User talk:Xurizuri

It may take me a month or more to respond to anything.

Welcome!

Hello, Xurizuri! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Some1 (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

WikiProject Medicine

==Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!==

Welcome to Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!

Even though I am a psychologist, I have found WP:MED to be much more active, and therefore much more helpful to me as I've learned the ropes. Feel free to ask me any questions. All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page, it sounds like you might also be interested in joining the small group of editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oops I thought I already had. Thank you for the reminder!

Talk:Invasion of Poland

Typos now fixed - thanks for pointing them out.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Typo Team Barnstar
		For your work fixing typos recently - keep it up! Redtree21 (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

Hey, just saw your message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, and went ahead and created User:Xurizuri/Gender differences in ADHD for you to use as a sandbox/playspace to get it sorted out how you want it to look, etc before officially making it a new article. That way it'll look impressive when people first become aware of it ;) I think just calling it "gender differences" is better than "women and..." since then you'll have people pointing out we don't have "men and..." articles, etc. HLPD (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that! That's a good alternate name, I was struggling with it. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that medical/health topics are held to a high standard for what qualifies as reliable source references. See WP:MEDRS for guidelines. David notMD (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consider improving Epidemiology of attention deficit hyperactive disorder or the Epidemiology section of Attention deficit hyperactive disorder rather than a separate article. Or else copy content and refs from those to put in your draft. (copying within Wikipedia is allowed as long as the Edit summary is explicit in where content was copied from.). P.S. My daughter diagnosed as ADHD, so familiar with the situation firsthand. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

John Okill

added a link pointing to Heinemann

Josep Maria Subirachs

added a link pointing to Pacifica

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Xurizuri! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Possible self-editor, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Xurizuri! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, John F Mazzaferro article has Problems, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordie Albiston

Hi,

You were correct about this page in your comment to me on the Typo Team Moss project. The brackets weren't for an acrostic, they were just for lower case letters. I must have been doing two things at the same time when I wrote that. I removed the remaining brackets because they aren't in the titles. Thanks.

Ira Ira Leviton (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metaxyonycha/Colaspis

Hi, I noticed you edited Metaxyonycha just now. The species lists in this page as well as Colaspis (and other Eumolpinae pages) are largely from my own divings into the literature for the species involved, so if there's any real mistake it's my fault.

Apart from that though, I tried to explain in the articles themselves for these two, but the two genera were apparently historically confused. It seems in 1950, Jan Bechyné took Metaxyonycha as being a synonym of Colaspis in 1950, based on Colaspis testacea Fabricius, 1801 as the type species for Colaspis, while moving all the species of Colaspis itself into a new genus named "Maecolaspis" based on the type species Chrysomela flavicornis Fabricius, 1787. However, it turns out Bechyné actually got it wrong, as in fact Chrysomela flavicornis is the correct type species for Colaspis, so Maecolaspis is a synonym of Colaspis and "Colaspis" as defined by Bechyné is actually Metaxyonycha.

From the above I assumed anything referring to Colaspis from 1950 onwards in Bechyné's publications actually was Metaxyonycha, including the entire species checklist in "Notas sobre el género Colaspis (Col. Phytophaga Eumolpidae)" by both Bechynés in 1960. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much of that can be considered original research or not. Even worse, I don't think the mixup between the two genera has been fully fixed even now. It's all a big mess and I wish there was at least some complete uptodate checklist with all the names corrected, but sadly there isn't one yet. Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some time back I did manage to find an online version of Flower's 1996 article, which contains a list of all Central American Eumolpinae including the two genera here, it's archived on Wayback Machine here: [1]. On the other hand, the South American species have largely not been talked about since Bechyné's time, frustratingly. Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xurizuri: hi are you active? I don't really want to sit on this for weeks on end, so I may decide to revert your changes soon unless you have a better idea about dealing with these species. Unfortunately in the end, it's a mess left behind by leaf beetle experts of the past because of poor communication between each other, and I made an attempt to make sense of it all. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: Oh oops sorry! I'm very bad at responding to things, my eyes kinda skip over the top bar... No worries about reverting it, you've clearly done heaps more active research than I did and have a far more informed opinion. I typically rely on taxonomy databases because of the basic nightmare you've described, especially GBIF because it has a lot of others indexed. But from memory, I got confused because I couldn't really find what was on the page on a few databases and the citations seemed to confirm there was an issue. But that makes sense as a conclusion on your part, and explains that discrepancy. I do think that'd be original research in other fields, but honestly who knows with taxonomy - I think your conclusion does fit within the ISO taxonomy standards. By any chance, have you asked the relevant WikiProject/s? They may be able to say if it's OR in this context. And thank you for taking the time to explain the reasoning to me! --Xurizuri (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for responding. No, I haven't asked any WikiProjects about it yet. I probably ought to have done so years ago, but I never really thought whether I was handling this kind of problem the right way that much until the last year or so. Glad to clear things up anyway. =) Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of Aboriginal history of Western Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Claisebrook.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Naomi Higgins

