User talk:Kimen8/Archive 1

Welcome!
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Bromfenac's article
Hello, Kimen8! I noticed you partially reverted the previous edit I made to the bromfenac's article, but the reason I edited it in the first place is a mistake of mine.

As a beginner, I knew nothing about Copying text from other sources policy and I thought it was OK to just copy from copyrighted sources as long as I don't copy much.

When I knew this was a copyright violation, I rewrote all the edits I made in my own words including the bromfenac's one.

The paragraph that you brought back was added by me few months ago and I simply copied and pasted that paragraph without knowing about this being a copyright violation. For example, the definition of IC50 in the paragraph you brought back is copied without modification from the eight reference in the bromfenac's article which is a non-commercial use article, so copying isn't permitted.

If you wish to keep the original paragraph, please write it in your own words to avoid plagiarism.

Also, the image I added of the chemical structure of bromfenac and other NSAIDs was convenient when combined with the piece of information that bromfenac and amfenac are more or less identical, the piece of information you removed. If you wish to keep the original article, you may consider removing the image as well, but please write the paragraph in your own words.

Thank you! User579987 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I see. I didn't realize the rewording was trying to fix a copyright/plagiarism issue. I've just submitted an edit with my attempt to incorporate your changes into the old version, while trying to make it substantially different. Hopefully this edit is helpful. Kimen8 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Kindly stop editing the Propofol article until I have it in better shape
Respectfully - I cannot clean this up if you keep changing it.

BeingObjective (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Propofol article
Kindly go back to this article that you do seem keen on changing.

I think the introduction is now far better - it needs better citations and I am fine with linguistic clean ups.

A lot of this could be removed - it is about the compound/drug - and I know lots of articles exist that should point to this - euthanasia as an example.

Be cautious about certain sections - I am a retired US Physician/Biochemist - and because there has been so much plagiarism by non-professional medical editors - it repeats so many things using terminology the editors clearly did not comprehend.

Have fun and I am sure you are acting in good faith - thanks BeingObjective (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want to add value - fixing the ref error would be appreciated - think it is cit 12 - there is a URL glitch.
 * Kind regards                               BeingObjective (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean "add value". I've been making fixes and change as I see appropriate. If you see a problem, feel free to fix it likewise. Kimen8 (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies - are you a medical professional or more importantly a pharmaceutical pro - I am - what value have you added - my comments are from direct experience - please, just work with me on this - hiding behind a keyboard and making picky changes - is not improving this article and might now be both VANDALISM and NON-CONSTRUTIVE edits for the sake of it - I am trying to be respectful - what do you do as a career?? BeingObjective (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing BeingObjective (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you don't think MOS:JOBTITLE applies here? I reverted your change twice, linking to the MOS each time, and you obviously disagree with that, but I can't see why. Kimen8 (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Remember the three time rule and also disruptive editing - editing for the sake of editing - if you change any medical issues I will report to an ADMIN for Vandalism and clear DE!
 * Kindly BeingObjective (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just leave the chem/med stuff alone.
 * Kindly BeingObjective (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you make a change that is not reflected in the source being referenced, you should either leave the article body to accurately reflect the source, or find a source to support your new claim. The medical claims I reverted were done because they were not reflected in the cited sources. Kimen8 (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With respect - no ad hominems here -- I have no interest in disputes when I know the science.
 * I note you will not work with me in a collaborative manner - it is just a WP article - my only agenda is to get the science correct and improve the article.
 * I am not sure what your concerns actually are - citing WP policy is called an appeal to authority a logical fallacy and is also a very poor debate practice. Kindly BeingObjective (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a lecture to give - please leave the medical/science parts alone - I have no interest in edit wars when I do all of this for a living - though now semi-retired -- again, what is it that you do for a living? So I understand what you are trying to do here.
 * Kindly - BeingObjective (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOPA and WP:AGF. Kimen8 (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you do for a living?
 * I asked many times - this is actually now a better article - I am happy if you just want to make edits - but please stop changing the core of the medical aspects of the article.
 * Kindly and respectfully BeingObjective (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Fentanyl alt. spell.
Could you cite the spelling ref. Thanks - I have never seen it spelt this way - a citation would be great - also, a terse search - revealed no spelling - cheers. BeingObjective (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It should be there because a redirect from Fentanil exists, per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. That being said, the use of "fentanil" seems to appear relatively frequently in literature, especially when fentanyl is referred to alongside fentanyl derivatives, since the derivatives tend to use the spelling xfenantil (carfentanil, alfentanil). If you need a source to prove existence, try PMID 10081271. Kimen8 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this helps in anyway - but okay, thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Aseptic Processing
I'd like to redo this article in a constructive manner - please advice. BeingObjective (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Use the article's talk page, or message another editor with recent edits. I don't have the knowledge or interest to work on that article in particular. Kimen8 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can do. BeingObjective (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

