User talk:Kelly222

Speedy deletion nomination of Emogay


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Emogay, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

seems the person who deleted it may have stopped talking to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#insult


 * As far as i can see, malik referred you to deletion review if you wish to challenge the pages removal, or asks that you provide reliable sources that verify its notability beyond being merely a word. I see he requested this several times but hasn't received the requested response for you. Since the burden of evidence lies with the contributer adding the material, i presume he considers the discussion to be closed unless the requested information is supplied / a deletion review is started. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 07:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''It's the same link. Please stop.'' Onorem♠Dil 01:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Time
I give up on emogay. Given the way I have been treated on the emogay situation I will not be much involved with wikipedia from now on.

But I would like to TRY to make a contribution and hope it will not also be rejected.

I now suggest that wikipedia have a campaign to teach editors that TIME is very important in editing.

In articles I often come across references to things such as "recent" "current" "currently" "last few years" "last few decades" "last century" etc. These are obviously silly and have no place in an encyclopedia.

So. 1. editors need to be made aware NOT to use such phrases 2 Someone should make a robot which searches for phrases like this and flags them as POSSIBLE TIME PROBLEMS

Kelly222 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good copyeditors know not to use terms like "recently" and "currently" and instead use a month/year date or similar. But we have nearly 4 million articles and thousands and thousands of different people editing each month. It's impossible to keep track of them all. Ooh Bunnies! Leave a message 03:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good Copy editors are great people. They also come in short supply. I think that the idea of a bot that does semantic analysis and looks for time dependent language that is inappropriate is a great idea. It would even help those Unicorn Copy editors find content where their magic is needed. It's even easy for a bot to ignore time dependent language inside quotes, so leading the Unicorns to pages riddled with the Un Wiki ways that some editors employ. It's easy to just go with the flow. It takes a tad of genius to see a solution and a better way for everyone. I actually appreciate that even though Kelly222 has had enough, even at the last they have still hung in there. That's Brilliant and I admire it.

How often does someone come up with an idea that makes the life of a copy editor easier? Now where does the suggestion get filed so that it does not get lost and ignored? Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  17:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
Hi Kelly222! someone noticed you might be feeling frustrated and wondered if the Teahouse would be helpful to you. We'd love to see you there. heather walls (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse Talkback - Newbie and Lexicogrpahers. When will they catch up.
Frustration and Newbie - when will the Lexicogrpahers update a few dictionaries and thesauri to deal with reality? P^)

Stop by for some tea and a chat anytime.

Teahouse talkback: Great ideas and moving them on!
Hi there - I have responded to you over at the Teahouse. I have also floated your idea of a bot to deal with time dependent language at the Village pump (idea lab).

I'm a relative Wiki Land Newbie myself, so I do get the rudeness, curtness and frankly unfriendly treatment. The one place I have seen none of that if the Teahouse. I'm still finding my way round Wiki land and It could do with far better signs and a road map. It seems to me that it has evolved into a Bureaucracy and Meritocracy by default. It reminds me of the Emperors New Clothes - so much posturing and the new kid the only one who asks why there are no pants.

I hope you did not think I was being patronising when I put up that Barnstar. I wasn't. I'd like to work with you and pursuing what is to me a Brilliant idea which can improve so much. There seems to be such a focus on Bots that "Tag This" - "Delete That" - "Spank people for making genuine errors" - well, it's making the focus of Wiki about being a technical wizard and not about content. Your suggestion does the opposite. That's what I saw immediatly, and you were able to pin down an issue that has been bugging the hell out of me too. All the best. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  11:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 00:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Dolomite Problem"
Hello Kelly- I'm posting a welcome template here with some links that may help you your question of how to add content to an article:

Eric talk 03:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: The best place to discuss what you would like to add to the Dolomite article is on its talkpage: Talk:Dolomite. You might want to create a new section there to get input from others. Eric talk 13:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... watchlist. wikipedia is no longer telling me when articles on my watchlist have changed. It used to tell me. I tried to figure it out but it was impossible to follow all the filter stuff and ORES (I think that was the acronym which wasn't explained even on the page about it).

So I hope someone (like a real person) can simply tell me how to get notified when pages on my watchlist change.

Kelly222 (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Kelly- Look over the watchlist options box near the top of your watchlist page. It could be that certain classifications of edits are not showing up on your list. Eric talk 02:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As an additional thought, if you're referring to not receiving emails about notifications, sometimes when a bot edits a page it does not send a notification. However, I think the bug Eric describes is more accurate; check your watchlist and your Watchlist settings (in Preferences) to make sure you have everything set the way you want it. If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I went to my preferences then I clicked on watchlist, but there didn't seem to be a box to tick to display changes. In the old days when I logged on to wikipedia it showed me notifications in red to show something on my watchlist had been changed Kelly222 (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW the preferences page needs a redesign. The SAVE button at the bottom has a red message that looks like it's telling me that defaults will be restored if I click SAVE. LOL. Kelly222 (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
 * 6) More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
 * 7) Citation details are important:
 * 8) *Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
 * 9) *Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
 * 10) *Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
 * 11) *Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 12) We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 13) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
 * 14) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 15) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Linking in Hedy Lamarr
Hello. You might wanna read WP:Wikilink. In this diff you used an external link when you should have used a wikilink (internal link). That is, you used this format:
 * Frequency hopping had |been invented, but she thought of using it to generate ,
 * ...which produces this:


 * Frequency hopping had |been invented, but she thought of using it to generate
 * ... note that your link doesn't display the word "been" and doesn't click through to the "invention of frequency hopping" subsection. [It's also just simply the wrong way to link to another page on Wikipedia]... You should have used this format instead:


 * Frequency hopping had been invented, but she thought of using it to generate.
 * which produces this:


