User talk:Nbauman

User talk:Nbauman/Archive 1

Hey there wiki-buddy! I'm hoping I can attract some interested folks to consider reviewing the Wikipedia page about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for Good Article status. As you may know, ALS is a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disease that quickly causes people to lose the ability to move, speak, and breathe. The Wikipedia page about ALS is read over 2,000 times each day in English alone, and often experiences spikes in traffic whenever a celebrity is diagnosed. There have recently been a number of genetic advances made in the space and some recent drug approvals, thanks in part to the momentum started by the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. I've been grinding away at it since early this year but keen to see it improve further, hope you'll consider! PaulWicks (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ankylosing spondylitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annulus fibrosus (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) 08:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 6 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP). 1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater. Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting. 11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Headbanging page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polyploid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclei. 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) 08:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Androgen deprivation therapy page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tunica intima may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The tunicae of blood vessels are 3 layers: an inner layer (the tunica intima), a middle layer (the [[tunica media]], and an outer layer (the [[tunica externa|tunica adventitia]]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Sunday August 17 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor). Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Health fair may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Association recommend against echocardiograms in asymptomatic adults without hypertension.<ref>[http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4220 Public Citizen. HealthFair

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Friedrich Sigmund Merkel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• from 1872), [[University of Königsberg|Königsberg]] (from 1883) [University of Göttingen|Göttingen]] (from 1885), and [[University of Rostock|Rostock]] (from 1872). At Göttingen, he worked under [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. what is this [4] You have made more than 8000 edits.

You added "Between 2000 and 2010, the number of patients in the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry increased from 21,000 to 26,000, and adjusted mortality decreased by 1.8% per year (95% CI, 0.5% to 2.7%). Males had a 19% (CI, 13% to 24%) lower adjusted risk for death than females. Median survival of children born and diagnosed with CF in 2010 is projected to be 37 years (CI, 35 to 39 years) for females and 40 years (CI, 39 to 42 years) for males if mortality remains at 2010 levels and more than 50 years if mortality continues to decrease at the rate observed between 2000 and 2010."

Ref says

"Between 2000 and 2010, the number of patients in the CFFPR increased from 21 000 to 26 000, median age increased from 14.3 to 16.7 years, and adjusted mortality decreased by 1.8% per year (95% CI, 0.5% to 2.7%). Males had a 19% (CI, 13% to 24%) lower adjusted risk for death than females. Median survival of children born and diagnosed with CF in 2010 is projected to be 37 years (CI, 35 to 39 years) for females and 40 years (CI, 39 to 42 years) for males if mortality remains at 2010 levels and more than 50 years if mortality continues to decrease at the rate observed between 2000 and 2010."

Are all your edits copied and pasted like this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also we should be using secondary rather than primary sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Review article page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but I removed your lengthy quote from the Valsartan/sacubitril talk page as I'm pretty sure it is a copyright violation. My understanding is that the limit for fair use is 50 words, and this was pretty close to 500.

Please accept my apology if my actions were in error. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly 98, thanks for being so courteous about it. I realized I might have been pushing it but I had good reasons for posting it.

I've never heard of a 50-word rule. I've heard of a 1,500-word rule that academic presses agreed to, for quoting each others' works. I've talked to copyright lawyers and they told me that there is no easy rule. You can't tell whether something is fair use until it's gone to court and a judge has decided. Here's what an authoritative legal publisher said:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html

The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. As a general rule, never: quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, take more than one chart or diagram, include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission, or quote more than one or two lines from a poem.

Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, copying 200 words from a work of 300 words wouldn't be fair use. However, copying 2000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair. It all depends on the circumstances.

To preserve the free flow of information, authors have more leeway in using material from factual works (scholarly, technical, and scientific works) than to works of fancy such as novels, poems, and plays.

In this case, Lehman had 15 one-paragraph reviews, and I quoted one of them. I would have linked to it directly, but I couldn't link to that one paragraph among the other 15. His blog is free on the Internet and not behind a paywall, so neither he nor the BMJ lost anything of commercial value by it. The BMJ actually tries to make their content available free whenever possible, and particularly on Wikipedia. They gave Wikipedia editors a significant number of free subscriptions. Lehman wrote that he wished that a particular article behind a paywall could be posted on Wikipedia, because it was important and everyone should see it. (I actually summarized it on Wikipedia.)

