Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter! >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part. January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words). February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive. Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated! Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone." Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was a tough FAC; but, look how much better the article is from when you first started! Thank you for working on such an important topic. Next time you send it up for an FAC please email me and I will post a review again. Once it becomes a FA you are going to have such a huge sense of satisfaction. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Core, but I don't think I'll be resubmitting the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking forward to a renomination. It is an important article. It is worth FA status. So what if it was closed. Happened to me (Lead, Metalloid); happens to other people. Get up and have another go. The objective is to get to the mountain and enjoy the view, never mind the jungle, swamp, and piranha-filled river you have to cross. I have my own projects, articles and RL obligations but am willing to help when I can. At least the pressure is off---I find it a more enjoyable to do editing after an FAC has been closed, rather than during it. Other editors are available to help. Sandbh (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking forward to it and I will not be renominating it. I refuse to work with the folks at FAC ever again. I would be willing to work with you again, Sand, but not with most of the others. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your most recent acne edits were very good! --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested, you can have the conversation without me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you need one after that epic featured article nomination! You've made great improvements in lots of medical articles, and your work around here is greatly appreciated. Hope you can keep it up after a suitably reinvigorating rest :) Tom (LT) (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, TylerDurden8823. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per MEDMOS we tend to reference the leads for medical articles. Did someone suggest they be removed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sandbh repeatedly requested this on the FAC and talk page stating that it's not typical for FAs to have refs in the lead (though I've seen multiple FAs do this). No one objected when this point was raised multiple times. It doesn't matter to me. If the community feels differently, feel free to rollback the changes I made. It probably warrants further discussion on the talk page but I was being bold. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MEDMOS actually says "Adding sources to the lead is a reasonable practice but not required", which is not exactly as strong as "we tend to do this". However, because acne is so common, IMO this would be a particularly useful article for the translators to take on, and translators sometimes only translate the lead, so I'd support including them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay with me. I recommend talking about it on the article talk page so everyone is on the same page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tyler: You said - Is there a reason none of the USDA nutrition tables I'm looking at on various food pages display their copper content? I realize it's a micronutrient that doesn't get the spotlight as often as some of the others but it is still considered an essential micronutrient and deserves mention. Do you have any thoughts about this? Frankly, I don't know why it's not included in the standard WP nutrition template and have always assumed there's a template error prohibiting it to be displayed. Now I feel guilty about not pursuing this. To show the error, I edited the two tables for kiwi that you worked on today, using the alternate "opt-in" code (which works for everything else), but copper still doesn't display, indicating there is coding that prevents it from being shown. Perhaps a request to WP admin about this should be raised. Here's the NAS review discussing copper as an essential nutrient. Let me know if you need further input or support. --Zefr (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give your thoughts about this, please? The editor is debating whether nutrition is governed by MEDRS. I looked through dozens of WT:MED archives and didn't find a specific discussion supporting nutrition as a MEDRS topic, although we all know it does. Issues I raised (or would raise) included:

1. the lede sentence mentions "maintenance, growth, reproduction, health and disease of an organism", which collectively imply MEDRS
2. last lede paragraph mentions numerous diseases which result if nutrition is poor or absent, implying MEDRS
3. DRIs are based on diseases which develop if a specific nutrient is absent, demonstrating MEDRS
4. the other editor objected when I removed an opinion article which she wanted to use for a lede statement that the nutrition field is only "half-understood" by nutritionists and poorly understood by the public. I can agree to both assumptions, but the NYT article is a survey and opinion, not a MEDRS-quality review.

Or do you feel there would be value in raising this with the community at WT:MED? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it - talk to who, you or the other guy? where? There is need to show there is another theory even if not yet proved or disproved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soaringbear, you can talk to me, James, and all other Wikipedia contributors about the changes to the article you're proposing on the vitiligo article's talk page. At the top of the article you'll see a button that you can click where it says "talk". If you go to that page, click new section, and state what change you would like to make to the article, based on what source(s), and why, that will get things rolling. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing is just a click, but, just before, take the time to read the initial (and returned) article's paragraph: Does it make sense as it is written? Is NALP1 the correct name? Has it been introduced elsewhere in the article? Is something widely known? And where are the sources connecting it to the caspases? Are these the correct caspases? Maybe the sentence you deleted included sources? (Anyway, it is just a sentence..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.35.230 (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 5! Yes, I did read your edit before I undid your edit with a click and I have read the original paragraph. You added a sentence about NALP1 so I'm really not sure why you're doubting that (it is mentioned elsewhere in the article already under the subsection "autoimmune associations"). The sentence I deleted did include a source (as mentioned in my edit summary) but it was a primary source (not a secondary source as preferred (see WP:MEDRS) such as a literature review or systematic review/meta-analysis). If you can find a high-quality secondary source to support the content you wish to add, then please feel free to do so. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5 here! Thank you. If you also read the reference, you would see that, what i wrote, is there noted as "reference" (other people's work that is). Therefore my reference is a secondary source, some people that agree with the result and take it further. The term NALP1 is first time used in the autoimmune section, as you agree, and someone has to say at least that this is a gene. That is why i inserted an intro of some words there. Also, people and wikipedia are not using the term NALP1, but the term NLRP1. Anyway, please feel free to delete all my above comments.

