User talk:Biochemistry&Love

Welcome!
Hello, Biochemistry&#38;Love, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

A kitten for you!
Thanks for you contributions in the cat-egory of pharmacology! Feel free to come on back to IRC if you have any further questions.

Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  05:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC) 

07:12:17, 16 May 2017 review of submission by Nate.stancil
Hi  Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   Thanks for reviewing this and adding your notes! Apologies for my mistakes (I'm still new here :))

1) I've went ahead and corrected the cited cited coverage that was not in accordance with WP:BIO and replaced it with a notable online resource with print backing. 2) I've deleted the last paragraph that was promotional in tone (apologies it was not my intention)

3) I've changed the position of reference 6 that mentions Michael Tuts (From The Guardian) so it will corresponds with his name (my bad).

Please let me know if anything else seems out of place! Would love to get you to re-review this and hopefully approve :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate.stancil (talk • contribs) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nate.stancil: Thanks for reaching out to me! No need to apologize; I'm fairly new myself! (: I don't know when I'll get to looking at it next (there are a lot of other articles in need of review), but you'll know if I do. In the meantime, I would recommend that you ask for feedback at the Teahouse. There are a lot of experienced editors there that could probably help you with the article and improve its chances of getting approved next time around.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   17:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi  Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   Thanks for the tips! I went ahead and fixed it - would appreciate it if you could take another look :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate.stancil (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

14:58:35, 24 May 2017 review of submission by Annacarroll
Hi there I'm wondering if you have any recommendations on how to improve the page to get it submitted. I've looked into comparable pages/organisations such as the British Property Federation who seem to have similar sources in that they come from the BPF itself. There are a few other articles where the BCA and BCA report are mentioned so I could try to add more citations, but maybe there is something else I could do by way of adding more detail as well? Please let me know if you have any tips! Annacarroll (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Annacarroll: Thank you for reaching out to me! I'd be happy to offer you some tips!


 * The biggest issue with the article at this time is that the subject, the Business Centre Association, does not yet appear to be notable. Before you proceed further with trying to get the article approved, first ask yourself: would someone outside of the BCA's local area be interested in it? E.g. a local ice cream shop is probably not "notable" to a non-local reader, but an ice cream shop chain would be, since it's relevant to the reader. If your answer to the question is "yes," then the problem likely isn't that the subject itself isn't notable--just that you haven't proved it yet.


 * In looking at the British Property Federation, I'm not sure that this page would have been approved if it went through the process today. The only potentially notable reference listed there is the memorandum from publications.parliament.uk.


 * To demonstrate notability, you need to include significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject of the article itself. It's okay to have sources that come from the organization, it's just that those sources don't help prove the notability of the organization. E.g. a local ice cream shop could claim on its website to be "world-renowned," but that doesn't exactly prove that it really is. However, if The New York Times published an article about it, you might start to think that the claims were credible; perhaps this ice cream shop really is world-renowned.


 * Currently, the article only has the following sections:
 * Research and Publications
 * Business Rates
 * BCA Conference
 * BCA Awards


 * I would suggest adding the following (if you can find sources for it):
 * Explain in the lead section why the article is notable. Is it just another trade association? Or is it something notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia?
 * Add an infobox to organize some of the basic content. I would suggest adding the organization infobox.
 * Add a History section. How did the organization begin? Who founded it, and for what purpose? Where was it founded? Has it changed over time?
 * Add a Structure section. Who makes up this organization? Who leads it?


 * I did some research for you as well. Here's some advice:
 * Include information from here. It seems to help establish the notability of the BCA as well. Note how it says, "The Business Centre Association (BCA) is the only UK trade association representing the flexible space sector." The part that says "the only" is especially important; it demonstrates how important and unique the BCA is. If you can find some other independent, reliable sources that speak to that point, I think that would demonstrate its notability.
 * Include information from this. Within, you have a member of parliament, Julian Sturdy, quoting something from the BCA. Definitely good material for helping to demonstrate notability.