GI Perf. Art. Changes
I noted someone heavily edited the GI Perf. article.

I think it was one that you are watching - I do not believe the changes add anything - can you assist - I think the prior version was far better - it now reads as though trauma and disease states are the same.

Please advice - I did approach the editor in good faith. BeingObjective (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it was modified - but the sub-t is a little misleading IMHO. BeingObjective (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The Fentanyl alt. spelling
With respect - I changed the alt. spelling - after dialog with three other editors - the original came from an ancient IP adress - if you do have a ref. please add it all back with the ref.

As you once stated - I am really acting in good faith, I am not being hostile - and I am certainly not edit warring(?) - it is fairly minor -

Kind regards - BeingObjective (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Oxy Citation Spammer
I'd take another look at those edits you made - check out the comments reg. citation spamming - it runs across six articles and is in the revert by another editor - you re-added the RLS spam citations - a few of us tried to by diplomatic - but there is context I do think you missed - check out the restless legs - cits, they are an attempt to promote three research articles - this was the opinion of several editors - I just tried to help - you reintroduced the cit - spam -- let me know your thoughts - it looked spammy to me. BeingObjective (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I do trust this give you more confidence that I am working within the WP framework - I was approached by the editor who stated this was citation spamming - I only tried to assist and keep the legitimate claim - the Baylor Med School ref is all that is likely needed - it does mention opioids in this context - not sure three highly academic articles are needed in multiple articles - it is also in methadone - check the guys IP - I tried to chat with him - cheers BeingObjective (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Effective practice of anesthesiology requires several areas of knowledge by the practitioner, some of which are:
I do not understand your thinking - kindly explain.

I really think the title of this sections is oh so wrong - but explain why you think it is correct... BeingObjective (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Propofol mods.
Yup - I can live with that - it is hard to make - I worked for a generic corp in the 90s - we could never make a stable emulsion.

Yes - self help for killing a person - think there are numerous WPMOS directives this violates - shocked it lasted so long in this article. BeingObjective (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent comments of copyrighted links
I received a warning about copyrighted links from an Admin - I was not aware these were copyrights - do you have guidance I can review - it is certainly not visually apparent that these links are protected - kindly advice.

Dr BeingObjective (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on this and so I'd suggest either asking the admin who warned you, or asking in the Teahouse or similar help desk. But I'll say: avoid straight copying:
 * Reword in the style and tone of the article,
 * Use jargon already in use in the article and avoid jargon specific from the quoted material if possible,
 * You want to integrate the content of the source into the article, not paste it like a collage, so take the essence/facts of the source without taking the language where possible.
 * If you haven't read these already, there are a few articles that may be useful:
 * WP:COPYRIGHT
 * WP:COPYVIO
 * Kimen8 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - it is a little confusing - I'll stay with journals and published docs - I really was a little shocked about this - linked to a medically association seems on the surface - kind of rational - I will likely go back and delete the ones I added - I read the WP policy several times and still could not grasp the intention in the context of the propofol citations - thanks though. BeingObjective (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just removing a reference as you did here definitely won't fix a copyright violation; if anything it makes it worse. The violation is that text was copied from the source, i.e. was not derivative. If the copied text remains, the violation remains. Kimen8 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That actually makes sense - I am not aware I ever copy verbatim - I do not have to - can you give me a pointer to that claim - it is not my style - is it something you thing I wrote? BeingObjective (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Stress Test Article
This is a vastly improved article - I deleted much.

