User talk:HLHJ

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, Further research is needed), 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]

	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]

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

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]

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, Pavement light), 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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, Conflicts of interest in academic publishing), 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, European pilchard), 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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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, Schloss Weilburg), 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]

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

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]

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]

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]