last 4 years a number of us have been worked to improve all 414 medicines on this list. The leads of each item now provides a decent well referenced overview of the subject in question and an article exists for each of the medicines / combinations. The WHO just released an image under an open license for use to us. World Health Day is April 7th and 2017 also marks the 40 anniversary of the EML. Would be nice to get this ready for the main page for that date. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 4- African trypanosomiasis........ Medicines for the treatment of 1st stage African trypanosomiasis...seems to be "two" headers, would you be willing to merge or get rid of one of them?
Criterion 5- a.consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, makes good use of text layout, minimal redlinks
b.could use between 2-5 images to bring more interest in the "list" for our readers?
I came across Paratonia on the WP:MED assessment page, someone's recently rewritten it and would like some help with getting the ugly tags off. They've said they're an expert in the field - could you please say hi to them? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking the page on paratonia. I read the guidelines for references and citations, unfortunately there are no secondary sources available (maybe in the future I will publish a review!), what I wrote is the best I can doLuciomarinelli (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[56]the second link, indicates all books that are available(and more) if you go to next page[57](even if you feel the first link/book[58] I indicated was not satisfactory, thank you...have posted at article talk as well)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...the esteem with which Doc is held at WP Medicine, and I share it. But when entering a complex discussion, is it not better to fully understand the issues involved, before taking a side (even with as easy as voting and side-taking is here)? Your work on the various of your editing projects makes clear you are capable of sophisticated and subtle understanding. The issues of our allowing self-published medical imagery (and the associated matter of our seeming lack of concern for patient consent) are things that could sink the ship. Please, if engaging there, read through the arguments and examples, and them vote. Thank you. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. This is just a friendly reminder that you should try to use edit summaries more often. For instance, in theseedits you added and removed over 30,000 bytes. I see that you were just moving stuff around, but you easily could have explained that. That's all. Thanks for your contributions to that article! (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
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.
There is no need to discuss edits before they are made, per WP:BOLD; they should be discussed after they are reverted though, per WP:BRD. This looks to be a content dispute rather than disruptive editing. GiantSnowman13:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the snowball clause doesn't work like that. If ten people had turned up to agree with you and nobody had disagreed then you might be able to argue that it could be closed early under the snowball clause, but one person isn't going to lead to an early closure. The discussion will be either closed or relisted after a week as per the usual procedure. Hut 8.520:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Participate our study to help recruit editors forWPMED?/(wikiproject med)^
Hi Ozzie10aaaa,
Thank you for responding my post on WPMED about our study, and hope you are interested in it. I wonder if you'd like to participate our study to recruit editors we recommend for WPMED? Please check out my user talk page for participation, and let me know if you have any question. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the new Cochrane-Wikipedia Editors/(wikiproject med)^
Thanks for your help with those new Cochrane Editors. Cochrane ran an editing workshop and it looks like they drummed up some interest.
How did you reply to the person who did not sign their page? I have not figured out that trick :)
I will be away from my internet for a couple of days, but will be following up with these people and will support them as new editors.
Thanks again for all your friendly assistance and support in my own Wikipedia editing initiatives.
If you are removing large pieces of content in an article, in order to replace them elsewhere in the article, please remember to leave an edit summary to that effect, so it will not be mistaken for vandalism. GMGtalk12:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie: why did you remove my information about ulnar neuropathy? I’ve been treating it for many years. Can we discuss this? That was not added lightly or spur of the moment.
Asherah12 Asherah12 (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie: Why did you revert the placement of Mechanisms in Dysautonomia? I moved it because the section followed rather than preceded "The symptoms of Dysautonomia, which are numerous and vary widely for each individual, are due to inefficient or unbalanced efferent signals sent via both systems." The Mechanisms section explains "both systems"; it doesn't make sense to place the section after the reference. Shinju (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ozzie10aaaa. 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.
According to the OMIM review on GSD IXd, Burwinkel et al. (2003) is the last word from the medical research community on the genetics of GSD IXd. Yeah, I know, that is kinda unsatisfactory – but then again, as I have written here, GSD IX is quite rare. If you have more extensive reviews, or newer research, I am all ears, and more than willing to include that – in the meantime, could you be so kind and re-revert your revert? Tony Mach (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this to the infobox is misleading. It is clear from the article that it is NOT an inherited disease. Familial (or, rather, on the latest theory, commensal), but not genetic. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from one of these pages you cite that there is disagreement among the primary sources. One ".. concluded that purely environmental, mendelian dominant, and mendelian recessive hypotheses of causation could be rejected." I repeat: adding this to the infobox misrepresents what the secondary sources are saying. It is not even certain that there is a genetic component at all. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me and for leaving a Christmas message. I hope that you have a very nice holiday and I am looking forward to seeing you on WikiProject Med in 2018.
Warm regards,
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
they could be placed together, however if the reader sees that one is at least, a subsection(=== ===)of the other to better define the difference it would be good... having said that should you feel strongly about joining both w/out any 'differentiation' I would agree and understand--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ozzie10aaaa, not sure why you removed the external links from this article, as this is one place where they are deemed to be appropriate. Were they in some way flawed? Let me know, as I just replaced them in the relevant "External links" section.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I see you commented at the top of the discussion in Antibiotics Talk
I wonder if you could come back and lay eyes on the reference in question and comment on whether it's a reliable biomedical secondary source per WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. I haven't made a lot of edits, so I may be applying my professional understanding inappropriately, but it seems like all four of the references I referred to in talk are considered reliable secondary sources here as well. You've been around for a while, so if you look at the actual references and say they're not, then I know i've misunderstood. If I can get some consensus on whether those sources are appropriate, then it will be worth my time to rewrite as suggested in talk. If not, I won't bother.
Here are the additional references mentioned in talk. I'll use web links here:
Science, a news article (on the topic in general, not on the previous perspectives article)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5935/1637.long
Please let me know if requesting a comment in this way isn't appropriate. I'm new at making edits, and I want to make sure any contributions I make to the community are done in the right way! Dbhall200:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have noticed you have a tendency to add archives to talk pages. For example here and here. May I ask why you do this? Or if there is a specific guideline I can read about this? WP:ARCHIVE notes in the lead that when a Talk page exceeds 75,000 bytes it is recommended to archive per the talk page guidelines. Linked examples above were just 14,000 and 21,000 bytes respectively. --Treetear (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so..if we look at[78] and then Help:Archiving_a_talk_page the first sentence indicates... It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers....the last discussion on that page was Aug. 2015(2.5 years ago)[79]....the aforementioned 'archive help page' further indicates ,However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. If we use the same first quote with different emphasis:
It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers.
In my opinion, it is a bit overkill to archive Talk pages with only around 15 or less sections (each with only a few comments), seeing there are no active discussions popping up recently that could re-populate the Talk page. I see no use in having an empty Talk page with an archive, compared to a small Talk page with no recent discussion. The previous discussion is useful to have visible for readers and editors and should not be 'hidden' or be archived to give the appearance that the discussions are finished. Occassionally, comments are given on older discussions, especially on pages where there are not many sections on the Talk page. Even if no comments would pop up in 2.5 years, maybe what's stopping it is that previous discussions on a topic have already commented what the editor had in mind suggesting.
I think you may have misread the Guidelines and missed the necessary point that archiving suggestedly only should be considered when a page is large or "bulky", not necessarily when nobody has commented in a while. --Treetear (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
perHelp:Archiving_a_talk_page, However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case...is clear IMO, thank you(besides if there is any particular article/talk you think needs to be reexamined , just revert)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James actually its suppose to look like a combination of both images[81]<span style="position:absolute;top:-130px;left:-185px;z-index:100;background-color:" class="noprint">[[File:WHO Rod.svg|110px|link=Main Page]]</span>...what should I change?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie - i asked for a page move earlier - Essential thrombocytosis to Essential thrombocythemia. This was because it was the name used on the page, in the infobox and in the refs. I've just looked at the page thrombocytosis which you edited recently - and thought i'd bring it to your attention - both pages ought to use the same name. Ngrams favour essential thrombocythemia but favour thrombocytosis. The page was moved - any thoughts? thanks (and a late thanks for all your past thanks) --Iztwoz (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the link to the Encephalitis Society on the Encephalitis page? Can I ask why? And can you give me some guidance as to how we can correct it?
I'd (respectfully) argue against some of those points which are relevant to us. Namely, that we are not purely web or email based: we are a dedicated society which provides accredited, evidence-based, peer-reviewed info. Indeed, some of the authors used as references are members of our Scientific Advisory Panel. We do exist in bricks and mortar (I assure you!) and provide global services. Along the same lines, we are not local, state or regional - we are an international organisation. Thanks - love to hear your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewPitt (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
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.
Doc James its your strength and leadership ability that has made this project one of the top and most viewed by our readers, so therefore thank you for your guidance--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit to Caudal regression syndrome, you removed several external links as inappropriate. While I might agree with some of your choices, might I inquire about some others? Specifically
The first is the only known organization that deals specifically with this condition, and the second is a nationally recognized organization whose resources for rare diseases and conditions are widely valued. I believe these two links fall within the policy outlined by WP:EL for links that can provide the reader with more information than can conveniently be included within the encyclopedia article. Cousendux (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you changed the organization of the unicentric castleman disease article I wrote. Sorry to re-edit this question, initially I preferred the classification section rather than the signs and symptoms, but I think that does work. I did prefer having a separate section for classification at the beginning of the article as it is critical to understanding the disease. Please let me know if you are comfortable with me moving the classification section back. I am new to wiki and did not want to overturn your changes as you are a much more experienced editor. Thanks CDK55 (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I was wondering what "geed" meant. Because you put it in italics, I inferred that it was a deliberate spelling. Best wishes, Axl¤[Talk]10:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes it was a mistake when I sit a certain distance from the monitor I cant see too well(I seem to have myopia in one eye),unfortunately its not the first time Ive had unusual typos, thank you for mentioning it, should you see anything similar in the future please correct it as it undoubtedly will happen again at some point(I'm usually very close to the monitor to see clearly)thank you Axl--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No co relation with diabetes and acute cerebrovascular disease (Stroke)
1. Total number of hospital stays in usa 32,371,800..
2. Total number of hospital stays of diabetis as principal diagnosis 512,500. And diabetis is secondary diagnosis 6,290,000.
3. Acute cerebrovascular disease (stroke) patients with diabtis as principal or secondary diagnosis 153,800. Finally Cerebro vascular disease occurred 2.4% of diabetic people .