As to your changes - I cannot attest to the clinical accuracy, I think you made changes that I would not/did not - as the context was added by another editor.

My goal was to focus on the topic - note my deletes were all the rambling stuff - but if you are going to edit things like this - I would really check - you might be making okay edits - but I cannot address every clinical area - I write from experience and then find a supporting cert. Not sure of some of the changes you made.

BeingObjective (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please provide a courtesy link to the article if you keep posting on my user talk page. But, I think discussions of specific edits to specific articles belong on the article's talk page, not my talk page.
 * Most of the changes in that edit were typos and formatting. What I did change:
 * "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease" → "COPD", which is more commonly used in non-academic settings and in speech
 * Remove from after the word "pharmacological". I would assume someone reading the article knows what pharmacological means, but if not, I think it would be better to wikilink "pharmacological".
 * Also, is not helpful. If you have an issue with part of the edit, point to it specifically. I can't act on or even talk to a vague sense of dissatisfaction.
 * Kimen8 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully - and have been thoughtful about my statements to you, indeed the changes you make to my edits are broadly fine - but I think you need to be objective and note my comments in my changes - they are not random nor are they ill-informed. We would both agree the article in question was not well written - it is far better now. I am happy not to use your T page - but I think that is what it is therefore - and it is good to have an audit trail. BeingObjective (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean use the article's talk page instead of my user talk page; I didn't mean not to discuss changes at all. For someone looking at the article and its edit history and talk page, it's better to have discussions regarding those edits to that article on its talk page, rather than on the user talk page of the editor who made the changes. Kimen8 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood - and agreed. BeingObjective (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Colonoscopy article.
Worth a look - it was badly written and wandered - but again - I only deleted things I clinically have come across as a professional and I kept the article in scope. BeingObjective (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Unless you have something specific you think I am uniquely qualified to take a look at, I don't really want to be pointed to articles you've recently edited to review. I watch recent changes and my watchlist for changes, and if the article is something I'm interested in or knowledgeable about, I'll check the article and recent changes; if I'm not interested, then I'm not going to look at it. Kimen8 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we know this is not the case - see Death article revert - BeingObjective (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This revert? My apologies, I just looked at that again and you're right that first edit is totally fine. I like that version better than the new version, even. I just restored that old version.
 * I'm not sure how it's related to the comment you replied to though.
 * Kimen8 (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And this is on your watch list - really? All is fine - as you once stated - assume good faith in my comments and ambiguities.
 * Kind regs. Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No it's not on my watchlist, but it is in the Recent Changes feed for one of the WikiProjects whose Recent Changes feed I watch. I watch recent changes for several WikiProjects. I suspect this confusion may be why you thought I was targeting your edits: I see the edits you make to articles in those Recent Changes feeds, but I won't see changes you've made that are in articles that aren't in those WikiProjects's feeds, as I see you have made other edits to. Kimen8 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a big deal - though I am glad you can see that it might seem really strange - cheers. BeingObjective (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if you didn't know about the WikiProjects' Recent Changes feeds. Similarly, I tend to only use the User Contributions page if I think someone might be vandalizing pages, inserting ads/promo material, might look like they are making WP:COI edits, and rarely if I notice someone making a series of edits to articles I find objectionable. And otherwise, I don't monitor any user contributions pages. Kimen8 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I generally appreciate your edits - that is generally speaking. I have even thanked you for them. BeingObjective (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

