As far as I know, the only way to call attention to a color-confusing map is to go to WP:GL or ask someone privately on a user talk page; I've never done anything else. I see nothing at Commons:Category:Image cleanup templates that mentions color. Meanwhile, did you see my note at WP:GL? I'm not sure what image I should be evaluating. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgot to reply on the template. I'd advise against it, simply because this is the kind of thing that belongs on Commons, not on en:wp. I don't know if there's a requested-templates page over there. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. We met at Open Scholarship Weekend. sandiooses^TextMe 18:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I left a comment on your request for a citrus family tree at the Graphics Lab. I'd be interested to hear your response. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 15:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the WP:MEDMOS external links typically go after the reference section. Thus moved back some of the changes in this edit [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from Diptanshu.D (talk · contribs · count) and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Diptanshu^Talk 10:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, where are you getting the information from for the cladogram that you added at a number of pages, including Citrus gracilis? I can't see it at the cited source. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sminthopsis84: Thanks for being so polite! I made the cladogram ages ago, for Australian limes. I don't really recall, but I think the source was the section titled "The citrus types previously known as Microcitrus>History" (which is a better title than Australian limes, sort of...). It's not in a very digestible form. Do you also read it as I did? HLHJ (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And maybe the cladogram doesn't belong in Citrus gracilis or Citrus wintersii, since they aren't in the tree. HLHJ (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I see where you got that from. It sounds as if it might be based on morphology only. Actually, I think that cladogram could be out of date because Clymenia (plant) apparently belongs in there somewhere, but I don't have access to this article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I have a copy of that Garcia-Lor thesis somewhere, I'll have a look. The cladogram is missing several other species, too, so if it's missing clymenia, it's missing it. You could contact the source author, I guess, and ask for an extension of their summary, to cover more species.

Morphology may be the best we can do. I got the impression it was an expert's educated guess on available data, better than which we cannot do. Citrus taxonomy is a mess. I mean, the entire genus interbreeds freely, unless geography or seasons separate them, and so many people (including Garcia-Lor, as I recall) have come up with rather different trees depending on which sections of genome they chose to work with, and which representatives of each genetic area. The genetic cluster analysis at Citrus_taxonomy#Genetic_history starts looking good.

I've tried sorting the pure varieties from the hybrids at, e.g. Mandarin_orange#Varieties, and I recommend the references in there; Next generation haplotyping to decipher nuclear genomic interspecific admixture in Citrusspecies: analysis of chromosome 2 and Sequencing of diverse mandarin, pummelo and orange genomes reveals complex history of admixture during citrus domestication are both open access, although sadly Assessing genetic diversity and population structure in a citrus germplasm collection utilizing simple sequence repeat markers (SSRs) isn't, and it covers far more species. The supplementary info, which is open-source, ends with a four-page-long genetic tree, have fun. The actual paper has more useful info on admixtures.

It's a pity, because there are two groups of people with a strong interest in Citrus taxonomy; Orthodox Jews and people taking medicines that interact with some citrus.

These trees are sort of useless, really. The assumptions about speciation that are implicitly made in the computer algorithm don't hold. Even for simple this-is-a-hybrid-of-that stuff, papers contradict one another because they picked different sequences and even unknowingly picked hybrids as reference species. There simply isn't enough data, with just two full genomes. Nonetheless, given that humans understand complex stuff by chunking, I think cladograms have some use in giving a quick visual this-is-more-like-that-than-THAT. I tried to work with some others to make a diagram of the major hybridizations a while back, can't find the discussions now. HLHJ (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, cladistic reconstruction of hybrid networks has been a disaster area for many years, and requires a huge research investment. A couple of rules of thumb that I think would be appropriate are (1) that work on the species that are outside that knot of human-influenced hybrids could be useful (as the Acta Horticulturae article seems to be) and (2) that recent work may well be sorting out problems demonstrated by the older work. Perhaps eventually there'll be a review article that sorts it all out. I'm glad you are working on the wikipedia Citrus articles because they have been very bad indeed. P.S.: I sent you email. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Cementitious foam insulation

added a link pointing to R-value

Tile

added a link pointing to Shush

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, HLHJ. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Googling...

• Kugal fountain 752 hits
• kugel ball 133,000 hits
• ball fountain 114,000 hits
• sphere fountain 45,100 hits
• sphere water fountain 30,000 hits

Me thinks another name is probably in order. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for starting a new article on kite rigs, HLHJ. This has possibilities. For the time being, I removed the section on kite rigs from the Sail article, which didn't link to your new article, but to a segment of an article on kites, because I felt that it was out of scope. However, as you develop this article, I highly recommend your coming back to the Talk:Sail page and discuss its potential inclusion in the scope, there. Keep up the good work. I may lend a hand at Kite rig, as well. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 11:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, User:HopsonRoad, for your work on the article I created, if definitely needs it. I wrote the article in response to having to put that link to the cargo segment of the kite applications article, and then I forgot to rewrite the link; apologies. I wrote the section because I found myself asking "Is a kite a square or a fore-and-aft rig?" and answering "No, not really". Kiteboating, which I didn't create, could also use work, if you are interested. HLHJ (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, HLHJ, John Konrad appears not to have ever been a US employee. He is a well-published author, however. See:http://gcaptain.com/about/. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jeti.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Acharagma aguirreanum, HLHJ!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please have your say on the proposed merge

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello HLHJ. On my talk page, you said: "Quick query about this edit; do you think that the term is incorrect? I got the information from the neera article, which I linked to, assuming that anyone interested would follow it. Thank you for using the term "good-faith" in your revert, it made it sting a bit less. Please, if you think an edit is useful but unsourced, could you source it rather than deleting it? It's so much less emotionally unpleasant for editors, and helps keep us writing. Here is a source which you could insert."

First, coconut sugar and neera are not the same products: "Neera is the sweet, oyster white-coloured sap tapped from the immature inflorescence of coconut" (from your source). Second, you used this reference on the Neera page to support the use of neera for diabetics. That site is not a reliable, expert source. In fact, it is spam. Please review WP:MEDRS for citing statements about nutrition and disease. Third, there's nothing wrong with you inserting a solid WP:SECONDARY source for a statement on the manufacturing of neera; you could have added it when you edit this. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll answer you here and ping you, Zefr, to avoid copying. You are quite right that coconut sugar and neera are not the same thing. For starters, neera can come from multiple palms, not just coconut. Pasturized neera, which is brown, is still called neera, although apparently pasturized coconut neera is also called coconut nectar. Evaporated coconut neera is coconut sugar, as I understand it; please correct me if this is wrong. I mentioned coconut sugar in the neera article only in order to mention a cultural reason for an interest in coconut neera rather than coconut sugar. I'd noticed "coconut nectar" suddenly popping up in ingredients lists of U.S. food, which was how I came to look it up.

I hadn't thought of what I added as a medref. I should have. That coconut sugar has a low glycemic index and has therefore become a fad seemed a fairly uncontroversial claim, but it seems that it's a bit more complicated than that. There is a popular newspaper article linking to a number of studies here:^[1]. In summary, the newspaper article (not the papers linked to in it) seems to say that the inulin may be good for your blood sugar, but the fructose is bad for your liver, and the lower glycemic index is just a consequence of more fructose and less sucrose and glucose, as the index measures glucose only. Obviously a lot of nuanced medical information should be added to the coconut sugar article, especially as the stuff is a fad and the article will see a lot of use. Do you know anyone who might have appropriate expertise?

Thank you for removing the promotional language from the neera article. HLHJ (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zefr, if we are now sure that the sap from which coconut sugar is made is correctly called neera, could you please restore this information to the coconut sugar article and add a reference as per WP:PRESERVE? I'll try to get around to adding something on medical claims to the coconut sugar article; they are common and a likely reason for people to read the article. If you find any good refs please let me know. HLHJ (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not aware of a good secondary source defining that coconut sugar is made from neera. Until we have that, we shouldn't insert unsourced text. I'm also certain you won't find any WP:MEDRS source stating that coconut sugar is healthier than any other sweetener or that it provides health benefits. Where good sources are absent, the general medical policy is to not insert unreferenced or spam referenced content. --Zefr (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zefr, there are good sources saying that neera is the sap of the inflorescences of toddy palms, and that toddy palms include the coconut, and that coconut sugar is made from the sap of the inflorescences of coconut palms. The "The Hindu" article^[2] I pointed you to contains this sentence:

Neera is the sweet, oyster white-coloured sap tapped from the immature inflorescence of coconut.

The Globe and Mail article^[3] says that

Coconut sugar is made from the sap of flower buds from the coconut palm tree.

Combined with a knowledge of what "inflorescence" means, it seems to me that this adequately sources the uncontroversial statement that coconut sugar is made from neera. It would have been easy for you to fix this, or add a citation needed tag so that I could do so.

It remains an unsourced issue. We appear to have no good secondary source on manufacturing that clearly connects neera to coconut sugar. If a statement is made connecting them without a good source, then that is WP:SYNTH. --Zefr (talk)

First sentence of this article seems reliable to me, so I hope you will agree and add it. If the source does not satisfy you, please WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and find one that does. Please find citations for any other statements you find are insufficiently sourced, or tag them with "citation needed". HLHJ (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you think, Zefr? Sorry, forgot to ping. HLHJ (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zefr? HLHJ (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we should use that source. The article is so poorly written that one might conclude it was never reviewed by an editor who speaks English. A quality editor and journal staff would not have allowed that article to be published. The journal has a low impact factor, 1.4, that is below the threshold for a WP reliable source. It's not a good source to provide to the public as evidence. Is it really important that the article says "coconut sugar is made from neera"? The current article description about sap being boiled into the toddy seems fine with me, although I'd like to see a better manufacturing source. --Zefr (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,Zefr. I agree that the article isn't brilliant, although a lot of the research literature is written by non-native English speakers. On the other hand it's clearly a source close to the industry, and I don't think it's likely to be wrong on this particular factoid, especially as it is corroborated by multiple other such sources. I am more certain that neera is made into coconut sugar than I am of many of the other uncited facts in the article. But try this article. It gives a source for the term toddy, too.