 * I hope that helps for the time being. See what other research you can find. Based on what I've briefly read, it looks like the organization is definitely encyclopedia-worthy; you just have to show it. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   16:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

08:41:18, 25 May 2017 review of submission by 14.139.60.97
I agree that such studies should be well supported by international readers as well, but thats happening with time, as sometimes it takes plenty of time to accept results from developing country, but you can see it has already been accepted in international journals, since concept is noval and require comments from international readers. It is galvanic cell and I agree that electricity is not from water alone, which is clear from chemical reaction provided. That part and few loose claims should be modified. I have removed loose claims and unreliable references and you may kindly recheck the article before I resubmit. As I have personally done this experiment and it works, and thus it will be really useful if it reaches to masses.
 * Thank you for reaching out to me! You're Ved varun, correct? Please edit using your account, instead of your IP address, so that it's easier to communicate back and forth with you.
 * It sounds like there may be a conflict of interest here, since you've both performed this experiment and are trying to distribute it to the "masses." The article seems promotional in nature as well. If you have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose, please add them to your user page.
 * Looking at the article again, it still does not look like you have supported your claims with reliable sources. For example, you write that "Its usage would significantly reduce urban pollution," but there's no citation for that claim. Furthermore, your cited sources don't actually support the text that you're referencing. For example, you write that "Due to its structure and types of materials it utilize for its construction, it is been projected as a novel and reliable power generation source," citing Tsoi et al. Chem. Mater., 2006, 18 (22), pp 5260–5266. I've read that article, and it never once mentions HECs. Can you point to the paragraph in that article that supports the claim you made? Why did you cite this article for that claim? Surely you can understand how it may seem disingenuous from my standpoint.
 * Also, as I mentioned in my comments on the draft, please refer to MOS:CHEM to correctly format your chemical formulas. Specifically, Manual_of_Style/Chemistry.
 * When looking for reliable sources, note that you cannot use primary literature. Whether or not HECs have been published in "international journals" is irrelevant; you need to cite independent, secondary sources (e.g. review articles). Otherwise, that violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   16:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Kamal Asgar
I have restored a non- copyvio version, I hope. Could you look it over to make sure I missed nothing?Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks pretty self-promotional. Wikipedia is not an extension of LinkedIn. See WP:NOTPROMO. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:00:31, 2 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Annacarroll
Hi there I think my text in this comment got deleted sorry about that! Thank you very much for the helpful suggestions - I'm wondering if you'd be willing to give it another look before I resubmit and see if it's up to standards? It does look much better now with the infobox and added sections but I worry the sources may still be lacking. Thank you! Annacarroll (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * @Annacarroll: Thanks for touching base! You need to cite the new content; e.g. the quote about being "the only trade association representing the flexible space sector in the UK." Otherwise, it's plagiarism. Use your own words as well. Define what the "flexible space sector" is within the lead paragraph, for readers that aren't familiar with it. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed A7 on Hippolytus Anthony Kunnunkal
I've removed your CSD tag on Hippolytus Anthony Kunnunkal. Being a Catholic bishop is a clear claim of significance. You are free to take this to AfD if you want, but it would likely be kept, diocesan bishops are almost always notable, and doing a quick Google search turned up enough sources that makes him look like he passes GNG to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni: Thanks for dropping by! (: Per your prompting, I found WP:NBISHOP. It seems like it should be likely for him to be notable, but I didn't see significant, independent coverage by reliable sources when I Googled him. There was an official looking Catholic Church website, but I didn't think that would be independent. Did you see any good sources when you Googled him yourself? ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   17:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is English-language coverage of him starting the first translation of the Bible into Kashmiri, which I've added to the article. You have some other coverage of him collaborating with Mother Teresa and coverage of him in Google books based on religious histories of the Capuchin missions and religious histories of the region as well. These are just the quick English-language sources I found, not counting any non-English or in print. Regardless, being a bishop is a claim of significance even if sourcing is not provided. Notability can be questioned at AfD, but speedy deletion isn't appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni: I think you've made some great points! (: I sincerely appreciate your help in resolving this matter with me.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   17:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I noticed it because I've worked with that user before on some copyright issues on South Asian bishops and other things before. If you come across a Christian cleric (Catholic or otherwise), where you have questions about notability or other issues, please feel free to reach out, especially if they are from regions that lack a native anglophone majority. I can typically get them up to an acceptable stub level, and have no problem sending them to AfD if they don't meet our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni: I appreciate the offer! (: I'll be sure to enlist your advice the next time I come across something like that. I appreciate your cordiality as well.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   17:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Clinical pharmaceutical scientist
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Over-the-counter counseling
Alex ShihTalk 00:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Regrelor
Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit Confusion on Anisha Talk Page
Hi, just wanted to report that I am OK with your rollback. I got alarmed with a link called "Rollback Vandal". I thought I was getting tagged as Vandal, and I clicked it thinking it would take me to a Wikipedia policy page. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I was concerned that the notice might confuse the editor who had submitted the article, since it technically hasn't been reviewed yet. No ill will intended :) Thanks, /wiae /tlk  18:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Finafloxacin
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Clinafloxacin
Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Fawad Khan for DYK
Hi Biochemistry&Love, I've nominated Fawad Khan for DYK. It'd be kind of you to consider reviewing it (Template:Did you know nominations/Fawad Khan). Thanks Amirk94391 (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! I've reviewed your nomination, made edits to the article in question, and marked your nomination for approval. Cheers! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! thank you so so much for approving Fawad Khan for DYK and making necessary changes.Amirk94391 (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

