User talk:SUM1/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Good work!

Keep up the good work, such as your creation of the Nambya language stub. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gyula Peidl

Thanks for expanding Gyula Peidl article. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. My pleasure. SpikeballUnion 14:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligent work. As I see, there are also quality articles about other Hungarian prime ministers in the interwar period, e.g. István Friedrich, Károly Huszár or István Bethlen. I would be grateful if you could translate those into English in the future. Unfortunately I do not speak Spanish. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice. I'm interested to do so when I get time. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Norden1990 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

István Friedrich

Wow, thank you very much! Nice work, I'm really grateful. Just a remark: currently the references do not point out to publications. Could you translate the "Bibliografía" section too? --Norden1990 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Just translated and added the Bibliography section now. Thanks for reminding me. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Norden1990 (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Translations of the other articles should come soon when I get the time. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I may do a translation of the Aster Revolution, seeing as the Spanish article has "good" status rather than the Hungarian one, confusingly. SpikeballUnion (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Hungarian Barnstar of National Merit
		For all of your excellent translation work about Hungarian politicians. Wear it with pride. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Iran's Population

Hi, I'm unable to edit the Iran page as it's protected. Population count needs correcting since the latest National Census. It gives a count for Nov 2016 and a projection for March 2017. Wiki page currently overstates at 82.8 million. I'd appreciate you editing it, thanks.

https://financialtribune.com/articles/domestic-economy/61421/national-census-preliminary-results-released-irans-urban-population IR94025190 (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this notification. I made the correction yesterday. SpikeballUnion (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion

Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Global wind patterns

I don't understand why Global wind patterns was deleted. I see nothing wrong with the grammar and because it is an overview article, sources can be found in the linked articles. Perhaps it could be combined with Prevailing winds, but I don't see an easy way to do it. If anything, it should be linked to Atmospheric circulation which is closer, but is rather theoretical and does not emphasize the surface winds. Prevaling Winds is disorganized, hides importand facts inside details and misses or obscures the 30-degree width of the belts, the parallelism of northern and southern hemispheres, the annual north-south movement, the relation between the belts and doldrums/horse latitudes, the relation between monsoons and land and sea breezes, mixes surface winds with the upper-level counter-circulation in the cells and misses the relation between air and ocean circulation. Deletion removes useful information for no purpose. I think Global wind patterns is a good overview and should to be restored.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page of Global wind patterns, it was just a worse version of the Prevailing winds article. It had no sources, no layout and thorough poor grammar and spacing. It's not the norm to have a bad article serve as an "overview article" on Wikipedia. If you wanted an "overview article", you would create an article named "Outline of prevailing winds" as is the norm on Wikipedia. However, it's not necessary for such a small article as Prevailing winds. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Prevailing winds is rated as a good article, so you might want to talk to the people who brought it to that rating if you disagree. SpikeballUnion (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you explain why the grammar is poor? Perhaps my grammar is so poor that I did not notice. Why is it a worse version? As noted above, it has more basic information and is expressed more clearly. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It did not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style in any way, shape or form. But this was by far not the most important issue. You have yet to address the fact that you've attempted to have a bad article serve as an "overview article" on Wikipedia for an article that is already rated good and is in no need of a separate article glossing over its content. If you don't like the Prevailing winds article or feel it's missing something, edit it. This is what Wikipedia encourages. Be sure to keep it meeting the good article criteria it's achieved, though. SpikeballUnion (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I cannot find anything in the Manual of Style that the article violated (??). It was not an attempt to simplify Prevailing winds. I do not know of any reason to thing the article was bad. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't take long to find that your article failed to follow Section organisation, Text formatting - Names and titles, all of Lead section since it had no lead section, etc. If you've read at least some Wikipedia articles, you'll know that Global wind patterns doesn't follow any established structure and makes it hard for the reader to follow for this very reason. There's a reason articles have a standardised structure on Wikipedia. Also, "references for this summary article can be found in the linked articles" is not an appropriate excuse on Wikipedia for an article having no sources. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Liaison (French)#Recent move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Liaison (French)#Recent move. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Grand Funk Railroad

Hello SpikeballUnion, I removed a disruptive IP edit that effected the maintenance templates you had placed, I just wanted to give you a heads-up, you might want to have a look and see if any of the issues have been resolved, Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 08:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. SpikeballUnion (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Garam shah lā garam shah