Hi 5, please reread the autoimmune section. I clearly see a place where it says "NALP1". Additionally, the issue wasn't so much what you wrote but the supporting reference you chose. Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (e.g., literature reviews or systematic reviews/meta-analyses) are strongly preferred (if you need any help with proper formatting of a secondary reference, please let me know). This [1] is the article you selected and it is a primary reference/original investigation; it is not a literature review. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TylerDurden8823, I’ve noticed that you made a few useful edits to this article around the same time of last year and was wondering if you would care to offer your thoughts in its AfD? Thank you kindly. Savvyjack23 (talk)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year. March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.) April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words). May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words). June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words). 2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated! July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words). August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words). September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words). October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words). November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words). 2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating! Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello TylerDurden8823, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you, James! Happy holidays to you as well! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated! End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress. January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words). February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...for all your improvements to the Vaginal tumors article. I am taking a pause in its improvement and you more than welcome to continue to edit it. I am not certain at this point if other editors have ceased editing it, but my proposed future improvements would be:

• alphabetizing the entries
• filling in more epidemiological information
• there even more tumors than are listed here and I would like to include them some time in the future.

Of course I don't expect you to make these changes, I just wanted to let you know what I think some of the improvements could be. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 01:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copyedit. I was unaware Reiter was a Nazi. I would have assumed that The Guardian of all sources would have used the most correct term, but then again they were quoting Mr Walters who was diagnosed over 20 years ago. Harambe Walks (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harambe, you're welcome. Many people are unaware of Reiter's dark history and that's why I wanted to make sure it was clear. I am also somewhat surprised at The Guardian, but as you said, it was over 20 years ago and although there were calls to change the syndrome's name at that time, it wasn't yet a well-accepted change. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on my side in the discussion of GPA, "formerly known as Wegener's" vs "also known as"; as a more-experienced wikipedian, how do you think we should proceed with the GPA page? Myoglobin (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Myoglobin. If the 2001 editor (I have no idea whether that's Nature or an independent editor who agrees with them and I'll refrain from speculating) continues to try to edit war their proposed change in, then yes, it would be worth mentioning this to an administrator since it's not acceptable editorial behavior. It's unacceptable conduct to edit war this material in after repeated explanations in edit summaries since the current language was the accepted for years and their bold edit was reverted per WP:BRD. They should prove community consensus before trying to put the change in. Personally, I think the change is nonsense. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick reply. Are you saying that we should do nothing and wait for consensus? It seems that the only editors agreeing with Natureium are unregistered; how does consensus policy deal with that situation? Myoglobin (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you just opened the RFC, I would give it a bit of time. I do find it suspect that the only editors on Nature's side of the issue are unregistered. If they continue to edit war the material in during the RFC, then we will have to escalate this but I suggest raising the issue on the Wikipedia Wikiproject Medicine page to solicit other opinions if you're truly interested in seeing what the community consensus is for this RFC. If you would like assistance doing this, please let me know and I can help you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a week and then decide what to do based on the RFC results (if there are any). Do I need to re-explain the argument for "formerly" within the RFC, or am I not allowed to comment as the one who started the RFC? Myoglobin (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually good practice to summarize the issue when initiating an RFC. I have pinged several other Wikipedia editors who were involved in the last discussion of this topic five years ago to see if they will weigh in. You are certainly allowed to comment on the RFC even if you started the RFC. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since the last comment on the GPA talk page; should I remove the RFC? Myoglobin (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myoglobin, I've been a bit busy in real life so I haven't had time to respond until now. I wouldn't remove the RFC just yet but I think it's nearing the end since the conversation isn't really going anywhere and I don't think 2001's proposed change has been supported by any clear demonstrable consensus and it should remain as is. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps remove the RFC in about a week? Myoglobin (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myoglobin, I think it's time to close the RFC. There's no further progress in the discussion with the single IP user. The difference in opinion is irreconcilable but they have not proven consensus for their proposed change to overturn well-sourced language/information. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Treatment of nephrogenic diabetes insipidus includes removal of precipitating drugs (if possible) and sometimes initiation of thiazide diuretics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or both."

Does not mention that correcting hypercalcemia will correct the hypernatremia due to nephrogenic DI. Can you provide a ref for that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, standby for more info... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days. Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed. March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words). April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words). May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words). Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk. >>> Participate in the June elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which ref supports this [2]? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My access to PubMed articles is very limited at the moment. MKSAP mentioned this and had a citation to a series in the International Journal of the AIDS Society. [3] (supports new diagnosis of psoriasis as a marker for new HIV infection). This older article supports this statement [4] and this newer review article [5]. If you want to modify it, that's fine since my access is currently limited. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my changes on the Barrett's Esophagus! I'm still getting used to the markup and references are particularly complex!

Most, most, most appreciated.

Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.128.45 (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part. Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the August blitz! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all the work you do simplifying Wikipedia's medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, James! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This could use your copyediting expertise, if you are interested. So much work to do, all the time! Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TylerDurden8823 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician_to_the_President Here is a Reference I just found for Sean Conley https://thedo.osteopathic.org/2018/05/navy-veteran-do-is-serving-as-president-donald-trumps-physician/ If you can read it and help me add Acting on his page and the Physician to the President page that would be great. Thanks and I look forward for your responce.96.36.68.29 (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you please advise why you changed this article? Please provide reasons. The article still appears very opinionated and vague at the same time.