US/UK spellings
Hi, Biochemistry&Love. You made this edit to correct a misspelling, specifically "labelling"->"labeling". This is actually a dialect difference; British English (and Australian and Canadian English, less consistently) double the last consonant when using some suffixes, I think because the sound is repeated in pronounciation ("label-ling"). Now I totally do not care what spelling variants are used, but some editors really, really, really care, so I thought I'd let you know before you run up against one. Official policy is to not edit war about it or gratuitously change style within an article: Manual of Style/Spelling. Since the article in question does not have a consistent dialect (using "metabolize" and "metabolise", for instance), which is probably my fault, there is nothing at all wrong with your edit, and this note is in no way intended to criticize you. HLHJ (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about the error; I was not aware of that specific difference! I appreciate your time in providing me with an excellent explanation. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   04:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Collaborative practice agreement
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Collaborative practice agreement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing to review the article! I look forward to working with you in the future. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   21:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise! I'm doing some minor copyediting, but I'll be posting some stuff in the review page. Cheers, MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 01:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Collaborative practice agreement
The article Collaborative practice agreement you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Collaborative practice agreement for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Template:WikiProject Pharmacology topicon/doc
Draft:Template:WikiProject Pharmacology topicon/doc, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Template:WikiProject Pharmacology topicon/doc and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Template:WikiProject Pharmacology topicon/doc during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Collaborative practice agreement
The article Collaborative practice agreement you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Collaborative practice agreement for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MX -- MX (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Your GA nomination of Rabeprazole
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rabeprazole you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message, Tom! Looking forward to working with you. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   16:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Munson Runge
Hi, just to note that due to a need to swap some nomiinations round, I have moved this to Queue 1 so it will be on the Main Page in about ... 34 minutes. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries; thank you for the update! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   23:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Munson Runge
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Elizabeth Marshall (pharmacist)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