Hi, I'm Boleyn. SpikeballUnion, thanks for creating Garam shah lā garam shah!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for 2 issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Map of zones of Ethiopia.svg

Thank you for making this beautiful map. Can you please add the label for Doolo/Dollo Zone? Thanks! Cobblet (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out that mistake. I also made the colours brighter so they're easier to differentiate. SpikeballUnion (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

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

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

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

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SUM1. 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)

Your edit

Sorry, i had to revert your edits because you deleted some other users messages.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it was an edit conflict that didn't show up to me, because I only posted my vote. SUM1 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah i understand, it happens to me too. My goal was just to let you know why i rollbacked your two edits. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tdl1060 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This was not necessary. Refer to discussion above. SUM1 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Politics of Israel

Please revert your introduction of incorrect grammar into this article. "politics" is a singular noun and should not be treated as a plural. Thanks, Number 57 21:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Please watch what you're reverting. If you had an issue with the grammatical number of "politics" (which you do, since you've reverted a bunch of other people over the same thing), then revert only that. You restored incorrect bolding, missing links and double spaces. Now, on the issue of "politics", I edited in line with several other "Politics of ..." articles (Politics of Belgium, Politics of Canada, Politics of the Netherlands, etc.). If you disagree with that so strongly, then go ahead and change "are" to "is", since the dictionary consensus is in your favour. SUM1 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the incorrect grammatical changes – it's not a question of disagreeing strongly, it's a simple question of what's right and wrong when it comes to English grammar. I also don't see any issues with the bolding, although I'm guessing you must be one of the stickers that insists the bolded text must match the article title exactly (which in practice, isn't the case across much of Wikipedia).

I'd be interested to know where I've reverted other people on the same thing. This isn't a very common mistake and I don't recall seeing many other editors making it. Number 57 21:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Then I accept that the grammatical number of "politics" was wrong, however you proceed to go back on the "right-wrong vs. opinion" logic by saying that it doesn't matter if the bold text matches the title because it isn't the case much "in practice". That doesn't matter. Wherever I see it, I fix it, because it's wrong. I realise that if the text redirects to the article, it can be bold, but why forfeit standardisation? Virtually every "Politics of ..." article begins with "The politics of [country]". That's something I don't understand why you insisted on changing. And, on a third note, I added beneficial links and removed double spaces, which you reverted. On the topic of you reverting other people, I mistook one revert for this, but you did revert someone here. SUM1 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

So one other person is a bunch? Clearly plurals are not your strong point ;) I reverted the whole set of changes because (a) I didn't see the removal of double spaces due to the lack of contrast on my screen, and I didn't feel the internal links you added were beneficial. Number 57 21:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That remark was completely unnecessary. I just told you I mistook one revert you made being for "politics" when it wasn't and was ready to accept that. Be civil. SUM1 (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Both the links I added help the unfamiliar user understand the article. SUM1 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SUM1. 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)

Derg

You revert the correct definition of a political party Derg. The current version is meaningless and inaccurate manner. It doesn't sense me that the accurate definition til. Please find the correct and obvious definition for Derg for the "first page paragraph" if you are free. Video game task (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Video game task: Your version is inaccurate. Firstly, you write that the Derg "is". The Derg does not exist anymore. Secondly, you omit the definite article from the title. Thirdly, you remove several acceptable synonyms and official names for the Derg. Additionally, your version has terrible grammar and for that reason alone it cannot remain. SUM1 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award

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

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

POV Pushing on Francafrique

I have reverted your edit once again. You need to stop POV pushing and discuss this issue and actually get consensus. You made a bold edit, I reverted, we then discuss. THAT is how things are done in WP. See WP:BRD. OK?!?! danielkueh (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Danielkueh: I'm not sure why you consider "a system of foreign policy adopted by France towards its former African colonies" a more controversial edit than "France's relationship with its former African colonies". There's no POV to push here, only a spirit of accuracy, for example to specify that Françafrique is a specific arrangement and not just all relationships ever between France and its former African colonies, which is just a lie. All the citations refer directly to my proposal:

• BBC: "The system of personal networks which backed these controversial practices is pejoratively referred to as "Francafrique"."
• The New York Times: "These arrangements, dubbed “Françafrique,”"
• openDemocracy: "Françafrique, the special French way of doing business in Africa to preserve its economic interests"

I also haven't seen anyone else but you dispute this type of edit to the lead sentence. In fact, I've seen many people try to edit the lead sentence with what could actually be called "POV pushing", like adding "neo-colonialist", which I'm not trying to do, most of which have been reverted by you.