 * Frequency hopping had been invented, but she thought of using it to generate.
 * ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs


The article List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This content is probably best for Wiktionary or perhaps a merger with the main NZSL article. Feel free to remove if you feel that this has a place on Wikipedia."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of NZ Place Names with NZSL Signs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want to save your content, just post it over at the List wiki. https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page  D r e a m Focus  02:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Formatting
I formatted the citation for you at Otitis media. It's one of those things that isn't that difficult, after you already know how to do it, but which looks very confusing the first few times. I prefer the visual editor for this, because it has an automatic citation formatting tool. Just paste in your DOI or a URL, and it usually sorts it out automagically. If you want to try that, open an article to edit normally, and then look for a pencil icon way off on the far side of the toolbar. That will let you switch to the visual editor. The visual editor has a different toolbar, with a "Cite" button right in the middle. Pick automatic and see if it works for your source. (You can also set your editing preferences in Special:Preferences if you want to make bigger changes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, also, that's kind of an old paper. For medical content, we usually try to cite sources from the last five or so years.  If you find a newer one, please feel free to replace the old one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

WOW, I didn't know all that. Thank you so much for telling me. Kelly222 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. By the way, if you ever have questions, there's lots of folks at WikiProject Medicine who are also interested in improving Wikipedia's medical information.  Just leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine whenever you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

January 2022
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Fenugreek. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Don't put the results of your Google search into an article - use WP:SCIRS sources for new content. Zefr (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit. Please tell me how I may block people who come to my talk page and make accusations. Kelly222 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SCIRS - we need WP:SECONDARY sources for the encyclopedia. Use of Google to verify the existence of a fact fails WP:V. Learn how to source content properly. Zefr (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bradycardia, you may be blocked from editing. ''1. bradycardia can occur in non-adult humans and animals (e.g., it is part of the diving reflex); 2. it is ridiculous to state that bradycardia prevents tachycardia; 3. we do not use "very" in Wikipedia content, as it is imprecise and subjective; 4. you are a novice editor who is making mistakes - your editing needs to be checked. No one is following you around. Try some humility.'' Zefr (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

AfC notification: Draft:Elaeagnus triflora has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Elaeagnus triflora. Thanks! Rusalkii (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elaeagnus triflora (February 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nyanardsan was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elaeagnus triflora and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Elaeagnus triflora, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Elaeagnus_triflora Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nyanardsan&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Elaeagnus_triflora reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nyanardsan (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Species are considered baseline notable and you had at least one valid source, so I've mainspaced the article and tidied it up a bit. For what it's worth, Kelly, you have enough edits and account age to create pages directly in mainspace rather than going through the AfC draft-submission process, should you wish to do so. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you PMC. Unfortunately when I created the article the system made me do it that way. If it happens again I'll try to figure out what to do. Is putting templates on people's talk pages considered rude? By the time someone does that to me they could easily have found another source or improved the article.Kelly222 (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, using the AfC templates is not generally considered rude. AfC is usually a process for new users or those with a conflict of interest, so those templates can be helpful in explaining what went wrong without the AfC volunteer having to write it out in full every time. It's likely that the person was using an AfC helper script, so it probably took them less time than you think to place the template. There's also no expectation that AfC volunteers will improve every article they review or decline. All that being said, I don't think it was a good decline given the baseline notability presumption for valid species, and I did make a comment to the user on Discord about it (which is where I saw the page in the first place - I'm not an AfC person). As a side note, where did you go to create this article? Just so I can see where you got directed to AfC in the first place. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I searched for the plant and it didn't come up. Then the system asked me if I wanted to create an article and I clicked yes.Kelly222 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I tried it myself as a logged-out user and still got directed to mainspace. Was this text at the top of your search results? "The page "Eleeanus triflora" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." (I've made an intentional typo in the name to generate a redlink) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly I can't remember the exact message. But when I just did a search now for "businneee" the system said: You may create the page "businneee"
 * Okay, that's what I get as a logged-in user. If you do want to create a new page in the future, you should be able to click on the redlink there and go directly into mainspace. It'll still be patrolled by a new page patroller eventually, and they may add maintenance tags if they see issues with it, but you won't have to go through the draft/articles for creation process. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Citer
In your edits at Macadamia, you are just inserting a bare URL as a source. Take the time to follow WP:CIT to complete the source information. An easy-to-use tool is Citer, which automatically formats sources. Use the DOI, URL, PMID, PMC or ISBN (books) ID from the upper left pick list, click "submit", then copy the resulting formatted reference into the article. Zefr (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Medical definition of “supervene”
I will preface this by noting that when you undid my reversion to Supervenience with a note of “do not revert without discussion”, you did not also add anything to my (admittedly currently IP-based) talk page which I linked in the edit summary, in which I included some text indicating what I was doing. Since you don't seem to want to bring the discussion to me, I am bringing it to you.

I do not contest that the medical use of the term “supervene” exists in the first place. However, it is not substantially the same subject as that of the philosophical article. I could see a note on the other definition's existence being useful as a hat note, or the definition being added to Wiktionary and linked using one of the templates for that purpose, but placing it as a raw paragraph in such a way that it appears as a misleading summary of the rest of the page does not seem correct at all. Additionally, I am not clear on why you think that a definition paragraph in that position doesn't require sourcing; if it's as easy to find a source as you claim in the edit summary, why not add it?

If you have a more thorough explanation for why your approach is more consistent with making Wikipedia a good-quality encyclopedia, I would love to hear it. I may also look into other means of dispute resolution. --76.253.75.34 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

On a second read, that was phrased more heatedly than I imagined at the time, for which I apologize. The underlying content dispute remains, and I have opened a section on the article's talk page, since that might be a better venue. --76.253.75.34 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Porcupine wire


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Porcupine wire, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 13:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)