As you can tell if you read his piece, he really disliked the idea that Novartis was exaggerating the merits of a drug in a poorly-designed trial, and that lots of people were falling for it, and he wants to get the word out. He's a doctor, who gets a salary from the NIH. He doesn't get paid for clicks.

And as Nolo wrote, this is a scientific work, and I'm definitely promoting the free flow of scientific information, so I have even more leeway.

I was pretty sure that Lehman wouldn't mind my copying that section, and would probably be glad I did it. I thought that putting it in talk was a good way to have everyone read it and understand what the problems were with this entry.

So given those circumstances, I think it was acceptable fair use.

But I'm not going to make an issue of it. --Nbauman (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to take this off the article Talk page. When you were arguing to expand the back-and-forth of opinion over the paradigm trial, I was guessing that you had an axe to grind, since that is typically the motivation for such discussions. And indeed when you wrote this and then this, you made it clear that: a) you see mainstream scientific publishing as corrupt; and b) your goal here in WP is to teach readers how to see through the corruption; c) mainly by generating content based on editorial/commentary sources that you select on your own authority, that expose the corruption. This whole string of logic is a POV and your certainty about it has no place here - and it being a WP:FRINGE POV at that (fringe, by definition, since it rejects mainstream scientific publishing as corrupt) -- is going to make life hard for you here in WP. As I mentioned on the Talk page, I suggest you check that POV at the login page. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Richard Horton represents a fringe view? --Nbauman (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry but what are you talking about in particular? i'm unwilling to make blanket proclamations (e.g. I was only commenting on the POV i mentioned above, not you globally). I can tell you that very esteemed people have gone to the fringe on this issue. For example Marcia Angell has gone way over the deep end on the "corrupting influence of pharma" - I heard her talk once and i was blown away by the level of bullshit-slinging she has sunk to, to make her points. there are valid issues but painting it black is a move that leads directly to the fringe. so what line of thinking of Horton's are you asking me to comment on? Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, said about medical publishing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_%28editor%29#Peer_review

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

Do you think that Horton's viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint? (And there are many other journal editors who have said the same thing). I'm not asking whether you agree or disagree. I'm asking whether you think it's a fringe viewpoint.--Nbauman (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you want to pin him to the wall of a strong statement he made 14 years ago. hm. i think his continued work and ascent in the field of scientific publishing is all the refutation needed that he does not view scientific publishing as a corrupt enterprise. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pinning him to the wall. He still believes that. He's been repeating it ever since [5] and he never retracted it, even when publications and doctors at lectures continue to quote him. I've read his recent writings. Larry Husten[6] just collected Horton's recent tweets on the subject and Horton says clearly that companies regard journal publications as "marketing".

Do you think Horton's viewpoint, as he currently believes it, is a fringe viewpoint? --Nbauman (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so you picked testimony from 5 years later - 9 years ago. Yet he soldiers on. One wonders how he lives with himself. How do you suppose he does? Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and by the way, let's not forget this paper by drug discovery scientists at Bayer (and see this discussion) and this paper by drug discovery scientists at Amgen and this subsequent action by Nature, which is at least trying to do something about this problem. You have a wonderfully litigator-like style, but let me cut to the chase. The scientific publishing process is what it is. Like every single human endeavor that has ever existed, it definitely has flaws. Is it a stinking pile of horseshit that we should treat as such? That is a fringe view. The PARADIGM study was what it was. On a personal level, I am very very curious how regulators will treat it. (they are the ones who matter most of all) But here at WP, MEDRS governs how we source things. We try to communicate to the public what the mainstream scientific community describes as True, as expressed in review articles and statements by major medical and scientific bodies (none of which will be perfect shining jewels revealing disinterested Truth but which the WP community has judged are the best things our human and flawed institutions can produce), and as best as we can grasp and communicate it. Doing that skips over the hew and cry over and any specific WP:PRIMARY source, which do not and should not matter here. They are not what we are about, writing an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i failed to acknowledge the 2012 tweets. yep he is still saying similar things. everything i said above still holds. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your answer. I'll simplify my question. Richard Horton said that drug companies regard their randomized, controlled trials in major peer reviewed journals as marketing. Is that viewpoint, which is held by many other editors of major medical journals, a fringe viewpoint? All I want is a yes or no. --Nbauman (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you want X and I want Y. i will humor you. It is absolutely true that scientific publications are an essential means for companies bringing new products to market, to communicate to their relevant stakeholders (which include doctors and payors) what their products do, good and bad. If early results for CAR-T being developed by Juno, Novartis, and others hold up in phase III trials, we will find out about it from scientific publications. Is that process open to manipulation? Sure. Do academic scientists try to win their next grant by spinning their data when they publish? heck yes. (and btw, bench science in industry is generally more rigorous than it is in academia; which i acknowledge is a different story from publication of clinical trial results) do talking heads make money and draw eyeballs (in other words, make money) by making strong claims this way or that way? heck yes. pretty much everybody except regulators has something at stake. Are any one of those voices (each with many individual voices within it) corrupt? That is a fringe POV. and in the midst of all that messy human pursuit of self-interest, we somehow get by. imagine that. but again, none of that has anything to do with MEDRS and your effort to import all that mess into WP is not what we do here. That is what I want - that we do WP's work, here in WP. maybe you will humor me.Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i will also say that i am so so happy that the ACA provided money to AHRQ to do comparative effectiveness studies! we so need that. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only "yes" I saw in there was this: "Are any one of those voices (each with many individual voices within it) corrupt? That is a fringe POV."