4. In this total number of hospital stays , 892300 patients for stayed in hospital for Acute cerebrovascular disease (stroke).2.4%
5. Final conclusion is Acute cerebrovascular disease occurred in same % in diabetic and non diabetic people.
6. There is no any co relation with diabetes and cerebrovascular disease
If any one want to revert this ,please provide valuable explanation. I am medical doctor , i was submitted the same issue to world health organization and got appreciation from who. Generally stroke occurs at old age people. so old age general public and diabetic people suffer with chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension. Due to this reason a common miss concept occurs diabetes is causative factor for stroke . Please read some more information about this statistical records .If you want i can provide some more information on this concept.
I wasn't aware primary sources should be avoided. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I understand and appreciate the reasoning. However, I'd think for something like establishing a "relationship," a primary source would be acceptable. Metaquanta (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself. We could use a good medical editor like yourself on the team.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.
Hi Ozzie10aaaa. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right may be revoked by an administrator. ~ Amory(u • t • c)20:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
New technology, new rules
New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Not everything needs an infobox /(wikiproject med)^
I noticed that you've recently added a bunch of blank infoboxes to a handful of pages; if there is no content in an infobox, there is no point in adding it to an article. Would you please consider self-reverting those additions? Primefac (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
Project news
The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Community Wishlist Proposal
There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
Project updates
ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
Thanks, Ozzie for reviewing this page. I have studied your edits and agree with many. I do think the External Links section is appropriate though WP:EL, without the Google Scholar link. What do you think? Okay if I try a revert of parts? BrucePL (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the some Wikipedia articles (that have significant contributions from you) for review through Wiki.J.Med. I need to ask you whether you would like to have your name (original name) with affiliations included in the list of authors, or at least your pseudonymous username, and whether you would like act as the corresponding author of those articles. It would be appreciable if you can join in and help to upgrade the article(s) as they undergo review. I myself would be joining in and would try to help though the review process (and possibly prior to that as well). Seeking your cooperation. You can respond to this message or contact me privately. Diptanshu💬18:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ozzie10aaaa. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have taken the liberty to add some code to your page to ease the navigation. Feel free to remove it if you do not like it. I also welcome you to archive some of the earlier discussions on your talk page. Diptanshu💬04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much for the notice, Im not entirely certain how it may have occurred, I suspect the mouse pasted a prior reference(plus I don't see very well from a distance), thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie, I have not been editing on Wikipedia for some years now. Too many other editors banding together marketing various programs and outdated concepts. If only thye would base editing on international research best wishes dolfrog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolfrog (talk • contribs)
You can see at the very bottom of this pdf version of the article that it was published in their September-December 2017 issue, and we have had it since August 2017. So they copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello Ozzie10aaaa,
Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
Hello, Ozzie10aaaa. 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.
Not that it can be included in Wikipedia, but i have access to a neat powerpoint slide prepared for Kibali Gold Mine - that I do some consulting for - which puts into perspective the areas of both the outbreak and the military unrest. I was supposed to go there in November, but didnt, and i will wait for everything to settle down before i go there again. If i can somehow get an email address i can send it to you. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give good gifts, one to another Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother Smooth life's journey as you onward go. Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers. So shed an influence blessing to prove; Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs; Blest and be blest, is the law of love.
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001reviews), Semmendinger (8,440reviews), PRehse (8,092reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016reviews), and Elmidae (3,615reviews). Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
These words pretty much describe you, my friend: One of the nicest and most tolerant people here and a true gift for Wikipedia. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you! Gandydancer (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
those are very kind words Gandy, Ive said it before you are the best medical editor Ive worked with and I consider having done so a privilege, Merry Christmas to you and the very best New Year ...Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, CAPTAIN RAJU(T)18:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ozzie. I don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia. Can you please tell me why you thought the Prize section wasn't relevant, and deleted it? It's the biggest achievement from the organisation. Thanks.
--Mati Roy 27 December 2018
Thanks for your response. I implemented the changes you recommend. I also wonder why you removed the logo? In their footer on their website they mention that they waived the copyrights. Please let me know. Thank you.--Mati Roy 27 December 2018
Help with editing a page N-localizer/(wikiproject med)^
I’m new to Wikipedia. I see that you have previously edited the N-localizer page, so could you please help me to edit that page?
I’ve moved Figure 1 out of the info box, added a discussion that ties Figures 1-3 together, and added a discussion of the Sturm-Pastyr localizer. However, Figure 3 doesn’t line up with Figures 1 and 2 but instead is lower on the page. Can you please help me to fix this problem? Thanks! Lunqvist (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My brother has this rare syndrome, and has a very aggressive form of it as well. If there are any questions regarding Schinzel Giedion syndrome I would love to help as much as possible! Lexi mara (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie, when you add an image to an infobox, like this one-Apocrine gland carcinoma, can you try to remember not to include the |thumb parameter with the image filename, please? The infobox already deals with the image position and size, and the thumb parameter just gets treated as an invalid parameter. That places the article in Category:Pages using infobox medical condition with unknown parameters, which I'm trying to reduce from its present 469 members (so that I can clean up the template). It only had 466 yesterday and it's quite frustrating trying to get the number down. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I previously read and understood the context of COI, and am fully aware of the biases I can have consciously and unconsciously. I would like to know who can possibly write an article on the topics I contributed to (basic species information) without having been educated somewhat of A) their existence, B) their use in research. I did not declare COI because I as I said, I am loosely connected, but I am not an active researcher in the field nor do I have an active relationship in the field. If this qualifies as COI, I admit I am unsure of exactly what I can write about on Wikipedia. Please advise on how I can continue writing on topics of which I am knowledgeable without being blocked by COI concerns.
p.s. reading this... as text is void of inflection, please understand I am not trying to be snarky. I am just a bit perplexed where the line is between educated and unrelated vs. educated and related. Surely the degree of COI falls on a spectrum, where above some arbitrary threshold it can be deemed inappropriate. But this also implies below said arbitrary threshold it is appropriate. - Crawdaunt
Yes, Dr. Steve Perlman. However, if you look at the number of publications relating to D. neotestacea, you will find that a research group off-shooting from John Jaenike is responsible for almost the entirety of research related to D. neotestacea. It is not a highly competitive field. As far as I am aware, labs actively doing research with D. neotestacea include: John Jaenike's lab at the University of Rochester, Kellie Dyer's lab (former post-doc of Jaenike), and Steve Perlman's lab (former post-doc of Jaenike). I am happy to provide the google scholar search return for "D. neotestacea", which you will see returns results almost entirely from John Jaenike, Kellie Dyer, or Steve Perlman. Indeed, Jaenike is an author on every publication on the first three page of results directly related to D. neotestacea (owing to his starting in this field in the 1970s), many of which are co-authored with Dr. Steve Perlman pertaining to D. neotestacea*Spiroplasma*Howardula interactions. K. Dyer's lab and S. Perlman's lab also focus on population genetics in the species group. So pretty much all references to D. neotestacea with respect to Howardula, or Spiroplasma, are attached to J. Jaenike and/or S. Perlman. Please see Google Scholar search results, and particularly note in papers where D. neotestacea is in the title, the senior author is almost always either Jaenike, Perlman, or Dyer: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=0&q=drosophila+neotestacea&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
I wrote the H. aoronymphium page after seeing it referenced in the Drosophila falleni page, but H. aoronymphium had not yet been created. I mentioned D. neotestacea on the H. aoronmyphium page, and subsequently wrote a page for D. neotestacea as one was not yet written in English (though D. neotestacea had an entry in 6 other languages). I hope this clarifies the reason why the authors attached to J. Jaenike, S. Perlman, and K. Dyer appear so frequently in the D. neotestacea page. - Crawdaunt
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 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.
Hi, you have reverted my adding a reference for the existence of "march hematuria", which I merely copied from mechanical hemolytic anemia. Your reversion edit did not give any information about why the reference is not applicable. I would be very interested to understand the basis for that reversion. Thanks, 192.118.27.253 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is interesting. Does this mean I should edit the lead for HIV/AIDS, remove the three references, which are all older than 5 years old, which confirm that HIV causes AIDS, and add a "citation needed" instead? Somehow, I don't think that would improve that article. There are countless medical conditions which are no longer being studied because of advances in medicine or accepted medical knowledge, or other societal changes (for "march hematuria", for example, the replacement of marching with the use of better transportation methods in wartime) and there are no recent sources for them. Although MEDRS does not explicitly allow use of older references in this case, it hints at the necessity for them by saying that "History sections often cite older work". 192.118.27.253 (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help for finding better references and improving my Wikipedia skills. Based on your edit, I still would like to hear your opinion of why a troll couldn't edit HIV/AIDS in the way I proposed and cite MEDRS as justification. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
Discussions of interest
Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Hello Ozzie, thank you for reviewing and improving my articles, but I don't understand, why do you remove the external links? Could you please explain? --Allexkoch (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a graphic showing the inheritance of this condition. This graphic is widely used for other diseases. Yet you consider this inclusion to be disruptive.
Sounds like a plan. I have a suggestion. Change the graphic. Cardiomegaly is not specific for this condition. Put this latter image elsewhere in the page. This would make this page consistent with other genetic diseases with known inheritance. Virion123 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I don't really see the point of that last remark. It may be a common feature but there are many causes of cardiomegaly. Don't worry I am not going to move things around just because I can. Such things are so trivial its not worth my time bothering with them. Virion123 (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you are trying to do on Albright's hereditary osteodystrophy with the list, namely having it not clash with the image on the left by manually adding indents with :. But manually positioning them with indents is not the way to do it: it makes life on other screen sizes, especially phones, miserable. There's currently no good solution to formatting lists with images floating on the left, and as something that goes down to the level of how browsers lays out text it's probably best to treat it as a bug we cannot fix now. (And honestly the fix does not work with all folks; I can't see any difference on my screen.)
In other words there is a trade-off between a minor visual itch for someone and seeing some huge empty space on the left for narrow-screen folks. I believe that the downsides of doing the indents outweights the potential benefits, so I removed it. I don't want to get into an revert war over this, so...
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
You recently reordered the section in the Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia article with an edit summary of MEDMOS. In my opinion, the sections were better ordered in this particular case with Mechanisms preceding Causes as this gives the reader the context of understanding why calcium cycling is important before a more technical description of the genes which perturb this process. I think that MEDMOS is flexible enough to allow this so I'm going to change it back. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, PeaBrainC (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree that MEDMOS should be followed (but am loathe to say always about anything!). My reading of MEDMOS is that it does acknowledge that section order may vary depending on the needs of an individual article:
A disease that is now only of historical significance may benefit from having its History section moved towards the top. Establishing the forms of the disease (Classification) can be an important first section. However, if such classification depends heavily on understanding the cause, pathogenesis or symptoms, then that section may be better moved to later in the article. If a disease is incurable, then the Prognosis section can be moved up, and a section called Management is more appropriate than Treatment.
