User talk:Wuerzele/ archive box 2016

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016
peace bell

Thank you for good article work last year, and the Nightinggale award which helped me through 2015. 2016 had a good start, with a Bach cantata (a day late) and an opera reflecting that we should take nothing to seriuz, - Verdi's wisdom, shown on New Year's Day, also as a tribute to Viva-Verdi. (Click on "bell" for more.) Miss Yunshui (among others) and his harmonious editing. We can only try to follow the models of those who left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated question

I included only SageRad because he asked the question. It did not even occur to me to add the wider list of participants, it was a narrow and specific question asked by one person who was informed that he may be in trouble if he pursued the question himself. That was the answer the first time you asked, and it remains the answer. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motion that pertains to you

Hi, this is a message to inform you that a motion pertaining to you has been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kharkiv07 for what I assume is a courtesy notice. not being familiar with these proceedings, plse correct me if I am mistaken. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US coal

Thanks for your work on the US coal mining article, despite our disagreement here. I am puzzled as to why you consider my edit summaries "misleading." The first was labeled "provide intro," and it indeed provided a much-needed introduction to the section topic. My second was labeled "single bids," and indeed it dealt with the problem of coal leases receiving only single bids. These descriptions are much more specific and accurate than your favorite generic "expanding article" tag, so I suspect that my edit summaries are not the real reason that you reversed my additions.

So let's improve the article. First, the section is poorly named. It does not deal with the very broad topic of "Regulation," but specifically with the administration of coal leasing on federal lands. If you don't like my title, then what title would you consider more accurate? Second, the section as written jumps into the middle of the topic without an introduction. Again, if you don't like my introductory paragraph, then suggest your own, but good writing demands some sort of overall introduction of the federal leasing program before getting into the controversies. The article should have a detailed description of the controversies, and I did not delete any of the criticisms of the program. I don't know what your intent is, but as it stands, this section is completely one-sided, and therefore unacceptably POV. The GAO report that you cited really has some excellent discussions on the problems of varying payments between states, single-bid lease sales, and market valuations. The GAO report certainly includes the criticisms cited in the section, but it also includes some explanations and discussions of the problems, and so is much more balanced and informative. This Wikipedia section, to be balanced and informative like the GAO report, should include some of the explanations and discussions from the GAO report, not just the criticisms. I hope that we can come to some consensus. Regards Plazak (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aliso Canyon gas leak