19:07:37, 7 December 2017 review of submission by 86.190.193.191
I am requesting a re-review of this Draft Submission for Gay Bryant. I looked it up as I was told that it mentions me, accurately as it happens. I was surprised to find that it had been rejected by "Biochemistry & Love (new section)" because it did not meet the "minimum standard for inline citations". This surprised me because Gay Bryant is a successful and noted journalist and editor, perhaps best known for popularising the concept of "the glass ceiling". Her work does not seem to have anything to do with "Biochemistry & Love"! I'm not familiar with the criterion for inline citations, but I would be surprised if Ms. Bryant's citations did not meet a reasonable standard in an appropriate category such as Editors. My own Wiki entry is ED_Berman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.193.191 (talk • contribs) 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there, and thank you for stopping by my Talk Page. The page to which you are referring still lacks in-text citations. In-text citations are citations that are made after each sentence of text used within the article. This requirement has nothing to do with the notability of a subject. Please read WP:BLP for more information. At this time, the article still lacks in-text citations, so it doesn't warrant a re-review. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   16:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rabeprazole
The article Rabeprazole you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rabeprazole for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Collaborative practice agreement
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Zafirlukast
Mifter (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rabeprazole
Hello! Your submission of Rabeprazole 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) 22:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Azeloprazole
Mifter (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Refs
Per WP:MEDMOS refs are fine in the lead. Thus restored them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was under the impression that we should generally be getting rid of those and incorporating them into the text if they weren't there already! WP:MEDMOS doesn't seem to directly reference citing in the lead, referencing WP:LEAD instead. There, under WP:LEADCITE, it does mention that "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article," so I believe my intuition was wrong about this! Thank you for helping to point that out. I know that WP:PHARMMOS doesn't comment on the subject. I think I'll still look through leads for material that isn't found in the body, but perhaps leave the lead-citations. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   07:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Rabeprazole
Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red
I'm glad to see you've now become an official member of WiR. I see you have already contributed two new biographies of historic pharmacists. I hope there will be many more. I ever you need assistance or run into any problems, let me know or post a message on the WiR talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for the welcome! I sincerely appreciate your kind words and offer! Take care! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   22:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Earwax
Thanks but take a look at this please: WP:NOTHOWTO. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation of the removal of the Administration section on cerumenolytics. Do you have any suggestions for writing about such things? It'd be nice to be able to describe the process of ototopical administration. Examples would be really helpful for me. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   18:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't specialise in medicine but we don't generally give anything that could be seen as "how to" or a list of instructions. We say something like x is generally done using y with the result z. Some people do a and get b. If you follow me. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarification. I've edited a sentence regarding administration, generalizing from the steps in the source. May I please have your thoughts on the modification? ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   19:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks and  Comparing to many other articles where ear/eye drops are used or even inhalers and many surgical procedures etc, this is good. Try writing 2 or 3 sentences on what is recommended (from a reputable textbook) rather than a patient leaflet with 'this is how you do it'. I've had a search and can't find a perfect example for you but I'll surely send it you when I do. Regarding your modified sentence on administration...it's correct but that's not what it says in the source. Find a textbook or review article in an otolaryngology journal that explains administration...would be safer source.Whispyhistory (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to paraphrase from the leaflet (e.g. "Wash your hands thoroughly with soap and water" became "with respect for hand hygiene"), but I may have added more connotations than that which are evident from the source (e.g. "Check the dropper tip to make sure that it is not chipped or cracked" became "performing visual inspection for quality control purposes"). I'll see if I can find a more detailed source like the type you suggested.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed that bit. All we need to say is that the drops are administered to the ear. Also "Each instillation is relatively quick (less than 5 minutes) and can be done either at home or in a clinical setting" wasn't in the stated source. Be careful not to add references to your prior knowledge of the subject purely to make your opinion look stronger. You should start from the source and paraphrase what it says. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see--I guess we don't need to add more detailed information than that about the administration. I've removed the CN tag on that sentence, and quoted where the information is from within the source in my edit summary. (: ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Superficial vein thrombosis
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Flag
Hi, Biochemistry&#38;Love.

I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)

As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.

Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.

Cheers, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. I have submitted a request per your suggestion. Cheers! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   19:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Biochemistry&#38;Love. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

DYK for Cerumenolytic
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! I appreciate the shout-out. (: Keep up the good work! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   22:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Interrupted aortic arch
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Antipsychotic switching
--kewlgrapes (talk/contribs) 02:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lofexidine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cmax ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Lofexidine check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Lofexidine?client=notify 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) 09:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome
— Maile (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for thanking me for my edit. I always love it when I am shown appreciation. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Your work is appreciated. Keep fighting the good fight! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   01:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on possessive suffixes in wikilinks
Prompted by your edit here, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Daask (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice, and for starting a discussion! ―  Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   14:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

CfD query
Hi. The instructions for making a CFD block nomination are here: WP:CFD > section 3.1 > Nomination procedure > Manual nominations > the para beginning "If a group of similar categories..." To propose the change you want you would have to tag every category that includes the expression "committed suicide", although in practice it looks as if those are mostly if not completely to be found under Category:Suicides by occupation. Good luck! Eustachiusz (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link! What I'm trying to figure out is if I should just rename the current discussion, strike out specific text, and amend it, or restart things. Is it allowed to change from a single to an umbrella nom after comments have already been received? ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   04:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand what you want to do but I'm afraid I don't know how to go about it - sorry. All I can suggest is that you ask the question in the open CfD. Eustachiusz (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flumezapine
Hello! Your submission of Flumezapine 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) 00:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in study
Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hotel IP Block
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How long are you planning to be at the hotel? I'm wondering because I'm considering granting you a short term IP Block exemption and I will have to set an expiry time.
 * Thank you! Until the 26th. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   17:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Flumezapine
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Neem Oil (Azadirachtin) Poisoning hypothesis
Could you tell me what I did wrong with this addition. I cited PUBMED and another valid source for evidence.