Alright, I think that ref is adequate, so have added it here. --Zefr (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is important that Wikipedia not wall off knowledge from non-Western cultures, and that means translating terms, even when it's hard to find a source or it harms price discrimination. "Neera" is a term used in Indian English, which is a really common world dialect. HLHJ (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not interested in stating that coconut sugar is healthier than any other sweetener or that it provides health benefits, because I do not believe that there is evidence that this is true. I was thinking something more like this, but with better medrefs:

While assorted health claims have been made for coconut sugar, clinical evidence is lacking. There is evidence that specific components of coconut sugar are harmful in excess.^[4][3]

This Huff Post article is a poorly-written, uneducated blog by a non-expert. It does not meet the standards of WP:RS and shouldn't be used, WP:NOTBLOG. --Zefr (talk)

As I implied, I know that this is an inadequate source. Can you find a better one? Sadly, people rarely write medical reviews of lack of evidence. I've posted to Project Medicine about this problem. HLHJ (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Sadly, people rarely write medical reviews of lack of evidence.": good science is written on a foundation of established facts or near-facts. If there's an absence of evidence, then it's unlikely a review would be written. I saw your post on WT:MED and feel it's reasonable for WP editors to say "As of January 2017, no good clinical evidence for this claim has been published". This is equal to saying, "as of 2017, there is no evidence of life on Mars." Where one can find "evidence of absence" for medical literature and commercial products is in FDA warning letters which point out the absence of evidence for health benefits. For example, if you Google "FDA warning letter coconut", you'll see numerous examples where companies with coconut products have violated FDA law for marketing of dietary supplements. This is good reading and instruction on what should be common sense in food, supplement and drug products, but many companies ignore this. --Zefr (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a great idea with warning letters; ones from other regulators, like the EU, would also be useful sources. I did find a FDA warning letter on coconut water, and a specific one on diabetes claims for coconut oil, but nothing on coconut sugar. Can you find such a source?

I've also heard it said that science is clearly defining areas of doubt and uncertainty, which is probably why scientific papers often discuss what isn't known. HLHJ (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never wished to "support the use of neera for diabetics". I wished to add information on why it is a fad for diabetics (no good reason, in my assessment, but if that statement[/assesment] can be supported with medrefs it belongs in the article).

There is no good WP:MEDRS source that neera is used for diabetics. This is just noise among a limited segment of consumers, and we should not be spreading news on fads. No information in the article is evidence to encyclopedia users that that topic carries no weight, WP:UNDUE. --Zefr (talk)

I would be delighted if the absence of information on a topic in Wikipedia could be taken to imply that no such information existed, but I fear this is not yet the case. Enough sources have written about the coconut-sugar health fad to establish notability. Wikipedia has a list of conspiracy theories, including ones such as "the world is controlled by blood-drinking, shape-shifting alien reptiles", and articles about topics such as homeopathy, so I think providing information about notable false health claims is in-scope for the encyclopedia. We just need to find decent medical sources. Can you suggest any? HLHJ (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've looked and found no WP:RS sources useable to state that purported health effects of coconut sugar have been scientifically evaluated. WP:SPAM sources like Dr. Oz or Mercola have to be kept off of WP. Further, sources you introduced, like this and this, have no place in a trusted encyclopedia because there is probability they will be misinterpreted as fact by non-scientific users. You said: "Enough sources have written about the coconut-sugar health fad to establish notability." I would say that the topic is not notable scientifically, but has been reported as a consumer trend, such as here. I think the best evidence that coconut sugar is a health hoax is the absence of evidence in reliable sources, meaning there's nothing to say about it other than "Although coconut sugar has increased consumer use as of 2017,<ref> there is no evidence it provides any nutritional or health benefits." --Zefr (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sentence sounds good, Zefr, do please find such a ref and add it. Please add something on neera, too. HLHJ (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also never said that coconut sugar and neera are the same products. I said that the sap made into coconut sugar is neera.

I'm afraid that this discussion has made me feel offended. If you could take care in your representation of my statements, and assume that I have an interest in the truth, I would be grateful and much happier with this interaction. HLHJ (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I provided responses above to your points. There's no need to assume bad faith in discussing these topics. Our goal should be stating facts objectively supported by strong sources, which unfortunately are mainly absent from the articles on neera and coconut sugar. --Zefr (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not assume that you are in bad faith. I assume that you offended me unintentionally, and we'd both prefer to discuss the content without causing or failing to assuage needless offense. HLHJ (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey HLHJ, thanks again for stepping in and cleaning up that photograph of the Benty Grange helmet. I've been trying to clean up the various Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian helmet photos for a while; that one, with such a messy background, was at the top of the list, but between Photoshop Elements 5 and a general lack of skill, I had no chance. Looks infinitely better now. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome, Usernameunique. It sort of sucked me in. I'm glad it worked out (and I followed it enough to poke the person who put it in Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_6 because they used the image with the white background, though I don't think it's that critical).

If you are wanting to do this sort of thing, I recommend the GIMP. I haven't used Photoshop much, but I like the GIMP better. It's copyleft software, so free, and maintained by people who use it all the time, which is good and bad. It has an insanely steep learning curve. If I am trying to learn how to do something, I follow a tutorial, otherwise I just get frustrated. But once you know how to do something, it's fast and easy. If you leave the Layers, Tools and Colours dialogues open, it also helps, since you can see if you have the wrong thing selected. For this sort of job, you need either the "Foreground select" tool or the "Intelligent scissors" tool. There are scads of good tutorials on how to use both online, and if that's all you want to learn to do, it will probably only take you a quarter-hour or so. HLHJ (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pavement light, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Further research is needed at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Scientific Method, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Your interpretation of a primary scientific source as reflecting an example of scientific method constitutes original research. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:PSTS --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 24 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Further research is needed, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a sample of medical reviews, useless treatments were just as likely to be recommended for further research as were useful treatments? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Further research is needed. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	"More research is needed into methods to determine when more research is needed" Hongooi (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belated thanks, Hongooi. You've given me my first barnstar. HLHJ (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey HLHJ, I just read Pavement light, having seen it mentioned on the DYK talk page. I thought it was a fascinating article, with cool pics and all kinds of interesting exploration of the practicalities, history and geographic distribution. Hope it's not weird to get a message like this, but it was a great read and it occurred to me that I could tell you so. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, 70.67.222.124. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was sort of worried that there were too many black-and-white pictures. I'll be adding a few more soon. There are some definitely creepy uses of edit records, but there is no way your charming message falls in that category. Thank you very much for taking the trouble to write it, it made me happy. HLHJ (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 3 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pavement light, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the purple "jewels" (pictured) in old sidewalks are pavement lights, which bend daylight into the basement below? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pavement light. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a genuinely interesting DYK about something so commonly seen, but which I'd never really thought about before. Good work! Bob talk 11:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pavement light

Thank you for quality articles such as pavement light, Ofada rice, Afripedia Project and MyDemocracy.ca, for redirects, and catgories such as Category:Species endangered by destruction of specific ecosystems, for adding books and refs, and patience and diligence, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for the record ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. I was pretty amazed by that, and by the amount of clickthrough to the articles linked from pavement light. HLHJ (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A great image with a mysterious purple ;) - My lead image today and its article are simpler. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1788 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, HLHJ. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Coconut sugar—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Phonet (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning this edit, please learn how to fill out references properly using either the simple drop-down template (from the pick list) in the upper left of an edit box, or from WP:CIT. Try to think of common users wanting information about sources at a glance, rather than being offered only a URL as your current edit provided. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sugar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the warning, Jytdog. How would you suggest I proceed? HLHJ (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you work toward consensus on the talk page. That is what it is for. The content about health needs improving but relying so heavily on (for example) the 15 year old WHO ref is not going to fly in any effort to reach consensus. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Conflicts of interest in academic publishing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

essay

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HLHJ, CheChe here. I noticed that you recently added a 'clarification needed' tag to part of Group testing. I want to make sure the article is clear, but I'm having trouble seeing what might be ambiguous (or confusing) about that particular sentence. I appreciate that's probably just because I wrote it in the first place, so I'd like to ask if you could explain what the trouble you're having is? It would really help. Thanks, ♫CheChe♫ talk 21:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hi, ♫CheChe♫. Sorry, I should have clarified my request for clarification. It was the adjective "information-lower-bound" that I found unclear; could you maybe wikilink it? The first part of the article is admirably clear; I haven't gone through the rest in detail yet. HLHJ (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahh, I see. I hadn't realised that the term hadn't been used yet in the article. I've added a wiki-link to the relevant part for now, but I may revisit this later (to add an explanatory footnote or bracket). Thanks again, ♫CheChe♫ talk 22:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Conflicts of interest in academic publishing at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chisel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello HLHJ, thank you for doing copy-edits at the Guild of Copy Editors; it's always good to see new copy-editors there. In future though, when you accept copy-editing requests at the Requests page, can you please mark them with the ((Working)) template? This lets others know which requests are being worked on so you both avoid edit conflicts and overwriting each other's edits. You should mark the request with ((Done)) when you're finished or ((partly done)) if you can't finish the c/e or you feel the article needs more c/e work. Also, please avoid adding extensive comments about the c/e or the article's content to the Requests page; short comments regarding the request itself that inform other editors are fine though. This helps keep the page uncluttered and usable. Extended comments about the request should go on the Requests talk page and extended comments about article content should go on the article's talk page. Discussions with other editors should go on either of your talk pages. That said; welcome to the GOCE; I hope you enjoy copy-editing there. :) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 04:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the advice, Baffle gab1978. I'm sorry if I edit-conflicted you. I should have read up on the system first. HLHJ (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem; your edits didn't conflict with mine but it's possible if two editors accept the same request, and it can also cause friction between editors. There are some instructions for copy-editors at the top of the Requests page in the first expandable area (click on "show" to find them). I've credited you as co-copy-editor in the archive for your work on Death of Ms Dhu. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 05:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

QuackGuru (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for telling me, QuackGuru. I had seen the odd notice at the top of a page, but I'd never looked up what "discretionary sanctions" meant before. I've now read up on it. I haven't actually read every Wikipedia policy, though... Please let me know of any specific things in my editing that might be problematic. I realize that the topic is controversial, I want to edit it well, and I think a range of viewpoints is necessary to editing it well. If I'm out-of-line, I'll do my best to fix, and if I'm out-of-line because I am ignorant, or might become so, I really appreciate it when my fellow editors fix that.