Thanks for your good work on the Aliso Canyon gas leak. The article had been considered as a newsworthy item on January 4, but this was rejected. The leak remains an ongoing problem, but is rarely in the national news. Yet it is clear that the problem has not been solved and might even get more complicated. (Sorry, I don't know how to ping). Regards Ekem (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome, but i have to thank you Ekem (←mentioning a username is a ping, 3 ways to do it, all lead to notification) for starting the article. It's not good that the article was rejected for WP:in the news, so similar to the environmental underreporting in the mainstream news. I read the 9 (!) opposing comments in the link you sent and none of them hold water IMO.
  • Sca: hasn't been reported much in national U.S. media. More than one source necessary. (false, numerous national sources existed even then, this weekend covered in TIME)
  • MASEM: only 500 households. (false)
  • Baseball Bugs: it's not really a big deal (no argument)
  • 331dot: if something goes wrong with the sealing of the leak(i.e. an explosion) it might be more notable. (ie only bleeds lead?)
  • The Rambling Man: nothing really has [been] done since the leak started in October 2015. (false also documents ignorance about the topic)
  • GRAPPLE X: stale unless something significant occurs. (not defining what significant is for him)
  • Medeis: stale , past event (false and documents ignorance about the topic)
  • WaltCip: missing proof that this constitutes a "global warming-related event" (since when do news need to pass that threshold??)
  • Dragons flight: increasing the US's methane inventory by about 2%, globally only a rounding error. stale. (setting bar unreasonably high and false; staleness means documents ignorance about the topic).
the only 3 supporters Brian Everlasting, Blythwood and Andrew Davidson were outnumbered. Many of the opponents are frequent fliers on the site and are on record for making their pretty onesided opinionated and poorly informed WP:points. It should be submitted again; it deserves a wider audience even without blood and explosion. it's a precedent-setting event, because the gas pipeline infrastructure is old all over the US.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but do not like to be tied down fighting windmills.Ekem (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
me neither. thanks Ekem, I could see your response coming...:-).--Wuerzele (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice article and getting better, thanks to you both. Carry on. The big Wikipedia bureaucracies (DYK, in the news, FA, GA, etc.) can be unfriendly places. This leak is a big deal indeed, and I say that not just because I happen to live nearby. We haven't had a blowout like this since 1998 (Bellevue blowout at the Lost Hills Oil Field -- same size, but that one was on fire.) Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. I am sorry to hear you live nearby! Not good. Any photos at all you could take/ upload ?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been studying Google Earth to see if there is a vantage point with public access, but alas, no. I have a friend with a Cessna but there's a FAA restriction about flying over. Still, ... we'll see. The leak site at Standard Sesnon 25 is right in the middle of the field, surrounded by hills, all of which are within the security fence. Antandrus (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't thinking aerial pics. maybe there are really simple community level opportunities? i for one haven't seen the security fence. have you seen any new fences, new signs on bus stops, roadblocks, whatever ?
btw I am pleased to meet a US citizen and admin interested in Medieval, Renaissance, and early Baroque composers, totally down my alley (i'd even stop at early baroque, but the line is hard to draw)! it must be my lucky day !--Wuerzele (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, very fine to make your acquaintance! Yes I've been editing here since forever it seems. By the way I just made a map of the Aliso Canyon field for an article I'm writing on the field itself, and its long history. (Map needs some tweaks yet, e.g. kilometer scale, another label or two.) When I get a chance I'll see what photographs I can get. Antandrus (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed."

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion

Warning

In this edit note you wrote "You'll need to discuss this controversial issue, being conflicted yourself,on talk". You will need to support that claim. You cannot strike it as it is in an edit note. If you make it again, I will bring you to ANI.

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told several times to stay off this page and continue, which is WP:HOUNDING. you can discuss all your concerns including teh ludicrous accusation of personal attack on the WP:COI talk page, where it belongs.
Your buddy Roxydog and you are such fast typists, and so coordinated, creating all these edit conflicts, wow, what a method. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015

Cieński is a journalist, not a legal body to define terms of judges. Either quote a serious neutral source or don't touch my Fact. As far the president of Poland doesn't share your POV. Xx236 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Xx236. Will move to Talk: Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 page where this belongs, for all editors to see and to participate.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reader

I've read a few of the articles on your list and particularly liked the medical ones – medicine's a field I'm interested in but ignorant about. Jamestown Canyon virus sounds as if it could be a future problem. Today's papers are pointing out that climate change will radically affect the geographical incidence of diseases. Another interest is US local government (I'm an ignorant distant admirer), so Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality went down well. I use Wikipedia constantly in my translation work, especially for the social sciences, looking up concepts and phrases in Hungarian and seeing if I can match them on the English site, which is safer than just using a dictionary, I guess. I haven't noticed any disastrous disinformation yet. My own work on Wikipedia is mainly to do with villages in Nottinghamshire (the history of minute Elton on the Hill turned out to be remarkably interesting, to me at least) and with female writers of old who deserve a page – I agree with those who point to a gender bias in the subject-matter, i. e. you need on average to be a better writer to get on Wikipedia if you are female. So I began with Sarah Burney, early 19th c., and haven't looked back. I also correct or expand small items of information on Hungary, Austria, Japan and other countries I know a little about, and try to make random pages I run into read more smoothly if I can. Anyway, keep up the good work! Cordially, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Brian, and for elaborating. I contribute more than I start articles, so it's a skewed list. I lived in Merseyside "long ago" and love the North of the UK, nevertheless am ignorant about Nottinghamshire i am afraid. yes local history is fascinating. i recently added to Entrambasaguas and realized the same thing... --Wuerzele (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorant about Nottinghamshire? Oh dear. Robin Hood and Maid Marian invented socialism, you know! Bmcln1 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi Wuerzele, thanks for creating Ren Jianxin (businessman). I've nominated it for DYK. See nomination page. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like it a lot too, Wuerzele, very thorough and well expressed. Best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serious BLP violation

