User talk:IntentionallyDense/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ways to improve Acrorenal mandibular syndrome

Hello, CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath,

Thank you for creating Acrorenal mandibular syndrome.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article's lede paragraph is almost a direct 1-1 copy from this article. Could you please paraphrase it.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Schminnte}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

i often copy and paste info into a separate doc before paraphrasing and editing the article. i must have accidentally added the copy and pasted version instead of the paraphrased version. i will fix this ASAP. thank you for pointing this out. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte: i often copy and paste info into a separate doc before paraphrasing and editing the article. i must have accidentally added the copy and pasted version instead of the paraphrased version. i believe I have fixed the copyright issues. thanks so much for pointing this out to me.

~~~~CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1q21.1 deletion syndrome, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CNV, De novo and Learning difficulties. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as RAPADILINO syndrome. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to 1q21.1 deletion syndrome has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've re-worded some of the sections that were identified as copyright however I'm having a hard time figuring out how to list the symptoms of a disorder in a way that doesn't violate copyright. I'm not sure how to put symptoms into my own words without losing the meaning.

Thank you for fixing my copyright errors. I will make sure to be more careful from now on! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Help

Hello. Help improvements for acticle Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you. 113.161.210.125 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever edited that article... You might have the wrong editor. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
12		Clouston's hidrotic ectodermal dysplasia (talk)	Add sources
79		Lamellar ichthyosis (talk)	Add sources
38		Inflammatory demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system (talk)	Add sources
21		Hay–Wells syndrome (talk)	Add sources
172		Osteopetrosis (talk)	Add sources
75		Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome (talk)	Add sources
254		Macrocephaly (talk)	Cleanup
113		Chédiak–Higashi syndrome (talk)	Cleanup
27		Blue diaper syndrome (talk)	Cleanup
36		Congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma (talk)	Expand
26		Diabetes and deafness (talk)	Expand
17		Gillespie syndrome (talk)	Expand
59		Alström syndrome (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
23		Generalized epilepsy with febrile seizures plus (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
30		Adenosine monophosphate deaminase deficiency type 1 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
204		Type 3 diabetes (talk)	Merge
70		Penguin in other media (talk)	Merge
25		Joyce Theater (talk)	Merge
59		Primary familial brain calcification (talk)	Wikify
21		Pallister–Hall syndrome (talk)	Wikify
4		Rosselli–Gulienetti syndrome (talk)	Wikify
7		Severe intellectual disability-progressive spastic diplegia syndrome (talk)	Orphan
3		Hall-Riggs syndrome (talk)	Orphan
2		Palmoplantar keratoderma with deafness (talk)	Orphan
9		Senior–Løken syndrome (talk)	Stub
25		McKusick–Kaufman syndrome (talk)	Stub
7		Keratosis linearis with ichthyosis congenita and sclerosing keratoderma syndrome (talk)	Stub
60		Keratoderma (talk)	Stub
9		Young–Simpson syndrome (talk)	Stub
9		Erythrokeratodermia variabilis (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Content assessment disputes

If you have a dispute with content assessment, please start a discussion on the talk page before making any changes. For nerve decompression I saw you changed the content assessment from B to C with no discussion and no comment. If an article is rated as B, it means that a rater has determined that it meets all the B-class criteria. If you do not agree with this, the best way forward is with a discussion as it is ambiguous which criteria you are disputing and the basis of that dispute. Some of these criteria relate to referencing and accuracy, so there will naturally be scrutiny for such a content assessment change on a medical topic. I have reverted your changes for the time being. If you disagree the B-class criteria is met, please start a discussion on the talk page. Snake playing a saxaphone (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I use the rater bot and it just said C (55%) so I went with it. I didn't mean to cause any disputes. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, please change the rating in the banner shell template, rather than adding to separate banners. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I was using the rater bot and it must not have changed the banner shell? Regardless, I'll be more careful as I didn't even notice that the banner shell had it's own rating. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe that rater has been updated, but perhaps you could have a try sometime and confirm this? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Bosworth fracture you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance, using a template. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I did try to put things into my own words but I'm not always the best at summarizing material and it's something I'm still working hard to improve on! I didn't even know there was research papers that used Creative Commons so I'll start checking from now on so I can add the template. I'm having a hard time finding the template documentation for the template you used. I just checked the page and I try to search "Creative Commons text attribution notice" in the help section but I can't seem to find the exact template. If you wouldn't mind linking the template documentation that would be super helpful!

Thanks again, I always appreciate feedback as I'm still quite new and will always have something new to learn about this site! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

update: just after replying to your comment i found the template documentation so you can ignore that part. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I have several of these templates ready to go in a sandbox. — Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Cryptophthalmos

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://eyewiki.org/Cryptophthalmos, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your message I always appreciate the feedback. While I didn't copy text directly I did mimic the format and I will be the first to admit that I suck at paraphrasing. It's something that I'm continuing to work on. I did rewrite the article again and was much more diligent on how i phrased things. 23:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Assessment

I've seen you assessing a lot of articles for WPMED. Thank you! Also, I wonder if you'd be interested in looking at m:Research:Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Stub prediction table. This is a list (about a month or two old now) of articles tagged as stubs that probably aren't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! this is exactly the kind of thing i love doing! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to have some help. Please remember that your judgment is always more important than the suggestion in the table. In particular, down towards the "51% chance of being a Start-class" section, I find far more than 51% of them are still Stubs. You should rate them the way that you always do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Acro-renal-mandibular syndrome

Hello, CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Acro-renal-mandibular syndrome, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrenal crisis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adrenal crisis 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Just-a-can-of-beans -- Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrenal crisis

The article Adrenal crisis you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Adrenal crisis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Just-a-can-of-beans -- Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Barnstar

Top 10	Top 10 Medical Editor Barnstar 2023
	You were one of the top medical editors on English Wikipedia in 2023. Thank you for your hard work! -Mvolz (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Civility Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		I was worried you might respond harshly when I failed your GA nomination, but you took it in stride and committed to making the page better. Thank you for that humility, and I went looking through the barnstars to find the right one for you :) Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really appreciate that you not only took the time to leave an incredibly helpful and detailed response to my nomination but also went out of your way to give me a Barnstar. My goal here on Wikipedia is to expand the amount of information available and I'm always open to ways that I can improve! I felt that your review really helped me understand my strengths and weaknesses when it comes to editing articles and that's really important to me as a new editor. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Balloon cell nevus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclei.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Adrenal gland disorder

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Adrenal gland disorder, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Afferent loop syndrome has been accepted

Afferent loop syndrome, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Renal infarction has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Renal infarction. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Renal infarction has been accepted

Renal infarction, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Porter and Jick letter

I saw your edit to Talk:Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics. Perhaps you could take a look at the article history and decide whether this version is better than the current version. That revert, and many before it, had nothing to do with actual content. In the edit summary, "article structure" refers to having something in the intro but not in the body, which is against WP:LEAD. The rest of the edit summary should be self-explanatory. 200.143.99.122 (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused about what you are trying to say here. I don't have a strong opinion on which version is better. I didn't revert any content or make any drastic changes. If you disagree with my edit (the rating) then we can talk about that but I'm not involved in the other edits. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I just thought you might have some interest in that topic. I guess you'd have to look at the sources to understand why the other version is better. 200.143.99.122 (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked into it a bit and the reason that edit was reverted was because the edit was made by an WP:SOCKPUPPET. So if you want to go make the same edits on your own they shouldn’t get removed.

I rated that article because I was going through medical start class articles to see which ones needed reassessment. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is "extended-confirmed" protected, meaning that one would have to have at least 500 previous edits in order to edit it. 200.143.99.122 (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. I can make the edits if you would like since I have over 500 edits. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cutaneous ciliated cyst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mullerian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki project

Would you be interested in joining Draft:WikiProject food and drink industry in England, the main article is Food and drink industry in England. If you are interested in participating please add your name to the list of participants.ChefBear01 (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited IgA pemphigus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page L-chain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lipoblastomatosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incontinence.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrenal crisis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adrenal crisis 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brodie abscess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sir Benjamin Collins Brodie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Regarding your edit on Pseudoallergy:

1. Using "you" in an article doesn't fit Wikipedia's Manual of Style. See WP:YOU.
2. Beware of closely paraphrasing sources. Your edit includes the phrase An oral food challenge test is a highly reliable ..., which is copied verbatim from the source (Cleveland Clinic).

— W.andrea (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@W.andrea Thank you for bringing this up! I had no idea about the first part. As for paraphrasing, I do struggle a lot with paraphrasing information and it's something I'm continueing to try and work on. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help! Take a look at WP:FIXCLOSEPARA. — W.andrea (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I was just reviewing that page yesterday (as well as some others) after you left the message on my talk page! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

MDWiki

A heads up if you have not seen MDWiki. A few of use are also working on a slightly more medical version of Wikipedia, particularly geared towards offline use, if you are interested in joining. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Would I be able to transfer some of my major edits over there? CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Replied here https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Comlan A. A. Quenum

I have reversed one of your recent edits at Comlan A. A. Quenum where you remove text that was tagged with as per WP:Preserve FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma I restored part of my edit, but I won't revert your revert. However, I do recommend you check out WP:REVONLY (part of this is my fault for not seprating my edits) as well as WP:BURDEN, specifically the part about "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." With the overwhelming amount of unsourced info on Wikipedia, I've gotten a bit bold with just removing content that has been unsourced for long periods of time. In an ideal world, I would prefer to find sources for the unreferenced claims, but that's just not possible all of the time. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Burden is about the reliability of sources. WP:Preserve is about keeping unsourced materials in pages excluding BlPs of living people and negative information. These are two different policies. Nothing about preserve is about time, but I understand your frustration but please do not go wild on areas that already lack coverage here on Wiki due to many reasons including geographical bias. You can actually help build articles about these regions or just preserve the little that is left. Anyway, I hope you will consider FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagmaWP:BURDEN is not just about the reliability of sources, it's also about the responsibility of providing sources. I do understand wanting to preserve what information you do have but again I'd like to point to WP:BURDEN "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." While I'd love to be able to hunt down sources for every unreferenced claim, it is not my responsibility to find sources for others, as that burden lies on whoever added the unsourced info, or in this case, chose to include it. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It also says “Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.”

policies should not contradict each other and if you look to WP:Preserve it states “Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.”

going back to WP:Burden, it states “Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups.” And this is not.

again these policies do not contradict each other

Anyway, if you are keen on removing stuff start with US related articles. Here, Utah#Spanish exploration (1540) please go and remove the entire section. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagmaThe bits I removed had citation needed templates for over a year now, so someone already tagged it, hence I didn't need to. I'm not stating that these policies contradict each other, I'm just stating that you seem to be ignoring "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." The burden now lays on you to find citations for this content as you chose to include it. I mostly edit on the medical side of wikipedia, and I don't accept edit requests as a general rule. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I was the who tagged it as I was not happy with the source and tagging the information just let the reader know that this information should be taken with a grain of salt.

And this is not a medical article.

I really do not understand why people choose articles from these regions to exercise the extreme of a specific policy that says “maybe remove”. Maybe not. We had a couple of the same incidents last year. See User talk:Brlob FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, I truly understand where you are coming from and I really hope you can appreciate my point. I will try to fix the citation issue and thanks for taking interest on Quenum. He is a legend. Have a nice day and sorry if my rebuttals rubbed you the wrong way FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagmaI’ve had some time to think this situation over and I want to apologize. I feel that I came off a bit too harshly in some of my original replies. I’ve had time to reflect and talk with others and through this my mindset has changed a bit. Thank you for being kind in your responses as I likely would not have reached this conclusion without the helpful feedback. I think you understand where my frustration comes from, but I guess I’ve kinda made the mistake of assuming I need to fix every issue I come across. This isn’t sustainable for long term editing. I’ve decided to change my threshold for removing unreferenced material. Instead of doing large removals I’ll focus more on only removing material that isn’t easily verifiable, has been uncited for awhile, doesn’t have people actively editing the page, or material that seems out of place or unlikely to be verified. The material I removed from your page (and admittedly other material I’ve removed in the past) doesn’t meet this criteria. While I still stand by what I said in past replies, I’m learning that policies and such don’t always need to be followed so closely and building the encyclopedia is much more of a priority to me. I truly don’t know why I pushed this issue so much with you but I again want to thank you for the time you spent replying to me and the attitude you had while doing so. I hope you continue to make the quality contributions that you do and this “conflict” doesn’t disrupt that. Best of luck with your future editing and I’m glad we were able to have this discussion in a civilized manner. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice reply. I was really hoping that our disagreement will not deter you, and I am glad to see it didn’t. It’s really easy to forget about the “human” behind the keyboard and I am glad you managed to see me.

I understand the criticality of verifiability for medicine pages as misinformation there cab ruin lives and I appreciate your work fixing that. Take care FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

GARC and reviewing experience

Hi and thanks for submitting an article to GARC! I saw that you noted that you have only ever reviewed 3 GAs. Looking at one, John Sterling (American football), leads me to believe that you may benefit from gathering more experience in this area before joining in at GARC. Your questions at WT:GA (while good to ask, don't get me wrong!) and the lack of suggestions for improvement at the above-stated GA review (as well as the lack of a substantive prose review at your other two) make it seem like you may not be 100% ready for GARC. Of course, I could be wrong, but we had an issue a few weeks ago with a newer reviewer not being ready to participate, so I just want to make as sure as I can that all reviews are of as equal quality as possible. Thanks! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS This is completely understandable! The sterling article was definetly a challenge for me and my review reflected that. Prose is something I really struggle with as a writer as well and that could be why my reviews don't go in as much depth there. Is there any suggestions you have for improving this area? Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrenal crisis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adrenal crisis 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a small sidenote

Hey, friendly note that any responses at AE should stay inside of your own statement section, so you should move this down into your statement section. Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know I've never dealt with AE before and didn't know this! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem, there's always a first time to the different behind the scenes areas on Wikipedia.

AE has a fairly formal format, so each statement by users is limited to their own statement section and 500 words, so each user can edit their own section (as long as they stay within the 500 word limit) stating their case.

Sometimes when replying to something new a user has added, you may add a @ mention if it's not quite clear who you're referring to in part of your statement. Raladic (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent developments

Just a note to say that if external assistance isn't forthcoming in the next half day or so then I'll approach an administrator directly and ask for their advice. Axad12 (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12 Sounds good. I did write up a draft for kinda what I would say but its not great and needs to be updated. I was originally thinking of saying something along the lines of "I originally brought my issues with User:Exerciser87 to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Exerciser87 for the COI issues) however I was encouraged to bring this issue to the attention of an admin. I believe that User:Exerciser87 is evading a block based off Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guptalab/Archive I'm not fully sure how all of this works but it seems highly likely that User:Exerciser87 was also involved in the sockpuppetry and is therfore most likely evading a block. " Thank you for helping me out with this, I've never dealt with this kind of thing before. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm currently drafting something rather similar with a view to raising it an WP:ANI. There are other negative elements such as the edit warring, aspersions, evasiveness, refusal to abide by COI policy, etc. that need to be mentioned to demonstrate ongoing disruption.

I will wait to see if anybody takes action in the meantime however.

If the user continues to edit war and pursue an evasive line of argument then really he's doing himself no favours. Thus, no major hurry at this stage.

To be honest, anybody looking at the 2017 history, recent history and current discussion will surely see what is happening. Axad12 (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure how sockpuputting works but hopefully an admin can link the accounts. I also think the fact that the most recent user has admitted to having multiple accounts should add credit to the claims. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Leave it with me for the time being. I'll speak to an admin later today, see what their advice is, and then get back to you. Until then we'll have to see if anything develops out of the current COIN thread. Axad12 (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

An admin has now opened an SPI (link over at COIN) without me needing to ask anyone directly. That may potentially take over a week to be resolved as there is a long queue. I would suggest that we let that take its course for the time being and not take the matter to ANI. If the SPI comes up positive then the speedy deletion under G5 can probably proceed, which would be the simplest way of resolving the whole issue. If the user continues to edit war and argue in the meantime then he'll just be digging himself into a hole.

Usually the article in question only attracts about 5 views a day, so there is no hurry. Yesterday it attracted over 120 views, so there are eyes on this situation. Axad12 (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm happy with leaving this as well. I'm glad things are being taken care of. Thank you again for your help! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that after the article was previously deleted in May 2017, it was then recreated at some point and re-deleted in Aug 2017.

Following the deletion today I predict that the sockmaster will return at some point, possibly in the near future.

Therefore I will check from time to time to see if the article has been recreated. If you would do the same I'd appreciate it. If we see it recreated it can be speedy deleted again.

Thanks for raising this at COIN. Keeping Wikipedia in good order needs people with sharp eyes who report this sort of thing. Axad12 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I was about to nominate it for deletion just before an admin went ahead and deleted it. I also suspect that sockpuppets will pop up and plan on monitoring things as well. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

When I said would return "possibly in the near future" I didn't imagine he would resubmit the draft [1] within 30 minutes of it being deleted. He must think that everyone else on Wikipedia is a complete idiot... Axad12 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adrenal crisis

The article Adrenal crisis you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Adrenal crisis for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Wolverine XI -- Wolverine XI (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping pong

I tried pinging you at a current GA review but it didn't work because your sig is not now your username and so you may wish to amend it. Note that my own sig is a shortened form of my own username but the dragon emoji is a clue that it's not quite what it seems. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me here! I recently changed my username so that is why sig didn't work. IntentionallyDense (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi IntentionallyDense, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just to say thanks for all the helpful feedback on your good article review. A pleasure working with you! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It was great working with you as well. Although I really didn’t have to do much work with your nomination! IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

no 158.62.55.152 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Draftifying the article

The encyclopedia is a collective work and if you have problems with an article you can share it with the article creator before converting it to a draft and ignoring all the effort provided by the editor. If you had looked at the article carefully, you would have seen that there are actually two other sources, UEFA and Soccerway. EpicAdventurer (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@EpicAdventurer Hi, I'm sorry if me coverting your article to draftspace came off as me devauling your work in any way as this was not my intentions at all. I did notice the other two sources however ususally those types of sources where they just list stats aren't really used to establish notabilty (see Wikipedia:Notability (sports)). I'm not saying the article isn't notable as I haven't done enough digging to make that statement I'm just saying additional sources, such as non routine coverage, may need to be added to establish extra notability. If you feel the article is ready for mainspace you can always submit it at AFC. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Tailored Truth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tailored Truth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tailored Truth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

I'm notifying you since you accepted this article at AfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

GAN review

Hello, I have responded to your points on the GAN review and changed the highlighted bits accordingly. I hope the method by which I responded works, I've new to this process. Atubofsilverware (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The GA table can make responding to comments tricky but you did just fine! I'll get back to you on the feedback on the review page. IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

GAN review

Hello, thanks for taking up the GA review for Holzwarth gas turbine. One of the review comments is that there is no citation for Holzwarth's time at Hooven, Owens & Rentschler. The information is in footnote 72 on the bottom of page 72. Is there some method I need to use for referencing footnotes or is the page number enough? I will work on addressing the other points.Stivushka (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think I had downloaded the wrong version of the book. Don't worry about that referance for now, your current one is good I'm just going to go over it a second time. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The author of this book, Dietrich Eckart, has a habit of cramming a lot of relevant information into footnotes which most authors would probably make part of the main text.

One other point, when I look at the GA nominations list the Holzwarth Gas Turbine article does not show as being under review. What is its current status? Stivushka (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

To be upfront I failed your nomination at first. This was overly harsh on my behalf and I apologize for that. Another editor reached out to me and infromed me that I should take another look and I did. Because of this the bot may not be updating the status properly. But your review is currently on hold and in progress so I plan on finishing the review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate your openness, thanks.

I have added page references to the Brown Boveri review articles. Will let you know when I have expanded the introduction in line with your comments (expect to have it done by Friday). Also, if there are any other change needed, please let me know.

For Hooven, Owens & Rentschler: Is there somewhere I can temporarily upload a screenshot of the page? I really think this information should be in the article, but I don't have an alternative source. Stivushka (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I did update the review page to indicate which information was missing from that source. It may be a me issue (as in I didn't check the source close enough) but I specefically couldn't find the part "Holzwarth developed the theoretical concept for his gas turbine in 1905... built a 25 hp (19 kW) machine while working for Thyssen & Co." The rest of that paragraph I was able to find. If you could indicate which page exactly the info is on that might help me as well. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I created this basketball player article, Dazeran Jones. Kindly review. Your words of encouragement and pointers will also be greatly appreciated by me. Regards. Gracefoundme (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Gracefoundme (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

New article ideas for you

After threatening to do so for years, I finally wrote Early sports specialization a year ago. Your userboxen suggest that you might be interested in creating swimmer's shoulder. There's a list of other missing articles about sports injuries at Talk:Early sports specialization#Too many red links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As a swimmer with a messed up shoulder (these two facts are unrelated) this is right up my alley. I'm currently participating in the GAR drive which is keeping me pretty busy but I will create a draft when I have time. The page Early sports specialization is fascinating, great work as always. There is some other interesting red links there that are catching my eye such as valgus extension overload syndrome, Gymnast wrist, and Sport-specific injuries. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Delirium

Dear IntentionallyDense,

first of all thanks for trying to help me with the Delirium article. I just noticed now you removed my text I added on there, because it had no reliable sources. Delirium actually indeed has 2 types, one caused by anticholinergic drugs, unrelated to age of the patient(the person can be 25, 76, 43, 55... basically any age to suffer this type of delirium), and delirium of older people 65 and above, which is the more "popular" or more known type of delirium. I wanted to make it clear on the article about the 2 types, but couldnt find reliable sources to that. If I cant find, so we cant add the text? Because I noticed some texts on articles dont alwasys have sources, and they remain there. Does EVERYTHING require a reliable source? Noam Atadgy (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Any biomedical information (such as the information you were trying to include) requires reliable sourcing per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Non-medical articles aren't held to the same level of standards hence why you may see articles without as many sources. If you can't find reliable sources for information, consider the posibility that the information you recieved may not be reliable itself. I don't want you to take this the wrong way, I'm not saying that what you want to add in is inherantly untrue, just that we can't currently add it untill there is another source saying it's true.

As for delerium, there is typically three types, hypoactive, hyperactive, and mixed. (source) As for what you're talking about with anticholinergic drugs I was able to find some sources to back it up. It appears to be a result of anticholinergic toxicity (source) and goes by several names such as Anticholinergic syndrome (source) and anticholinergic delirium. (source).

This information is somewhat covered in Anticholinergic#Toxicity as well as Delirium#Causes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think, its not covered enough, as they say. Can you try improve Delirium article by making it more explicitly stated, so readers can more easily understand? Or atleast try add, what I tried to add, and cite a source to it so it can remain there this time, without having to delete it again, and so on. I'd do these kind of things myself, but I'm new to wikipedia and I suck at it at the moment... but I really want the Delirium article to be improved. Noam Atadgy (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to encourage you to add this yourself. It would best belong under Delirium#Precipitating factors. This article seems to be reliable and easily avaible. You can use this tool to easily add citations. Make sure you put things into yout own words. I will keep watching the page for changes and can point you in the right direction if needed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Great! Thanks man! Im kinda busy today, but I will get to it at some point. Generally, I think the Delirium article already has the basic information covered, so its probably not urgent. Noam Atadgy (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia as once you get past all the rules it is a lot of fun and we could always use the help! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I try when I have free time and can do it easily. If its something complicated, I leave it to more experienced editors / contributors like you. Noam Atadgy (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Some day you'll be the more experienced editor. We all start somewhere and I'm happy to help! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm very busy right now here in Israel because of the war, rockets from Iran, and personal problems, and more. But, I will get to it and many other articles on Wikipedia when I can. I really like editing wikipedia, I was only a reader until recently... Noam Atadgy (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope you can find some distraction with editing wikipedia. If you’re interested in editing medical pages that’s my speciality and I’d love to help you out wherever needed! IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about the war in my country Israel? Noam Atadgy (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I prefer not to share my political beliefs online but i’m sure it’s a really difficult situation to be apart of and i’m sorry you’re stuck in that situation. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. Noam Atadgy (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you think Jesus is the Messiah? Noam Atadgy (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not something I really feel comfortable answering. How about we stick to the topic of Wikipedia? Have you had time to make changes to the Delirium page yet? IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I need your help with the Delirium article. What can you help me with, with Delirium article? I'm new and dont want to make mistakes. Noam Atadgy (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

What specefically do you need help with? I would recomend by starting with explaning the conntection between Anticholinergic drugs and delirium using the article I linked above. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly that, if you can do this yourself instead. After you do so, it'll be easier for me. If I do it myself alone, and, first, there could be a few problems. So go try do it yourself alone, and afterwards, i'll add more. Noam Atadgy (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m quite busy at the moment so I might not get around to this for awhile. In the meantime I suggest you add it and I’ll correct any errors that I see. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. Can you go check what I added, and how can we let it remain permanently in the lead section of Delirium? Its very important. I have years of experience with Delirium and medications which cause Delirium. Noam Atadgy (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to IntentionallyDense for accumulating at least 25 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

DYK for List of chronic pain syndromes

On 12 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of chronic pain syndromes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that chronic pain syndromes affect approximately 20 percent of people and account for 15 to 20 percent of doctor visits? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of chronic pain syndromes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of chronic pain syndromes), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review

Thank you for beginning to review Francis L. Sampson - I've left some replies to your comments, not sure if you got pinged for those and I saw you like pings, so here you are just in case! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 23:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! I do have the page watchlisted so I should know when you reply to stuff! IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested Article List and Stubs

Hi there

I'm writing to you here so I can get more of your wisdom on the requested medical article lists and stubs. We guide wiki writing in 2 courses. One for pharmacy students and the other for biomedical science students. In our current programme, we provide students with the following 2 lists:

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine/Pharmacology

Students do identify sometimes that items on the list already exist and we don't have clear guidelines on how to advise them on this. Up to now, we have wrongly assumed that the item is on the list for a reason but it appears this is not straightforward. If we restructure the syllabus so that students are addressing stubs, I would be grateful for your suggestions on how we guide students on the technicals for this. We need to design rubrics around this and standardise a system so that all students are assessed fairly etc. Any suggestions here would be super helpful. I think we also need better guidance on how to identify "notable" topics. Thank you very much for your time on this. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@G.J.ThomThom I did leave a message on your talk page with the list of medical diseases. As far as notability, generally you want at least 3 reliable (meaning published by a reliable source), independant, secondary (so not case studies) sources. This is to make sure that you can cover a topic well given what sources are on hand. For example if I took the article acetiamine, which is on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine/Pharmacology list, I would find that the only studies publsihed on the topic are these three: [2] [3] [4] which are older studies that don't provide us with much information to create an article. Meanwhile if we look at Abarelix from Category:Pharmacology stubs I can easily find more than 3 [5] [6] [7] [8] different more in depth sources discussing it. Of course not all stubs are inherantly notable and you will find some with little to no sources but you're going to have an easier time finding pages this way. You might also want to check out Category:Start-Class pharmacology articles as a lot of these articles need some work but are most likely going to have more sources available, for example the page A-kinase-anchoring protein is mostly unsourced yet a simple google search turned up tons of high qaulity sources on the topic! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have just seen your message on my Talk page. Thank you very much. And thank you for this. All clear. I will very likely have more questions later. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message at any time. I'm pretty active on here most days. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You would make a great teacher :) G.J.ThomThom (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. My fathers a teacher so perhaps that is where I get it from. I'm currently just a high school student (retaking some grade 12 classes, I technically should be in university already but life happens) but I've considered going into acedemics as I love research and that usually goes hand in hand with teaching. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I can already see you have the makings of a researcher and teacher. Life sure does happen and we are all going through it but we take each day at a time. Thank you again for your availability and your great input. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your consistently high-quality GA reviews and level-headed comments elsewhere. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This means a lot to me!! IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Peer review quesrtions

Hey!

Could I trouble you for ideas for peer review questions? We currently conduct a scaffolded peer review with students in the middle of the semester after students have completed their first draft of the wikipedia article. Our existing questions are directly aligned with our assessment rubrics and hopefully align with Wikipedia’s expectations, but I am keen to get the view of someone who has reviewed articles, specifically medical articles. We have a set of questions on organisation and structuring so these questions are about the lead, headings and so on. To give you an example of one of them: How does the lead sentence state the article topic? Is it accurate and to the point? Is it a single sentence? We also have this question but I think it might mislead students and does not entirely align with Wikipedia: Did the writer use coherence devices such as linking words, referencing devices, lexical chaining and the ‘Given-New Principle’?

I feel it’s important to craft a question that gets them paying attention to the fact that transition is handled differently in Wikipedia articles from academic articles. Basically there is no transition. Sections are standalone. Readers may only read the lead or they may jump to a section and not read the whole article so it should not be written as a narrative. Since they are students, the default approach is to write a thesis-driven argumentative essay so 1st drafts often have narrative features or transitional devices that are typical in essay structures ("This article aims to summarise...", “In conclusion”,  “To sum up” ). They might also provide transitional topic sentences at the start of a section. Or reference and substitution (referring back to a previous section like in an academic report). I have noticed comments on some of the weaker articles that have been passed to a reviewer mentioning that it is written as an essay. So I think we need to focus more strongly on this at the peer review stage. Would you be willing to let me know what you would think would be good questions to tackle organisation and structuring? I could show you all the questions as there are others that I think could be improved but don't want to overly burden you with this.

G.J.ThomThom (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So for most of wikipedia we try to use plain english. Instead of focusing on things such as "linking words, referencing devices, lexical chaining" I woud recomend focusing on if students are able to take a complex idea from a scientific paper and summerize it in a way which includes the details needed but also could be understood by someone who doesn't have a degree. This might not be something you would normally look for but it is one of the most important aspects of writing for wikipedia. As for organization, we do have Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles which I would say is really important and kind of outlines the tone that people should be writing in. Another huge one is text-source integreity. This often gets lost in writing about medical things. Another important factor is due weight. For example if you were writing about heart disease it wouldnt make sense to have 3 paragraphs talking about some rare genetic heart disease when there is much more common diseases that should be focused on. This kind of turned into a ramble but those are some things that you may not have thought about. Wikipedia:Writing better articles may have some more information that you may not have thought of. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! We organise the peer review questions according to our rubric and our syllabus teaching so we are marking them on organisation, content, language and use of sources. So the peer review questions related to organisation are about arrangement of the sections and technical applications. Questions about content cover things like "comprehensive coverage" of the topic. The language questions cover NPOV, paraphrasing, summarising and synthesising skills. Sources cover appropriacy (no primary sources etc) recency, plagiarism but we don't use the word "notable" which I think we need to use. By the way we are linguistic and genre specialists at the uni. A lot of our teaching involves communicating science to the lay audience and features that make up plain english. Integrity is the cornerstone of uni teaching and learning so this is something that is already understood in the context. Students face consequences if plagiarism is found in uni assignments, including their wiki assignments. I will spend a bit of time on these questions. Can I come back to you to check if I am nailing the questions if that's ok with you? Thanks again for your time. Really appreciate it. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah sounds good to me! IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

And a Barnstar for you!

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		I'm mainly giving you this for your reviews, but tyou're also amazing all around. I mean, we're only on day 16 of a 31-day backlog drive, and you've already done 22 reviews, all of which are high-quality?? That's amazing work and honestly motivates me. Thank you for being willing to learn about weather as well, the terminology is easy to understand once you get the hang of it. I hope to see you around more often!! :D SirMemeGod  12:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod Thank you this means a lot to me. I hope to see more of your articles at GAN as it was a really fun way to push me out my comfort zone. The source reviews are a tad intense but now that I know how to work the websites you guys use it’s a lot easier! Thanks for taking my feedback well. I’m always afraid I’ll come off as nitpicky or that it won’t be received well so it’s reassuring to know that other appreciate it. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your clear, concise, and polite reviews of Good Article nominees! ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 14:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This means a lot to me. It has been a pleasure working with you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Francis L. Sampson

Just to let you know, I have nominated Francis L. Sampson for DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Francis L. Sampson ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 14:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ll check it out but may need a second opinion as DYKN are a bit out of my comfort zone :) IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh no I'm not saying you should do a DYK approval for it - just wanted to let you know you were party of the process if it makes it to the front page and to keep your eye out! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 18:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh I understand now! I’m glad you’re trying for DYK it really helps with attracting readers to your page! IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Neurocysticercosis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Neurocysticercosis 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)