You're welcome, and thank you for keeping track of this horrific disease's impact on human life. It is my hope that fully effective vaccines will be developed for this and other epidemics, especially HIV/AIDS. Sc2353 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2018–19 Kivu Ebola outbreak, which you created and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.
proposed link fix in Eating article/(wikiproject med)^
Hi,
Thanks for the note on my talk page.
I wanted to fix a broken OMIM NIH link in the eating article, similar to fixes I made in various medical articles, but that article isn't editable for me. Maybe you could look at that for me. Details are in the note I left on the eating talk page. If you have a better fix, you might want to apply it to the other pages I changed.
72.211.204.66 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors.
The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Hi Ozzie10aaaa. I contact you because I published an article called "Scavenger endothelial cell" yesterday and I saw that you reviewed it. So I believe you are an experienced user and I would ask you one question (I am not experienced). In the article I published the same citation is used more than one time. By using "Error check" I found that 5 citations are used more than once. But the reference list at the bottom of the article is not organized such that each reference appear only once there. Is it supposed to be like that? Kjetilhe (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok I left an example w/ reference #15[115]...essentially the main reference takes on <ref name="abc">, while each duplicate reference takes on <ref name=abc/>--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Periods /ebola5
Over the years, I think I've made about 20 edits like this one, with a period at the end of the last sentence in a paragraph. I don't understand the problem, because it looks like Afrikaans sentences end in periods just like English. Art LaPella (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you for keeping the Kivu Ebola epidemic numbers up-to-date. Too few people are concerned about this epidemic.
You dropped me a note. I wasn't sure if it was telling me "become a medical contributor or hands off the article." I'm not a medical professional, and I don't even have a Wikipedia account. I'm just acutely concerned about the Kivu Ebola epidemic. I noticed a discrepancy between the case number in the source and the one on the page. So, I corrected it. I don't intend to make any other type of changes.
I do have a question for you if you are a doctor who has been following this epidemic. Regarding the Merck ebola vaccine, the current number of available doses appears to be inflated based on the idea that the filled vaccine bottles can be diluted and given to multiple patients. That's a finished biopharmaceutical product for injection. Is this type of dilution something doctors do like ever? I was only in Quality Assurance for two years at Chiron Corporation (later bought by Novartis), but I cringed inside even with my very limited experience. The clean room used to fill biopharmaceuticals for injection have like 100 to 1,000 particles per cubic meter of air in there. If any bacteria are discovered in the cleanest part of the clean room during filling, that lot gets rejected. How could these doses possibly be diluted safely? 98.220.227.229 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your GA nomination of Hepatitis E/ (wikiproject med)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hepatitis E you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FA would be amazing however I would need time to think about it... it goes without saying that the opportunity would not be possible had it not been for your obviously strong review, thank you Cas Liber--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hepatitis E, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that China is the only country in the world to have a licensed vaccine for hepatitis E? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hepatitis E. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hepatitis E), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
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) 16:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Mark Boguski has been closed as a malformatted nomination.
You listed the talk page, Talk:Mark Boguski (rather than the article itself) for the AfD. Presumably you meant to AfD the article itself but you did not follow instrucions. Talk pages should be listed for WP:MFD (not WP:AFD), assuming you somehow do want the talk page itself deleted while the article retained. Also, when a page is listed for AfD or MfD, the appropriate tag needs to be placed at the page itself, with a link to the relevant deletion discussion. If you still want the article deleted, create a new AfD nomination, this time for the article itself, following the WP:AfD instructions. Note that if an article is listed for an AfD, the PROD tag should be removed. Also, please see my comments regarding the subject's notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Mark Boguski. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nsk92 that I may have malformed the deletion request is obvious, very similar to the 'obviousness' of the 'paid editing' which has led to an article that is a promotional article, thank you (BTW I had adjusted the edit to read written in a promotional manned[116])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a substantial answer, that's just a reference for the sake of a reference. Would you also add the citation request to The capital of France is Paris? BoH (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as you can read, it applies to any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Therefore, please substantiate the tag. BoH (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Hi there, I'm a new wikipedian so apologies for my ignorance, but why did you remove the section on awards and recognition on the Caroline de Costa page? These were significant awards and I see similar awards listed on many other pages. Thanks for your help. --Dr JBW (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes you seem to be creating/expanding a few articles[118], in terms of that article it seemed a little promo that is why it was trimmed, should you have further comments please take to talk/page, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and assistance on moving/reviewing Draft:List of invasive plant species in New York please? / NPR
Thank you for reviewing my list of invasive species for Pennsylvania - it is such an urgent topic! I am wondering if you might also be able to help with my draft list for New York. Thank you so much - I am still learning and it's great to have mentors like you out there! User:Minard38 (talk)
Hi, I'm Creffett. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Muskowekwan 85-28, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
Getting the queue to 0
There are now 822 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Tools
It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
I'm a new editor on wikipedia, so would appreciate your help in understanding the notice on the above article, and what I can do to improve it. The only words that are mine are in the introduction; the rest are a series of quotations, so I am not sure how to address this. While undertaking the research, I was not able to find any systematic reviews (SR) or meta-studies (MS) that did not raise serious issues, hence presenting them as contrary. Perhaps you or others may know of SR's and MS's that present more positive views? Is this matter worth discussing on the article's talk page? Thanks, Carlduff (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your deletions and additions in the article on Nand Peeters/(wikiproject med)^
Dear Ozzie10aaaa,
On August 19, 2019, you trimmed the article on Nand Peeters (which I started) quite drastically, by over 6500 bytes. I assume good faith on your part, i.e., I assume you had reason to do so. But please assume good faith on my part, too, i.e., assume that I had reason to deem that information sufficiently relevant to insert it, and that it is correct.
As the author of the text you deleted, I would like to know your reason for deleting it. You do not justify your deletions; you merely indicate that you deleted information that I still think is relevant. Would you please be so kind as to explain you reason(s)?
I also noticed you inserted four “citation needed”-tags. I don’t see the reason of the third, for you inserted that at the end of a sentence in the middle of which there is a footnote giving the two sources of the stories the sentence is about. The other three come at the end of paragraphs which contain bits of information of various kinds, all culled from Van den Broeck 2014. I intend to put Van den Broeck 2014 first in the list of sources, and follow it by something like: “The main source; unless otherwise indicated, all information in this article derives from it.” That is far more informative than simply to replace these three “citation needed”-tags by references to certain pages in Van den Broeck 2014, which would account only for the information in the last sentences of the three paragraphs followed by these “citation needed”-tags.
In Help:Referencing_for_beginners I find the answer to my problem about your third "reference needed"-tag, but not about my problem with the other three.
The only section in Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles that could conceivably have anything to do with which information is relevant in Wikipedia is "Stay on topic", but that is not helpful in my case, since all the texts you deleted in Nand Peeters were unambiguously about Nand Peeters. I could not make head or tail of your text between brackets, for three reasons. One, you used the noun phrase another editor, which, being indefinite, is a reference to an indefinite entity. Two, if it is no longer in mainspace, where is it now? I don't know, so I cannot consult it. Three, what is the meaning of the compound mainspace? I have never seen it. The absence of an article in front of it makes it a proper noun or a mass noun, but that knowledge does not help me.
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! I've seen the cn tag in Thrombocytopenia. What that sentence says is pretty much the definition of thrombocytosis (also known as thrombocythemia) which is the opposite of thrombocytopenia. What sort of source do you reckon would best support that point? Do we still need a source if something is true by definition and we have an article about it? Sorry if the question is a bit basic, I'm relatively new. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa,
You deleted the Family section on Alexander Gillies with no accompanying explanation.
I wasn't aware that this contravened any Wikipedia guidelines and would appreciate learning your reasons for doing this.
Thanks. Papamac (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind holiday message and for all your hard work on WP:MED and positive approach to Wikipedia. I hope that you have a nice Christmas holiday! JenOttawa (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia this past year, –Davey2010talk00:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you come across a malformatted table, like this, it's a good idea to check the page history. Very often the problem will have been introduced in a recent edit, often the last edit to the page (eg). That means you can easily fix the problem by reversion. That way you also repair any other damage that might have been done in the same edit.
further reversions at article on Western African Ebola virus epidemic/ ebola
A revert with no explanation of reason other than noting it is WP:GOODFAITH is insufficient; such a tactic is probably OK for removing vandalism; Yes, you are an expert on this subject, and yes, everyone praises your work here for good reason, but I also note that no-one reverts my edits on Wikipedia more than you do, and I think there are clearly issues around WP:OWNERSHIP that I think you need to be mindful of. The links provided to Ebola-related articles rather than a generic country article are appropriate; obviously I think they are more appropriate. Can you please discuss at the article talk page why you think links to the country article are more appropriate than links to the articles for that country on Ebola virus? Thanks. Matilda Maniac (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You may want to update some of the images on your med_edit/lab page (under "useful images/inheritance") to some versions that I made based on the original autosomal dominant and recessive images.
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Discussions and Resources
There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
the answer is yes(and no), recently I had this conversation.....
Shouldn't there be some criteria that needs to be met to show up on this list?
For example, on the Epidemic page it states that an outbreak is considered an epidemic if the attack rate in excess of 15 cases per 100,000 people for two consecutive weeks.
Some of these listing don't meet that standard. For example:
17 deaths in India in 2018 from Nipah virus
1 death in Mozambique in 2019 from Cholera
The current coronavirus at 26 deaths. (The population of Wuhan China is 11.08 million)
having pointed out the above conversation, until there are more opinions on this, I would go ahead and list it on the article, thank you(BTW [122] is non-stop)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies...I don't know why I came back to this conversation..but I just noted the link. The typhoid epidemic took my attention because the first case didn't fit with the conclusion made at the trial...sort of like the 1st case of COVID in Wuhan. That's why I diverted from China to Croydon. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
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.
so should item just be deleted if no reference can be found in 5 years?(Encephalitis)/(wikiproject med)^
first thanks on the info for health related sourcing on wiki. Even though i actually have degrees in the hard science, I ended up taking a different life path and haven't used that part of my brain in years. (some might say ever:)
If no reference for that comment has been found in 5 years, maybe it should be deleted. I did quite a bit of searching to find what i did and I'll have to revisit it to see if there was anything else at all on point, but I would seem to suspect there isn't. That being the case, would deleting be more appropriate because if it ever is substantiated more, then it'll find it's way back.