Side note: tree shaping is controversial? Not, off hand, something I would have guessed... HLHJ (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The topic is not controversial. What editors are doing is. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You restored this content and made slight changes, but the content contains off-topic content, unreliable sources, and failed verification content. Do you agree you will stop adding or restoring off-topic content, unreliable sources, and failed verification content? QuackGuru (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies on article talk page. HLHJ (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is littered with off-topic content and unreliable sources and failed verification content. For example, the article contains content about safety, addictiveness, harm to bystanders, use by non-smokers, stress, dieting, cost, and smoking cessation. Those are not about marketing. There is also a lot of unsourced content. The article is called "Marketing of e-cigarettes" but it is about e-cigarettes in general which cover different topics. That is what the main page is for. That is by definition a WP:CONTENTFORK. You have not cleaned up the content fork. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies on article talk page. HLHJ (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HLHJ!

I noticed on the talk page you linked Jenny to a section on "marketing targeting youth" with a lot of great information on it. It seems like this section has been deleted from the current page. I see that there is a lot of debate over which topics belong on this page, but my group and I think it is relevant and important information. We would like to expand on the marketing directed at children topic. Is it possible to add that information back to the page?

-Colleen mccann (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JenniferKaiser2020, Dumbpepper, Colleen mccann, and Grracelee:

Apologies for the slow reply, I just saw this. I'm sorry you have walked into an edit dispute. Thank you very much for the content all of you have contributed, and please do not feel that your edits have been useless merely because they have been reverted (reversion, as I trust you know, is reversible).

There was discussion on the talk page on "marketing targeting youth". However, the IP editor seems to have been laboring under some incomprehensible misapprehensions, so I'm not sure you can really take those criticisms into account. I'd say be bold and re-post your improved version. If an edit comment removing content makes a specific, actionable criticism, fixing the named problem and restoring the content is a good thing to do. If the edit comment does not, you have a right to an explanation; you can post on the talk page politely asking the reverting editor for one, and ping them so they see it (please feel free to ping me, too, as I may be able to explain). There are two archives to the talk page (linked from a box at the top), and reading them may be useful. Some of the content discussed there should probably return to the article, I have been busy elsewhere and not had time to argue all this out properly.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure quite what I linked Jenny to, or where. Was it this old version? If not, and I haven't given you the information you wanted, could you please give me a link to the statement of mine which you are talking about?

Giving unsolicited advice is sort of weird, and I hope you will forgive me for inflicting it on you again, especially if it's stuff you already know. If a sentence is criticized as "failed verification", or "not in citation given", I'd suggest quoting the supporting statement from the source by adding something to your citation template like this: |quote="X is Y". You can see this done at Electric smoking device. I'd also recommend reading Nicotine marketing for background and for some sources you could use (for instance, for the chemical composition of e-cigarettes "vapour"). PubMed is also an excellent place to find scientific sources, though it doesn't do news media. I also suggest SRITA's section on e-cigs, linked at top of page (be careful about WP:PRIMARY sources, but SRITA's commentary is secondary and can be cited). Attributing statements of scientific fact to "scientists" is generally not necessary; many journalists do it in less than exemplary attempts to add human interest and avoid being sued, but it's not best practice. Distinguishing independent scientific researchers from industry-funded ones is very good practice (check PubMed; their COI statements and funding statements are useful, although sometimes you will only find the info in the article fulltext). Working really hard on neutral language will help get your content retained. This does not mean waffling or soft-talking around the facts; think something that the New York Times might publish, hard-hitting but strictly, neutrally factual.

The learning curve here is steep, but you are clearly learning fast. It usually takes about two months for editors to get really established and find editing easy; at the rate you are going, I'd guess not that long. I very much hope you stick around and continue to edit after your course is over (less than two percent of students on editing courses do, Blue Raspberry tells me, which is really sad). Please don't hesitate to ask for help; even if it's years from now when you next edit, and you are editing something totally unrelated, the offer stands. Another good place to go for advice on medical topics is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. The editors there are very helpful. Many of them are health professionals and learners in the field, like you.

I really appreciate your contributions. You can see that I've used them to build more content upon. The article is already the better for your efforts, and your efforts are improving the article with increasing efficiency. HLHJ (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Marketing of e-cigarettes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chumash11 (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Marketing of electronic cigarettes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QuackGuru, I've been reverting edits by IPs that remove large chunks of material and replace it with unsourced things that don't even make sense. I will stop reverting them and ask for semi-protection. HLHJ (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your full reverts of IPs is disputed on the talk page. Do you agree to stop restoring off-topic content and failed verification content? QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies on article talk page. HLHJ (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have replied on the talk page but you have not agreed to stop restoring off-topic content and failed verification content. Again, do you agree to stop restoring off-topic content and failed verification content? QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies on article talk page. HLHJ (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I initially disagreed with the moving around of the content. You appear to be engaging in edit warring again.[2][3] QuackGuru (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See earlier discussion, and the later section in which you said "The editor who added the duplication states "I was fixing the duplications."[12] If they were fixing the duplications how come the duplication is still in the article?" and I responded "Because I didn't save the edit, due to an edit conflict. I have now saved it." . HLHJ (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Marketing of electronic cigarettes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

POV Fork

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am surprised and perplexed, QuackGuru. You've put a lot of effort into editing that page. HLHJ (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the tag is removed without removing the off-topic content there is going to be a serious problem. QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What serious problem, QuackGuru? Deleting it would be a normal part of the WP:PROD process, as far as I can tell. HLHJ (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ENDS marketing. Since you had some involvement with the ENDS marketing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit added content to the image that is using sources that do not describing the image and is not about marketing. I responded on the talk page. For example, the part "This 2011 e-cigarette ad uses several standard marketing methods: emphasizing choice, freedom, and rebellion[10]" does not mention the 2011 ad. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did not fix the issues with the caption. What source is about blu e-cigs ads? QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies on article talk page. Separately, it is fine to just notify me by including a Template:User link in an edit, if you don't want to post a second time on my user talk page; I will see that just as fast, generally. HLHJ (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The replies on the talk page did not address "What source is about blu e-cigs ads?" If no source mentioned the ad then it probably does not belong in the caption. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think the text does not misrepresent the image then please explain how the source verifies the claim when it does not mention the 2011 ad. QuackGuru (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues related to your edits are being discussed on the talk page. If the issues are not addressed soon the content can be deleted or moved to the talk page. The excessive citations are also causing a verification problem. It is difficult to determine which source verifies which claim when all the citations are placed at the end of the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies on article talk page. HLHJ (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was editing the article. I noticed there is a problem in the lead. The Food and Drug Administration ruled in 2015 that there was not sufficient evidence to permit snus to be advertised as a safer alternative to smoking.[4][unreliable medical source?] It was not about snus in general. It was a specific brand and the source is incompatible with MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies on article talk page. If you could please post about articles on article talk pages, and add a WP:PING, I will see it just as fast, and replying will be faster for me. HLHJ (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Goody two shoes cigarette ad.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Conflicts of interest in academic publishing at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:No-one likes a quitter, e-cigarette ad.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 3 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Conflicts of interest in academic publishing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that supplements and "symposia" published by academic journals may be paid publications, neither independently peer-reviewed nor edited by journal staff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Conflicts of interest in academic publishing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HLHJ. Good to hear that you are still with us and back on Wikipedia. Thanks for posting an apology on the DYK. That was thoughtful of you. As you probably saw. A hook made it in the end. I hope that you will return to your fruitful editing of the past. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On my talk page, you said: "this is just to let you know that I've left a message for you at Talk:Sugar#Funding of health research. Thanks!" I read your comments, but have to say I feel the issue is settled for now. I don't want to be involved in a discussion other than improving the article according to editor consensus. --Zefr (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you review this comment and strike the implication that Zefr is an industry shill. You may or may not know that I work a lot on paid editing and COI issues, and I have no tolerance for that kind of commentary, and will seek community action against you if you continue. It is possible to discuss content disputes on the article talk page without going there. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really didn't mean to imply that. I meant to say that it's easy to cite incorrect information; I've done it, in that article. I will edit the comment to make that clear. HLHJ (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jytdog, I thank you for finding fault with my editing; there is no shortage of such faults, and having them pointed out is helpful. In this case I clearly failed to judge the effect of my post, and I am glad to have it resolved.

I hope most editors follow policies on principle, not because of the consequences of not doing so. I think I do. May I ask that, when you are asking me to change a behaviour, you initially not raise the subject of consequences? My reasons for this preference aren't rational, but I'd feel better. HLHJ (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK that is reasonable. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accepted; I should have been more careful, and not wasted your time. Apologies. HLHJ (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ventilated cigarette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dilution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You stated "QuackGuru, I am even more confused. You wrote "They are marketed as "smoke-free" products is supported by the first source", which seems to contradict your earlier tagging of the statement as fv, and at least part of your reason for removing the sentence."[4]

It does not contradict the tagging. The content "Strategies for marketing iQOS include marketing it as "smoke-free"," is different than "They are marketed as "smoke-free" products." Do you agree you won't add failed verification content to nicotine related articles? I have responded to your comments on the talk page for months. You are continuing to propose content that appears to failed verification or is previously disputed. You also wrote "and as you say one source would be enough to support it,"[5] I did not say that. They are different accounts of different things. For example, the second source is about the promotion of IQOS in Ontario, Canada.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied in ongoing discussion on article talk page. HLHJ (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Free produce movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Fox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, HLHJ. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Message added 23:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Sturm Cigarette Company at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't use bareURLs, as you did here. It makes work for others just to check what you are doing, much less dealing with the problems discussed in WP:Bare URLs.

There is a very easy to use and fast tool, in the tool bar in the editing window.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
2. Then click on "templates",
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button. For journals, if you fill in "PMID" and click the magnifying glass, the whole thing will autofill. You need to manually enter the pmc, if there is one...