Reading your user page, it sounds like you shouldn't have language problems. In that case, I don't see how you can justify this edit [1] in which you effectively changed the wording which accurately reflected the source into a wording which is quite different from what the source says and in which you claimed someone who is very likely still alive [2], committed misconduct in wikivoice. If that was an accidental wording error, please ensure you take far more care in the future. If it wasn't, I strongly suggest you refrain from editing BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Scalia

If you can please make necessary editions in the following articles in light of Scalia's death: Roberts Court and 2015 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Thanks in advance. 46.70.130.138 (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ren Jianxin (businessman)

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Entrambasaguas

Hello! Your submission of Entrambasaguas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 18:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TabToReference

Hi Wuerzele, you have rightfully criticized me for letting added refs be bare and not filled. I have thought about how to improve this, not just for me, but for everyone. I sometimes use User:Zhaofeng_Li/CiteGen and reFill in FireFox. I have started TabToReference, but it needs someone else than me to lead and/or contribute. You and others are welcome to contribute anyway you can, as I cannot. TGCP (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind message and notice,TGCP. I am glad you see the problem.
BTW, I never answered how to ping: just means using the user name, as I did here, which creates an alert in the users account, compris?--Wuerzele (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. TGCP (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for all your edits to the Prescription Drug Prices article. I wanted to let you know about new data about the effects of trade on prescription drug prices that was just published by my colleague Thomas Bollyky. I thought it might be a good addition to the page. Thanks again! Melbindc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbindc (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Melbindc, and welcome to WP. What's your connection to the Council of Foreign Relations, where Bollyky published?--Wuerzele (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Can you address the concerns I have raised here [3]. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James thanks for alerting me. why not pinging me on Talk:Zika virus, where you raised your concerns? I will paste this to the Talk:Zika_virus#Mass_of_references.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doc James why did you not ping me on Talk:Zika virus, where you raised your concerns? Instead, you've used your time to make more demands to me on your talk page, and on the Zika virus talk page. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
why did you not ping me on Talk:Zika virus, where you raised your concerns. I saw you corrected the malformed sentence on the Zika virus talk page (for which I thanked you).--Wuerzele (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did I not ping? I simply forgot to. It is a relatively new feature and I do not always remember to use it. Posting here I though would achieve the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are not achieving the same: you make your post on talk:Zika virus look like a generic concern to everyone else, when infact you are tapping (only) my shoulder (which is pinging) semiprivately here. and only you know, why you do this, since you didnt answer this. My point wasnt the pinging, but using user names is. this is teh second time taht I have told you this. if you have someone someone in mind to address a content related issue, mention their name on the content talk page for all to see. avoid any guessing or game playing what your intent is. for hopefully the last time: User:Doc James why did you NOT address me on the content page, since you obviously posted this only to me and not all the other folks that participated in the edit in question? --Wuerzele (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For generally being an excellent editor, systematically cleaning up articles here and there throughout the encyclopedia where the articles need help. Keep up the great and continuous work! May it continue to be joyous work! Sadads (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Decentralized autonomous organization

An article that you have been involved in editing—Decentralized autonomous organization—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newburgh water supply