Should the comment just be deleted as I asked above? If there is no reference supporting it, then it really shouldn't stay should it? It appears the cite needed request went on in 2015, but how long was it on the page before that? Sometimes it's best to delete things, and if support for it ever does come available it'd find it's way back I'm sure.Mikethewhistle-original (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
will look for best reference, ASAP, thank you (however I'm certain a textbook can easily help it simply takes time, perhaps the article text also needs to be modified in the process)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
definitely not an asap item. my thought process was if in at least 5 years a source hasn't been id'ed, then maybe it's not factually correct and shouldn't be on the board. You're the expert so you definitely would know better than me whether it's something that's true but just needs a ref or if it's questionable and there's no ref to be found. I get the sense that you believe there's a reference so I'd guess it's the former. frankly the whole coronavirus thing to me deserves the bandwidth and probably many other things, so please please don't feel like i'm rushing you. I won't beat this horse to death any more and hopefully you know where i'm coming from.
I saw where you are 1 of the top 300 med contributors. I'd like to say a great thank you. i don't know if i've ever read anything you've contributed to because i honestly am very careful what i use as a source for medical info and didn't know that wiki had people like you and source standards over health issues that you educated me to. I'm an old dog so it'd be hard to change the sources i use which largely is email with my doctor if not in person, but i may start using wiki for something that i've really rarely used it for because of you. TYMikethewhistle-original (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!(wikiproject med)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Dear Ozzie, I have been following your contributions on the COVID-19-related articles and talk pages. Thank you for helping keep them accurate! I also appreciate your support on the Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts page. I feel fortunate to be part of such a great medical editing community. Take good care! JenOttawa (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you did what you did to Anne Bertolotti, but us reporting the fact that a scientist is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, or where and under whom they obtained their PhD, is not "PROMO"; and removing their photograph - without giving a reason, at that - is utterly ridiculous. I have accordingly reverted your cuts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Hi...no hurry with this. I saw a recent of edit of yours on the list of epidemics. I then found this but I don't know how to use this site or what it means. Is this how I can see what I have been doing? Whispyhistory (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes that indicates the articles you have contributed the most to. As you can see the current pandemic stands #1 on your list( when this is over you may want , along with other contributing editors,to take it to GA and then to Wikijournal of Medicine which BTW is applying for PMC)….additionally there is this link[126] which you can find under 'edit count' at the bottom, this one tells everything, good luck--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you...I didn't know about this (was wondering how some people knew so much about me without me saying). Maybe slightly scary and I guess I don't need to keep track on my user page. I have a long way before catching up with you. I haven't edited much on the pandemic page for a while; it has become a little tricky, but maybe I will look again. btw...when i first started that...I had to keep looking at the ebola article to see how things were done, particularly the table of countries:cases:deaths (fyi). thanks again. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no on the contrary, thank you for initially bringing the pandemic article to life no one could have seen where this was going, apparently you saw more than the rest of us--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean [130], which for a stub is just too many pictures(images). Should the article expand and become larger, then more images should be applied,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, how are you ? why did you deleted Dana Amir's books ? she's a renown Israeli poetess, all of her books published in an established publishing houses and she awarded prizes for some of them. Tzahy (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that when you assess articles, all articles about people get |importance=low|society=yes from WPMED. (example) We can send a bot through if the category gets out of control, but if you're editing it anyway, it's as well to get it all done at once. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case you have revert notifications on, please ignore the one I just generated at you - I somehow sausage-fingered the mouse and have re-reverted :P ♠PMC♠ (talk)18:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
citations(references) go at the end of the sentence per this [131], my last edit on that article, can you point out which 'citation needed' did have a reference at the end of the sentence?...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I may be missing something, but I couldn't find anything in that diff ([132]) about where citations are supposed to go – can you clarify? MOS:CITEPUNCT also doesn't say they need to go at the end of sentences, but does provide examples with <ref>...</ref>s in the middle of sentences – is that incorrect? JohnnyMyself (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
example from before I inserted 'cn'.....[133].. Officials announced that there were three new deaths related to the disease of which claimed the life of two men from Cook County that were in their 80s and a McLean County woman in her 70s. Jo Daviess, Livingston, Rock Island, and Stephenson counties all reported their first case of the disease on this day....where was the ref for this text?(its under 'March')
OK, I see, as in this diff. I think Mr Xaero is saying the <ref> earlier in that paragraph is the same source for the text you quoted; so in this example, do you mean that the same ref should also be repeated at the end of the paragraph?
as for reference placement.....This page shows you three alternative ways to insert effective inline citations using 'ref tags'. Each results in a superscripted footnote number at the end of the relevant sentence, like this:[1] plus a correspondingly numbered reference (footnote) automatically appearing in the 'References' section near the bottom of the article. Help:Referencing_for_beginners--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thanks for pointing that out. But I notice it doesn't say that references must go at the end of the sentence – merely that that happens to be the result of those particular instructions. Plus, a few other things mentioned in that same guide add to the confusion:
“
Generally references are added directly after the information they support, at the end of the sentence...[emphasis added]
2. Position the editing cursor in the text where you want the numbered link to your citation to appear. This should be at the end of the relevant phrase, sentence, or paragraph that the citation is verifying...[emphasis added]
...the next step is to add an actual reference into the article text. The code to do this goes at the end of the relevant phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers...[emphasis added]
From these, it sounds like references are OK following a phrase in the middle of a sentence? Sorry for being pedantic – I'm fairly new to editing, and trying to learn how to do it correctly, but I'm still confused about this discrepancy, and just want to make sure I get it right. — JohnnyMyself (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Need help with the coronavirus article/ (wikiproject med) ^
Ozzie, I need some help with the coronavirus article. I'd like to work on improving the South America section but when I try to edit it I'm having problems with the first paragraph. If I try to edit it using visual editing it becomes "blue" and I'm unable to work with it. When I try to edit it with the way I usually do it doesn't even turn up on my screen--only stuff from the second para and on shows. (The same thing happened on a few other world listing sections as well.) Can you help me figure it out? Gandydancer (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer the problem is some editors on the article are using Wikipedia:Excerpts as you can see looking at [134], personally I dislike 'excerpts' and don't touch them(Im not sure how to adjust the wording, Id have to figure out what other editors are doing). However what I did do was add a sentence after it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie, that is just mumbo-jumbo to me. I wonder if user:whatamIdoing could explain it to me -- I think that she helped to write visual editor and so must know about this as well. Any sort of fix must be very simple or I will not understand it. My hands are sort of tied if I can't figure out how to edit those sections. Gandydancer (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say I set it up. I just tried to make it more efficient. If it were up to me, those sections would just be summarized in the COVID-19 pandemic article instead of using the fragile excerpt system. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 23:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so good so far -- sorta. I did make some changes but I had wished that I could just wipe out all the copy and start over. Considering that the WHO has now called S.A. the epicenter it seemed like a good project. (Also, I feel some pity for them as they seem to be suffering from the same lack of good leadership that we in the U.S. are faced with.) Oz and WAID, I have a question that I'd usually ask on the talk page but not knowing anyone there I'm feeling a little shy... Do you guy know why the article lists Africa and Oceania separately under Pandemic by country? I would have thought they'd all be together under National responses. I dare say if I could have figured out how to change it I would have and let anyone complain if there actually was a reason. But it won't work when I try to do it with "normal" methods of editing. Thoughts?
8 National responses
8.1 Asia
8.2 Europe
8.3 North America
8.4 South America
9 Pandemic by country
9.1 Africa
9.2 Oceania
Ozzie, I want you to know that I so often think of how good it was to work with you on the Ebola article -- we really made a good team, didn't we? With all the grief that we sometimes need to put up with here nothing is more important than feeling friendship and bonding with another special editor, IMO. OK, as for this article, do you know how to put them all together? Gandydancer (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
have added to talk[135], while I could boldly do it myself, it would be wiser to get consensus on the talk page first (BTW Gandy Kivu Ebola epidemic is still ongoing due to transmission via a Ebola survivor and yes one does 'bond' when writing together for such an episode as West Africa Ebola. Fortunately that one ended, this one remains an open question...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie, I appreciate the support at the article. As you can see I continue to experience difficulties. Please see the note I left for Waid and join in if you have anything to add. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Excerpt is a big problem with COVID 19 artciles... definitely not conducive to new editors or keeping articles updated. They have talked about the problems on IRC. They were thinking when things settle down we can fix the main article to flow better and drop the plagiarist templates when stats stabilize.--Moxy🍁14:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input Moxy. It seems that no changes are expected for some time. If you've ever been in a similar situation you know that it is not easy to enter into a group of editors who have established a circle of those who are editing a fast-moving article, but this makes it impossible for me. After being an "insider" for so many years it is a new experience for me to essentially be locked out and I do feel bad about it... Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems we have is new fulltime editors not concerned with the ability to edit individual articles but rather consistency over many articles. This causes two problems.... discussions about change of content on wrong pages and coding that leads to ownership of articles by default. Its never a good thing to have to waste our time with chats of this nature. Cant find it now...but someone somewhere linked a CBS article about how our main pandemic article was very accurate and informative but reads like clip-its rather than an overall article. It's a bit embarrassing for an academic endeavor but these pages are still growing and will evolve on their own in time without Template:Excerpt when things stabilize and our medical editors copy edit the articles. As of now the article is dominated by non-medical editors and it's shows.... unfortunately many of us Old-Timers see the problem... but don't have the medical expertise to jump in. WP:Med will fix most problems over time but they're overwhelmed by enthusiastic new editors.--Moxy🍁15:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes true...have is new fulltime editors not concerned with the ability to edit individual articles ... they lack ALOT of experience--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Again I so appreciate your input. I've worked on several fast-moving articles and the BP oil spill comes to mind here. If you have worked on something similar you know how one gets caught up in the breaking news -- like we are real NYT or WashPo journalists!! It is almost intoxicating. The other editors are our fellow journalists and we share a camaraderie with them as though we were out in the field working for a major news service. This can be a very good situation because, for example thinking back to the BP spill, one can spend several hours in research to produce only one line of copy. But you need a circle of editors that have learned to trust your edits and do not instantly jump in and challenge you. But it is bad if the established circle tries to keep other new editors out. I've never seen that happen but in this case where I do not understand the basics of how to edit I am less than equal to the other editors. It does not seem very fair to me. pinging user:WhatamIdoingGandydancer (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in medical editing I always try to tone down anything that may give the impression of WP:PROMO (should you wish just add it back, thank you)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi, I was looking at the "Symptoms of COVID-19" table in Coronavirus disease 2019 and I noticed it had been tagged with citation needed, but in the history up until [138] it seemed to have a citation that pointed to a page from the CDC providing the same info as listed in the table (minus apparently more technical phrasing for some of the symptoms); in that edit you replaced the ref with a citation needed tag.