The other evidence was to show that neem oil is used on cannabis and therefore there would be no medical evidence to cite for that.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.245.252 (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out to me! I would be happy to explain my reversion of your edit. You cited the following sources:
 * https://www.zamnesia.com/cannabis-grow-guide/110-neem-oil: not a reliable medical source.
 * https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/blog-neem-oil-the-organic-pesticide-of-choice-for-cannabis-n657: a blog; again, not a reliable medical source.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3841499/: this article does not reference cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, and is therefore irrelevant to the subject.
 * http://www.ajnr.org/content/31/7/E60: another irrelevant article, which does not reference cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.
 * None of the sources you presented actually described an alternative hypothesis for the pathogenesis of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, which I can only assume is, therefore, your own personal conjecture. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Just because something is indexed on PubMed doesn't mean that you can make up conclusions that the authors of the peer reviewed article didn't make themselves; furthermore, you should really be avoiding primary literature (which includes case reports). I would be happy to discuss this matter with you in greater detail on the talk page of the CHS article in question. Please create a discussion here. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thortspace notability criteria
Is inclusion in the Proceedings of British Computer Society Electronic Visualisation and Arts Conference London 2018 enough to now pass to notability criteria that you previously rejected? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thortspace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.112.49 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pharmacist-to-pharmacy technician ratio
Hello! Your submission of Pharmacist-to-pharmacy technician ratio 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! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Pharmacist-to-pharmacy technician ratio
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Chembox assistance
Howdy! Based on some of your recent edits and your interest in the Chemistry Project, I'm hoping you might be interested in helping me out with something. I'm working on building a Infobox based replacement for Chembox. I have a working proof of concept at Infobox chemical. Looking for some expert opinions and feedback. If you have any interest, please let me know. Feel free to disregard this message. :-) (P.S. Happy thanksgiving if you are in the USA!) -- Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warm holiday wishes! This work looks a little bit to technical for me, but I wish you luck with your endeavor! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   04:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Nomination of Olanzapine
I noticed that an IP User, 213.97.52.171, nominated the article for GA. Is that you or should the nomination be revoked?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping by! No, that IP User is not me. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   12:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright. I had to check if you accidentally nominated it without being signed in as you seemed to have been expanding it a bit last month. I guess if no one's claiming the article I'll have to revoke the nomination. Goodday  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Tardive
Hello - I'm posting this here since you invited me to ask you questions here. I notice that you un-linked the word "tardive" on the tardive dyskinesia article with the note that the link was unnecessary. The reason I linked it was that I wondered why that disorder is called tardive dyskinesia, not knowing what "tardive" means and there being no explanation in the article, so I did a web search and discovered that there is a Wikipedia article on the medical concept of "tardive". That's why I linked it: because it would have been useful for me if it had been linked! Also, the tardive article is otherwise an orphan. If it is not linked to the tardive dyskinesia article, it really ought to be deleted because there's no better use for it than for it to be linked to that. And if there's no link from the tardive dyskinesia article to the tardive article, then the TD article needs to say what "tardive" means. Better to just link to the tardive article though, I think. Cheers! Cincinnatus c (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out; I apologize for the dreadfully late reply. As the word "tardive" is definitional in this context, I see no need to break it down. I agree that the tardive article seems fairly useless at the moment. Thanks! ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   13:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for SEP-363856
Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Your advice on Bruno Reversade’s article
Hi. Can you please take a look at Draft:Bruno Reversade? He is a developmental biologist and human geneticist, who works as a Director of the Institute of Medical Biology at Agency for Science, Technology and Research (Singapore). He is known for identifying mutated genes that cause Mendelian diseases in humans and for his research on the genetics of identical twins.