Thanks for putting that stuff in the city article. I had added something about it a while ago to the article about the contaminated reservoir itself, Lake Washington (New York), but not thought to put it in the city article. (I probably should have more, but seriously, as a local, this story is developing on a daily basis at this point). Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

youre welcome, Daniel. do you know that there are 200 pfos contamin. sites by the military alone? the military alone, yes! who knows how many other sites exist, where fire alarm exercises were done with fire extinguishers (as at our hospital until recently), plus the production sites, etc; its a big issue evolving for a decade in slow motion to me. i'm in a solitary editing spree to enter the sites, since the new epa standard came out 19 may, see my editing history today ...though almost falling asleep.
i am thinking of creating a new category for this - if the panama paper people can have one, so can the pfos sites. anyway encouragement goes a long way, esp as wp people are so hesitant to thank or give out barn stars nowadays. haha. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Debra Marquart

Hello! Your submission of Debra Marquart at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archive box

Hi, you could put an archive box at the top of your talk page instead of links. See my talk page for example. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could. Yoninah tell me why, please.--Wuerzele (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah why are you not answering?--Wuerzele (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see your first ping. I was just suggesting a way to make your talk page look neater. You could take it or leave it. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So, Yoninah, my individualized (non-bot) annual archive boxes at the top aren't "neat" enough? Just reply - i want to understand where you are coming from, and then let's wrap this up --Wuerzele (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

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, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Debra Marquart

On 2 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Debra Marquart, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Debra Marquart left Napoleon, North Dakota, to tour with rock bands and returned to teach writers' workshops in Bakken oil field communities most affected by hydraulic fracking? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Debra Marquart. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Debra Marquart), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Perfluorinated compound contamination has been nominated for discussion

Category:Perfluorinated compound contamination, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Utako Okamoto

On 16 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Utako Okamoto, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Utako Okamoto, discoverer of tranexamic acid, worked with her infant daughter on her back in the laboratory, as she could not find child care? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Utako Okamoto), 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.

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE

There is an enforcement case involving you at WP:AE. [4] Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you gotta be kidding. We, SageRad etc, are allowed to edit company websites like Monsanto legal cases.
No, I consider this retaliatory, because I exposed your relentlessly controlling, pro-industry and negative editing behavior. there is indeed good coverage and you know it you could have improved the edit by finding a better source, but as always you suppress any critical points of view. --Wuerzele (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last reply here, but being able to edit on company pages does not give you free range to edit on topics related to your ban (which the climatecorp offshoot is directly linked to) or make pointy edit summaries towards editors that got you banned in the first place. You're just continuing your battleground behavior, which is ultimately why your behavior is being discussed at AE. Aspersions like above will only make things worse. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was one reply too much. I have told you before to stay off my userpage: "You are not welcome on my userpage, for the exact same reason that you pretend to post here."--Wuerzele (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so fucking tired of the bullshit of the McCarthyist enforcers of messed up systemic bias in Wikipedia. The lawyering, the dishonesty, the lack of integrity, the silencing of others, you people ought to be totally ashamed of yourselves. Like was said to McCarthy, "You sir, at long last, have done enough." Get off this lad. Let people be. Go away. Let people edit in good faith. Bugger off. I speak to the industry aligned forces of darkness who have come to control Wikipedia, and i mean this whole heartedly. You're bad. You're a bad influence on Wikipedia, and you are despicable in your lack of integrity. You know who you are, and you know what you're up to. It's so far from NPOV that it would be laughable if only you weren't "winning" by fiat by populating the editorship with a virulent plurality. You make me sick. "Aspersions like above will only make things worse." Fuck that shit. Attitudes like those are what makes this place go to hell. Speaking the truth about this infection is needed. SageRad (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of mud slinging McCarthyism i see here. I see that speaking of an editor's pattern of editing is made to be a "crime" when it goes in one direction, and the "law of the land" when it goes in the other direction. That is the attitude of Kings, and the opposite of the principles of democracy or integrity. It's the silencing sort of atmosphere caused by McCarthyism in all its manifestations. It's ruined Wikipedia where it comes to any topic that has any controversy or uncertainty where there happens to also be a vested interest by some group. It's lawyering in an agenda pushy way, and i will state that, and stating that is not a crime. Let's be adults here, people, or go home. This is the world's knowledge base we're talking about. It's not a football. It's not a game. SageRad (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AE request closed for now