A favor
If you change my clinical edits - provide a solid justification - I did explain how I think about the world of medicine and science - BeingObjective (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have any specific examples to provide? I provide edit summaries. Kimen8 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It might be good to approach me on major reverts first - I think there are several articles that are now in better shape - nothing vague as you are using my change logs - or am I incorrect on this? BeingObjective (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I give my reason in the edit summary, and I had assumed you would start a discussion on the article's talk page if you wanted to discuss past my edit summary. I will make an effort to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM if I can, and I'll use Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates to add more detail regarding what issue I had with the edit rather than reverting. Kimen8 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you are aware of how much of that ST article I deleted out - I beleive it to be a better article as a clinician - and it looks like a lot of these med articles have been almost abandoned - sadly, I think many original editors are dead and weirdly that is why no one is going crazy - I am happy to build an encyclopedia - I just do not like the policy slinging - recall the Aseptic Processing debacle - it made zero sense and someone wanted to be an 'enforcer' - not adding anything - it WAS not you - but that individual was just looking for an issue to fight over - I really was not. I checked him out and it is his MO - not really a constructive behavior IMHO.. BeingObjective (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're going to use abbreviations (not even matching the actual title) for article titles please at least provide a courtesy link. I am vaguely aware of how much you cut out because I saw the diff sizes, but my edit was simply a copyedit and cleanup, not a review of the actual content of the article. I am not particularly interested in the article, but I do enjoy easy copyedit and cleanup edits.
 * I don't know what you mean by policy slinging, nor being an 'enforcer' with regards to Aseptic processing, as you say that didn't involve me. If you have issues with other editors, I suggest you address it with them directly. Kimen8 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ALL of the big edits - have verbose entries on the deleted comments - I am very confident that they enhance the article - and are solid. Only in the typo. edits do I use abbreviations - they are good edits. Bold but solid. Much of that article was from 2009. BeingObjective (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean using (partial) abbreviations of article titles, as you referred to Cardiac stress test as "ST article". Please provide a courtesy link if you're discussing an article on my user talk page, especially if you've given it a nickname. Kimen8 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can do. BeingObjective (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Deliriants
Hi Kimen. Please stop touching the Deliriant Article, the sources are already there. If you dont stop, and continue to bother me, I will report you to the admins. Noam111g (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * As I have already said to you elsewhere, and as I said in my edit summaries when I reverted your edits, and as other editors have said to you and said in their edit summaries when they reverted your edits: you are not providing sources for your additions.
 * If you want to add content to an article, you need to make sure it is supported by existing sources, or add a reliable source that supports the claim you're adding. If you do neither, the content should be removed from the article.
 * In the case of Deliriant, you are insisting that the sources are there, but they're not. Where you inserted content in this edit, there is no supporting source for your addition. Of the two existing sources on that sentence, neither mention any of the three compounds you added. If there is already a source in that article supporting your claim, add the  tag for the existing source to that sentence. Alternatively, add a new source to support your claim.
 * Barring adding sources to back up your claim, your additions will keep being removed. Kimen8 (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It needs no source. You are an idiot who is bored and looking to cause trouble, and I have to report you. But if you would have bothered to check the sources, you would see they mention the anticholinergic properties. Doxylamine, Promethazine and Dicyclomine are deliriants - it is written in their articles, if you would have been smart enough to check them out. You are a bored asshole who is looking to get me in trouble, and you will fail. Noam111g (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've said to you elsewhere, there is no room for personal attacks against another editor. You're free to report whatever part of my behavior you have an issue with, but in doing so, your own behavior will be assessed, and your repeated personal attacks against me, and your failure to follow procedure regarding verifiability will not reflect well on you.
 * Also, you are expected to assume good faith when interacting with other editors. Given that, you shouldn't assume that I'm trying to get you in trouble, because I'm not. I am trying to resolve the dispute by pointing you to the specific issue(s) with your edits, and pointing to guidelines that elaborate on those issues, and telling you what steps you need to take to fix those issues.
 * I suggest you read through the links in the Welcome message on your user talk page. I am not the only editor pointing out that you are not adhering to the verifiability guideline. Kimen8 (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Deliriant Medications
Please go to Dicyclomine, Promethazine and Doxylamine articles. Its mentioned there they are deliriants. If required, you can take the sources there and add them to Deliriants article, the one we've been arguing about - and the one I'm trying to improve. Noam111g (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It is your responsibility not mine though. Per WP:PROVEIT, . Moreover,.
 * If those articles already have a source claiming they're a deliriant, this is even easier for you, because you can just re-use the source from that article in Deliriants.
 * Kimen8 (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you go do it? I’m outside on my smartphone. Sorry for being rude. Noam111g (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biological response modifier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indication. 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) 06:06, 11 November 2023 (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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Rather awkward language - Paracetamol OD language.
Paracetamol