I'm not an experienced editor and you appear to be so I figured there's likely some reason why the previous cite was unsatisfactory. Since I wasn't able to find any mention of it in the talk page and the edit summary was vague, I wanted to inquire about it to find out why the existing cite was unsatisfactory and what would be necessary to replace it.
[139]if you look at the edit there was an error cite on the article which was linked to those references that were therefore orphaned, so they needed to be removed(I wasn't the editor that removed the original referenced, I removed the errors that were left behind)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Discussions and Resources
A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
Hi Ozzie! Reaching out since you were the one who replied here. Would you mind taking a look at this edit? I've already reverted this editor before and I'm trying to avoid an edit war, but they and a few others who objected to current consensus item 13 seem pretty determined to keep removing the video (the hidden text warning was also removed the other day here). Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A happy Juneteenth, Canada Day, and July 4th to all. During tumultuous times, at least the newsletter returns. The newsletter remains experimental; if you have ideas, suggestions, or criticisms, please post them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter. With that, here's what is happening this month:
Calling all reviewers! A rush of good article nominations has filled the WP:GAN#MED queue. Anyone can review a nomination against the good article criteria; see the instructions here for details. If you have questions about reviewing or would like some supervision as you get started, feel free to post at WT:GAN or my talk page. Happy reviewing!
The arbitration committee is hosting a large anti-harrassment RfC. Feedback from a broad swath of the community would be helpful.
Discussions of interest
A question regarding incorporating machine-readable disease codes into more medical articles is still ongoing at at VPP
An experienced user (right) entices a new user to contribute productively. The new user remains unaware of the hook embedded within until it's too late.
According to at least one metric (scroll to the bottom of this signpost article for a brief explanation) total edit levels are higher than they've been in a decade. By another metric they've at least substantially spiked over the last few months. The encyclopedia, and of course WikiProject Medicine, can only survive if we continue to rope in new editors to fill in for us as we lose the time, interest, or ability to improve the encyclopedia. We all know that this work can be time-consuming and frustrating, but hopefully we can put aside our frustrations to help guide and recruit the talent that will ensure the project's continued success.
This may be a good time to remind yourself of the Wikipedia introduction pages, which have recently been improved. Help:Introduction provides a streamlined starting point, while Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia provides a more comprehensive reference guide. The Wikipedia:Teahouse remains unnaturally quick at responding to questions, and is always a good place to direct new editors. The classic {{Welcome}} template has recently received a trimming, plus a few WikiProject Medicine-specific welcome templates are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources#Templates. When in doubt, you can always point an unsure user to WT:MED and we can all try to lend a hand. If you come across introductory resources that remain unclear, outdated, or conflicting please post at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee to bring it to the attention of interested editors.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Despite continued tumult in the real world, the show–and the newsletter–must go on at WP:MED. As always your comments, concerns, and ideas are welcome at the newsletter talk page (and at WT:MED). Here is what's happening this month:
If you've got the time, please review a GA nomination (criteria/instructions). Nominations currently sit two months before review. Let's aim for a month or less.
Starting July 3rd, the WMF's "Wikipedia" social media accounts will highlight an "article of the week". If you've got the bandwidth, you can watchlist Social media/Article of the week (on meta) where they'll post the article around a day ahead of time for us to clean up. You can also suggest articles to highlight.
Several medicine-related FAs promoted 5+ years ago could use a review and update. An effort to organize our efforts is at WT:MED.
A large university class is working on medicine-related articles this month. They're largely focused on articles with maintenance tags. The students are working in small groups and posting their goals at each talk page. Consider watchlisting some of the assigned articles and helping the students (and us regulars) have a positive experience.
Tom (LT) is spearheading an effort to clean up and organize medicine-related templates, resulting in many active TfD discussions. See a list of active TfDs at WP:MED/Article alerts.
Number of academic papers focused on Wikipedia's health content each year
This month's Wikimedia Research Showcase was on the topic "Medical knowledge on Wikipedia". It featured two presentations from invited academics (link).
First, Denise Smith (Mcbrarian) at McMaster and Western Universities received a WMF grant to review the academic literature on "Wikipedia as a health resource". She found 89 papers on the topic, most of which aim to assess our health content's accuracy, comprehensiveness, or readability. Findings vary, but are complicated by poor comparators (e.g. Wikipedia vs. a surgery textbook), the fluidity of content (research becomes dated quickly), and attempts to generalize to "health content" with no discussion of how our content is a patchwork of articles in vastly different states. The remaining papers fall into one of three categories: the use of Wikipedia as (1) a general medical resource, (2) a tool for health education, or (3) a tool for research. Interesting papers in each group, but I'll leave further exploration to the reader. There's a general trend of more papers on this topic over time; Smith is hopeful the stigma towards Wikipedia in academia and healthcare could be eroding. With any luck, her review will help orient academics as they consider studying our content. For more, see her paper in PLoS ONE.
Second, Giovanni Colavizza at the University of Amsterdam sought to assess the reliability and comprehensiveness of our covid-19 coverage by studying our citations. He collected the ~3k citations in our covid articles and compared them to the ~160k total papers on covid/coronaviruses. He found we disproportionately cite articles in more reputable journals, as well as articles that are highly cited, mentioned on Twitter, downloaded on Mendeley, etc. We disfavor citing preprints. To investigate the comprehensiveness of our citations across topics, he used the titles and abstracts of all covid papers to cluster them into five broad topical groups. He finds our citations to each group largely match its proportion in the total literature, with some exceptions (we overcite molecular biology and epidemics papers relative to their proportion in the literature, and undercite clinical medicine and public health papers). One might assume this means our coverage of covid-19 is fairly balanced to the broad topics of the literature. For more, see Colavizza's slide deck and biorxiv preprint.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I've seen edits from you pop up on a few microbiology articles recently, and I also bumped into your GA Hepatitis E last week. Any interest in working on an infectious disease article together? Many of the ID articles could use a bit of care, and it'd be nice to have the help of someone more medicine-interested (I'll admit I'm more interested in the molecular biology side of things than in the actual medicine...). I'm happy to push something towards GA (or FA if you're interested) or just cleanup and remove some {{citation needed}} tags. If you're interested, you pick the article and the goal, and I'll make some time. I hope you're doing well during these crazy times! All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! A relatively quiet month yields a shorter newsletter. The featured section is taking the month off, but please continue to drop comments and ideas at the newsletter talk page. Here is what's happening this month:
A few restrictions on signatures are being gently phased in to make signatures consistently machine-identifiable. This will enable the development of new talk page tools (and fix some holes in our current tools). Affected editors (~ 900 at English Wikipedia) will be contacted. You can see if you're on the naughty list here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Greetings! This month celebrates our second (I think) new medicine FA in 2020, a handful of newly reviewed GAs, and of course another month without major on-wiki disaster. The newsletter's featured section is off again, but please continue to drop comments and ideas at the newsletter talk page. Here is what's new this month:
An ongoing drive at WP:Good article nominations seeks interested editors to help review the ~600 current GA nominations. The oldest unreviewed medicine-related GAN was nominated 1.5 months ago.
An update to the appearance of various WMF sites (including this one) will be developed and rolled out slowly over the next year. For details see the WMF blog post and the page on MediaWiki where individual features are being mocked up and discussed.
Discussions of interest
A discussion over wording at WP:PAID that centers on the extent to which folks that volunteer for an organization have an editing conflict of interest.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Greetings. This month marks the return of the project's long-dormant collaboration of the month! With some luck and effort, perhaps we can keep it going. I hope you're all finding ways to remain sane during another tumultuous month. Ready or not, here is what's happening around the project:
An open contributor copyright investigation involves edits to ~50 medicine pages that need to be checked for copyright infringement. I've left some short instructions here for the uninitiated. Every little bit helps.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion/ (wikiproject med) ^
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
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. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 416.1 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I hope this newsletter finds you well. For those struggling to focus on writing articles during these tumultuous times, you are not alone. For those stuck at home with more time and energy to dedicate to the encyclopedia, all the more power to you. There is – as always – lots to do. Here is what's happening around the project:
As you can see, the medicine GA queue is full-to-bursting, with the oldest medicine nomination waiting over three months for review. Please help review when you have time, so your colleagues can move on to their next projects.
A WP:MED editor pulls yet another unsourced stub from the pile, thrilled by its immense potential.
Backlog of the month
This month I'm trying out a new element of the newsletter – a backlog of the month. The WikiProject Medicine template is on the talk page of 44,944 articles, of which 18,111 have some kind of maintenance tag on them, indicating problems large or small. Each month, I'll highlight some small task to get you out of your normal editing focus and chip away at the project's massive maintenance backlogs. I'll aim for tasks that can be worked on in small chunks, perhaps on days when you can't focus on big problems, or have 15 minutes to burn at your computer.
The first backlog of the month will be the 410 medicine articles that cite no sources. These tend to be lower-traffic topics. Some just need verification that the topic actually exists, along with a quick reference. Others are best redirected to more substantial pages, or even brought to AfD. Feel free to scroll through the list for topics that interest you, or just start at the top. This feature will last as long as folks are interested enough to engage with it. If you see backlogs that would be a good fit, post them here. Thanks all, and happy referencing!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
Suggestion for future NOTFORUM reverts COVID-19 pandemic/(wikiproject med)^
Here, you asked if the "semi-protected edit request" is vandalism. That surely isn't: the OP just thinks talks are appropriate for sharing experiences (I've seen these dozens). Sure, it's not a forum, but... I mean... "it's bad if u get it"... I think that's accurate. I'll prolly cite not-forum rather than mark it VDL. GeraldWL16:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Ozzie10aaaa. We may have got off on the wrong foot at ArbCom, so I thought I'd try a different approach. You seem to have a very different experience of Flyer than I do. Since I understand that both of you are active MED editors, I was wondering if you could point me to any articles where you've collaborated, so I could see for myself why you have such a high opinion of her contribution? Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that response, Ozzie, is that one is always supposed to raise concerns directly with the party first. Approaching you directly about concerns is more appropriate than posting something to the arbcase. I have a different concern than perhaps does Newimpartial about your evidence. I have edited around and alongside you for many years, have participated with you at WT:MED, WT:MEDMOS, and WT:MEDRS, and in articles, and in an arbcase, and having observed your characteristic edits and writing style, know that you have almost never, ever, anywhere on Wikipedia written something of that substance or in that style or that long. (And the edit count tool verifies this. Most of your longest contributions on Wikipedia are where you cut-and-paste between sections in your MEDMOS adjustments.) I have to inquire whether the analysis you posted of Newpartial's evidence was written by you. Here is a more typical example of your writing. I would much prefer that you respond to that here on your talk page than to have to raise it on the arb pages. The serious problem this raises is that, since Flyer is not participating in this case, if the arbs were to think that you are proxying for Flyer, that would bring a lot of harm upon Flyer. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Crossroads. I regard all these people very highly (Flyer, Ozzie, and Doc James) and Sandy as well. Sandy needs to apologize to Ozzie, IMO. It's a terrible, hurtful thing to accuse a fellow editor of deceit. Gandydancer (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the case and have been passionate about it. I've typed long before.[144]. If I'm passionate enough, I will type long. In this case, I analyzed the issues more than I analyzed issues at the med Arb case and took the time to draft up a comment offline.