Hello Xurizuri,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Hatchens, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Naomi Higgins, for deletion, because there's already a page about that topic at Draft:Naomi Higgins. Please don't be discouraged; we appreciate your effort in creating new articles. To avoid this in the future, consider using the search function to find pages that already cover what you want to write about.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hatchens}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hatchens (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Naomi Higgins" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Naomi Higgins. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Naomi Higgins until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Psychology

Just to say that you're doing great work overhauling this WikiProject. Thanks for all that you're doing. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinPoulter: thank you! I'm trying my very best. --Xurizuri (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Past lives

Great work on cleaning up that new stub. Definitely a thankless task, so thank you! I saw that you recently joined WP:Skepticism, but you also might find it worthwhile to watchlist WP:FTN. jps (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ජපස: haa I was so sure when I saw the section heading that you were here to tell me I was being biased. Thank you for the recommendation! --Xurizuri (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Delaney555/Asperger syndrome

A tag has been placed on Delaney555/Asperger syndrome requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 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.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Somatic experiencing

An article that you have been involved in editing—Somatic experiencing—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 12:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FormalDude, I would hardly say I've been "involved", I've made one meaningful edit on the talk page. Given that you went to such a level of effort to notify me, I'm sure you've also notified the creators of both articles, right? Because otherwise this could easily be misconstrued as WP:CANVASSING. --Xurizuri (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply WP:INVOLVED, just noting you have participated there. By no means was this intended as an obligation to participate. I have also notified both page creators, although neither appears to be active recently. ––FormalDude talk 02:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understood what you meant. Thank you for informing the creators so promptly. --Xurizuri (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

You seem to have interests in psychology , medicine and skepticism, hence:

Requesting you to visit article Draft:Irrational beliefs and help expand the same if you find interested in.

If you tend to be busy then there is no hurry you can take your time, since you have interest in three topics together I do have hope you might research, find and contribute to Draft:Irrational beliefs.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DISC Assessment Article Revision

Hello. I saw that you were interested in revising the DISC Assessment article. This would be very helpful, as the article has been cut down significantly and currently lacks information and usefulness. I agree with your point that the article could be structured like the Beck Depression Inventory article. I also think that the Myers-Brigg article could provide some basis/inspiration for structure and content type. Would you like to head up this effort? I could provide 'backup' as I have access to a variety of journals at the moment if there is any source that you would like to use. Thanks, Tigerfair (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You did not get a response to this question. Did you find the answer elsewhere? It looks like something they could help you with at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee, I didn't find the answer, but I did figure out that the WP 1.0 bot only records the most recent date that the rating changed between its scans. So a primary issue with a tracker would be that, if an article was reassessed as still being the same quality, then there's no way for the tracker to know that. Well, it might work if you remove the rating, wait until after the next scan, and then reinstate that rating. I haven't tested that, because it seems like an enormous nuisance to have to go back to each article, and is reasonably likely to get reverted by someone before the next scan. I haven't followed it up at VPT because I'm pretty sure that this isn't worth the effort. Well, at least not for the project I wanted to use it for. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You understand this stuff a lot better than I do. anyway, I'm late going through the archives and I like to make sure all questions were answered if I can, but there are very few that get missed that I can help with.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee thank you for checking! That's a really cool thing that you're doing. Yeah I had to mess around with it for a couple days to figure all that out. --Xurizuri (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Domestic violence in Afghanistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Domestic violence in Afghanistan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 17#Domestic violence in Afghanistan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, bundled with this is the redirect Domestic violence in Spain. Jay (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Effects of pornography for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Effects of pornography, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of pornography until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussions

Please don't close discussions in which you are a major participant, and especially don't declare consensus, as you did here. If necessary, seek closure from an someone who is independent of the discussion at WP:CR. Sundayclose (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sundayclose - as it neatly describes on the page you linked, "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." Do you believe that the consensus was unclear or that my assessment was incorrect? Every person involved agreed that the articles needed to be the same article. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the closure is challenged it needs to stay open. This is a medical article. I posted notices at WP:WikiProject Medicine, WP:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force, and WP:WikiProject Psychology. Don't close the discussion until one full week passes with no additional comments. That doesn't prevent you from discussing what happens if there is a merge, as you have done. Sundayclose (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that and I'm not going to redo the close. I am asking for clarification on your reasoning for contesting it. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want more awareness about the issue among medical experts on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for explaining. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

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

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

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

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

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

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

December 2021

Here on Wikipedia, editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Sex differences in medicine.
In the future, please WP:AGF. It is something you did not do in this comment in particular [2]. Aside from misinterpreting my words, you misinterpreted my intentions. Try not to do it again. It is better to not assume intentions at all, and rather ask. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 06:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink I was definitely shittier than I should've been, sorry. It's not really an excuse, I should still be more careful, but it's been 40+ degrees C for 4 days running where I am. I'm not sure though why you say I misinterpreted your intention? I definitely don't think you had any ill will or ulterior motive or anything. I would be grateful if you could explain. -- Xurizuri (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychology Barnstar