If we can't come to an agreement, I'd be happy to open up a request for comment on this edit. SUM1 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@SUM1: Best to discuss this on the talk page there. Appreciate the quotes and sources. However, they have to be seen in context. These articles are describing Francafrique as it was applied in the decades right after the 1960s. For example, the full quote from the New York Times opinion piece (my emphasis in bold):

"When France gave most of its African colonies independence in 1960, it retained considerable control. French advisers pulled the strings in ministries from Abidjan to Libreville and reported directly to Jacques Foccart, Charles de Gaulle’s powerful chief advisor on African affairs, a man who could decide to overthrow a president or send French paratroopers to rescue one.

These arrangements, dubbed “Françafrique,” remained almost untouched for nearly three decades, no matter who ruled in the Élysée Palace.

All that changed after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. France’s attention progressively turned to Europe, with the enlargement of the European Union, the opening up of Central and Eastern Europe and the perception that the troubled African continent was waning as an asset."

Likewise, from the BBC:

"Critics have consistently railed against what they perceive as a form of hypocrisy.

They say France has repeatedly used anti-democratic means on the continent to further dictatorships or overthrow unfriendly governments if they serve French interests, while openly extolling democratic values.

The system of personal networks which backed these controversial practices is pejoratively referred to as "Francafrique".

The times are long gone when a French commando unit would fly parachutes in broad daylight into an African capital to restore a deposed head of state."

If this point of view of Francafrique remains unchanged 'till this day, you have a point. But as the above articles show, it isn't. The term and situation have clearly evolved and I'm not sure fixing the definition to a particular period (1960s-1990s) is the best approach. Hence, the present definition, which came from a New York Times news article ([[1]]), which I just noticed, was mysteriously edited out. In fact, a couple of the sources (e.g., Al Jazeera) are questionable and heavily tilted. Similarly, I won't be commenting on the opendemocracy article above as that site is not impartial, especially as a reliable source for an encyclopedia article. That said, I myself have nothing against its agenda or politics but that is besides the point. danielkueh (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have started a new discussion thread on the article's talk page. Best to continue this discussion there. Since it's the weekend, I may not be prompt in my responses. Please don't take it personally or assume I'm no longer engaged. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TMS (production team), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Read All About It (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) 14:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Prion

Hi there, when you get a moment, please review your edit of Prion (here), which I just reverted. I have no doubt this was meant as an improvement to the article, but there were a lot of formatting issues in there. Perhaps a copy and pasting error? There were also a lot of errant pipes | and nowiki tags really messing things up. I thought it best to simply revert, but please do resubmit the improvements you made. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: Hmm I notice that now. I've no idea how those get in there, but I use the VisualEditor mainly and it sometimes causes lots of artefacts. I'll revise the edit in source editor and resubmit it. Thanks. SUM1 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SUM1/Archive 2,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SUM1/Archive 2,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi SUM1/Archive 2,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of counseling topics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Counselor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I think your maps of languages in Africa are fantastic! ElVacilando (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi SUM1, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – bradv🍁 19:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS

Trimmed a number of small primary sources and a review that does not mention the topic in question[2]... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Not sure what you mean, you removed the entire text I added. And it was supported by a review, which as far as I'm aware is a medically reliable source. "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals". That's from WP:MEDRS.

As for the testosterone review, it was there to directly support the preceding statement; "This study showed that testosterone partially inhibits the vasodilatory effect of adenosine by increased vascular resistance, which leads to decreased flow. Vessels dilated with adenosine showed significantly more dilation than with adenosine plus testosterone." SUM1 (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

There are concerns that MDPI is a predatory publisher.

This source does not mention migraines.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: So what would I have to do to get the text re-added? There are tonnes of sources on the relationship between adenosine and migraine. Which ones should I add so as to not get the text removed again? SUM1 (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

We have sources such as Davidoff, Robert A. (2002). Migraine: Manifestations, Pathogenesis, and Management. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-803135-2. I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a better review Burnstock, G (2016). "Purinergic Mechanisms and Pain". Advances in pharmacology (San Diego, Calif.). 75: 91–137. doi:10.1016/bs.apha.2015.09.001. PMID 26920010. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I appreciate your effort in finding suitable sources for me. I have one final question: I don't know if you wish to let me include citations for some of the non-migraine-related facts about adenosine that are highly important for understanding its relevance, since you didn't wish to allow the testosterone-counteracting-adenosine source. I believe it would be highly pertinent to at least include the facts of adenosine's relationship with serotonin and the other chemical messengers like testosterone and estrogen, as it sheds important light on why the "lower serotonin levels are believed to be involved" statement is written a few sentences back, and the relationship to the demographic representation of migraine. SUM1 (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The source should be about migraines for it to be used. Otherwise it is sort of synthesis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suspected that. SUM1 (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi SUM1. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 6,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Review of Google Bookmarks

Hi SUM1, I noticed that you recently reviewed the Google Bookmarks article, and didn't put any cleanup tags on the article. This was surprising to me, because the article only cites one reliable source, TechCrunch (RSP entry), whose newspiece is a bit too short to be considered significant coverage. Additionally, most of the Google Bookmarks article appears to be original research, with much of its content not supported by any sources. The article also contains promotion of a non-notable competing extension.

Could you please take a second look at the article? — Newslinger talk 23:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I will add the tags. The reason I reviewed the article is because it was clearly a notable article that did not warrant deletion and was not a new article but rather a long-standing article that had been blanked several times and redirected twice, which automatically re-added it to the backlog of "new" pages. It did not belong in the new pages feed as a candidate for a new article but rather its problems could be dealt with as an existing article. SUM1 (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the tag, SUM1. I will handle the issues on Google Bookmarks as an existing article. — Newslinger talk 12:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CDK13-related disorder

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CDK13-related disorder you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CDK13-related disorder

The article CDK13-related disorder you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:CDK13-related disorder for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dandy–Walker malformation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Posterior fossa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

TS

Hi, SUM1; thanks for the good additions at TS, but I picked up 12 new journal papers yesterday, which I am slowly working through (and will take me some time to add); I'm not still certain basal ganglia dysfunction should be highlighted in the lead. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I missed that one, but a heads up that someone complained earlier that my original language there was too "difficult" and dumbed it down to "hard". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

With that edit, I only intended to clarify that the high comorbidity may have been due to difficulties in distinguishing in the studies that were done, not that it's universally hard to distinguish and therefore all studies will be inaccurate. SUM1 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

ah ha ... I will have another look there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You're welcome. Well, you'll eventually find that it will. I only intended to add what was already in the body of that article (I mean there's even a picture of the basal ganglia). The links with other almost identical dopaminergic dysfunction disorders like tardive dyskinesia, athetoid cerebral palsy, Sydenham's chorea or PANDAS are well established by now, and the studies of patients with Lesch–Nyhan syndrome who have a congenital deprivation of dopamine showing tic-like behaviour or animals whose basal ganglia were destroyed make it very clear. Refer to Basal ganglia disease and Hyperkinesia. I believe it's depriving people of an important line of research and creating an unnecessary air of mystery to not at least mention the basal ganglia or dopaminergic pathways in the lead. SUM1 (talk)

I will catch up on this; I am trying to sort out the new information about the autoimmune aspect, which may be UNDUE? You caught me just as I am trying to do all of this, which I don't want to start until I convert the citation style. In general, I hate updating the lead when content is still moving around, and always prefer to leave that for last. I will do my best to catch up on this today and re-incorporate your sentence as needed ... I have ignored the article for five years because of problems at WP:MED, and am going to make a final stab at getting it updated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I started with Fernandez, PMID 29325623 and there's a good full paragraph there that puts the WEIGHT issues of basal ganglia dysfunction and "dysregulation of neuroinflammatory processes" in good perspective. I'd like to get the body of the article updated before I rejig the lead. I prefer to work sources in to the body, and then be able to summarize to the lead in our own words. In light of your concerns, I will try to work on that first. Is that OK with you, or do you want me to get something in to the lead even if it means the body is out of sync for a few days while I finish catching up? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You may take as long as you need. If I'm understanding your point correctly, you do not want to add it to the lead because there is not enough coverage in the body. If so, I'll add it to the body, since searching in Google Scholar "Tourette's dopaminergic review" or "Tourette's basal ganglia review" brings up literally tens of thousands of results. Though if you end up doing so yourself, based on your 12 papers, then I'll leave it to you, just as long as dopaminergic or basal ganglia gets mentioned in the lead. On a side note, inflammation is unlikely to account for the majority of cases, so that need not be in the lead. SUM1 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

We are in violent agreement :) If you can give me the rest of the day to first work it in to the body, we can then summarize to the lead. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My poor little home printer is choking at the volume I'm throwing at it; would like to check Sukhodolsky, D. G., Gladstone, T. R., Kaushal, S. A., Piasecka, J. B., & Leckman, J. F. as well, which is printing now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

SUM1, look here at the Neurobiology and neuroimaging section and then discussion elsewhere in that same article of the WEIGHT which should be given to immune function (which agrees with other sources); there is a lot to be worked in before summarizing to lead! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to take some time to update the citation style, before chunking in new text ... don't want to have edit conflicts, so let's get a working plan :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

SUM1, just checking in; I am still in the midst of quite a large update, with a couple more days to go. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Should you have time for a look, I rewrote "Mechanism" and re-added an adjusted version of your text to the lead. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'm late, but thank you for re-adding basal ganglia to the lead and your additions to Mechanism. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Avro Vulcan XM655

Your frequent changes to this page are not acceptable to the XM655 Maintenance and Preservation Society.

You seem to be insisting that all information must be referenced to an on-line source, even when the actual source of the information isn't actually available in that way. For example, documentation held at the National Archive at Kew is frequently un-digitised and cannot be verified "at the click of a mouse".

You are also finding and inserting circular references, for example by citing Tony Blackman's book as a source, when he actually drew his information from the Wiki page you are amending. Just because you find something by Googling it doesn't mean it is the source of that information.

The spelling "Taxy" is accepted as the preferred spelling within the historic aircraft preservation community.

Sooty655 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sooty655: Answer on your talk page in the future. I haven't made "frequent" changes, and I believe it was only one that you took issue with.

Where does Blackman state that he got his information from Wikipedia? His book has even more information on XM655 than is on Wikipedia, and none that appeared to be extracted from Wikipedia.

Secondly, I did not state that it must be accessible online (indeed, sources don't need to be necessarily), I said that it needs to be verifiable. Sources that "cannot be verified", whether it's at the click of a mouse or not, can't be on Wikipedia or must be upgraded so that they can be. A user has to know what "Cottesmore Operations Record Books TNA AIR28 series" is, for example with metadata (at least a date could've been added), so they can know where the information came from. The citation is far too undeveloped and short and hardly conveys anything to the average reader. I searched it online because that's the first port of call for a reader who doesn't know what that is. As it turns out, the link https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14572915 could've been added, which would've shown the reader that it was not accessible online and provided an array of data to serve as verifiability. For the "CAA G-INFO aircraft registration database" citation, at least a link to https://siteapps.caa.co.uk/g-info/ could've been placed, allowing the user to search the registration themselves. I did not remove the sources or any text, I merely flagged them up with a "full citation needed" cleanup template to leave it to someone more familiar with the matter to do, so I'm not sure why you insisted on the tags being removed.

Also, you reverted the "citation needed" tag I added to the Media appearances section. This entire section is unsourced, so it's indisputable that a tag is warranted there.

"Taxy" might be used by some British historic aviation enthusiasts, but it's clearly not preferred. 142,000 results for "taxi run" (including historic enthusiasts) vs. just 2,940 for "taxy run". The word hardly appears on Wikipedia. I'm not sure it makes sense to me to insist on using this spelling on Wikipedia.

Finally, if you are from the XM655 Maintenance and Preservation Society, then you might want to read the conflict of interest guideline. My edits don't have to be acceptable to the XM655 Maintenance and Preservation Society, they just have to be acceptable to Wikipedia policy and guideline. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sooty655: I've filled in some of the bare sources. They still need something more specific than just "AIR 28". There are between 14 and 40 different articles under "AIR 28", none of which seem to encapsulate the years mentioned in the text. If you know what AIR 28 reference they are, add them. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of English Village, Erbil for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)