Yes, Ozzie, the first example of your previous long post is the one I gave above, and is characteristic of your writing style when long. The second example also is characteristic of your posts, when short. There are distinctive elements to how you write, that are consisent. And I realize that you have defended Flyer before; that is OK, many people have, and that is not what I am questioning. My question is that I have never seen you write something like in the analysis of Newpartial's evidence, either in tone, substance or style, and I have edited with and around you for years. It would help if you can explain that difference, and I think it very important for Flyer that this gets cleared up. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has read very many of Flyer22's talk page posts, I can assure you that this is not Flyer22's style whatsoever. It in fact looks very much to me like Ozzie10aaaa's most common style, just longer. It's to be expected that he would use less complex formatting like others do after the experience gained since before. Crossroads-talk-20:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial should you have further questions we can discuss... SG to be frank I dont recall I have edited with and around you for years (which you wrote above)...anything further you SG have to say can be done elsewhere(your not welcomed at my talkpage, should you continue Ill contact an administrator)...Newimpartial I indicated above that it was best at Arbcom for obvious reasons, but should you wish to talk here...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My question was simply, Since I understand that both of you are active MED editors, I was wondering if you could point me to any articles where you've collaborated, so I could see for myself why you have such a high opinion of her contribution? I don't see any reason why that would be a question for me to ask at the ArbCom page, since it doesn't relate directly to the analysis of evidence presented at the case. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SG I feel that you are unfairly pestering me. My entire like isn't on Wikipedia. I usually type short and succinct on Wikipedia to save time. If I need to really analyze something and am passionate enough, I will type longer and clean up my text for syntax and flow. That is usually what I do in real life. I wouldn't type like I do on Wikipedia on a professional form.I told you, "If I'm passionate enough, I will type long. In this case, I analyzed the issues more than I analyzed issues at the med Arb case and took the time to draft up a comment offline."Please stop this. Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy it is hardly fair to judge Ozzie by whether or not he has collaborated with Flyer. Flyer is one of those that I hold the highest respect for and I watched over the years as she supported fair treatment of women in our woman-related articles. Only a few times have I joined her in talk page discussions and even less in article work but I always kept abreast of what she was doing. Gandydancer (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be blatant WP:FACTION harassment (especially since the editor already asked you to keep this at the ArbCom page) of an evidence-provider in an ongoing RFARB, on the ultra-flimsy basis that the editor is somehow, over a seven-year span, not supposed to adjust their writing style to better match our talk-page norms. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 10:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Medicine Newsletter - January 2021
Issue 8—January 2021
WikiProject Medicine Newsletter
2020 is behind us at last. Off Wikipedia, the year has been trying. On Wikipedia, I hope you've found the time you spent here fulfilling and diverting. I've taken the opportunity to place a few end-of-year statistics for reflection below. If you think of any data that would be useful to find (or begin gathering) to gauge the project's success, please let me know. With that, here is what's happening around the project:
Year in Review
With 2020 now in the rear view mirror, a few numbers to give a sense of where our project is at: In 2020 we added a record number of medicine articles (i.e. articles with the WP:MED tag on their talk pages), starting the year with 41,243 and ending with 45,247. The ~4,000 new articles is well above the norm, presumably due to new covid-related articles. In terms of reviewed content, we added three featured articles (Dementia with Lewy bodies, Complete blood count, and Buruli ulcer), and lost three to the ravages of time, leaving our total at 66. We also added 42 newly reviewed good articles from 23 different nominators, bringing our total to 296. See a full list of reviewed content from 2020 here. Outside of reviewed content our contributions are more challenging to measure. I'm sure much our time was spent making small improvements, guiding new editors, removing junk from articles, and dealing with the raging global pandemic (on and off the site). I am interested in ways we can quantify and assess our project's progress going forward, so if anyone has ideas for other data we could find or collect, do let me know.
Other notes
The WMF's Community Wishlist Survey has ended. Results are posted here.
If you missed it, consider reading folks' thoughts on helping new editors at this recent WT:MED discussion.
After a quieter month at the Collaboration of the Month (Dexamethasone), we'll be taking this month off. The COTM will return in February. Propose and vote on nominations here.
Thanks to all who helped deal with last month's backlog, medicine articles that cite no sources. 28 down, 382 to go. We'll pick a new backlog next month. In the meantime, for any interested, I've posted an updated list of articles that lack sources here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.
I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “COVID-19 pandemic” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.
sure email is fine(however you should keep in mind that this is always a work done as a team, which means that while one editor may have done more edits, every editor counts), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to Dalorleon, I have worked with Ozzie in the past, most extensively on the Ebola pandemic, and IMO Ozzie's ability to work as a team player is one of his most outstanding capabilities. In my experience at the COVID article a few, or perhaps one, editor took ownership of the article in the early stages of it's appearance here and that resulted in the lack of experienced editor's willingness to spend time helping to build the article. Eventually the editor that took charge of the article burned out and dropped away only to come back later and complain that no one was watching over the article and it had gone to crap. If articles are left to just go a little crazy in the early stages certain editors emerge that are willing to stick with the article long term to build a good article. I could go on but I will leave it at that. Gandydancer (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for agreeing to speak with me. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to view user emails, so I'm posting my questions below; let me know if you need me to clarify any of them. You can respond right here, or send your replies to my email at danielleonard@college.harvard.edu — whichever works best.
1) How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you been an active editor of the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article?
2) When adding content to the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are relevant / notable enough to warrant inclusion?
3) When removing content from the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are irrelevant / non-notable enough to warrant deletion?
4) Are there any particular Wikipedia policy / guidelines pages that you rely on to guide your editing? (Like “Wikipedia:Editing policy,” “Wikipedia:Writing better articles,” etc.)
5) Do you feel that Wikipedia’s “official” editing guidelines are helpful, or do you generally ignore them? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?
6) Has adding or deleting content from the “COVID-19 pandemic” Wikipedia article ever brought you into conflict with another Wikipedian? If so, how were those disputes resolved?
7) Do you identify more as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither / something else?
Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! Feel free to weigh in on anything I didn’t specifically ask in regards to your editing practices. I’m primarily curious to learn about what factors you consider when deciding what content ought to be added / removed from Wikipedia articles.
Finally, if I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! --Dalorleon (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy February everyone. I hope the new year is starting to look better than the last one did. As always, if you have any ideas to improve the newsletter, please post them at the talkpage. Otherwise, here is what's happening around the project:
Another discussion has closed, with consensus supporting continued use of the phrase "committed suicide" in articles.
The Medicine Collaboration of the Month for February is Cirrhosis. Head to Talk:Cirrhosis to coordinate our efforts. You can nominate future collaborations at WP:MCOTM.
This month's target maintenance backlog is "articles that need more wikilinks". Just 65 medicine pages have {{Underlinked}} on them, so hopefully we can clean them all up this month.
Flyer22 Frozen, longtime and prolific editor on medicine and television/film topics, has died. You can read a brief reflection on her Wikipedia work here, and leave condolences at her talk page.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Hello User:Ozzie10aaaa! You are invited to join the Brooklyn based Sure We Can community for our 3rd NYC COVID-19 themed Wikipedia Edit-a-thon / translate-a-thon - ONLINE - Saturday, Feb 6th, 2021 11am - 1pm. The edit-a-thon is part of Sure We Can's work with NYC Health + Hospitals to stop the spread of Covid-19. We plan to continue to work on translating the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into the many languages spoken in New York City; as well as, work on other ideas about how information on wikipedia could slow the spread of Covid-19.
We'd love to hear if you have any ideas. If you can not attend, please feel free to comment on my talk page, or here, or on the event page.
The Medicine Collaboration of the Month is on temporary (perhaps) hiatus. You can still nominate future candidates at WP:MCOTM.
This month's target maintenance backlog is "articles with a dead link". Each typically takes around a minute to fix, so please hit one or two when you have a moment.
The desktop site's default "Vector" skin is being gradually modernized. Details here. Opt-in at Preferences>Skin preferences to begin getting used to the new look.
Discussions of interest
A large discussion is reconsidering deprecating the aliases for some citation template parameters.
Please look over edit-protected medicine pages to consider whether some could have protection levels safely lowered.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kivu Ebola epidemic you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article Kivu Ebola epidemic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kivu Ebola epidemic for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Longtime medicine editor, administrator, and tech-wiz RexxS has retired – hopefully temporarily – following an arbitration case. Among other things, RexxS has long advocated improving Wikipedia's accessibility for readers with disabilities. You can help in that regard by reminding yourself of the contents of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility and learning to write alt text for images.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Hi Ozzie. I see you're doing admin work (you've recently dealt with a redirect set up by me, En Prat, thanks for that). There is a large number of editors interested in the article Khan al-Ahmar (village), Israel-Palestine issues are heavy like lead, I've finally got people to approve of something, but now it's stuck in a technicality. Maybe you can help me/us out? I have fully prepared a disambiguation page for Khan al-Ahmar ("the Red Inn"), it's all ready to go, but the address is blocked by a superfluous, counterproductive redirect: Khan al-Ahmar -> Khan al-Ahmar (village). The discussion and the material for the disambiguation page is here. Once our "dean", Nishidani, has given his OK, those having reservations have all fallen in line. I'm not good with technical stuff, my removal request for the Khan al-Ahmar redirect might not be 100% "clean" according to Wiki templates, but it says all that it should. Could you please help out? Thank you! Best regards, Arminden (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Lung cancer will feature on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on August 4th. Anything you can do to improve/update the article before then would be a big help to the many readers likely to see the page on that date.