This article is a properly stated conflict of interest (COI) contribution. The reviewing editor highlighted WP:NPOV issues that I tried to resolve following advice from 2 senior editors at my talk page. While the article is still at the review phase, I would like to get a second (and professional) opinion to ensure that the issues, indeed, were resolved. Please tell what could/should be improved in the article. Thanks. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I apologize for the late reply. I have reviewed the article in question and made edits per your request. Cheers.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   02:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Levieve
Given that Wikipedia exists to provide valuable information to the general public and I submitted information in regards to a few psychoactive substances, based on my company's findings, it makes no sense to remove them due to "conflict of interest." I have no idea where you got the idea that there is a conflict of interest by submitting scientific information to very vague Wikipedia articles that are not very helpful to begin with. If it were a biography or in regards to the reputation of a company, then I would understand. It would be better if you don't make any contributions to the biochemistry/ pharmaceutical side of Wikipedia, given you. Who in their right mind gave you the authority to delete Wikipedia contributions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levieve (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me on my Talk page. In the future, please leave new comments at the bottom in a separate section, and don't forget to sign your messages with " ~ ". In regard to your comment, please review the following page for a plain and simple description of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines: WP:PSCOI. In addition, please refrain from making personal attacks against me or any other editor, as this may lead to you being banned from Wikipedia. For more information, please see No personal attacks. I am happy to help new editors, but I will not tolerate personal attacks.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me grab the "plain and simple description", that you said applies to me, for everyone to see.

"Be transparent about your conflict of interest. Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors. Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space. The role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell. Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. State facts and statistics; don't be vague or general. Take time to get sources and policy right. Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your suggestions. Respect the volunteer community's time and avoid making protracted or repeated requests."

"Types of COI Further information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § What is conflict of interest? Article subjects or company owners: This places you in a conflict of interest, and you should refrain from editing affected articles. Instead, propose suggestions on article talk pages for other editors to review. Wikipedia is a public resource curated by a global community. You do not own the articles about yourself and they should reflect the available published literature on the subject, including criticism. That said, we take accuracy seriously and work hard to avoid undue harm to living people. Paid contract editors and paid-advocacy editing: The COI guideline advises: "If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." There is significant skepticism about the ability of paid contractors to work in alignment with Wikipedia's goals, and this kind of engagement often results in community and media backlash. Instead, propose suggestions on talk pages and at noticeboards for uninvolved editors to review. Avoid suggesting entire drafts in case these are carried into article space without adequate review; in the case of a commercial operation, a company draft risks the appearance of covert advertising. If you have an ethical or professional responsibility to edit Wikipedia to advance your client's or employer's interests, then you stand in a conflict of interest and should not edit affected articles directly, with or without disclosure. This advice applies to lawyers, public-relations representatives, corporate communicators, marketers, and others in a similar position. The Wikimedia Foundation regards paid advocacy as a "black hat" practice[2] and requires that all editors disclose any employers, clients, and affiliations for any and all edits they would be paid for.[3]

Practices not regarded as COI Wikipedians-in-Residence (WIRs): Experienced and trusted Wikipedians often align themselves with an institution to facilitate common goals. WIRs can be paid, and that is not inherently a COI, as long as the objectives are aligned with Wikipedia's mission. If you are a Wikipedian in Residence, be careful not to take on the marketing or promotional goals of the organization; be a Wikipedian first, and always keep that in context. Disclosure is recommended when working on the Wikipedia articles about the host institutions themselves. Consultants for mission-aligned organizations: When an organization like an educational non-profit – one that largely shares our mission of sharing knowledge – seeks someone to help facilitate an informal collaborative relationship, that is often a mutually beneficial situation. These positions may be for-profit. Be careful of areas where missions are not aligned. Avoid even the appearance of impropriety by limiting scope to mission-aligned areas and using full disclosure for any potential areas of concern."

Explain which negative things stated above applied to my contributions? Let me grab the rule you accuse me of breaking specifically: "If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection."

I have no financial connection to the chemicals phenibut, tianeptine, piracetam and others. Additionally, there is no money associated with my contributions. As stated earlier, I only inserted factual findings which were discovered by PhDs. The articles are not about myself or the organization, I just cited the organization, which according to the page you linked, does not break any rules.