So you're saying that it is a fringe POV to say that any of the voices in medical publishing are corrupt? Do you mean the mainstream view is that none of the voices are corrupt? --Nbauman (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see my reply to you in our other conversation. done here! good luck. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been following this conversation a little and the two cents I'll add is that if something is wrong with the science in a publication (which is ultimately what is insinuated with the "corruption" comment), it is not our place as editors to say so. We need another source such as another publication saying the methodology or conclusions were incorrect. Some people have a lot of trouble stopping themselves as to how far an editor can go for digging into a publication, especially when there is some POV about companies involved in the science. Studies associated with a company in some form can still be correct (or incorrect) so we first rely on peer-review to check that to a degree, and further studies to continue that commentary as much as we do with non-industry associated science. The tools are all there to handle concerns about "corruption" (rather the end result of it) without even having to bring it up. Sticking to the science can help you a lot in these topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair to nbauman, kingofaces, where we got "into it", was that nbauman wanted to have a great big section, something like this, providing published commentary on a published clinical trial (PMID 25176015) with the goal of countering what I believe he would call the advertising/spin of the original publication (sponsored by Novartis and three middle-listed authors from Novartis). So Nbauman wasn't putting his own OR in the article. from my perspective the overall WP:WEIGHT given to the publication of the clinical trial (a WP:PRIMARY source) was undue, and the selection of commentary to use, was OR. In the course of working that out, nbauman stated his POV on publication of clinical trial results, which I reacted to here, off the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I imagined there was a lot more going on as I didn't read into the background too much either, and didn't want to read into the situation more than the POV statement you pointed out. As you've seen as well Jytdog, there are some POVs out there like nbauman described that often get them into trouble as editors here. That's the comment I was mainly focusing on here as I was hoping my advice (or maybe reminder) could help Nbauman's future science content edits go a little smoother by focusing on what I described rather than the corruption POV. When done right, you're killing two birds with one stone (to the degree editors can at least) and checking the POV at the door too. Either way, that's my two cents on dealing with the POV, so I'll just leave it there intended as a piece of friendly advice for Nbauman. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, you're a PhD biologist, so you should you be able to understand this.

The core question here is whether it is a WP:FRINGE view (or idea) to say that articles about clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals are "marketing."

By definition, WP:FRINGE is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field".

This idea has been published by the editors of those same journals, such as Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, Marcia Angell, Jerome Kassirer, and John Ingelfinger, former editors of the NEJM, Richard Smith, former editor of BMJ, and others of similar stature, all of whom have described those articles as "marketing". I realize your field is entomology, but you should recognize that those are 3 of the top medical journals, by any measure. That's where I got the idea from, and I've had this explained to me by medical editors who were also medical doctors, so I don't think I'm getting this wrong.

(I explained this in detail at User_talk:Jytdog#Valsartan/sacubitril, and at Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril.)