Please see this closure. Some participants wanted you to have a chance to respond, but you have not edited since 24 June. If you do return to active editing, you yourself or any other party can ask for the request to be reopened. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Klein's line

Hello! Your submission of Klein's line at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I responded, Rachel Helps (BYU) but dont see a response from you.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I got sick last week. I have now replied. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yoninah can you tell me what happened with the nomination? I dont understand this.Wuerzele (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was promoted to the prep sets. The promoter put it in Prep 3, but I moved it to Prep 4 to make room for another biography. It is scheduled to be promoted to Queue 4, appearing on the main page on July 30. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Eric Gauthier (dancer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Eric Gauthier (dancer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cotton2 (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cavu

Hello! Your submission of Cavu at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SounderBruce 00:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I responded, SounderBruce at the Did You Know nominations page. I thought I pinged you.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to write up an alternate hook before I can approve it. SounderBruce 04:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia and proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Schistosoma haematobium into Schistosoma bovis. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Diannaa, I moved text that was inappropriately written on the wrong page. thanks for the info on attribution which i was unaware of I ve never done this before i guess- I assume there is no {{move}} template for the talk pages then?--Wuerzele (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I normally use the talk page template {{copied}} when there's been large chunks moved. It's optional. It's more important that you mention where the content came from in your edit summary, as this is how the attribution needs to be noted. — Diannaa (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa check my most recent move out here- this okay?--Wuerzele (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's perfect. — Diannaa (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Klein's line

On 30 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Klein's line, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Klein's line, the first tool to diagnose slipping of the ball-joint-like end of the femur in adolescents early to prevent destruction of the hip joint, is still used today? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Klein's line. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Klein's line), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cavu

Hello! Your submission of Cavu at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerzele, you were pinged a couple of days after this from the nomination page, but haven't responded. Since pings don't always go through, I'm posting so you're aware that a response from you is needed for this nomination to continue. Please do so as soon as possible. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wuerzele

Hi, nice to meet you. I returned my edit, this time I put the references in the page (not just in the talk page), I assume (?) that was the thing you found problematic (?).

I must say I don't think your attitude in reverting is a good one. Reverting is a comparatively hostile method, that emphasizes dishonor and/or distrust. It is not meant for edits which may not perfect in all aspects. When I see an edit without any source, I usually try to run a quick google search to see if the information is true, only if it is not found easily I delete. Also, in my case I explicitly mentioned that this information was as easy as googling it to found, so you could've spared 10 seconds and google it. Also, when I gave the sources in the talk page, you ignored the talk page and the sources brought there and deleted it again. If the information is valid, but the source wasn't brought in the right manner to your opinion, it would be a lot more polite to just write on the user's talk page asking him or her to do it properly, while explaining briefly what is it that needs to be fixed. Since the information itself is valid, there is absolutely no reason to "rush" and delete it.

(I must also mention that this kind of behaviour is greatly influencing the chance of users, especially new ones, to continue to contribute. If I didn't have enough experience in wikipedia (from another wiki), such behaviour of deleting an edit which added information that can be validated so easily, would definitely make me want to leave this place. I know it might be rude of me, but I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Of course, you will decide your agenda on your own, but when I read those I found them as a good thinking material, maybe you will too :) )

Yours, Orielno (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I edited now with the sources "inline", then reverted it again. If you find it sufficient, then revert my last revert to what I did. If you still find it lacking, then the article will just remain not-updated, cause I have no intention to continue to spend time on such a small thing, so do as you find fit. Orielno (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]