Regards,

JM Jeanmb1 (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean, the only edit I made was the inclusion of a few wikilinks to make the reading experience easier for readers. I did not alter any of the content and I did include a brief edit summary (WL is an abbreviation for wikilink). Have a great day! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TylerDurden8823,

My name is Matt Nemet and I am a Public Relations professional at GCI Health, a firm specializing in healthcare. One of our clients, electroCore (a commercial-stage bioelectronic medicine company), has expressed interest in increasing patient awareness on vagus nerve stimulation as a treatment for headaches, and views Wikipedia as a valuable outlet to focus on as they market gammaCore Sapphire (a non-invasive vagus nerve stimulator). The company’s current focus is in multiple conditions, including cluster headache and migraine.

In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released gammaCore for the acute treatment of pain associated with episodic cluster headache in adult patients, and this year, the FDA cleared gammaCore for the acute treatment of pain associated with migraine headache in adult patients. However, we would also like to bring to your attention a recent review of cervical vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of primary headache disorders, published in the Journal of Pain Research on August 27th.

We know that Wikipedia users depend on active and reputable editors for reliable content. We also felt that given your previous efforts editing Wikipedia pages on cluster headache and migraine, you might be interested in considering this review to include up-to-date information on vagus nerve stimulation and/or gammaCore on relevant Wikipedia pages, such as vagus nerve stimulation for example.

We want to be upfront in our awareness that, per Wikipedia guidelines, neither the company nor those directly associated with the company can make such edits. It is an important set of rules and guidelines that we respect, as our priority is ensuring Wikipedia has the most current and relevant information possible. Therefore, we are reaching out, if you are willing to assess the value of the proposed information to make accurate and appropriate updates.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards, MSN2017 (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See American College of Pediatricians - AAP is indeed reliable (but arguably not a valid primary source per WP:UNDUE), however, this content gave parity to the American College of Pediatricians, a fringe group. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree about the ACP. Guy, you threw out the baby with the bathwater with that edit. Those sources were added years ago. I have no issue with removing the ACP part but there was a separate reference from the actual AAP rather than the ACP that was removed with it. Please be more specific with your edit summaries in the future; it was unclear from "primary source" since that's what was said so it made things unclear. I have fixed it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress; Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2019. – Your project coordinators: Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, TylerDurden8823, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles. March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		For fixing the mistake I made when rolling back Antisemitism in Islam. I have looked over that action and realized that it was unneeded, and that "terrorism" is neutral in that context. Thank you. InvalidOS (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually undo it. I self-reverted. I just accidentally clicked rollback by mistake. Mouse problems. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Zero issues with your edits. I am just hitting everyone on the Jenny McCarthy page that hasn't received a pseudoscience and fringe science discretionary sanctions alert in the last year) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you for clarifying, Guy! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CMTBard --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying my edits - my wiki markup learning continues! The article about gout has got quite a few issues, not least ancient references of, in some cases, dubious quality. I'm going to update them with some more robust and current ones. Some of the content is poor quality and the structure repetitious ('diagnosis' seems to appear twice, for instance), so I'll have a look at this too when times allows. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review and comment on this RfC, please? Many thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019. June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated! June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585. Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent. September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerDurden8823: Thank you for your Revision of Coenzyme Q10 as of 04:42, 14 October 2019, where you Undid revision 921138753 by me of the paragraph in the article, Coenzyme Q10, that read, "In the Free radical research article titled Coenzyme Q10: absorption, tissue uptake, metabolism and pharmacokinetics the authors opined that "CoQ10 has a fundamental role in cellular bioenergetics" that "CoQ10 is also an important antioxidant" and that "Animal data show that CoQ10 in large doses is taken up by all tissues including heart and brain mitochondria. This has implications for therapeutic applications in human diseases, and there is evidence for its beneficial effect in cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases."^[1]

I was wondering (1) how was the article Inadequately sourced as it was publish in US National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health - National Center for Biotechnology Information (maybe because it was from the Free Radical Res Journal and it is not a good source?), (2) how would it help to take it to talk if it is flawed?

When you have a chance: What do you think of these studies (a) https://www.pharmanord.com/history-coenzyme-Q10-research (Pharma Nord), (b) https://ubiquinol.org/clinical-studies, (c) http://pennstatehershey.adam.com/content.aspx?productid=107&pid=33&gid=000295 (Kaneka North America LLC), (d) https://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000326 (Cited by 42 · Related articles)(BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Cardiovascular Society), (e) http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/pharmacy/currentstudents/OnCampusPharmDStudents/ExperientialProgram/Documents/nutr_monographs/Monograph-coenzyme_q10.pdf (Natural Medicines comprehensive database. Goldenseal monograph/U.C. Denver), (f) https://www.nature.com/articles/1002138 (Journal of Human Hypertension), (g) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5807419/#!po=1.06383 (Frontiers in Physiology), (g) https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-coenzyme-q10/art-20362602 (Mayo Clinic)