The Books namespace will be deprecated and its contents deleted. All books have been moved to subpages of Wikipedia:Books/archive so that they can be undeleted upon request after the namespace is gone. There are around two dozen medicine-related books (14 tagged with WP:MED). If you wish to keep any, you are welcome to move it to your userspace.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
We have a bit of a backlog of good article nominations. Please help improve these articles by reviewing one if you have time. Instructions here.
WP:URFA/2020 is reviewing and updating FAs that were promoted long ago. Several medicine-related FAs are on the list. Noting current work below. Feel free to jump in and help wherever you're interested:
I believe the oldest unreviewed medicine-related FAs are Michael Woodruff (2006 promotion), Bacteria (2006 promotion), and Coeliac disease (2008 promotion). These are likely to receive some attention soon.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Help in making a critical change to a Wikipedia page Histiocytoma/(wikiproject medicine)^
The very brief page, histiocytoma, lists myxofibrosarcoma as a type of histiocytoma and links myxofibrosarcoma to this page. However, the World Health Organization (2021) has reclassified myxofibrosarcoma as a type of fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumors rather than a histiocytoma. I want to create a page for Myxofibrosarcoma but before doing so I need to remove its linkage to histiocytoma. How do I do this? Thank you for your help. joflaher (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 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.
need plain english definition from a reliable source of "Heterologous prime-boost vaccination", "Homologous prime-boost vaccination", "Heterologous prime-boost immunization", "Homologous prime-boost immunization",
Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,
I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.
All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.
Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.
I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk17:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. Here is a 2nd toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year! because you deserve more than one. Whispyhistory (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whispyhistory Thats very kind of you and I want you to know its a pleasure to work and learn from you everyday, lets hope the coming year sees an end to the pandemic. All the best to you and your family, may your every wish come true! Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My son is 19 years old and lives with Lethal Infantile Spinal Muscular Atrophy with Arthrogryposis. He has a tracheostomy but has gotten stronger over the years and has done really well. I saw you were the last one to edit this article do you know much about it? 2001:56A:7662:9200:6909:DB87:C647:F056 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, please can you read the discussions that led to the RFC [148][149]. There was a lot of gish galloping in both discussions, which I describe here, and there is also possible socking. If the RFC doesn't resolve this dispute, I will have to request an ArbCom case so that the RS can be properly scrutinized. The allegations were fully attributed, and the claim that they relate to methodological challenges is blatant WP:OR. CutePeach (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You state that "clearly, there is no consensus", but you do not provide any reasons why, and it doesn't seem at all obvious to me. In fact, it seems that most editors favoured removing the link in question and replacing it with a more general one. Not only that, but you seem to have forgotten you actually participated in the discussion (thus making you technically involved?). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian, while the rest of the above points I dont entirely agree with...I agree on the last point, (I am involved) therefore will revert, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NPR Newsletter No.27
monthly newsletter
New Page Review queue March 2022
Hello Ozzie10aaaa,
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 822 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 847 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14176 articles, as of 00:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
This award is given to Ozzie10aaaa for 219 reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back (for now) by popular demand, it's the WP:MED Newsletter! Pardon the 9-month hiatus. This month features a catch-up list of promoted GAs since the last newsletter, and some calls to action for those looking to add to their todo lists. I hope this finds you well. Enjoy.
Since last newsletter, frightfully few medicine articles have passed through our main content review processes, Good Article and Featured Article. While we can agree there's more to editing than chasing bronze stars and green blobs, it would be nice to see the catalog of "Good" and "Featured" medicine articles growing rather than just aging. If you're interested in taking on a project but would like some light guidance or a helping hand, feel free to post your plans at WT:MED and you may find others willing to join.
An ongoing effort seeks to review/update our oldest featured articles. Major depressive disorder, Lung cancer, and Schizophrenia are next on the chopping block (so to speak). If you're interested in helping to update any, please post at WT:MED or at those articles' talk pages. If you're new to the FA process, I'd encourage you to enlist the help of someone(s) who has been through the process before, as they can help clarify expectations and save you time.
Got a minute? Running low on inspiration/motivation and need a simple task? Check out the 247 medicine articles tagged as citing no sources!
News from around the site
The Reading/Web team has rolled out a new skin called "Vector 2022" that will soon become the default. Opt-in in your Preferences to try it out. As with any visual update, it'll take some getting used to. If you hate it, don't panic; once it becomes default you'll still be able to opt-out in your Preferences.
The folks who brought us the nifty "Reply" button have now rolled out a "Subscribe" button to be notified of comments in a particular thread. I believe it's turned on for everyone now. Try it on a busy talk page (e.g. WT:MED).
Voting is open for the community nominees to the WMF Board of Trustees, until September 6th.
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. A short newsletter reflecting a quiet month in recognized content. If there's other types of content you'd like to see in the newsletter feel free to post suggestions here. Otherwise, here's your update for the month:
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022
Suggestions:
There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Consider this a barnstar in spirit for your efforts in maintaining the COVID-19 pandemic article and talk page. I can't get the wiki code to work :) SmolBrane (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023. Happy editing,
I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk17:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
2022 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
Wikimedia Foundation project to improve PageTriage /NPP
Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I work for BeiGene, a pharmaceuticals company, and have a disclosed COI. As you are an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, I was hoping that you might be interested in having a look at my edit request on BeiGene's Talk page. If you agree that my edit request is helpful and improves the page, I would appreciate it if you could implement it. Thank you very much! LexBGNE (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article COVID-19 pandemic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:COVID-19 pandemic for comments about the article, and Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/GA4 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shibbolethink -- Shibbolethink (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter; pardon the six-month gap. I was inspired to collect this after seeing how much activity there is in the GA space on the medicine front. Please review a GAN if you have time, and help to welcome more medicine editors into the fold:
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is back in business, with a new process and new coordinators. If you see medicine-related GAs that may no longer meet the GA criteria, feel free to nominate them for attention/reassessment (please, not too many at once, lest we get overwhelmed). I'll incorporate them into the listings above.
Major depressive disorder, Schizophrenia, and Dengue fever are featured articles that need updating. Feel free to chime in at the talk pages or WT:MED if you have the time/bandwidth to help update. They'll likely go to featured article review for more feedback in the near(ish) future (probably in the order listed).
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
This award is given to Ozzie10aaaa for collecting more than 800 points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, noticed your note at the WT:AFC and glad to see you are dipping your toe in. Funny because just the other day I almost left you note about reviewing because I have come across a few drafts on which you left helpful comments. S0091 (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
Hi. I'm a bit puzzled by your acceptance of this article. All the warning messages are still present in the published article, which doesn't look good. You may not be aware of the forum shopping and other techniques being carried out by User:Ajayraj890 - see the warnings on his Talk page. Deb (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mam/Sir. The warnings on my talk page is my past. I learnt a lot about Wikipedia and improved a lot. I deeply apologize what I did in my past. I wasn't aware of that and i didn't know much things about creating an Article. User:Deb have warned me in the past and I realised I was wrong. Thus I started learning and making pages. He/She haven't mentioned the part where i did mistake in the Article. Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I felt this as a personal attack. Can you give an example where I did the same thing? You haven't given a single part yet. If you show that, i could edit that. Ajayraj890 (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Thanks. Wikiproject Plants uses PoWO and only PoWO for flowering plants. If there was an article for Syneilesis hayatae, then Syneilesis intermedia could be a redirect to it, but as far as I know I'm the only systematic creator of such redirects. Abductive (reasoning)18:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I see how it's done now. A reference as in usual scientific papers, and a link to the text in the reference itself. I'll do the ::same for Weidler's and Lalande's books. Thanks! --Lja2248 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I am working on updates for Eva Andersson-Dubin, who is a physician and founder of a medical center, as well as a breast cancer survivor. As you show interest in women's health and medicine, I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing my edit request on the article talk page and the relevant conversation there. I would appreciate your input and assistance with implementing the remaining requests. Thanks so much, AM for Dubin (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting expert help on Renal hypoplasia article/(wikiproject medicine)^
Hi Ozzie10aaaa,
I found you by going to WP:EXHELP to here to here, you were the only person on the list. Not sure if this is the proper way to request for expert help. (Would love to know how to do it properly next time.) Would you mind expanding the article Renal hypoplasia? (I'm aware that you worked on it in the past few years.) I at least want it to be a C-class article. I was dissatisfied with how little information the article had, so I expanded it a bit, but I had no expertise on the topic. Thanks, AxiumWiki (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
did a few edits (I actually am better at molecular bio, however I will edit any medical article) let me know if you have further questions, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“I actually am better at molecular bio, however I will edit any medical article”
Hello @Ozzie10aaaa,
I'm working on my first article about famous freeskier - Cody Townsend. As of now I've got a draft version, however, I'm still working on updating the bio section, adding more references etc. Can you please take a look at it in my sandbox and let me know if you have any remarks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CalvinCandy/sandbox Thanks! --CalvinCandy (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I tried adding some information and I was told it was considered promotional. Can you tell me what makes something promotional? --JWilMommy (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023
Backlog update:
At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive:
A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades:
Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip:
Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip:
If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Someone who likes train writing... I just picked it at random and accepted it (it was notable and well sourced), I'm not certain I can 'undo the accept' ...I , of course did not submit it, you may want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation or just continue to add to the article text until its finished, in its current form, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When someone was sentence to death innocently and the appeal Court discharge the case and aqueted after 14 years no conpesation nothing what can person do to the goverment? --Akile1970 (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
I'm a bit concerned that you promoted this article, not so much because of the multiple grammar and spelling errors and overlinking, but because the image clearly has an invalid attribution to the article editor, and on the Planet S site appears to have a non-commercial licence, so there is a copyright issue. Don't we normally sort out these things before promotion? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me?14:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes your correct the image issue [159] did get by me, and I am in your debt (the individual who posted it as "own work" should be warned/blocked..IMO), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie, please note that this AfD thread was closed with consensus to block the IP and to delete any future drafts they create as G5. They have continued to create drafts under IP socks; you accepted Grand Trunk Western Class K-4b. I recommend taking a close look at any drafts about American locomotives created by IPs that geolocate to Australia, as they're very likely by this user. If you're unsure about a draft, feel free to ping myself and/or Trainsandotherthings. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing,
–Davey2010Talk22:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Your contributions to medical articles continue to be invaluable. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk
Solstice Celebration for Ozzie10aaaa, 2023, DALL·E 3.