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Jytdog; that was helpful, as I have long been using a biography database, which I was having problems with. Mvolz told me about the work she was doing with scrapers, and it's nice to see it in action. Knowing it existed, I should have looked up how to use it myself. HLHJ (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 5 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article European pilchard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that overfishing of European pilchard (pictured) and anchovy in the Adriatic Sea can cause dramatic changes in the ecosystem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/European pilchard. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Eihel. On this edit: my understanding is that lower-case en:wiktionary:baroque is a common adjective for ornate and complex things, while upper-case en:wiktionary:Baroque is a proper adjective for stuff from the Baroque period. HLHJ (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you'd fixed it. Should have checked. Apologies, please ignore. HLHJ (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

(deactivated notifications, i guess. With a title by discussion, it's prettier) Hello HLHJ. So, I canceled. QED. When you are on my personal pages, there is no need to notify me. See you next time on WP --Eihel (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ, I've posted a comment last week, regarding the COI tag on the Heat-not-burn tobacco product talk page, and would appreciate your input on the topic - when you have a chance. Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for multiple postings, I see the tag has been removed now. Have a nice weekend! Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've commented, thanks for the heads-up. HLHJ (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 9 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sturm Cigarette Company, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite the party's anti-smoking faction, the Sturmabteilung was funded by a Nazi cigarette company (advertisement pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sturm Cigarette Company. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that this edit of yours added the named reference "nazi_policy", but did not add the reference's body, resulting in the error "Cite error: The named reference nazi_policy was invoked but never defined". I thought you'd like to know so that you can correct this. —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, DocWatson42, and thanks for giving the edit I did it in, too, it made it easier to fix. I copied the ref from another article without copying its contents. Fixed. HLHJ (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome (^_^), though including the edit seemed to be a no-brainer—but then, I've done this before. —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 16 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Schloss Weilburg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Schloss Weilburg, a Baroque garden palace, contains a Renaissance palace (engraving pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Schloss Weilburg. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for outstanding contributions to make this article more comprehensible and more beautiful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello HLHJ

I've noticed your edit on the Notifications FAQ. I've edited that page to explain that only the last 200 notifications are kept.

Is it solving your issue?

Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Trizek (WMF). Not quite, although it's good information to have, thank you for adding it. I filed a more complete bug report at Wikipedia talk:Notifications#Read notifications. Please let me know if the explanation is in any way unclear. HLHJ (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks. That's quite different from what I've understood from your edit on the FAQ. I'll reply after your report. Trizek (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heat-not-burn tobacco product, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate any voice you give to the discussions about editor retention. I feel that the issue requires development of the discourse, and that no one has all the answers. Probably the solution will be recognition that different outreach strategies and different success metrics apply in different circumstances. The on-wiki documentation of this is a jumble and I cannot recommend a place to read it all. If you ever want to talk by video or voice chat I can share some perspective on it and point you to other views also. Anything you say about the issue anywhere, and anyone else you draw into the conversation, is useful to me. Thank you a lot for posting meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Editing/Editor retention aid. I intend to post comments and support for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for the encouragement, Blue Rasberry. I hope I haven't been overly dogmatic; I certainly don't think there is only one way to usefully address this problem. My XMPP server currently has some bugs, but when I finally get around to fixing it it would be good to talk. I suspect your views would be very useful to me. HLHJ (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HLHJ, thanks for your message regarding this edit. I think you're right that with an accurate caption, this photo would be relevant to the article. My source for believing this photo to be taken in Jaffa, Israel comes from the Flickr album listed as the source in the photo's Wikimedia listing. The Flickr user says the album contains his photos from his trips to Israel. The photos immediately before (a VW Beetle) and after (a juice vendor) the claw machine photo are both labeled as being taken in Jaffa, and examining the exif data indicates they were taken just a few minutes before and a few minutes after the claw machine photo. The timestamps are too close together to allow them to come from different cities. 24.101.31.180 (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems utterly conclusive, 24.101.31.180. Thank you for picking me up on my error; I should have been more careful, but having written it, I'd never have noticed it was incorrect. I've edited the picture caption on its Commons page accordingly. If you are interested in the subject, I recommend the SRITA collection of nicotine ads.

If you don't mind my saying so, you seem to be being very restrained and wikignomish in your edits. This is perfectly acceptable, but I hope you did not refrain from boldly editing the captions in consideration of me. I hope you will also feel free to create an Wikipedia:Account if you want one, though again, it is entirely your choice. Thanks again! HLHJ (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 16 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Women in Iceland, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first woman voted in as head of state says she would not have got her job if women in Iceland had not walked away from theirs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Women in Iceland. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HLHJ:, regarding the questions you posed about my experience in the community in the context of our 2019 Community Wishlist Survey discussion...

1) Most people don’t seem to “see” the Wikipedia community, yet you (“you” being me, Stussll) seem to have gotten involved with it almost immediately…what led you to do so? In short, I think I found the community when I did because I was looking for it. Leading up to my first edits, I'd been growing increasingly curious about how Wikipedia, the "public good" I'd come to value and depend on so heavily, came/comes to being. And a core part of that in my view was, and still is, Wikipedia's community and culture. Thus, why it was one of the first parts of the whole I sought out.

2) Model content is more visible to newcomers than the editors whose productive contributions sum to those very articles. How does this compare with your experience? This description captures my experience as well. This makes sense to me considering Wikipedia's collaborative and encyclopedic nature. What I'm growing increasingly interested in is the balance between the prominence of the end product (articles) and the collaborative process they emerge from. Pattern 11 appears to be seeking something similar.

3) How did you perceive the Wikipedia community when you first started editing (or even before)? How do you currently perceive it? I did not have a clear perception of the community prior making my first edit. In fact, this uncertainty added to my curiosity. Now, several months in, I'm taken aback by how committed people are to the movement's mission and excited they are to include others in it. Here I'm alluding to the level of detail and attention people like you have put into their Community Wish List Proposals, the patience and thoroughness with which tenured editors have answered my [sometimes] novice questions and the level of inclusivity – along a range of vectors – I've seen at the Bay Area WikiSalons. Certainly, the community faces a range of challenges that are well documented but even in articles such as that, I think it's striking how candidly and productively the community is able to talk about the challenges it faces. Stussll (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's interesting; so your unclear imagined idea of the community was a draw, not just the content. I think we draw a lot of people who are more interested in content than people (which is fine, no criticism of either view intended). I get odd reactions from friends learning that I edit Wikipedia, like "Oh, I always wondered who actually did that!". I once (a long time ago) got "So how is Wikipedia different from the Internet?" by someone unfamiliar with both; I'd agree with you that the answer is obviously the editing community/culture, including the software structure. I wonder if someone's done a survey on how widespread that curiosity is, and why many people seem not to just go find out (you seem to have found a good way to do so, but I can see some being uncertain as to where to start). I've seen that curiosity in both friendly and hostile forms (ranging from solid social criticism of systemic bias etc. to "The Wikipedia is a conspiracy against my facts!"). I've added a section to Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers; I think the essay is in need of a bit of a rewrite. I hope you will also edit it; your perspective as a newish editor is regrettably unusual among those writing in the essay space. HLHJ (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My conversations with other editors about their editing experiences seem to be similar to yours: most were drawn by content. Your friend's comment – "Oh, I always wondered who actually did that!" – certainly resonates. In fact, I'd asked myself a version of the same question for years. Thank you for pointing me to the Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers – this looks like it could be a good place to share what my editing experience has been like. Semi-related to the above...I *think* I remember reading that you started editing in 2005; do I have the right? Regardless, I wonder: what has your editing experience been like? Stussll (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stussll, apologies for the slow reply; I haven't been around. I'm not quite sure when I started editing, especially as I didn't make an account until it became necessary for some edits. My activity level has varied; I've been more active in recent years. I started back when new editors were not much watched-over, and by the time Wikipedia's Eternal August began in 2017 I was established enough that I knew the more important ropes and was clearly not a vandal, so I never got much scrutiny. I've generally worked on somewhat niche topics (citrus taxonomy, for instance), and often in fairly non-subjective areas with little pre-existing content, so I often haven't interacted much with other editors. It's felt much like taking notes for my own use, apart from the fact that I sometimes come across off-wiki evidence that other people have read my content. It's nice to know one's work to be useful. I don't recall coming into conflict with anyone until a fairly trivial critique of an edit of mine in 2015, which I resolved by adding more sources. More recently, I was invited by WhatamIdoing to nominate Further research is needed for DYK, and have since nominated some more articles, which has brought me into contact with others and into the fringes of some conflict. Of late I've also been taking an interest in conflicts of interest in science-related information (misleading marketing, misinformation and FUD, conflicts of interest in academic publishing, and citation of shill sources in Wikipedia). This is a fascinating topic, but one that has got me involved in dispute settlement mechanisms for the first time. It's also caused me to learn community rules much more formally and less inductively than I have in the past, and interact with more editors. So I've been learning a lot more about the community, although my worries about the long-term future of Wikipedia pre-date this. HLHJ (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HLHJ, "It's felt much like taking notes for my own use, apart from the fact that I sometimes come across off-wiki evidence that other people have read my content. It's nice to know one's work to be useful." Mmm, this is well put. I'm especially curious about two parts of this comment: 1) "It's felt much like taking notes for my own use..." and 2) "It's nice to know one's work to be useful." To "1)" What – if any – places besides Wikipedia (public or not) exist in your mind as potential "homes" for a new piece of information you encounter? And to "2)" When and how do you typically notice the usefulness of your contributions? If these questions resonate with you, I'd be keen to hear your answers, but please feel no urgency or obligation ^ _ ^ Meta: I'm sorry it's taken me this long to reply. The past couple months have been uniquely busy; in January I joined the Foundation working as a product manager on the Editing Team. I'm sharing this here because I suspect there may be threads/topics, similar to the one you and I first connected through, that would be valuable to talk about...provided you have the interest and time to when they surface. Oh, and you mentioned WhatamIdoing, we now work together! Talk about someone who is helpful...

No worries, I have been equally slow . Congratulations on the job, Stussll, and best of luck with it. WhatamIdoing is indeed most helpful. I've e-mailed you an answer to your questions. HLHJ (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, HLHJ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HLHJ -- it was good to correspond a bit with you around your perspective and ideas for new editor retention. The Growth team has been making a lot of progress in the last few months, and we've been doing some planning recently. I'm hoping you could take a look at some of our current work and post any thoughts you have. We're working on a "help panel" (comments can go here), and on the next steps for the "Personalized first day" project (comments can go here). Thank you for any time you can give! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for the invite, MMiller (WMF). I've been away from the wiki, but I have somewhat belatedly responded. I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts on editor retention. HLHJ (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ein genau 300-jahre-alte Neujahrslied ist schon ein schöner Jahresanfang! Glückwünsche zum exzellente Artikel. Vielen Dank, Gerda Arendt (auch für Ray's Rules), und alles Gute im neuen Jahr! HLHJ (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke, - Ray ist heute auf der Main page, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please revert back to a version such as a version before the disputed content was added, including the charred pizza image if you think that improves the article. Others may disagree if it is reverted to an older and shorter version. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please go ahead and revert to the version you think is best. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than discuss which version to revert back to I think you can revert it. I'm not sure why you have not reverted the content. If you dispute it you can revert it. It's that simple. You don't need to cont8une to discuss reverting to an older version. I insist you revert to the version you think is best. I don't understand why you have not reverted. I am not disputing you to revert. QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a little confused why you have not reverted back to the version you think is best. I insisted on the talk page for you to revert the recent changes I made. QuackGuru (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied in the ongoing discussion on the relevant talk page. HLHJ (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have time to respond and edit for the nicotine page. I am busy. Maybe you can get feedback from others. I don't want to keep you waiting for me. I thought I give you a heads up. You can also start a RfC for other opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied in the ongoing discussion at Talk:Nicotine#Lede edits. HLHJ (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Occurrence_and_biosynthesis for the Sources section. The lede summaries that section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one formally closed the Commons music notation RfC and no one told me what to do about it when I asked, so I eventually added a project tag to phab:T208494 and quickly received replies from Legoktm and TheDJ. There has now been some progress, I guess. There are now subtasks for each file format.

Although I'm not impartial, I've assumed that the majority consensus is enough to keep MuseScore on the list.

I would strongly suggest you create a Phabricator account if you don't have one, especially since you were quite active in the RfC; there might be something I've missed in writing the Phabricator tickets.

It's also not totally clear to me if the RfC indicates rendering/thumbnail generation isn't necessary for now. It wasn't a question in the RfC and I assumed that the implementation could omit it, and generating thumbnails would mean more code to write (especially since there are essentially three different file formats to deal with). If it's not necessary, then according to TheDJ's checklist the only blockers are the security review and figuring out how to deal with the compressed formats (MuseScore and MusicXML). Jc86035 (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jc86035, and thank you for the heads-up. I have made a phab account and will come back and look at this. HLHJ (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HLHJ! I saw that you pinged me at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Possible_NFCC#8_violation, but I don't remember the conversation you referenced. Maybe you were thinking of someone else. I thought I'd let you know in case you need to ping someone else! Have a good day :) --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, EpochFail, I was thinking of someone else; as QuackGuru reminded me, it was Explicit, and not you. My apologies for the mistake, brain glitch. Have a good day! HLHJ (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

The article Marketing of electronic cigarettes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

PVFORK; no improvements in months of discussion which have provided no clear consensus; several problems with the article, such as irrelevantness and false citations

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello HLHJ. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Conflicts of interest in academic publishing at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 21:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Foundation for a Smoke-Free World has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable for a separate page. Violation of WP:SPINOFF. The section called Philip_Morris_International#Non-profit_organization should be expanded first before creating a new article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page you created, Foundation for_a_Smoke-Free_World, does not merit inclusion as a standalone entry and has been merged (and redirected) to Philip Morris International#Researchwhich is related to the subject of the article. Please contribute further improvements over there.∯WBG^converse 15:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the diagram and text on thermal decomposition of organic matter! I have added them to Pyrolysis. See also Talk:Pyrolysis. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi
We worked on your request Southern_Ocean_Waters but never got it finished. I would like to know if we could complete it as I think it will be nice and we both put in work in this. Please let me know how you want to proceed, complete it or wast it? thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Species endangered by rubber plantations, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

This also covers Category:Species endangered by coffee plantations and Category:Species endangered by sugarcane plantations. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for not getting back to this sooner, Fayenatic; I've answered at Category talk:Endangered species by reason they are threatened. HLHJ (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the website it was extracted from , they use a "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" for all content posted to the site.

That said, this may be a VOA situation where they also use copyrighted footage from other networks, so I agree with the pull until better verification can be found. --Masem (t) 18:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Masem. I failed to notice that. I hope it is free content; an aerial panning shot at 50m is not an easy-to-replace file. Feel free to re-instate it at your judgment. HLHJ (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continued discussion at Talk:Notre-Dame de Paris fire#Adding video with aerial panning shot at ~50m. HLHJ (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work on Notre-Dame de Paris fire. puggo (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, puggo, that's very kind of you. HLHJ (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Triforium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Late Gothic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HLHJ, I’m responding to your question at Talk:Electric smoking system. I'm happy to discuss this, although please note that I'm answering in the capacity of a regular editor, not as an RfC closer, so I have no special authority on this. I'm also going to be quite long-winded here, so please bear with me!

The idea of overwriting existing content with a draft is a particular editing style normally used in specific circumstances. For example, as in this case, it can help with making major changes that might be controversial, especially when multiple editors are involved. WP:DRAFT might have some information you'd be interested in. That said, in my experience not too many editors often use this style, and overwriting an entire article like this is a very rare occurrence (even overwriting of individual sections is rare), so it's not likely something you need to expect again any time soon.

On a practical level, if I wanted to prevent this kind of situation on an article I'm working on, I would either ask editors if they could use a more incremental approach, or ask that each change (or each significant change) be proposed and discussed individually. If comparing the merits of two versions, I would filter out any changes I think are improvements or at least neutral, and focus on the ones I object to (or object to the most). Ideally, this would let us quickly find the heart of any disagreements, as well as focusing my efforts on the things that I think are most important. If you're interested more generally in cases where you want your work to be stable in the long term, the broad answer is to establish consensus, although of course that is easier said than done. In addition, it's particularly difficult for controversial topics. I find that finding and adding new sources, as long as the sources are valid, is the most likely type of edit to remain in the article. On the other hand, if you oppose a change to existing content, I assume you'll already be aware of WP:BRD.

More philosophically speaking, and this is something that happens to everyone - I would say that to some degree, editing an open-content project like Wikipedia requires a level of awareness or acceptance that your work will one day be overwritten, whether that happens tomorrow or ten years from now. In the worst cases, this may even come with insults or accusations of vandalism; I'm reminded of several of the points at WP:OWB (which I consider highly recommended reading in general). Unfortunately, I think it's pretty much unavoidable that editors become discouraged in situations like these. On my part, I remind myself that in the normal course of editing, the subsequent versions will usually include aspects of the previous versions, even if they aren't exactly as I wrote them. Even if not, I would expect to have affected the future editor's process of editing, just due to having been a part of the article's evolution, no matter how small - to say nothing of those people who read the previous version while it was active.

With regards to next steps for this specific article, I would focus on the comment this closure is made without judgement on any of the individual changes to the article. This was in part to try and emphasize that editors of the previous text should not feel discouraged, and that the door is open for any of the specific changes that the replacement entails to be proposed for reversion. The conclusion is basically that Version B is better than Version A overall, but that there's no concrete outcome about any of the specific differences. Since it's now been a few weeks, it could be argued that the new version has gained an implicit consensus, although if you’ve been away then explaining that could help.

Another approach, one which is often undervalued, is simply to walk away. No article needs to be perfect, and there are thousands of other articles I'm interested in where I can work on important improvements just as easily, with less stress and greater productivity. It's especially valuable to be able to do this in a contentious topic area like this one, even if only to avoid eventually burning out. Even if I think a certain edit is an appalling disservice to the encyclopedia, I could always be wrong, after all.

I’m not really sure if this is what you asked for, so please let me know if that helps. :-) Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Sunrise, and thank you for being long-winded; it is helpful. I took a bit of a break from this topic to think it over, so I've been a bit slow replying. I originally posted to figure out if I should follow the draft-replace route for future edits, or if I should try to make incremental edits. I've used a section-replace RfC once before, at Talk:Sugar#RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines, but only after spending over half a year trying to get consensus. I'm generally OK with my content being overwritten; it's usually an improvement, and I still feel I've contributed. Sometimes I agree with removal of content I've written, too; if a removal is really undesirable, someone else will usually contest it for me before I get back to it myself, and if not I should probably consider that I might be wrong. I entirely agree with your perception of articles as usually undergoing progressive improvement, especially since I often write and article, look at it, and come to the conclusion that it could do with a drastic re-write by someone fresh to the subject. Usually I feel a lack of collaborators more keenly than the odd flicker of annoyance at having some small thing removed or overwritten in a way I don't initially like. I don't think I've been insulted by as many editors as I can count on one hand; it's been really rare for me. Disagreements, justified criticism, or thoughtless comments based on misunderstandings are not really insulting, which I suppose is the reason for assuming WP:GOODFAITH.

I did find WP:OWB useful. If you have any specific points where you think I could improve my behaviour, please do criticize me bluntly; I would genuinely appreciate it.

I have found editing in this topic area quite unpleasant. As time went on, I've come to edit this article partly out of a sense of duty; it's our most popular ones. Originally, I was doing it substantially in reaction; QuackGuru often extensively tags and criticizes content I've written, and understandably wishes these issues addressed. Unfortunately, fixing content takes a lot of time, and I've been unable to keep pace with QuackGuru even if I devote all of my free time to editing this topic. I did at one point start editing almost entirely in this topic area, but this was obviously not a good idea. In recent months, I've been trying to give it breaks, and keep editing other topics at the same time. Trying to edit on multiple subjects has a downside, tho; I haven't been back to Marketing of electronic cigarettes for months, and now that I check, QuackGuru is understandably getting impatient.

I have not managed to keep my point of view unguessable from my edits; certainly not from the sum of them. I think am usually arguing for the inclusion of specific pieces of information; QG seems to me to usually be arguing that one can't support the statement or that it doesn't belong in the article at all. Obviously we spend most of our time on edits where we disagree. I've been trying to avoid letting conflict polarize me, but I don't think I've been entirely successful. I did completely misunderstand and mis-cite a source at one point, and had to be corrected by a third party, which was especially bad. I have been trying for neutrality, and have found specific criticism on where I've failed helpful.

On next steps for the specific article, most recently I've been arguing for the restoration of content included in the draft but since removed. I've been trying to discuss broad principles and get consensus here rather than use BRD, but I'm not sure it's been successful. Previously, I attempted to start my second RfC on some basic factual points of contention, but I tried to jam too many into the RfC, and the discussion became rather incomprehensible. It was, reasonably, closed as malformed. I've been considering breaking it into smaller, clearer points and running one of those. But I hate running RfCs, and would far rather avoid them if possible. There are four new ones on that talk page already, and I do feel obliged to comment, as they are clearly in response to me. HLHJ (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad it was helpful! Don't worry about the timing, I didn't necessarily expect a long response, and besides I tend to be relatively slow myself. I wasn't thinking of any particular points from OWB when I mentioned it; I find many parts of it useful, so I like to cite it when I can and I thought you might be interested in it.

With regards to the RfCs, I don't think anyone should ever feel obliged to participate - editing is supposed to be a hobby! You would just be stepping back from the dispute and leaving the resolution to others. Besides, many more people watch talk pages than participate in them, which means that if others agree with you and see an issue going unaddressed they might step in anyways. I do empathize with the feeling that a particular topic is really important, and indeed I try to direct my editing with importance in mind. Just keep in mind that there are many such topics, and if the one you're working on is controversial then it will also be by far the slowest to show any progress.

If it's specifically RfCs that you dislike, you might want to try other methods of dispute resolution, such as WP:3O (if only two editors are involved) or WP:DRN. Or if you only meant that you don't like writing them, you might find WP:WRFC helpful if you haven't seen it before. (For that I should probably disclose that I was its primary author, although it's been cited often enough that I'd like to think people find it useful.) Sunrise (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just been re-reading your advice, Sunrise, as I've just hit this very rare occurrence again. It's more the time-consuming and adversarial nature of formal processes which I dislike. WP:WRFC is helpful, and I will use it as a guide for writing RfCs. I think one needs the consent of the other editor for WP:3O (and WP:DRN), which I have not in the past been able to get. A lot of my difficulties are founded in differing interpretations of how things should be done; would neutrally asking for clarification of norms and rules in the appropriate forum be a reasonable way to try to resolve these disputes? This seems more efficient, as it forstalls future conflict, and it is collaborative and constructive, but one might argue that the wiki community is not the better for having more rules. For instance, could I ask at Wikipedia talk:Drafts for guidance on how and when an existing article should be re-written in, and then overwritten by, a draft? HLHJ (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HLHJ, I haven’t been following this issue, so I may not be able to offer very good advice here. In general, I would say the answer to your question is yes, as long as the question is within the scope of the page, and indeed it’s a good way to get advice from the editors who know the most about a particular topic. That said, when it relates to an existing dispute there are ways it can backfire, which can basically be summarized as making sure you aren’t using the question to try and get an upper hand in said dispute (e.g. by asking something that’s already been discussed or answered elsewhere).

When writing the question, I would say to be to be as transparent as possible about your reasons for asking and the context of the situation, including links to any previous discussions. Since I see there’s a current ANI discussion, I would either wait until it’s over or include a statement that it’s unrelated or only tangentially related. (For me, as long as the issue isn’t time-sensitive I’d probably wait, mainly on the grounds that it might turn some editors away from getting involved.) I would also link my question somewhere that the others in the dispute will see it, and if they join the discussion to make sure not to use that page to argue the dispute. My approach is probably more cautious than necessary, but I’d rather spend the extra effort to minimize the possibility of misinterpretation or future conflicts. :-) Sunrise (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied from User talk:Sarah at PMI#Please be careful:

HLHJ, you had trouble acknowledging the content failed verification. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_4#Pipe. HLHJ, you added an image of a pizza that was unrelated to the article.[7] There are many more examples. I think there is a strong case to be made for HLHJ being excluded from directly editing this topic area. The lengthy history of failed verification content edits advocating an idealised form of anti-tobacco is at odds with common practice, places HLHJ firmly on the wrong side of WP:V. HLHJ, for the next time, I suggest you propose all changes on talk first, with existing text, suggested replacement, reasons for the change, and sources. I suggest you do this one small change at a time. If you do not, then I think you could find that arbitration enforcement sanctions will be requested, and could likely exclude you from the topic area altogether. Consider this a free drink at the Last Chance Saloon; the next one will not be free. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Copied (with indent altered) from User talk:Sarah at PMI#COI guideline:

People who want the latest concise information on PMI's IQOS product can visit Wikipedia and also get an article written independently.

The heat-not-burn tobacco product was largely written by me. I had to start a RfC because an editor was against me removing failed verification content and other problematic content. That's grounds for a topic ban if true.

This topic is not contentious and no evidence has been presented it is a contentious article. Check the archives of the heat-not-burn tobacco product article and you will find an editor waiting my time and others for months. There is an editor who appears to be unhappy and adds mass failed verification content to multiple articles. Check other nicotine articles they have edited. The problems continue with a certain editor. I don't think that editor should be allowed to continue to cause problems on multiple articles, especially when they are unhappy. They are also wasting a lot of my time explaining to them the content they want included fails verification. If it weren't for me the heat-not-burn tobacco product article would still be a train wreck. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, if you have general issues to take with my editing, you can post them to my talk page. I've copied these here. I found the discussion on Sarah at PMI's page because you pinged me (thank you! I do appreciate pings on matters likely to be of interest to me), and going through that I've just found you quoted these comments on Sunrise's talk page. Let's discuss this here rather than on the talk pages of third parties; feel free to ping anyone whose presence you feel would be helpful. If you have any other comments elsewhere, feel free to copy them here, too.

First off, I should say that while I'm sometimes a bit frustrated or unhappy with specific things that happen on Wikipedia, I don't think this presents significant risks to my mental health. I have never been involved in any substantive endeavor, no matter how rewarding, without experiencing some frustration and unhappiness. I'd be worried about my mental health if I couldn't take life's little problems in stride, or if nothing made me frustrated or unhappy anymore. Thank you for your concern, but I don't think you need to worry about causing me significant mental pain. I have been trying to deal with some of these problems by explaining them to you, because this is something I have found often helps with social problems. I know that, in some social and cultural contexts, directly discussing problems is a pretty desperate resort, one step short of completely losing all rationality, but I did not raise these issues in that spirit. I think mentioning problems early on makes them easier to resolve. I've tried to be polite and specific; if there is any other information you'd like about what is frustrating me, please ask.

We have had some disagreements about which statements can be verified for which sources, and whether certain images are relevant. I have been acting in good faith. Sometimes my reasoning has been wrong, and often you've disagreed with my reasoning, but I've been trying to imporve the encyclopedia (and follow policy, since I find it's generally a great help in that effort). I do strongly regret the amount of time we've spent unproductively in conflict with one another, and I will put effort into reducing it.

You speak of an "idealised form of anti-tobacco"; could you give more detail? While I do take the view that smoking tobacco is unhealthy, I think that is verifiable. Certainly I have cited sources that are anti-tobacco, but that's most MEDRS. Can you explain, in general terms, how I've idealized beyond the balance of reliable sources?

I am really not against you; I'm just in favour of including some content which you do not want to include, and (to a lesser extent, I think) vice-versa. I'm not clear on how proposing all edits on talkpages first would help resolve our disagreements, even if we both did it. How do you think this would help reach consensus? I'm afraid that I think that this topic is contentious, as I think is rather implied if it is under discretionary sanctions.

I'm not sure I have any really constructive new suggestions to make here. Perhaps you could outline some general principles that you think account for our differing interpretations of the guidelines? Or anything else you think might be helpful? HLHJ (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had trouble acknowledging the content failed verification. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_4#Pipe. Please explain the problems with your edits and the discussion. I wrote "You modified it but it still fails verification. If you disagree please provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)" That were still problems but you left the problems in the article and did not respond to my concerns with the continued problems. If you still disagree then you can provide verification for the content.

You added an image of a pizza that was unrelated to the article.[8] Do you acknowledge that you were wrong and the image was completely unrelated to the topic? If you disagree there is a RfC for the pizza image. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's stick to general principles illustrated by specific examples, QuackGuru. You have very frequently tagged content I have written as failed-verification. On occasion I have agreed and fixed it, but mostly I have disagreed. The reasons for disagreement have varied. Sometimes adding a "quote=" parameter to my citation has been enough to resolve it, although in those cases you have sometimes later removed the quotes from the citations on the grounds that they are biassed or unnecessary. Sometimes you have wanted me to repeat the citation in the middle of or at the end of each sentence rather then applying it to two or more succeeding sentences. I do not think this is necessary, but I have sometimes done it to avoid argument. Often, disagreements have been semantic. In this case, you disagreed with my describing a device that pyrolyses loose dried leaves put inside it so that the user can inhale the smoke as a "pipe". I tagged the phrase you objected to, but never got around to chasing down a source explicitly using the succinct term. We've also disagreed on whether inaccurately labelling e-fluid as "nicotine-free" or selling it with lollipops or stickers are marketing methods, and many similar disagreements (I actually found a source explicitly stating that that labelling was a form of marketing; as I recall, you had already removed the statement, and did not respond). Often I have rephrased even when I don't agree with your interpretation, just to resolve the argument. Sometimes you have then complained that my phrasings were too close to the source and constituted copyvio.

It takes a lot more time to make these changes than it does to add an "fv" tag. It often seems that satisfying your tag-criticisms is a never-ending task, and an unrewarding one. Where I disagree with your reasoning, the work seems unnecessary to me. When the end result is the same as before your tag, it also seems utterly futile, which is much worse. This has made me increasingly reluctant to engage with your tags. I've attempted to QuackGuru-proof my citations by adding quotes in advance, translating quotes from French and German, and sometimes even by repeating citations successively. This does not seem to have helped much, and you deleted all my translations, which took me hours to type up. I've asked if you can give me any algorithm by which I could ensure that you will consider my citations correct. I know we don't always agree on interpretations of guidelines, but I think we'd have less conflict if I understood your interpretation well enough to anticipate your objections.

The current article is almost entirely as you drafted it. What problems are there with it for which I am responsible?

The image of the pizza hasn't been in the article for months, has it? Again, I'm not sure why you suddenly start RfCs on topics no-one has recently discussed. I've already explained in detail why I think the image is related to the topic.

I'm finding phrasings like "Do you acknowledge that you were wrong" a bit difficult. You use them for situations where I have given my reasons in detail; they are therefore essentially a flat contradiction without arguments. I may be being oversensitive here, but they also feel a bit threatening.