I agree the use of CoQ10 is still to some/great extent in the research stage, but there does seem to show its usefulness i) such as in a randomized trial of 20 children treated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia or non-Hodgkin lymphoma where the results reported that CoQ10 decreased the harmful effects of doxorubicin on the heart (National Cancer Institute); ii) such as CoQ10 supporting heart health (Published Research-Kaneka North America LLC); iii) such as CoQ10 being a powerful antioxidant that fight free radicals, which radicals damage cell membranes, tamper with DNA, and even cause cell death, with researchers believing free radicals contribute to the aging process, as well as a number of health problems, including heart disease and cancer; iv) such as clinical studies showing that people who took daily CoQ10 supplements within 3 days of a heart attack were less likely to have subsequent heart attacks and chest pain (Penn State Hershey Medical Center); v) though perhaps needing more study, such a meta-analysis showed that, compared to HF patients in the placebo group, patients treated with CoQ10 achieved a better ejection fraction, stroke volume, cardiac output, cardiac index and end diastolic volume index (BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Cardiovascular Society); vi) such that CoQ10 Q10 (doses of 100-200mg/day) have favorable effects when taken with heart failure drugs, that it can provide rapid protective effects in patients with AMI if administered within 3 days of the onset of symptoms, vii) such that high doses appear to slow the progressive deterioration of function in early Parkinson’s Disease when compared to placebo, etc. (Jonathan Reilly, U.C. Denver, Natural Medicines comprehensive database. Goldenseal monograph); viii) such as causing lower diastolic and systolic blood pressures (Journal of Human Hypertension); ix) such, at least, that deficiency in CoQ10 and its associated antioxidative activity can significantly increase the level of oxidative damage, so seems clear that supplementation with CoQ10 improves mitochondrial function and confers antioxidant protection for organs and tissues affected by various pathophysiological conditions, and the ability of CoQ10 to protect against the release of proinflammatory markers provides an attractive anti-inflammatory therapeutic for the treatment of some human diseases and in aging (Frontiers in Physiology)

This topic is beyond my expertise and time allotment, so please don’t involve me with an extensive discussion — you seem better equipped to modify the Coenzyme Q10 article as you see fit. I hope the additional information helps. Best regards Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For rescuing a WP:GAN that I was sure I'd be failing in a few days that you didn't nominate! Well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! So, that absentee nominator who nominated Chylothorax also put up Fibrothorax for GA; I've reviewed it, but, again, no response from the nominator. If you'd be interested in saving the day again, I'd be glad to work with you a second time—but you're certainly under no obligation to do so! I just wanted to extend the invitation, since you were so helpful on the previous review. Either way, thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm happy to take a look and see if I can rescue it! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2019 GOCE newsletter, an update of Guild happenings since the September edition. Our Annual Report should be ready in late January. Election time: Nominations for the election of a new tranche of Guild coordinators to serve for the first half of 2020 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! September Drive: Of the thirty-two editors who signed up, twenty-three editors copy edited at least one article; they completed 39 requests and removed 138 articles from the backlog, bringing the backlog to a low of 519 articles. October Blitz: This event ran from 13 to 19 October, with themes of science, technology and transport articles tagged for copy edit, and Requests. Sixteen editors helped remove 29 articles from the backlog and completed 23 requests. November Drive: Of the twenty-eight editors who signed up for this event, twenty editors completed at least one copy edit; they completed 29 requests and removed 133 articles from the backlog. Our December Blitz will run from 15 to 21 December. Sign up now! Progress report: From September to November 2019, GOCE copy editors processed 154 requests. Over the same period, the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing was reduced by 41% to an all-time low of 479 articles. Request archiving: The archiving of completed requests has now been automated. Thanks to Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan193, YiFeiBot is now archiving the Requests page. Archiving occurs around 24 hours after a user's signature and one of the templates {{Done}}, {{Withdrawn}} or {{Declined}} are placed below the request. The bot uses the Guild's standard "purpose codes" to determine the way it should archive each request so it's important to use the correct codes and templates. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Alerting all recent editors of our Multiple chemical sensitivity article.)

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit back to "medications" - I agree with your interpretation. Considering reporting this user... this is not typical civil behavior on Wikipedia... Your thoughts? Spyder212 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Thank you for reaching out and for helping with the HIV/AIDS denialism article. I've never seen someone object so vociferously over a relatively minor detail. It reeked of WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Yeesh. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been similar WP:OWNERSHIP issues before. See Talk:Hagarism#"Reception"_section and here. 2601:243:2200:60E:6160:C50C:98AD:AE31 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why pick that particular word to change? I mean, you are content with "azotemia" and "pyometra," but "renal" is the final straw? You'd have to literally rewrite the entire article to eliminate medical jargon, and "renal" is not really jargon- it's a pretty common term, and was already defined in the article. If a person goes to a vet, that vet is going to say renal, not kidney. So having consistency is not a bad thing. This really isn't that deep, but just a weird hill to die on. MarialeegRVT (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renal is definitely medical jargon. I can tell you from real-life experience that numerous lay people have no idea what that means. I never said I'm okay with "azotemia" or pyometra". This is just what I'm focusing on currently on this particular pass. I'm not combing every single article for all medical jargon currently (though historically I have done a lot of that as well). This is just low-hanging fruit to fix along with hepatic for liver, etc. I will certainly continue to remove medical jargon in the future, but this particular jargon issue is very widespread on Wikipedia. There are others I have corrected too. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bipolar disorder you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!); Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Automated archiving of requests; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2020. – Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pamxz (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Per your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Bipolar_Disorder_Articles-Need_Help_Accessing, I emailed you through Special:EmailUser, but I don't think I can attach documents through that form. That form-generated email should have my regular email address attached to it, so if you respond to that email I can attach the PDFs for you. Alternatively, you can just email me through Special:EmailUser and I'll respond with the articles you requested (or if you have some alternative method you prefer, just let me know). Does that make sense? Ajpolino (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Sorry your reply had been sent to my spam. Just saw it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bipolar disorder you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bipolar disorder for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ajpolino -- Ajpolino (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got the time and interest, Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Biology_and_medicine is severely backlogged and could use experienced editors willing to undertake thorough reviews. As you just saw, in the current setup, by the time the nominations get reviewed, the nominators are working on other articles (or worse, no longer editing!) and answering the reviews is much more of a hassle than it would be had the review been timely. As a case in point, I've got a review open now where the nominator hasn't edited in 3 months. If you know of someone interested in the topic, let me know and I'll ping them there to see if they're interested in helping out. All that said, if you don't have time for reviews because you're improving other articles, then you're probably spending your time just fine. I hope all is well! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino:, I'm happy to work on NAFLD within the next few days. Personally, I've never reviewed an article before. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Well if you'd like to review an article, instructions are here. You review against the good article criteria, which are open to some interpretation. They have some templates to help organize your review, but as you saw at the bipolar disorder review, some of the templates have obnoxious numbering schemes. I've started using User:Ajpolino/GAreview ({{subst:User:Ajpolino/GAreview}}) which is more straightforward to edit. You're welcome to do whatever you find convenient. Two pieces of unsolicited wisdom I've picked up through the few GA reviews I've done: (1) the GA instructions suggest you leave your review open for a week. I'd suggest you ignore that and be flexible with the nominator's time. Especially with these older nominations, the nominator may now be busy in real life. No rush. (2) It's hard sometimes to see the line between the GA criteria (a well-written article free of major flaws, that covers the topic broadly) and the FA criteria (a professional-quality article, that covers the topic comprehensively). But try to keep in mind that GAs don't have to be perfect. The GA process is intended to be a lightweight review process.

All that said, reviewing GAs can be a nice way to help others improve the encyclopedia. But if you'd rather spend your time improving articles, that's ok too. Volunteer project; do whatever brings you fulfillment. Thanks for volunteering to look at the NAFLD article. I should have a chance to put more attention towards it next week. Until then, happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Bipolar disorder (estimated annual readership: 2,300,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your many contributions to improve this vital article! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here. March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now! Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you left this message for me: Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did not appear constructive and has been reverted. ... If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The contribution that I made noted Kennedy's stated position on vaccines - quoting him denying the anti-vaccine accusation and that he argues for safer immunizations. These have cited references. He has stated many times in public that he has vaccinated his own children. My question to you is why somebody can stand accused in Wikipedia, yet cited material that refutes the accusation is not allowed to stand? You wrote in your Edit Summary: "No, he is not merely accused of being anti-vaccine. He IS anti-vaccine. There's no debate about this." I argue that his public statements that he is not anti-vaccine must be allowed on his Wikipedia page. Marker4545 (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources you were using were too weak and you inappropriately softened the language in the lead from he is anti-vaccine to he is accused of being anti-vaccine. That's a significant difference. The latter indicates he may not be anti-vaccine, which is demonstrably false. It is obvious and widely accepted, to everyone except those in the anti-vaccine community, that he is indeed anti-vaccine. It is a common antivaxxer trope to deny being anti-vaccine and try to whitewash it as being "pro safe-vaccine". It's nonsense. I don't have a problem with adding that he denies these accusations, but it must be balanced by saying that the mainstream experts disagree. There are numerous strong sources that show he is absolutely anti-vaccine. We must reflect that he is what he actually is and not inappropriately soften the language to make him sound like a martyr or victim, which he most certainly is not. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply. There are stronger and more solid references where Kennedy clearly stresses his support for vaccines. But I'd like to ask for clarity on your comment before posting again on his page. For a denial with strong citations to be accepted, you noted that one would also have to add that mainstream experts disagree with Kennedy. This makes no sense since the purpose of posting the denial is to balance out the already existing accusations that he is a "prominent anti-vaccine activist." Marker4545 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that adding his denial does not conform with WP:NPOV and is not balanced. Jenny McCarthy denies being anti-vaccine too, but that's plainly false. That's the major problem. Kennedy going around saying he supports "pro-safe vaccines" is not the same thing as supporting vaccines. It's a very common and well-established anti-vaccine/vaccine-hesitant trope. Also, the onus is on those who introduce new material to justify its inclusion, not the other way around. You would need to obtain consensus on the article's talk page to see if there is agreement in the community about adding that. I doubt it though, but you're welcome to try and make your case for adding it to the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, quick question for you: I see at Chagas disease you've made several edits swapping the order of references at the end of a sentence with the edit summary "Properly ordered refs." What is the goal of the ref swapping? To move the footnote superscripts into numerical order? Typically if I have a sentence with facts X and Y, I end it with <reference for X><reference for Y> (i.e. I put my references in the order of the statements they reference). I hope that's easier for the reader to follow? But truly I have no evidence of this, and my order may be completely non-intuitive to any reader. Is there some established guidance on ordering the reference? If so, I could be more careful of it going forward; I don't need to generate more work for someone down the line... I hope all is well. Glad to see all the work at NAFLD; I'll get a chance to take a look through it in the next few days. Ajpolino (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's so the citations in the text are in the proper order. It just looks strange when it says [10][2] instead of [2][10]. I'm confident that is the general convention. I've never seen a professional paper do it any other way before. The citations in every article occur in order from when they first occur in the article. I think it also just looks aesthetically better when the numbers are in order. I don't think people will know that the references are purposefully out of numerical order to correspond with the order of facts within a sentence. I don't think that's common. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikilink Barnstar
		Thank you for your work adding and improving wikilinks to a series of articles I created or heavily edited, in addition to your frequent interventions against vandalism and your impressive body of work. Much appreciated. Robincantin (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robin! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Psoriasis (estimated annual readership: 1,800,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Acne (estimated annual readership: 520,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tyler,

I actually already started talking in the talk page and someone removed what I said from there, so I had to undo that as well. So your removal of my material is what I would consider to be vandalism, since you didn't first talk to me about your objection. I hope you will not be banned. Regarding onus, if what you say is correct, then I can simply remove all the content on the page that has not been discussed in the talk page first, since the onus is on the person who added it. Correct?

Yes, I removed what you put on there (as summarized in the edit summary) because it did not follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The talk page is specifically for addressing a proposed revision to the article and is not a forum to attempt to put down organizations like the AMA, CDC, etc. It is really meant to be a place where you say something like "I think we should add ____ because...". If you start a new discussion like that, I would have no objection as long as there are no violations of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:TPG, etc. My removal of what you put on the talk page is certainly not vandalism. I recommend you read WP:Vandalism to familiarize yourself with how that is defined on Wikipedia. And no, you cannot simply wipe the slate clean since the page you're referring to has ample amounts of stable information that is supported by high-quality references. So no, your suggestion is incorrect. That would be considered vandalism and is inappropriate. Also, please be sure to sign your comments with four consecutive ~ marks after you're finished. It's considered good form here. Good luck. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I got a ping because Jzg was on my watchlist. I'd like to revert the edit on the talk page and go over his the 3-4 sources and explain why we shouldn't use the sources he cites. I know it technically violates "soapbox" rules but I think it would be useful enngage to with him and explain why they shouldn't. Note i'm talking the talk page edits, not his actual edits, and if you think that wouldn't productive or he wouldn't engage constructively then I'll move on. It just when he claims censorship, which it isn't because he obviously violated rules concerning the talk page, I thinks it better to explain why the sources shouldn't be used, thanks - --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been addressed on his/her own talk page. But, if you would like to put it back and discuss it there despite the SOAP violation for the sake of posterity for anyone else who may suggest those sources for the article in the future, I have no personal objection to that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've already found some info that discusses some of the papers he mentions and the various problems with them. When I get back from work tonight I'll look up up the rest of the papers. Then I'll revert the edit, address the linked papers, and explain the importance of the soap violation. I didn't reverts it without asking you first since its a legitimate revert, but I thought it would be good idea to respond to his sources, since they come largely from or were sponsored by legitimate health organizations, but I want to explain how scientific articles are not gospel but need to reproducible, use valid research methods, etc and why those do not. Thanks. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I appreciate your reaching out and the courtesy. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I reverted it and responded to him. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kwwhit5531, and you got a rather nonsensical rambling answer from what appears to (most likely) be a sock. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was worth a try, but its pretty obvious he didn't even bother to read the link to the abstract of the paper he was citing as the reason for his edit: "Routine vaccination has dramatically decreased the incidence of many serious diseases, and new vaccines are becoming available to improve the quality of health care. Vaccination programs are a cornerstone of modern public health, and are of central importance in preparedness for dealing with potential health emergencies, such as the recurrence of pandemic influenza.". While he was right that Harvard and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Inc. is a collaboration, it is not a collaboration with Harvard Medical School, but the larger university, it's basically an HMO, "is a not-for-profit health services company", like Blue Cross Blue Shield. Ah well at least now he can't say we censored his reliable source (it was real medical article just doesn't say what he thinks), we responded to it and I can copy-paste that response to the next guy asking why he got his edit reverted. Thanks for let me trying though. --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still tweaking that sentence. David notMD (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What sentence? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what sentence?

Shadowblade08 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence of second paragraph of Lead. I am done, but if you believe I have made it worse, revert to before my first change. David notMD (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change it...I'm lost, David. What are you talking about exactly? If you're referring to the NAFLD article, the only changes I just made were removing a few redundant wikilinks and adding obesity to the infobox. It's not my article, there are no WP:OWNERSHIP issues here so I'm not sure why you're asking for permission. I have no qualms with the adjustments you made. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TylerDurden8823 - You recently raised the article to GA. I think what I did improved the text in the Lead, but as you are the expert I was just doing a courtesy of letting you know about what I did. David notMD (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well that's very nice. I'm not accustomed to people doing that but thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing some editing while considering reviewing the DYK. A suggestion: the second gallery (CT, etc.) doesn't do much for the article. Consider removing first, second and fourth, and make the remaining one a left-justified thumb. David notMD (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't see why not. I didn't add that but I don't feel strongly about keeping it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed and approved the Did You Know. What happens next is that it goes to the nominated approved list, and then at some time in the future - can be weeks - a DYK reviewer moves it to the Prep list, and from there to Queue, and then main page for 24 hours. Always possible that the reviewer may ask for some article revisions even though I approved it. The article currently averages ~600 views a day. On the DYK day that can be expected to get a bump into the thousands. Please share this with your co-conspirator. David notMD (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll make sure to mention it to Signimu though I haven't seen them edit much lately. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took "I've never done a DYK before as above." to mean this was your first DYK, but in looking back at your Talk page, I see several mentioned. So, counting this one, are you at no more than five? Otherwise, you do owe a QPQ for this one. David notMD (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never nominated a DYK before, David. Where exactly are you seeing several mentioned? The only other mention of DYK on my talk page that I see is Ajpolino mentioning that bipolar disorder is eligible for it after I got it promoted to GA (I never nominated it for it). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. My assumption (mistaken), was that you would have submitted a DYK after each GA, because that is what I have done. David notMD (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't really know about DYK for past articles so I never did it before. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TylerDurden8823, just letting you know that I have left a detailed update in the Remdesivir Talk page, as to the answer I received from the corresponding author of the article we discussed a few days ago (Re: the unexplained double caveat against the combination of Rendesivir and Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine). In retrospect, I'm not sure it was worth the trouble, but maybe you should have a look. Cheers. Michal.188.64.206.71 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TylerDurden8823, you recently edited this article, which was appropriately tagged by another user with an advert flag. I did a bunch of cleanup and removed the tag; I think it's much better now. I would encourage you to have a look and share your thoughts. Thanks! Rytyho usa (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Wug·a·po·des​ 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC. Current events Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests. Drive and blitz reports March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020. Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed you made this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulcerative_colitis&curid=63531&diff=961185858&oldid=961184577
Do you have similar concerns about these edits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crohn%27s_disease&curid=63522&diff=961183648&oldid=961017242
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doxycycline&curid=660870&diff=961181910&oldid=957750502
Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, somewhat. They did add a secondary source unlike in the UC article though it's not PubMed/MEDLINE-indexed and that gives me some pause about its reliability. I haven't had time to do a deep dive on that particular secondary source to see if it's a solid source or not. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you'd be interested in improving the sources in Acne mechanica with something that's closer to MEDRS standards. I doubt that much is completely wrong in the content, but when someone expanded the article a while ago, the Mayo Clinic website was among the highest quality he added, and some of them were blog posts. I suspect that most of them could be replaced by a basic derm textbook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2020.                  Current and upcoming events September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Election reminder: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Drive and Blitz reports June Blitz: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on requests and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three self-isolated drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0. Reidgreg took a break after serving for a couple years. Thanks to everyone who participated! Progress report: As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2020 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2020.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: our end-of-year Election of Coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before Auld Lang Syne. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: This will run from 13 to 19 December, and will target all Requests. Sign up now. Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. October Blitz: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. November Drive: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. Other news Progress report: As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above). Annual Report for 2020: this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Puddleglum2.0, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and the other editors for your work on the "bipolar disorder" article, a condition I have. The more realistic and evidence-based overview of this topic as compared to most other websites has been truly helpful in understanding it better, and also helped me accept that it's truly a mental disorder, or else it wouldnt be so descriptive of myself. Heh! It's well written, less saccharine and more human. Thanks again, 2601:640:104:3B2D:94DB:2A43:644A:52B3 (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 192.6 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you.--Renat (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'm fine with how it is. I've seen many users with talk pagers far longer than mine. I suggest talking to them first. Thanks for stopping by. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just following up to make sure you got this and it can be marked as resolved. Some of my pings haven't been going through lately for whatever reason, so you may not have seen my message. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the barriers to getting MOS to say anything about language wrt medical conditions, addictions, disabilities, divergencies, etc, is that the Wiki article is so bad. I think it could be improved and give the correct weight to its adoption/rejection by particular groups. In particular, I would love to find a source that wasn't just advocacy but considered objectively why some groups have adopted and some groups rejected. I'm going to compile some sources on the talk page, with a view to making edits once I've read more about it. Are you interested in working on it? @WhatamIdoing: also, who I know thinks a lot about word choice. -- Colin°^Talk 10:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability would be a good place to ask for help.

The general options, when you are talking about the preferences of affected adults, are "person-first" and "identity-first". These terms then give the clue to the general pattern: if the condition is a matter of primary identity (e.g., autism, deafness), then you use identity first: a Deaf person (capitalized, to show that the person is identifying with the culture) or an autistic person. When it's not a matter of identity, then you use person-first language: a woman with dementia, a man with heart disease, a person living with AIDS. The level of stigma seems to drive the level of anxiety around getting it wrong.

This sentence is also correct: "This person with multiple sclerosis is a wheelchair user." "Wheelchair user" implies agency (because I'm using it), so it's not usually considered a stigmatizing phrase. (The same logic applies to "cancer survivor".) But don't ever use "wheelchair-bound", which is stigmatizing, even if the person literally has to be strapped into a wheelchair to prevent injury during use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, when you say "the Wiki article, can you clarify which specific article you mean? Do you mean the people-first language Wikipedia article? If so, yes, I'd be happy to take a look at it and improve it when I have some time. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the People-first language article. I completely agree with WhatamIdoing about the preference choices, but am lacking good sources. Will keep looking. We can't be the only people to observe both sides and spot a pattern, yet most of what I read sees one side and runs with it. -- Colin°^Talk 09:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just noticed your edit, the ...Panico, R.; Powell, W. H.; Richer, J. C., eds. (1993). A Guide to IUPAC Nomenclature of Organic Compounds. IUPAC/Blackwell Science. pp. 40–3. ISBN 0-632-03488-2. Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested),... can you adjust? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lotje, I'm not sure I understand what you want me to adjust. I just looked at the article and it looks fine. The reference formatting is correct and I don't see the error you mentioned here on that page. Please clarify how you think I can help. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you are right, it's gone now. Wizzards at work Cheers. Lotje (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I missed that there was more to the edit than just the comma addition. The rest of that copyedit looks good and I am grateful for your work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, our first newsletter of 2021, which is a brief update of Guild activities since December 2020. To unsubscribe, follow the link at the bottom of this box. Current events Election time: Voting in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 16 June and will conclude at the end of the month. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Have your say and show support here. June Blitz: Our June copy-editing blitz is underway and will conclude on 26 June. Drive and blitz reports January Drive: 28 editors completed 324 copy edits totalling 714,902 words. At the end of the drive, the backlog had reached a record low of 52 articles. (full results) February Blitz: 15 editors completed 48 copy edits totalling 142,788 words. (full results) March Drive: 29 editors completed 215 copy edits totalling 407,736 words. (full results) April Blitz: 12 editors completed 23 copy edits totalling 56,574 words. (full results) May Drive: 29 editors completed 356 copy edits totalling 479,013 words. (full results) Other news Progress report: as of 26 June, GOCE participants had completed 343 Requests since 1 January. The backlog has fluctuated but remained in control, with a low of 52 tagged articles at the end of January and a high of 620 articles in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Tenryuu and Twofingered Typist, and from member Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've had to deal with the behavior going on at the article. I was first alerted to it at WP:FTN awhile back, but wasn't going to escalate to AE originally as long as it looked like it was just isolated to the article. It looks like anyone else who has tried to step in has just gotten burned out though. I had to at least ban them from my user talk page for that reason.

I hadn't really run into this user until recently, but you mention this has been going on elsewhere? If it's become a trend elsewhere and they don't deescalate, maybe sanctions are the only resort left. Still not sure what to do though since this is such an odd case, but I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the behavior. KoA (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow all the lengthy advice you've given me. --Hipal (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is Tyler's page and not a place where you should be continuing your pursuit of me, so I'll keep it to this comment to say I'm honestly surprised you jumped into a conversation you are not directly involved in a mere four minutes after I posted it. That's especially considering I already told you I wanted to limit my interactions with you in userspace and only keep it to article space. You are already banned from my talk page for that reason, you were warned about harassment by pinging me on your talk page immediately after being warned multiple times on my talk page, and now you're following me around to other users' talk pages.

You may not be banned on this page at this time, but I sincerely hope you realize that does not give you permission to follow around editors like that, and I have no intention to engage with your hounding here further. As I've repeatedly said, if you have content you want to discuss in an actual collaborative manner as opposed to your previous behavior, that is for the article talk page as a few people have cautioned you on now. If you want guidance or mentorship on improving your behavior, I already tried and was exhausted (more than once now), so you are better off finding someone else for guidance. There is nothing further I intend to discuss with you in userspace after the time I've already spent trying to help you. KoA (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're discussing me, so I joined the discussion. Sorry you feel that inappropriate, but see WP:NOTIFY. Wikipedia requires collaboration. --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021.                  Current and upcoming events September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Drive and Blitz reports June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive). Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment on the DO degree page saying osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are not synonymous. I am currently leading a project on making sure we gain this distinction. ILO announced in 2018 of this distinction, and I want people to understand of this distinction; feel free to read about this project here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States. Please contribute, as I filed a dispute notice on this, as well; I read your recent edits, too: fantastic job. ORdeDocsaab (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2021 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2021.                  Current and upcoming events Election time: Our end-of-year election of coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before "Auld Lang Syne". Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. December Blitz: We have scheduled a week-long copy-editing blitz for 12 to 18 December. Sign up now! Drive and Blitz reports September Drive: Almost 400,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 27 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. October Blitz: From 17 to 23 October, we copy edited articles tagged in May and June 2021 and requests. 8 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. November Drive: Over 350,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 21 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. Other news It is with great sadness that we report the death on 19 November of Twofingered Typist, who was active with the Guild almost daily for the past several years. His contributions long exceeded the thresholds for the Guild's highest awards, and he had a hand in innumerable good and featured article promotions as a willing collaborator. Twofingered Typist also served as a Guild coordinator from July 2019 to June 2021. He is sorely missed by the Wikipedia community. Progress report: As of 30 November, GOCE copyeditors have completed 619 requests in 2021 and there were 51 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog stood at 946 articles tagged for copy-editing (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021. Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators. January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. (details) February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. (details) March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. (details) April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now! Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2022 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: our June Copy Editing Blitz, starting at 00:01, 19 June and closing at 00:59, 25 June (UTC), will focus on articles tagged for copy edit in September and October 2021, and requests from March, April and May 2022. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles. Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TylerDurden8823, I've worked on this article intermittently about "Gelesis100" (aka Plenity), which is an FDA approved weight loss loss treatment. I've mostly written the article myself, and it has been tagged by other authors as non-neutral and reading like a press release (an unfamiliar occurrence for me). I have no relationship or conflicts of interests with Gelasis, but I would like to improve the article and I've been unsuccessful soliciting help on the talk page. If you have the time to look over the article and share your thoughts on how to improve it, that'd be great. Thanks! Rytyho usa (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to help. I'll take a look and see if there's anything I can do to improve it. Have you reached out directly to the editor(s) who placed the tags to see what they thought? If not, I think it would be a good idea. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both works so stop changing it for nothing other than to suit your preference. FMSky (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be no problem with the change if you're saying both work. There's no need for stigmatizing language. Your objection appears to be based on nothing than your own preference. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just struggling with alcohol use isn't even a "disorder", it's literally wrong to call it like that. --FMSky (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]