I edited Wikepedia for Tetration, there's a few sentences that was added, I just wanted to ask, if it was proper and okay for me to add those sentences. I wanna improve and help more people comprehend subjects, and if it was okay. Thank you. --ChloeV in a nutshell (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please review the revert of edit made on this particular page before my re-write, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Carraro , as I believe it is unwarranted and likely made with some sort of personal bias between the editor and the subject. Clearly the subjects article does not follow in any form with other former State Senators on the site. I also have a form for the page of a copy of a resolution with minutes adopting the said resolution that need to be archived. How does one go about that? --Site Alpha (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie, I've addressed this user's amazing first edit on their talk page. The Carraro article has a long history of UPEs/socks adding unsourced and poorly-sourced peacock puffery, and this account is just the latest one to pop up and do the same. It's even clear from the edit summary of this latest one that it's Carraro himself that's somehow responsible for all this, one way or another. Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello mentor, i want to add a company details and and the Owner (CEO) details to Wikipedia so that it will appear on search engine when people search about it, can you please guide me what i have to do for that --Aleerajai (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared from your comment that you were requesting technical assistance in dealing with the redirect from the title to the more general article. In the future, if you want a redirect deleted so that a draft can be accepted, please tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-afc-move}}, which is a Twinkle option. I have moved the redirect out of the way and tagged it for deletion and accepted the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. I'm trying to reach you because I submitted a new article – the name of the draft is Mondex Corporation. Is there any way I can usher it more rapidly to review and, hopefully, publication? --EditorRechts (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie, I have had my account for quite a while now, and I've made seven edits to various pages. But I still don't see an option to "move" (or publish an article) from my sandbox. Any suggestions? Thanks! --Agrave13 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As recommended and for practice, I made some minor changes. Most of them are punctuation-related. I would love to hear your comments. --FinalImpact2 (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
If you've got a few minutes, would you mind going through Vascular dementia and tagging or removing the worse of the outdated or obviously MEDRS-non-compliant sources? So much of it is outdated that I think just identifying the worst of the worst would help a lot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to become an editor I just want to put up a name, and a few news links for Harold P Kopp Who invented the surge suppressor. It was originally called the Zap Trap, and was patented.
Dear Ozzie10aaaa, Could you please check my draft article. I made several improvements two days ago and I'm worrying I did something wrong and the approval would take another million years((( --Max Elliott1 (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
Hello there, Ozzie10aaaa! I cannot thank you enough for accepting my draft into the article work space! I was astonished to see it already accepted since I literally created and submitted the draft that day and I was preparing to wait for over a month, which I did with Air India Flight 829. Thank you very much, sir! CreatorMH (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter. I was inspired to collect this after seeing several medicine-interested editors nominate their first good article. Please review a GA nomination if you have time, and help support our colleagues' efforts:
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is back in business, with a new process and new coordinators. If you see medicine-related GAs that may no longer meet the GA criteria, feel free to nominate them for attention/reassessment (please, not too many at once, lest we get overwhelmed). I'll incorporate them into the listings above.
Note for the curious: 24,211 of the 57,554 articles (42%) tagged as part of WP:MED have some maintenance tag.
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Cam you change the title to mine Forge (software) to Forge & Table it needs to be scanned and cookied. Also, I have many others I can’t find them all, May you find them? --BradLeyDLawson (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am new and I was testing uploading images on sandbox. As a quick test I put "testing" and "test" in the title and description, but I didn't know that the images uploaded there would be immediately uploaded to the public. I would like to upload them later in a real article, but would I take down these pictures for now? --Anthony Gunadi (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. What is the etiquette with respect to restructuring an existing page? Is it preferable to make several small changes in sequence, or to make one large change? For example, in adding references and citations to existing content, I am also encountering additional statements of fact. These additions would justify additional sections (i.e., prompting some content to move). For instance, a current "History" section might be split into sections for "History" and "Facilities". Thank you. --Bumagga (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi good evening, I have a question on how to implement links embedded to words in the edits, I am unsure how to do something like that. if you can provide any assistance it will be very helpful. thanks in advance! --EgoBoros (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just realized I have a mentor here. That's nice, thanks for your support :). I just edited the page on Pinky Cole to add a section about her book 'I Hope You Fail', only I don't know if I did it right or polished up enough considering I'm adding a whole new section. I have intents to add new articles in the future so I'd like to be able to know whether or not I'm doing this part correctly initially, would you mind taking a look at that edit? Thank you again! --Lost-in-an-internet-vortex (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, what's up with this? That source is just a comment on an NYT article left by Drbogdan, which is him mostly just talking about Wikipedia. I'd assume that was a mistake and you didn't intend to cite his social media commentary -- do you know what happened there? (See here and here for additional context). Endwise (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO due to the editors real life merits (and the significance of the topic)I though including it was 'borderline' , even though it was not a journal...however in retrospect you are correct, thank you,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there is one article that is peovising false information about a person. I can say this as rhw person was my grand grandfather and based on all the documents that we vot as a family the post on wikipedia is shaming him and providing details which are false. I have tried updating it several times but instead bot traffic is reverting or updating immediately. Is there a way to make lasting changes and protect the article from bot ? --Perla.oh (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,Perla.oh- I believe you should post your request at the talk page in question, and discuss this with other editors on the article, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Scjones86 (02:34, 7 July 2024)(Mentorship second question see above)
Hey, S. Jones here again. Sorry to bug you! Added x2 more recent stories to the Mike Wilson profile on Wikipedia, including a link to a Forbes story and a link to a Gamesbeat story. Links are hypertext for the moment. Unsure how to add the links to the References section at the bottom. Can you kindly assist? (Grateful for your assistance!) Best, S. Jones in Vancouver
I am fairly new to Wikipedia. You declined my draft article Draft:RNU4-2 Syndrome on the grounds that the phrase RNU4-2 Syndrome does not appear in PubMed. However, a search does return 3 results, these are to two papers and a pre-print. See here. The proposed article cites the two publications describing the disorder. This is a new disorder only just discovered and neither publication proposes a name. RNU4-2 Syndrome is the most parsimonious choice of name, because the disorder is caused by mutations in the gene RNU4-2. An alternative choice might be 'NEDHAFA', which is an initialism assigned by OMIM (here), the leading reference database for inherited genetic disorders. However, this is rather an unnatural word to use as a name. HumGenofessor (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Two of the papers are published and peer-reviewed. They contain very very strong evidence: 73 unrelated individuals is an enormous number for rare disease research. HumGenofessor (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I'm Phuong. I'm from Vietnam. I want to post my artist's information on Wikipedia Vietnam, but vi.wikipedia.org prevented me. So i creared this account on en.wikipedia.org. Can i post them here? Does the information I post have to be in English? Can i use Vietnamese to post? --Danphuongnguyen1704 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa,
You've been assigned as my mentor and I have a question for you. I just started creating a page for an artist named Dunja Evers. I was formatting everything properly but when I clicked "Publish Changes", I received the message "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it, resulting in an edit conflict.". Unfortunately, none of my edits were saved. So what I did now is put this at the top of the page "{{:AfC submission/draft}} {{:AfC submission|||ts=20240726110204|u=Créaturesastrales|ns=3}}", i.e. my draft is now awaiting review, which as you know may take up to 4 months. Should I now go back to formatting the page accordingly, or will my changes be lost again once I hit "Publish Changes"? Thanks for your help! --Créaturesastrales (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I'm very new here but a subject that I looked at refers to
chaser "The smartest dog in the world" kind of bothered me somewhat as to what the title was based on. Upon researching "Intelligence" on Wikipedia; memory alone would not rate this title.
chaser was indeed taught to remember an incredible amount of object's by his owner who happens to be a psychologist and I think the title was more for his efforts. Fluid Intelligence is more of an indicator than memory and there is a better subject for that title in "Jim the Wonder Dog"; who demonstrated his Intelligence on his own merit although it was indeed on a realm beyond our own understanding. His ability cannot be denied due to the studying that was done to confirm his abilities. Who bestows the titles given? Just wondering
Thanks Joe --Prosjo (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello – It's been well over either months since I submitted a page for Mondex Corp (an art restitution practice), but I've heard nothing. What can I do? --EditorRechts (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ozzie10aaaa
I would like to know how to add an image and how to get copyright permission from owner. Please also share some example.
Thank you. --Shawn110 (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I would like to move my sandbox article. It is a page about Godforge, a mobile game. I am a community manager for the game, but I was not paid directly to do this page. I have been very aware of not making it sound biased in any way, but I'd still want to be transparent and make everything "by the book". How should I go about this? Thanks! --CrouchingGrandpa (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, you have been assigned to me as my mentor. Last night for the first time I registered an article for deletion nomination on the page D Fuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_Fuse. The afd tag has appeared on the page, I have started a deletion discussion page and have notified the primary contributor. However I am unable to add the page to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October page, I have typed in the details in the same way as everyone else but I get an error message with purge in it followed by my reasoning, meaning other users will not know about the nomination. Please can you help me fix this? I don't know what I have done wrong. Kind regards Canary757 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi please I have been trying to factually change the information on my tribe here on Wikipedia about the Egbema tribe to this guy keeps changing it back to the incorrect information and keeps threatening to block me, after I added several references and even a map showing the location. What do I do. --Mightyblack (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello , i just want to learn more about psychology and what the careers when you are doing psychology because i so in love with psychology even though I'm 42 years old --Teboho Hlakoane (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i redirect the page Kyriakos Pantziaras to Koulis. It's about the same person. Kyriakos js the official name, and Koulis the nickname. Thsnk you. Thanbla (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it seems you reverted my edit to Dyslexia without telling me. Even when using the Twinkl AGF button, it's courtesy to leave a note on a user's talk page.
My take is that there are 190 countries in the world, we don't need to include what each one calls a learning disability in the lead of an article.
Hello all. A short edition to get the newsletter going again. As it says at the bottom, if you have thoughts on how the newsletter could be useful/interesting to you, please post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter:
Reminder that you can follow medicine-related deletion discussions, GA nominations, merge requests and more by watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Article_alerts. Many of these discussions would benefit from more attention.
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
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.
Hello dear friend. Thank you for being my mentor. I am quite new here. So I wrote an article which was declined. I fixed it but maybe still needs some changes. Can you take a look and edit it or tell me if need something? Thanks Tassos (Huolong) --Huolong63 (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ozzie. I have information ready to go up as a page about the Old Catholic Apostolic Church (currently redirects to a generic page on the Liberal Catholic Church). It's presently in Google Docs format. Is there an easy way to import to Wiki from there with formatting relatively intact? Or an intermediate format, maybe? I'm competent with Markdown. --TheFenlandFather (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing,
–Davey2010Talk23:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_(14586469407).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(3034045389).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[159]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Discovery-alert-watch-the-synchronized-dance-of-a-6-planet-system.png){kind=link}