		The Psychology Barnstar
		Thank you for the enormous efforts you have put into the project - you've helped to turn it around for the better! I really like your improvements to the main page! Bibeyjj (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibeyjj (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of studies section on the Male Expendability article

Why did you remove the studies section under WP Primary? That wasn't a primary source - that was a Science Daily article. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking rather than reverting. I removed it because the source was just describing the study. Recapping the results of something, even with minor added commentary from the author of the study, is not the same as analysing and offering additional commentary. That is to say, it is not a secondary source. Basically, there's a weird space that exists between primary and secondary. In this case, I would analogise it to if someone recreated the Mona Lisa. Technically, it's a different piece of art, but it's also definitely not. I'll note here also, there is also room on WP for using primary sources, but they're generally avoided when a secondary is available. And there are a lot of actual secondary sources about gender inequality, so it wouldn't be appropriate here. There was actually another issue with having the description of the study. In this article's case, it causes issues around due weight, which is a common problem with using primary sources (hence why I didn't state it separately).

Although I appreciate you requesting clarification (and it's absolutely best practice), in future it may be better to start a discussion on the article's talk page. It means that, in the future, other people will be able to see why things happened one way instead of another. If you're concerned that the person won't see it, you can use a template like {{u}} or link the person's name directly, e.g. User:Xurizuri, which will notify them. Apologies if you already knew that, and if not, I hope it helps. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Eger

Hi Xurizuri, I saw this edit. Does living=no imply that she is supposedly dead? That is not correct, she is very much alive. Kattiel (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kattiel, oh no that was a mistake - I was switching needs-infobox to no on the projects and I must have edited the wrong field. Thank you for picking that up! --Xurizuri (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kattiel (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of RfC on Periodic table

Hi. You have just recently closed ([Feb 4, 2022, 10:32]) the Rfc about the periodic table in the lede rfc. I just wanted to let you know that you are supposed to sign the summary message so it's visible who have closed it. Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh damn it I must've forgotten, I'll add {{unsigned}} now. Thank you for letting me know! --Xurizuri (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hi-wa itck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heartbreak.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dyslexia

please discuss on article talk first, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa, I'm assuming you're referring to the merge tags notifying people of the merge discussion that I put on the Dyslexia article, that you removed. Part of the process of discussing a merge is to put merge tags on the article because it alerts editors and readers to the merge discussion so that people can participate in it. It doesn't need to be discussed on the talk page, because it is a sitewide procedure that aids discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, however the article your suggesting to merge is too much and deserves its own article[3], as it currently is --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa, because it makes it harder for other people to participate when discussion is spilt, please keep discussion of whether or not the articles should merge at Talk:Dyslexia#Characteristics of dyslexia merge. Returning to the point at hand, until the merge discussion is finished, I would like to leave the merge tag on the article so that people will be able to participate. We would remove the tags again after we know what the consensus is. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes I answered over at article/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie10aaaa, given that it's the normal process for discussing merges, do you mind if I put the merge tag back on the article? --Xurizuri (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xurizuri, allow me some time to improve Characteristics of dyslexia as I have been doing per Wikipedia:Article development I believe this to be an important article, I will then have it Wikipedia:Peer review when I am finished[4], thank you for your gracious time--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not related to the merge though. You're a very good article writer, so I believe you could definitely get it to a high standard, but the merge discussion is not about how well the article is written, it's about whether it's helpful to a reader to have a separate characteristics article. I'm happy for us to request advice from WikiProject Merge if you disagree about how the merge process works. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

again give me time to continue to improve Characteristics of dyslexia, thank you kindly--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, the merge proposal is not about the quality of the article. It is also not my decision anymore about whether to withdraw the proposal, because other people have participated. I am going to reinstate the merge tags. If you decide to keep interfering with the merge and remove the tags again, I'm going to request advice from WikiProject Merge on how to proceed. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

any text introduced must be MEDRS Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) source (please do not add text that is not)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you're referring to, could you explain? --Xurizuri (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTPAPER

This is a probably unimportant tangent about a comment you made a while ago. NOTPAPER says this:

"Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for readers with low-bandwidth connections and on mobile platforms, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style)."

Basically, NOTPAPER says we can and should have lots of separate articles. It does not actually support having any long articles, and it never has. In fact, when NOTPAPER was first added in March 2003, the advice for the size of an individual article would have required the current version of Dyslexia to be split into at least three pages. (This is because some web browsers back in 2003 refused to load more than 32K of content.) NOTPAPER is all about permitting as many individual articles as you want, not about having a smaller number of really long articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, thank you for clarifying that! I have no idea how I messed that one up that much. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that it's not your fault. Wikipedia seems to operate as a kind of Telephone game. The most common reason that an editor gets it wrong is: someone reasonably trustworthy told you the wrong answer. That editor probably got the wrong answer from someone else, who seemed equally trustworthy at that time.

This sort of not-quite-right rumor happens all the time. Compare, e.g., the actual text of WP:BRD against Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William E. Cross Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vandiver.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]