I read the maximum daily dosage - not sure it is 'wonderful prose', but it reads oddly.

It is important - think the FDA keeps modifying it. I looked and read their recommendation as something like 4000 mg in a 24 hour period - likely there is langage about dosage frequency.

You are normally excellent with wordsmithing, but this currently reads poorly - can you possibly refine it?

Not sure if it was your original wording, you write a lot better than most.

Regards - BeingObjective (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * What I did was remove another editor's unsourced addition (that also introduced grammatical issues), and instead reintroduced the content of their edit in a grammatically sensible way, using a source already in the article.
 * Specifically, I replaced the source "webtoolapps.com" with the NHS webpage already in use in the article. Because that editor's additions were true and useful (i.e., specifying maximum dose at once, as well as minimum time between doses), I re-added it in a more compliant manner.
 * If you can find information from the FDA that differs from the NHS's information in some way, then the language I used can be updated.
 * I took a look at the language of the first sentence in that section since you mentioned it, and it was rather clunky. I made a change that I think reads better. Feel free to alter it further. Kimen8 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look - the NHS is fine also, it just was hard to process the word structure.
 * Cheers BeingObjective (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great.
 * BeingObjective (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

An odd request.
Draft:Transhumanism and Technology

Sorry to bother you - and I am not sure of rules/etiquette of such requests.

I wanted to actually create an article - more just understanding the process. If you ever get the time - could you 'eyeball' the draft above.

I think it highly likely this will get quickly rejected, and that is actually fine - there are many articles on this subject, but I did make an attempt to align this more with technologies that I find interesting - another editor thought it was a topic more likely directed at a classical peer reviewed journal and they may have a point.

I do not mind technical writing, so having it rejected is not going to upset me - it is a fairly out there article - likely better as an essay.

This is very much a draft and adding more about actual technologies that align with the philosophy is of interest.

I will certainly understand if you have no interest - though I do think there are topics in there that you seem very drawn to - from medicine, longevity and even death - I note you make a lot of edits on these subjects. Recall the article on death - I actually thought it well written.

Many thanks and I do seriously apologize if this ask is inappropriate, violates protocol or something else - I made it in good faith...

Regards - BeingObjective (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I take no offense to you asking me to review it.
 * How does this differ from Transhumanism (especially Transhumanism) and Human enhancement (especially Human enhancement)? I think the topic is rather interesting but I wonder if existing articles could be beefed up or if this needs to be its own article.
 * I don't have any specific comments on content from a quick skim; as a draft it seems to at least outline most of the important topics I would think it would cover.
 * Kimen8 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the openness - many thanks.
 * And I am not sure that this should not be part of an existing beefed up article - it would perhaps be easier to take this approach. I might end up going that way - totally open minded.
 * The technologies are interesting and hit themes that are fascinating, I also liked the idea of inspirations from some of the better writers of futurist thinking.
 * The intention was to think of transhumanism (all of the flavors) in the context of the modern real world technologies that float the philosophical concepts - I am not sure any article the 'Transhumanism Portal' really does this at any depth, or in a manner that is engaging.
 * My challenge was the 'notability' issue - keeping it encyclopedic in tone and avoiding editorializing and such.
 * So the structure was:
 * Define transhumanism flavors - not drilling down too much, there are many articles, some not that well written, but they can be pointed to.
 * List the technologies that are relevant - a broad dialog - some do see more legitimate than others.
 * List the technologies by the following: Mature - Evolving - Fringe.
 * Select a few and drill down giving a robust engaging discussion of how they meet the core transhumanist agenda.
 * I do need to review in greater detail the existing articles, I cannot say I was rigorous when I started this, they seemed to be in various states of 'quality'.
 * I know it will take some time for this to be reviewed - so I'd think there is time to refine this and ensure it does match the notability requirements.
 * Cheers BeingObjective (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Changes of "spontaneous abortion" to "miscarriage"
Hello,

I have been changing "spontaneous abortion" to "miscarriage" because my understanding is that the two terms are synonymous, so no value is lost in making the change, but the term "miscarriage" is generally seen as more sensitive to women who have suffered pregnancy loss, because the term "abortion" is generally associated with induced abortion. Is there a distinction between the two that I may have missed? Luke10.27 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The term "miscarriage" is the colloquial term that generally includes spontaneous abortion. Not only are they not 100% perfectly-interchangeable synonyms, but in a medical context, there is no reason to change from a medical term to a colloquial one. "Generally seen as more sensitive" is not itself a valid reason to change the language of an article, especially if that change is the removal of medical terminology. Just as someone who is reading an article on spousal abuse who themselves has been subject to it should reasonably expect reading it that they may be made uncomfortable by technical and accurate language, someone reading an article related to (spontaneous) abortion should reasonably expect reading it that they may also be made uncomfortable by technical and accurate language. Moreover, language is generally chosen to try to match the sources referenced; in these cases, the sources are referring to spontaneous abortion. Kimen8 (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't realize that "miscarriage" was a colloquial term. I thought both terms were used in medicine; if "spontaneous abortion" is a more precise term, then it does make more sense to use it. Luke10.27 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Spontaneous abortion explains which is the medical term and even says why they are not necessarily 100% perfectly-interchangeable synonyms in the lede. Kimen8 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

removal of fibromyalgia exercise photo
Hi Kimen8, thanks for caring so much about the value of the content on Wikipedia. I published the photo of the exercising to help educate people that there are exercises out there specifically designed for people with fibromyalgia and if so, what do they look like. I know we can't post any links for business purposes, but this just gives people hope that there's something out there for them. We've helped thousands of people to manage their fibromyalgia with the workouts we publish online - but again I don't want to use wikipedia for selling something - it's to give people the hope and idea to search for it.

One of the biggest things our clients tell us is that they never knew that there were exercise programs out there for fibromyalgia and that they wish they had found them much sooner. But because they had no clue, they never bothered to search for it specifically. So this can prompt them to actually try...

So, when you ask what value does the image serve (it's a valid question - I respect that totally) - the value is a lot more than one might realize. When people do search and find the exercises - it literally changes their lives (not exaggerating here - you can read the testimonials about our exercises here: [PROMOTIONAL URL REMOVED BY Kimen8] )

So hope this gives you a little background about why the photo is of value. Please let me know if I can restore it. Thanks so much!! HLW20 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The section you keep inserting this into is literally titled Exercise and has 4 paragraphs explaining exercise, its difficulties, and its benefits to the condition.
 * My specific complaint was not so much with insertion of an image, it's that your images convey no information: they do not describe a specific exercise, nor convey any information other than a person standing in a specific pose. Nobody who searches for exercises who sees this image will be any more informed than if they hadn't seen the image. Moreover, they won't be convinced that exercises exist any more than with the existing textual content. (As an aside, I'm going to edit your comment to remove your promotional link from my talk page. Had this been on the article's talk page as it should have been, I would not be editing your comment, but on my talk page I will not permit promotional content.)
 * Kimen8 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So sorry, I'm new to wikipedia so just learning the ropes here. I honestly don't mean any harm. HLW20 (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and I do not intend to be rude. I am just speaking matter of fact and without euphemizing, because I think it leaves less room for misinterpretation.
 * In general, when discussing changes to a specific article, that occurs on that article's talk page, rather than my (or another editor's) talk page. That is, discussion about changes to Fibromyalgia would occur on Talk:Fibromyalgia. I am going to post some helpful welcome links to your user talk page that will hopefully explain some of the policies and general best practices regarding editing.
 * Just to reiterate: I am not against inserting any image, it is just that the images you have added do not, on their own, convey information, and so do not warrant being in the article. Kimen8 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! HLW20 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As an example of a better use of an image and caption, see . This is still not perfect, but with the degree markings on the image itself, and the caption, it is able to convey information in a way that is enhanced over just plain text. Kimen8 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And I appreciate your explanation - I can find something that will be educational to look at and - sorry about your talk page - I thought this is how you do it. HLW20 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Invitation
I noticed that you've been editing some health-related articles recently, and I wanted to make sure that you knew that a bunch of us hang out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions about good sources for medical content and appropriate writing style. Please consider putting the page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation practice.
You recently commented on citation practice, where an eager editor added citation tags, when sourcing of sentences was ambiguous.

This is a tricky area, made all the more because of differences in individual editing discipline with regard to citing sources, but also because of predictable aberrations to what might have begun as a perfectly sourced and presented text, by later, follow-up editors.

What I mean by this is as follows. An editor creating a paragraph, all drawn from the same source, needn't, per policy, indicate via an inline citation after each sentence that each was drawn from that end-of-paragraph citation. However, follow-up editing that is less committed to thorough sourcing can (and regularly does) add content that appears upstream of the end-of-paragraph citation, moving the content away from being accurate with regard to its posted citations. This obviously will make verifiability more difficult—as bits of content cannot be found in the apparent source—and this leads to diminished confidence in Wikipedia content. (Per WP:VERIFY, all content appearing in the encyclopedia must be verifiable, and when content is found that is unverifiable, our trustworthiness takes a hit.)

Without belaboring the point, it is obvious that the same confounding activity can be can be seen when new unsourced entries are added to lists appearing after an "as follows" introductory statement with citation, can involve a phrase or clause being inserted anew and unsourced within a sentence bearing an inline citation at its end, etc.

The bottom line is that passing time and elements of generalized editorial entropy contribute to a growing morass of content whose verification becomes nigh impossible. This is why I would caution anyone acting against an editor that wants to see everything verifiable. Follow-up editing can check the internal sentences, and if all fully sourced, connect short sentences to make provenance/attribution clear, or introduce <ref name=... markup to allow for repeat references.

In short, clarity in sourcing aids verifiability, and as the drift of the encyclopedia is naturally (some would say inevitably) toward disorder, I would not work against those trying to keep us to standard. Yes, editors should do more than tag. But just as teachers spend time marking essays, there is value in editing that calls us to keep to our standards, and suggest examples where we are not.

At least until the day comes that machine learning tools replace us all. Regards. 98.206.31.187 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Without some context I do not know what point you are trying to make. Kimen8 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Compound*, i need a new keyboard, lol. Databoose43 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Usernames
Just FYI WP:RFCN is only for edge cases or other cases requiring discussion; clear violations of the username policy may be reported to WP:UAA. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah thanks, I think this is the second time someone has told me that. I apologize for my memory. Should I re-post it there? Or is it fine where it is this time? Kimen8 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see it was resolved. Thanks again. Kimen8 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 62
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 62, March – April 2024 
 * IEEE and Haaretz now available
 * Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
 * Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)