I am willing to acknowledge that I was wrong when I become convinced of it; you have seen me do this. You are welcome to try and persuade me, but I think you will generally be more likely to meet with success if you rely on logos and ethos arguments. Like most people, I dislike thinking that I was wrong; I try to compensate for this bias. I'd like to think that I will be just as quick to recognise my errors in a confrontational environment as in a friendly one. It should not make a difference to the merits of the argument. However, I know that people don't usually act that way, and I am probably not any sort of magical exception. I will try to acknowledge my faults irrespective of your tone. However, if you can be factual and non-threatening, it will generally help me and others acknowledge our faults. Unfortunately, reactance is a human trait to which we are all subject. HLHJ (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied from User talk:Sarah at PMI#Please be careful, posted before the preceeding post:

You have refused to acknowledge there is any problems with the examples presented above. You are wasting my time. I am busy gathering diffs in my e-mail folder just in case. WHO does not call them cigarettes. This is more evidence. Good luck. QuackGuru (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I assume, apologies if I am incorrect, that you are gathering diffs in order to begin some sort of administrative process against me. I will of course participate in whatever way I am expected to; please let me know. HLHJ (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forgot to ping. QuackGuru, could you please let me know? HLHJ (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WHO does not call them simply "cigarettes".[9] Please quote WHO or please stop. Also you have not acknowledged you added MEDRS violations. Please read the comments by Seppi333 again. QuackGuru (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you've started a WHO-claim RfC. I think this may be a bit premature, but I'll discuss the truth of this claim there if others also think it inaccurate. Whether certain sources are MEDRS or not is also something we can discuss on the article talk page; Seppi333 did not actually comment on MEDRS, but on the information in one of the sources in an area of Seppi333's expertise. I'd like to follow up on that comment, but the content is currently not in the article and I have a lot of other things to do. If I get around to it I'll discuss it as needed on the talk page.

I think the article talk page is a good place to discuss specific edits to an article, while my page is a good place to discuss me and my actions, or notify me of things happening elsewhere. I'll locate my responses accordingly. HLHJ (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You claimed, the WHO also calls them "cigarettes"[10] You added it to the article before. See World Health Organization calls them "cigarettes".[11] That is misrepresenting the source and you fail to acknowledge it. The WHO actually said "some make use of specifically designed cigarettes to contain the tobacco for heating".[12] Therefore, it is clear the WHO is not stating they are actually "cigarettes". They are saying there are specifically designed cigarettes that "some" use. That is very different than a regular "cigarette". Therefore, it is misleading and a false statement. This has to do with your edits and actions. You have not acknowledged there is a problem with the edit and the comment. QuackGuru (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We disagree in our interpretation of the souce. I think my actions with respect to only one specific article and its talk page can best be discussed there. I will discuss this on the article talk page if third parties are also interested in discussing it. HLHJ (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WHO does not claim they are "cigarettes". Do you know the difference between a "cigarette" and a specifically designed cigarette that "some" use? Please read the article cigarette. Do you agree they are not a cigarette. QuackGuru (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source does not verify the claim. See diff. We have been through this before. Misrepresenting sources has to do with behavior or competence. QuackGuru (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied at the RfC. HLHJ (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will try not to use ambiguous referents again while communicating with you, QuackGuru. If I use ambiguous referents which put you in doubt as to my meaning, please ask me to clarify. HLHJ (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the talk page after others disagreed with you stated "I think this edit of mine needed a complete re-write, and I am not defending it."

But on your talk page when it was only me disagreeing with you stated "We disagree in our interpretation of the souce. I think my actions with respect to only one specific article and its talk page can best be discussed there. I will discuss this on the article talk page if third parties are also interested in discussing it."[13] You were defending it on your talk page when only one editor disagreed with you. If you believed WHO was making that claim then why the sudden reversal. It looks like you changed you mind when others pointed out you were wrong. When only one editor pointed out a problem you did not acknowledge there was a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me, QuackGuru, and we obviously still disagree. I think that "cigarettes" is a hypernym of "specially designed cigarette", and my careless "them" in a talk page comment was not intended to refer to these devices, and a refusal to discuss an edit long removed from an article is not a defense of it. HLHJ (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Electronic cigarette topic area. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

QuackGuru (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, QuackGuru. You actually already notified me of this at User talk:HLHJ#Alert above. HLHJ (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alerts last only for one year. QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know that, or had forgotten. HLHJ (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion is entirely about a specific article and I am therefore moving it to Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes#Discusssion moved from User talk:HLHJ. All further comments should be made there; this section is closed, and nothing more should be added to it. HLHJ (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:Nicotine_marketing#Electronic cigarette section.

See Talk:Nicotine_marketing#Both sources make entirely different claims.

See Talk:Nicotine_marketing#The content is making a broader claim than the source.

There are problems with the content. Please help improve the wording or you may consider deleting the content. QuackGuru (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not move my comments. You can open a new RfC rather than reopening a withdrawn RfC. The original RfC does not ask where the content should be placed. Therefore, it is irrelevant to restart it. The original question is no longer relevant.[14] QuackGuru (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied at Talk:Electric smoking system#Extended discussion on IQOS content RfC closure. HLHJ (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See "I wish to re-open this RfC, as both I and Peter K Burian were discussing the placement of the text, which is still under dispute."[15] I did not see you or Peter K Burian discussing the placement of the content in the Electric_smoking_system#Addiction_and_quitting section or any other section except for the IQOS section. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, I discussed the desirability of putting it in the IQOS section, Peter K Burian just suggested additional broader-topic content inclusion. Struck. HLHJ (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've had your say. Please don't WP:Bludgeon. I took the liberty of moving your comment to the discussion section since it was not a real vote. QuackGuru (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is entirely about a single article. All further replies will therefore be to Talk:Electric smoking system. HLHJ (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section you commented in is for voting. Stating boycott is not a vote. You can move your comment to the discussion section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does this edit have to do with improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? QuackGuru (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QuackGuru, when an editor tells you that further comments belong at the article's talk page, instead of on their user talk page, then you should not keep posting at that editor's user talk page. Moving such comments to the talk page is a best practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Revision as of 18:44, 15 June 2019, you added "pyrolyzes tobacco."[16]

See Revision as of 17:04, 22 June 2019, you restored "pyrolyses tobacco"[17] See diff and this diff. That was shocking you tried to add it to the first sentence of the IQOS section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies, I had completely forgotten that, for all it wasn't that long ago. It's all beginning to blur. I don't actually think it's shocking that the first sentence of a section describes what the thing is, and not who released it when, tho; I think it's a good idea. I believe I tried to implement it for all the product-specific sections, which may be why I didn't remember this particular case.

QuackGuru, could I ask you to please discuss the timing, and attempt to reach a consensus on the question to be asked, before starting any more RfCs? I have been spending all the time I can reasonably spare attempting to respond to them, but I'm barely keeping up, and my responses are not as well-thought-out as I would like.

I feel as if any edit I make is met by a hostile response from you; and if I don't edit in response to you, you are angry at me for that. I'd really rather focus on content than personal conflict. In future, if you feel I've violated a rule, could you please tell me about it in a non-confrontational manner? We're neither of us perfect, but stone-throwing does not help either of us build good content. HLHJ (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After over a year of what I think are policy violations, how long do you need before I start the next round of RfCs for these two sections? Another year should not pass by. QuackGuru (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I've been away for a bit; real life. I'd like to try and stick with one RfC at a time. I've re-opened one RfC at the IQOS-and-co article, because I think resolving that one will go a long way towards resolving the other disputes. I see you've removed the content you linked to in your post above; I'll discuss that there as soon as I can. HLHJ (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QuackGuru, I followed a link to User talk:Redrose64#Disputes for over a year. You wrote: "If this went to one of the drama boards things would resolve much quicker and there may not be any need for anymore RfCs. That's because an admin may show them the door. These articles are under DS. Editors being on there best behavior is not an option." I take it that I was meant. It would not be the first time you have spoken of taking formal actions in relation to me, though as far as I know you have not taken any.

If you think that I am behaving so badly that I would be banned, by all means bring the matter to my attention, and if you feel my response is inadequate, take formal action against me. Criticizing me in a forum where I can see and learn from your criticisms, including one in which other editors judge my actions, may improve my editing. Please don't criticize me to third parties without identifying me and pinging me, or repeatedly suggest sanctions you are not willing to pursue. HLHJ (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion is entirely about a specific article and I have therefore moved it with the moved-to template. For clarity, all further comments should be made there; this section is closed, and nothing more should be added to it. HLHJ (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QuackGuru, was the above paragraph unclear? I've removed the "on Marketing of electronic cigarettes" you added to the section title, as it breaks the moved-from links, and you added another section header anyway. HLHJ (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit was a violation of talk page consensus. There was a discussion on the text for caption. See Talk:Nicotine_marketing/Archive_3#Goody_two_shoes_image_caption. Do you agree to stop violating consensus? QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to Talk:Nicotine marketing § Violation of consensus on Nicotine marketing

 – HLHJ (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continued problems

Please keep in mind you were notified of the discretionary sanctions.[18] [19]

See "I'm sorry, QuackGuru, I don't want to be too down on you, but I didn't see anything really useful in your New Year's Day edits. Maybe you stayed up too late the night before?"[20] Do you agree to stop doing this sort of behavior?

You started a malformed RfC. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_7 See WP:CIR.

You were edit warring against consensus.[21] You were warring against consensus again.[22]

The charred pizza image is largely unrelated to the article.[23] See RfC for pizza image.[24]

You added off-topic content.[25] You added off-topic content again. See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1#Article scope..[26] You are repeating the same kind if mistakes again and again. Are you going to agree to abide by consensus and stop edit warring? QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize if my joke about New Year's offended you. I'm not sure what "this sort of behavior" is, from the link. I have acknowledged that I phrased that RFC poorly. If I've apologized, please drop it unless I repeat the offence. I'm not sure why you are unwilling to drop the pizza. I am doing my best to abide by consensus, not edit war, and verify statements; we disagree on how to do these things. HLHJ (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You restarted a RfC. The closer stated "A split proposal should reasonably indicate what would be split, and to where." You did not specifically explain on the talk page what content would be split and to where it would be split. The article Vaporizer (inhalation device) is not about heat-not-burn-products and there already is content about eTron 3T in the e-cigarette article.

You are still supporting including the pizza image. You have not dropped it. I explained on the talk page your edits did not improve the Nicotine marketing article.[27]

You stated "Where "pyrolyse" is what is meant."[28] According to the discussion section your example would of replaced sourced content with failed verification.[29] See other RfCs such as Aerosol and smoke.[30] The word aerosol is a more general claim. You want to replace it with smoke throughout the article? QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for telling me about the splitting-article RfC closure, I had not seen it. I will look at the other RfC topics again later, but let's deal with the move request first (though I'd have preferred to discuss the split, then the name). HLHJ (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page was moved and the other RfCs were all closed. I will search for new sources and reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From User talk:QuackGuru:

Hi, QuackGuru. I've been away for a bit; could you please explain to me what happened at Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing? It looks like an heavily re-written version of the old Marketing of electronic cigarettes article, with the name re-scoped to match the content scope. Indeed, all of the titles that redirected to that article seem to redirect to the new article. However, the page has not been renamed; I cannot find the history of the old article anywhere. HLHJ (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

There was no re-written version of the old Marketing of electronic cigarettes article. I created a new article from scratch. There was consensus to redirect the article you created. You also copied content from the e-cig article. That content from the e-cig article was rewritten by a former smoker. Sourced content was replaced with failed verification content. I restored the sourced content recently. QuackGuru (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new marketing article is not a derivative of any other marketing article. The edit history of a redirected article should not be merged with a different article. The edit histories of different articles should not be spliced together. The talk page is used for improving the marketing article. Comments that are not about improving the article should not be posted on the talk page of the new marketing article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, now I'm really confused. I thought I posted about this to the new article talk page, Talk:Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing, less than 24hrs ago (edit: a bit less than 12 hours, I think), and your comments seem like a reply to that post. I can't find my post now, though. May I ask to which post you are replying, QuackGuru? HLHJ (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something strange has happened. I'm very sure that the Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing article and its talk page existed before the earliest timestamp shown on their histories, namely 13:31, 28 September 2019‎ and 13:29, 28 September 2019. That's less than three hours ago‎. I mean, I commented about the article on QuackGuru's talk page on the 20th. I would not have done that if it hadn't existed for another week. QuackGuru, do you know what happened? HLHJ (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you post about improving the article or was it off-topic? Do you agree off-topic comments should not be posted on the article's topic page? QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, but that wasn't my query. Forget what I posted, my biggest question is where did the history go? HLHJ (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like the edit history was charred per ‎G8. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. WP:G8 is for deleting "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page". How could that make an article I saw on the 20th have no history prior to the 28th? How could it remove a comment (however off-topic) which I posted on the talk page of an extant article? I'm still mystified. Do you have a link to the deletion request, or any pertinent information? HLHJ (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you answered your own question. You stated that WP:G8 is for deleting "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page". QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Above, you discuss an article which, according to its page history, did not exist until tens of minutes after your post was written. I top that bit of clairvoyance handily by discussing the article over a week before it comes into existence.

Much of the article and article talk page history must have been deleted. The new article has never been deleted, has it? If so, why has it been deleted and then restored, within ~a week (or a day, for the talk page), and why can't I find any reference to an undeletion request for it? HLHJ (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QuackGuru, you reverted my notification of the above comment on your talk page with the edit message "Boring and silly questions. Who cares?". I assume that this means that you are unwilling to help me figure this out, and I will seek advice elsewhere. HLHJ (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've restored the history of the article and its talk page. QuackGuru, requesting deletion of the article only to create it again seems pointless. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, it was deleted per WP:G7, and re-created, apparently unchanged. I now understand what happened, if not why. Further discussion of history-splicing at Talk:Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing#Article re-write and disconnection from history. HLHJ (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are some redirects to the new article that are duplication or are too similar to other redirects and should be deleted.

You asked on the talk page "QG, could you please give a link to your draft?" There was not one draft. There were multiple drafts. The original draft with the initial marketing content was at User:QuackGuru/Sand3 back around 2016. There were drafts before that back in 2014 or 2015. It was part of the main e-cig article draft. The marketing content was too long then I eventually created a new draft. I don't remember what year it was. I created so many drafts. I didn't keep track. Why would you want a link to any draft?

Why would you want the history to merge? Is it because you want to restore content? If there was any content worth saving I would of added it. If you check the edit history it states content was copied from the Electronic cigarette article.

There was no splicing or any derivative of any other marketing article. You did not create the new marketing article. QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied at Talk:Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing#Article re-write and disconnection from history. HLHJ (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did not reply to my questions: Why would you want a link to any draft? Why would you want the history to merge? Is it because you want to restore content? QuackGuru (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied at Talk:Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing#Article re-write and disconnection from history. HLHJ (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You commented at the talk page but have not directly responded the questions? Why? Why do you want a link to any draft? Do you want to restore content? Restoring disputed content would be against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave two reasons why. The consensus was not against merging content. Please make future comments on this on the article talk page, and do not make further comments here. HLHJ (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not redirect species to genera. All species deserve an article and the only reason to redirect is if the genus is monotypic. Since Berardius had two species already, Berardius minimus needed its own article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note, Abductive. Replied and pinged at Talk:Giant beaked whale#Untitled. HLHJ (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have made a series of allegations without supporting evidence. Please strike your comments. Please keep in mind that you have been informed of the discretionary sanctions in this topic area. QuackGuru (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did not strike all your allegations against me. Do you stand by your comments? QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm sorry we are still in conflict, QuackGuru. I don't want to make unfounded or unhelpful allegations. I put a lot of work into that comment, and I was careful to phrase most of what I said as "it seems" or "I feel", and link to examples. While your complaint is very general, I've gone over my post again and modified, with strikes and underlines, anything I think you might still object to on factual grounds. If I have missed anything, or if you just feel that some of what I have said is unfair, please specify your objections at there, rather than here, and ping me, I will do my best to respond promptly. I don't know how discretionary sanctions would apply re my post; you could also detail that there. HLHJ (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:SA Sturm Cigarette Company ad.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SA Sturm Cigarette Company ad.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL)) (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 02:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See technical difficulties. HLHJ (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. HLHJ (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi HLHJ. Please provide a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use of this file as required by WP:NFCC#10c. I understand that combining multiple uses into a single non-free use rationale like you did might seem OK, but it makes it much easier to assess individual non-free uses (for both humans and WP:BOTs) when separate non-free use rationales are provided for each. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Marchjuly. I hastily put the illustration in a couple of articles without thinking that I needed additional rationales. Obviously I do; apologies. I've added this information to the page, but I couldn't figure out a rational way to fit it into the templates. When I figure out how to format it nicely, I will. Thank you for the heads-up. HLHJ (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Begoon kindly fixed the formatting for me. Thanks, Begoon! HLHJ (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for reference, non-free use is kind of expected to be for exceptional cases; this doesn't necessarily mean a non-free file can only be used once, but additional uses tend to need to be more exceptional. So, if you're basically using the same non-free use rationale to try and justify what is essentially the same non-free usage in different articles, then perhaps the additional uses aren't so exceptional. Simply copying and pasting or paraphrasing content/sources from one article where the file is being used into other articles so that the same file can also be used in them isn't really good from a general encyclopedic standpoint and a non-free content use standpoint. That is why things like item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI seem to have been added to the relevant guidelines. I'm only mentioning this because the non-free use in Sturmabteilung seems a bit iffy, in my opinion, given the two basic sentences on the advertising appearing in that section. As you start to use a non-free file more and more, it may be questioned as to whether using the file actually improves the reader's understanding to such a degree that removing it will be detrimental to that understanding per WP:NFC#CS and whether an alternative means, such as a link to other articles, where the same file can be seen is sufficient per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I rarely use non-free media, and I probably wouldn't have done all this had I not previously uploaded and used the image under a misapprehension that it was PD. Looking at it now, I'd agree that the Sturmabteilung image use is iffy; the not-very-visual financial aspect is the most important in that context. If you would like to remove it, Marchjuly, go ahead. HLHJ (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, a long time ago we worked on Southern_Ocean_Waters but we never finished it. I would love to finish it and have contacted you a few times regarding this.
This will be my last attempt to get it finished, after this I will not bother you again.
So just tell me if you want to finish it or not, thanks. Please ping me. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contort_the_citations&action=history What is this nonsense? QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toebox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pointed shoe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flooring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinyl flooring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Toebox at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Toebox at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For working hard to improve Riyadh International Book Fair, have a cuppa on the AfC team. Very few editors help out with abandoned drafts, so your help is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, CaptainEek! Seeing the page up in the mainspace was a pleasant surprise. The work was interesting, I learned a lot about a subject I previously knew literally nothing about, and a lot about interactions between Wikipedia's cultural structure and available sourcing, including coming up against sources of systemic bias that are outside of Wikipedians' control... I wonder if there is a way to get more editors involved in drafts? Automatic redirects from article to draftspace for logged-in editors? I'll think about it. HLHJ (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 14 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mariä Krönung (Lautenbach), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Mariä Krönung pilgrimage church in Lautenbach (interior pictured) retains original Gothic features, such as the high altar and fused stained-glass windows? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14 February

Alte Liebe

Thank you for improving Nocturnes (Debussy) while the principal author is sadly blocked, and a late "Valentine" to good relations ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. That sounds like an interesting book. May I ask who has died? HLHJ (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but I won't give name and relation. I picture the church, list the psalm, song played, songs sung, - and I was there. That will have to be enough. What I wanted to say as shortly as possible is that I was absent, and in no mood for trivia. The song played has more to do with who died than the book, but the decade of marriage is closer in the book than in the song. Enough puzzle pieces I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked thinking I might know them, not at all wishing to press. My condolences, Gerda Arendt. Across cultures, funerals hold closely to art, from beautiful spaces to music and readings. Surely we do this for the comfort and grace they give to our memories; and perhaps because a life or a marriage lived are also beautiful works. HLHJ (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said that well! - The ones you might know are in this list. I was at one of the funerals, two more are relatives but the funerals were too far away, and with 14 more of them I was in one room, including Jacques Loussier, Michael Gielen and Pierre Boulez. For more private memories, see here, - I took 14 of the images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. I like the title "Memories", it fits. The page has some of the evocative feel of a commonplace book: a stream of ideas, linked by the unseen memories of the person recording them. Some art gives that sense, too, like In Memoriam; a tenor of mind. HLHJ (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lovely thoughts and rosemary, thank you. The memories begin at the bottom, with the oldest, and only what really went to DYK ;) - On top are choir-related memories, choirs in the order of recent activity. Plans are also there, see, with March especially rich? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am impressed by your level of organization, Gerda Arendt. "Winterling" is a fine name for a flower, like dryas or windflower. I recall singing Mendelssohn's Verleih uns Frieden for a peace service. It's a beautiful piece; I should try to find a freely-licensed recording. I must go offline now, I'm afraid. My best wishes. HLHJ (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning, - I was offline already. Writing Verleih uns Frieden was meant as a prayer for peace, - thank you for understanding. Watch my talk: March to begin ;) - A friend who was banned told me that left images make problems, and I think of him every time I move one to the right, as just now, - also when I see an article for which he helped with the references, such as today's featured article, or when I bring a flower greeting, for which he designed the frame. Which brings us back to sadly missed Chuckstreet. Yes, I have those also organized, with his lead image ;) - He was despised. Verleih uns Frieden. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]