Be sure to do your research well, before accusing someone of breaking any rule.Levieve (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, but I think that you still may be misunderstanding. Your company's website is not considered a reliable source (please click on the link for information about what we consider a reliable source on Wikipeida) for our medical/pharmaceutical articles—whether the content on your website was written by PhDs, MDs, or not. That is why the content was removed (by another editor mind you, not me), and I agree with its removal. Furthermore, the only thing that I have accused you of is making personal attacks against me; please see my original message on your Talk page for reference. As you appear to have an external role in affiliation with https://kotrbiotech.com (a website that appears to be used as a tool for disseminating a select group's research findings, which introduces the risk for bias), and are actively attempting to cite your website as a reference for articles on Wikipedia, I recommend that you disclose your conflict of interest prior to editing pages of relevance to your company (see my original message on your Talk page for instructions on how to do this). If you are truly interested in the project, I refer you to look up WP:MEDRS and seek reliable sources (i.e. peer reviewed scientific journals) for use as references. Feel free to contact me again if you still need help.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   22:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You initially accused me of conflict of interest, before the "personal attacks," which were only remarks about how ludicrous your accusation was since there is no conflict of interest. However, now that you state that all medical Wikipedia articles need to be from secondary (third party) sources not original research findings, I understand. You never mentioned this earlier, up until I proved your "conflict of interest" accusation incorrect. And I am not actively trying to cite my articles on Wikipedia, there is no benefit from KOTR's end, given that Wikipedia articles are a compilation of edits made by random users, which has much less credibility than KOTR's research and given the Wikipedia holds no power in the SEO world, in terms of citations. Additionally, I did disclose my affiliation with the research organization (KOTR). I personally do not see how bias is likely in the pharmaceutical research field (given these are research chemicals and not brand names on the market); however, if Wikipedia specifically stated sources need to be written by a third party, sure. If you mentioned this earlier, instead of making a ludicrous accusation, that's done with little research, there would have been no issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levieve (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly you have a conflict of interest as a stakeholder in KOTR, as you admitted above, so I think that point is indisputable. Whether or not this was your intent, referencing a website that you own that is not a reliable source should reasonably raise concern for a COI. If I created a website for a pharmaceutical company that studied aspirin and then cited my website on the aspirin page, you can see how this should raise eyebrows that I may be citing my website to promote my company and/or its website rather than citing the highest quality reliable source that I could find. I have not accused you of self-promotion, as I can only presume that you cited your own website because you were unaware of what constitutes a reliable source, but you are at risk for self-promotion due to your COI, and therefore I posted general COI information to your Talk page. This was done to educate you, to prevent you from accidentally engaging in behavior that results in your edits being reverted or have sanctions placed on your account. Does that make sense?


 * Therefore, I recommend that you add the following text to your User page, which will declare your COI for the following chemicals (which appear to be of relevance to KOTR Biotech):


 * To add additional articles to the COI notice, follow the format of adding a number followed by the page's name on Wikipedia. If you need assistance, please ask.


 * Please assume good faith on behalf of the intentions of other editors, rather than referring to simple advocacy on my part as a "ludicrous accusation" performed with "little research." Despite your negative attitude towards me (let alone the irony of accusing me of "delete[ing] [your] Wikipedia contributions" when, in fact, another user had, only to then say that I should do my research), I have only tried to help you. Let me know if you need help adding the COI code your User page.


 * Lastly, another page that may be of use to you is WP:THREAD, for help on how to properly thread your replies in a conversation on Wikipedia.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   23:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate your attempt to educate me and I understand you did not remove my contributions, but you're the one who posted the comment on my talk page. I have nothing against you, just proving your accusations false.

"If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection."

How most people would interpret this, is if the page is in regards to a person, company, or another entity that the writer is associated with the company as an employee, business manager for the person, inventor of an item, etc. I am a stakeholder in KOTR, yes, but the page is not about KOTR, or is it.