Here's what I don't understand, and what I'd like to ask you: How can an idea be WP:FRINGE if it has been published in many articles in the Lancet, NEJM, and BMJ, and in articles by the editors of those same journals? --Nbauman (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why you can't hear this - what makes your claim describing "those articles as "marketing"" problematic, is the breadth and singularity of it. it's a gross oversimplification. as i said to you before if you were to nuance that I would have a different reaction. (and btw let me add that you are basically saying that the lead authors of the PARADIGM study ( and any other clinical trial you put under that umbrella) who are not Novartis employees, are under the control of Novartis' marketing department. zoiks.) Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a bit of a contentious issue burn-out right now, so I'm not going to wade into the long history and discussion going on here, but just comment on what I see at a glance as the main issues from an outside science sourcing background. It seems like you are looking to add criticism of a study. Is there a review article you are pulling this criticism from? If not, even in non MEDRS topics, I'd be extremely careful about using individuals like you listed as sources of criticism for a study. However, in a very MEDRS topic like this, I'd consider using their opinions undue weight almost right off the bat. They may be important people, but they are only a handful (even if they have a prestigious position). We need a review article to formerly summarize what the scientific community thinks in these topics to avoid that complication. If something was flawed in the study, a review article will cover why in a future publication. Until we have that, we don't know what kind of weight to give the criticisms (no idea if they're legit in our position as Wikipedia editors), so we would normally hold off on criticisms until that time. Nothing wrong with waiting for more work to come out before adding the review's info as that's the nature of science anyways.

On a more general note, publications can indeed be used for marketing. I don't think anyone is denying that. From the way you are describing things, you are saying the publications in general can be used as marketing. Nothing incorrect there. If my read is correct on the situation though, you want to take that general idea, and apply it to a very specific study. Going from the general to specific would start going into fringe territory (really more original research though) without reliable sources saying the specific study had such issues. I think that concern is largely moot though as, even if a study was used as marketing, that's pretty much completely irrelevant to us as editors. Whether it was used for marketing or not tells us nothing about the validity of the study or acceptance in the scientific community, and that's what really matters.

I'd also like to point out my posting here wasn't meant as "piling on" at all. This is a topic I deal with in agricultural related articles as well, so I was hoping to give you some pointers on dealing with concerns of industry involvement, nothing more. If industry involvement is a concern for you, then that still brings you back to the question (as an editor) of, "Documented in reliable sources, were the findings in this study valid, and are they accepted by the scientific community?" That's the question that ultimately determines whether edits stick in these topics, while focusing on industry involvement can be a distraction from that ultimate question. If you think industry involvement somehow made the study invalid, then skip all that concern and go straight to the main question everyone else is supposed to be asking anyways. Either way, that's more like my 25 cents now, so I'm just leaving this here as pointers as a passing commenter. Good luck. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, you've attacked me personally, which violates WP:CIVILITY, by accusing me of POV editing, without even talking to me first. You've distorted my words, by confusing statements that I've cited from WP:RS with my own beliefs. You accused me of saying things that I never said, such as accusing people of "corruption."

I'm trying to figure out how you could possibly come to these false conclusions, or if there's any truth to them, and when I ask you, rather than either giving me an explanation or retracting them, you say that you're in a "burn-out" now, and don't have any more time. If you don't have time, then just admit that you don't have all the facts and you shouldn't have said anything.

(For the record, you say that we should wait for a peer-reviewed article to uncover flaws. Things don't work that way. This month, a study in JAMA doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9646 looked up all the studies in the medical literature that had a second, independent group reanalyze them. They found five. By your criteria, there would only be five articles in the entire medical literature that Wikipedia could accept to criticize a study.) --Nbauman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: An article on industry influence on clinical trials. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1898873 Industry Collaboration and Randomized Clinical Trial Design and Outcomes Nitin Roper, Nasen Zhang, Deborah Korenstein JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1695-1696. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3590. --Nbauman (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, this edit was made a few minutes ago. I know what I would do with it but held back, to come and talk with you about it. What would you do? Let's see just how much we are on the same page or not, on an edit neither of us originated, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page, I've given up trying to argue with you. I have nothing more to say to you at least until you retract those uncivil, insulting, false charges that I'm POV pushing fringe views. Now you're encouraging pile-ons from editors like Kingofaces43. My last advice for you is that you might look through your attacks on me here for certainty and so forth, and consider whether it actually applies to you. Since it does. --Nbauman (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this wasn't an attempt to argue at all, but instead to reconcile by trying to work on something neither of us had touched. and i had nothing to do with kingofaces commenting here. Good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh, btw, as far as I can see, you didn't disagree with my description of your perspective in my initial edit above, where I wrote that "you made it clear that: a) you see mainstream scientific publishing as corrupt; and b) your goal here in WP is to teach readers how to see through the corruption; c) mainly by generating content based on editorial/commentary sources that you select on your own authority, that expose the corruption. " If I got something wrong there, I am indeed sorry about that and if you care to tell me, i would be interested to hear. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Medical assistant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• community colleges have successful programs where graduates make more than $25,000 a year.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/upshot/medical-assistant-programs-a-case-study.html When Higher

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ed Miliband may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• called Hamas a terrorist organization, and criticized its “wholly unjustified rocket attacks.”<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/world/europe/milibands-embrace-of-jewish-heritage-complicates-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caucasus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• The '''Caucasus''' {{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|ɔ:|k|ə|s|ə|s}} or '''Caucasia''' {{IPAc-en|k|ɔ:|ˈ|k|eɪ|ʒ|ə} is a region at the border of [[Europe]] and [[Asia]], situated between

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. Thursday December 4 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 6:30pm–8pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

A discussion in which you may be interested is occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in which you may be interested is occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've visited it, but you may also be interested in checking-out and/or monitoring Sabrina Erdely which is attracting a large volume of sanitizing IP editors. BlueSalix (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So far, those IP editors are actually posting non-public, personal information on a third party. Another member of the Oversight team has suppressed the edits - Alison ^❤ 22:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I removed your edit there. Since we already have a main article (Essex Crossing), and the Essex Crossing article is more detailed regarding the Met Council corruption, I don't think it's good to put so much detail at the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty article. Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I disagree. (1) The article on Essex Crossing is a promotional piece, most of which doesn't belong in Wikipedia, because it is predicting future events which according to most WP:RS aren't likely to happen. The "Political controversy" section in Essex Crossing doesn't even get into the controversy in much detail, compared to its coverage in WP:RSs. (2) People who want information about the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty should get it on the page; they shouldn't have to click onto a link. The controversies over the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty and its political influence have been discussed widely in WP:RS, especially in the Jewish newspapers, which gives it weight. If you don't think it should go in, you should follow WP:NOCONSENSUS and leave it in until you get consensus on the talk page to delete it. --Nbauman (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Essex Crossing article isn't promotional or synthesis, actually, because it details plans that sourced per WP:IRS, and construction is already happening so it isn't "future". Anyway, WP:NOCONSENSUS can't work with two people; since this would create an impasse, BRD should be followed instead. Every single detail of the Met Council's involvement in the Essex Crossing project shouldn't be explained in the Met Council article, so that's why I'd removed it. The text in the Essex Crossing article "doesn't even get into the controversy in much detail" because it's a split from this article and very few additional details can be found. Epicgenius (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a new discussion at Talk:Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty. Feel free to discuss there. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources you cited in Essex Crossing are primary sources, which aren't WP:RS. Other sources, like The Villager, are newspaper articles, which basically repeat press releases, and don't seem to be fact-checked much. The New York Times story by Bagli says it might not go through if the mayor after Bloomberg doesn't support it. And the ethnic politics is a major part of the story, as the Times describes it, and should go in both the Met Council and the Essex Crossing article. --Nbauman (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!). Saturday February 7 Black Life Matters Editathon (RSVP). 12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hi Nbauman, I highly recommend the following source. in my view, it is one of the most brilliantly insightful and deeply-penetrating criticisms of the film: Janet Weil, Gunman As Hero, Children As Targets, Iraq As Backdrop: A Review of ‘American Sniper’, published at Antiwar.com. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the type of reference section that we talked about previously. Feel free to comment here. Thank you. David A (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another user is currently attempting to remove or slant all of the criticism section references. I would greatly appreciate your assistance. Thank you. David A (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in contributing to this complaint: [7] David A (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here David A (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC 2015

You are invited to join us at Barnard College for Wikipedia Day NYC 2015, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference for the project's 14th birthday. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. Sunday March 22 Wikipedia Day NYC 2015 (RSVP on-wiki or at bit.ly/wikidaybarnard). 10:00pm - 9:00 pm at Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, by W 118th St We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday April 29, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our inaugural evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday April 29 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month on Lady Librarians & Feminist Epistemologies! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

You may wish to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#This_page_being_used_to_support_wikilawyering. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On this note Nbauman, I really appreciate what you said here [8] so eloquently, and wholeheartedly agree. A related essay I wrote on this matter is WP:ANATSIMPLIFY. It is sometimes quite frustrating to see attempts at technical accuracy destroy readability. --Tom (LT) (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I agree so much the quote is now on my user page, please let me know if you'd like me to take it down, --Tom (LT) (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your fine work throughout many medical articles making them easier for lay readers to understand. Well done (and please consider also editing the related set of anatomy articles =P!). Tom (LT) (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Abraham Joshua Heschel page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday June 10, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our next evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on our agenda: recent and upcoming editathons, the organization's Annual Meeting, and Chapter board elections. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday June 10 WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small addition to the blueberry article, which was almost immediately swatted down. I saw that you had a lengthy discussion with the same user (Zefr), and came to the conclusion that you might be able to help out. Could you do me the favor of taking a quick look at the change I made and maybe offer some rewording advice? I'm not exactly sure where I might have gone wrong.

Chango369w (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nbauman. Thanks for your reply. I'm in agreement with both Zefr and yourself. I'll review the relevant WP:xxx articles carefully before I add in any research related content going forward. I'm looking at this as a learning opportunity! Thanks again. Chango369w (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simple way to put it is, anything you read in a review article would meet WP:MEDRS. --Nbauman (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday July 8, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month will also feature on a review of past and upcoming editathons, including Black Lunch Table Editathon @ MoMA on July 13. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday July 8 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday August 2 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP) (also on meetup.com) 1pm–7pm - come by any time! @ Bartel-Pritchard Square entrance (Prospect Park West and 15th St), immediately on the lawn to your left as you walk through the lovely lotus columns. Subway: ​ to 15th Street – Prospect Park (IND Culver Line) We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] (Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday August 19 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

am curious if you ever read this and know about it... Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday September 16, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. This month, we will also host a Newcomer's Wiki Workshop for those getting started on the encyclopedia project! We hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday September 16 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] Bonus events, RSVP now for our latest upcoming editathons: September 20 - Afrocrowd Wikipedia editathon @ Queens Library October 3 - WikiArte Latin America editathon @ MoMA October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Tofacitinib page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday October 3: WikiArte Latin America Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

You are invited to join us for a full Saturday (drop-in any time!) of social Wikipedia editing at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for our upcoming "WikiArte" Latin America Edit-a-thon, for Wiki Arte y Cultura Latinoamericana, a communal day of creating, updating, improving, and translating Wikipedia articles about Latin American art and culture. Saturday October 3 WikiArte Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 11:00am - 5:00 pm (drop-in anytime!) at MoMA Cullman Education and Research Building, 4 West 54th Street All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. We will provide training sessions and resources for beginner Wikipedians, WiFi, reference materials, and suggested topics, as well as childcare and refreshments. Please bring your laptop, power cord, and ideas for articles that need to be updated, translated, or created. You are welcome to edit all day or drop by to show your support, and to follow #WikiArte on social media! Trainings for new and less experienced Wikipedia editors will be offered (in English) at 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. Tutorials and resources in Spanish will be available online, and participants are also encouraged to work on the Spanish and Portuguese language editions of Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] P.S. Next event, October 15 - Women in Architecture editathon @ Guggenheim

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim

You are invited to join us for a full afternoon and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture. Saturday October 15 Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). noon - 8pm (drop-in anytime!) at Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Garrett Lobby @ 1071 5th Ave by E 88 St In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon— to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both. The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome. Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thursday October 15: Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim

You are invited to join us for a full day and evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Guggenheim (drop-in any time, noon-8pm!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles covering the lives and works of women in architecture. Thursday, October 15 Women in Architecture Edit-a-thon @ Guggenheim (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). noon - 8pm (drop-in anytime!) at Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Garrett Lobby @ 1071 5th Ave by E 88 St In conjunction with Archtober and New York Archives Week, the Guggenheim will host its third Wikipedia edit-a-thon—or, #guggathon—to enhance articles related to women in architecture on Wikipedia. The Guggenheim aims to further the goals of Ada Lovelace Day for STEM, and Art+Feminism for art, in a field that, by its nature combines both. The Guggenheim will work alongside ArchiteXX, the founders of WikiD: Women Wikipedia Design #wikiD, the international education and advocacy program working to increase the number of Wikipedia articles on women in architecture and the built environment. New and experienced editors are welcome. Can’t join us in New York? Visit our global partnerships page to discover an edit-a-thon in a city near you or simply join remotely. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hi NB. I've made a start on adding detail on the point you made about Turing's closed distribution of Daraprim, at Martin Shkreli#Turing Pharmaceuticals. I'd be grateful if you could correct any errors or omissions I've made. Thanks, Norvoid (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Userpage Barnstar
		Thank you for teaching me to be a better writer. Your suggestions are not only insightful for Wikipedia, but for scientific publications as a whole. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]