Second, the analogy you made about a company that studies aspirin to KOTR, which studies research chemicals/ viruses that have little spotlight/findings, makes no sense. Aspirin is fully studied and understood; however, PPAP, piracetam and tianeptine are not. Their mechanisms have little research. Check their pages and see for yourself, there is little content. It should not "raise eyebrows" since the information submitted, again, was for chemicals that have little research from the medical community. If I submitted information for the aspirin page or for a page in regards to a common benzodiazepine, then yes, eyebrows should be raised. If you disagree with the fact that a researcher should publish some of their findings in regards to drugs, in which some of their findings are nowhere to be found on the internet since they have little research (saying it's self-promotion), then I don't know what else to say.

Anyways, I'm done here. I won't be submitting any of my findings on Wikipedia since they do require information from a third party source and not from the researchers. I'm not interested in your help, but thanks for the offer.Levieve (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Take care.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   01:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

PSD
I appear to have deleted some text that you put on the talk page. I'm not sure what I did, because that wasn't my intention. Could you look at it? Replace my accidental deletion? shall I? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 17:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, haha! No worries, I can take care of it. Thank you for notifying me.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   17:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Reference request
Hello Biochemistry - did you ask on one of the talk pages about a reference from Robert Whitaker's book? I thought it was you but cannot find the talk page. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, not to my knowledge... I do have a copy of Whitaker's 2005 article, but I do not have access to any of his books.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   23:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was sure it was on one of the pages to do with antipsychotics, anti-psychiatry and so on but I cannot find it.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just found it - it wasn't on a talk page but an edit summary on Dopamine supersensitivity psychosis. I have the book perhaps I can find the page. --Iztwoz (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, good catch! That may help. It would also be nice to find another reference that credits Whitaker in particular for popularizing the term, if so.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   17:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the "popularization" credit is the part I struggle with, as the dopamine supersensitivity psychosis hypothesis was known far prior to 2010 (sometimes by different names) in the medical literature.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Buprenorphine into Buprenorphine/naloxone. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I had no idea! I appreciate the information, thank you very much. ― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   13:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Interview Request
Hi,

I am an undergraduate student in an art history course focussing on art activism. I noticed that you are an active contributor to WP:Women in Red (WiR). I am interested in learning more about WiR users like yourself for use in a class project. I would sincerely appreciate if you would agree to answering a few short questions for me.

I think that I first heard about WiR through the WiR World Contest in 2017. '''I was excited to hear that there were so many people working together on this issue. The philosophy behind WiR coincides with my values. Admittedly, my involvement has been fairly limited in comparison with the larger scope of my work.''' I created Elizabeth Marshall (pharmacist) and Mary Munson Runge. I did some digging in the literature to find WP:NOTABLE women for which to write a WP:BLP article about. '''Probably the page on Elizabeth Marshall. Both were submitted as WP:DYK, and the page on Marshall garnered about 3,000 page views.''' '''Not nearly enough. My Wikipedia editing has slowed down overall.''' '''In a way, I do. I think that the aesthetics of Wikipedia is important. Being thoughtful with your writing helps readers stay interested and communicate effectively.''' '''Not in a WP:ACTIVISM way, but in some ways I do see my work as activism. The project of working on a freely accessible, global, online encyclopedia is a form of activism in itself.''' I usually search PubMed or Google Scholar for articles of relevance.
 * How did you hear about WiR?
 * What made you decide to get involved?
 * How many pages have you contributed to as a part of WiR?
 * How do you decide what pages to work on?
 * What's the page you're most proud of and why?
 * How much time per month do you devote to WiR?
 * Do you view content creation as a form of art?
 * Do you view your work as activism?
 * How do you research a topic that you wish to edit or create a new page on?

If you agree, please feel free to leave your answers as a reply to this post. Thank you for your time in considering my interview request. HonestButterfly (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the request. Please see my answers in-line above in bold.― Bio chemistry 🙴 ❤   22:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you please review my article
Hey,

I am new to Wikipedia and have published my first draft article and is now AfC pending. It is regarding torus fractures which are the most common fractures in children. I was wondering if you could take a look and give me some pointers?

Many thanks

Apaul291003 (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Interrupted aortic arch classification.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:Interrupted aortic arch classification.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dylsss(talk contribs) 11:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

COPD
WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month is going to update Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in June. I'd be very happy if you could help us out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging