User talk:Dubbin/Archive 1

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for taking the time to update Huntington's disease. It has long needed input from a neurologist! JFW | T@lk 23:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Concerning your last edit to Huntington's disease, could I persuade you to take a glance at WP:MEDRS. For quite some time now there's been a consensus that in medicine-related articles we should ideally try to let secondary sources (reviews, textbook chapters) serve as the ideal sources of information for encyclopedia content. The trouble with primary sources is manifold, as the MEDRS page will show. If your main source for an edit is a review in JCI, then directly citing this review is probably the best solution. I agree with your assessment of JCI reviews as authoritative; they are usually of exceptional quality. Very nice of them too to publish an entire series of reviews in one issue![1] JFW | T@lk 21:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I did cite the JCI review (ref 123 currently) for the therapeutics bit, though I kept some of the original refs in there because the section goes beyond the scope of the review; and some of the updated content is too new to have been reviewed yet. I think the HD article has too many references, though, and agree that it would be better served with fewer, secondary refs. I'll try to re-edit the section making use of secondary sources e.g. the other articles in that JCI issue. Dubbin (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

regarding cleanup tags on Locations of Half-Life

To point out specifically: {{Refimprove}}'s instructions under "Differences from {{Unreferenced}} and {{Citation needed}}": However if an article has sufficient inline citations, but the article lacks citations to cover specific information (such as no citation on a quotation) then use the inline citation template {{citation needed}} to indicate more precisely where additional citations are needed. Unlike citation needed, refimprove places a very conspicuous banner in the article. You have identified two places where cites are needed (that's not in doubt), and there's already 3 or more cites in that section, so you don't need to use the general section banner since you have specific locations in mind. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write an explanation; I'm convinced that both were not needed in this instance. More generally, I think there are cases where they might both apply, within the guidance above - for instance, in a section requiring many additional citations where only the highest priority are deserving of an inline tag. But now I'm intrigued: would you mind telling me what 'tl' does when added to a template tag? Dubbin (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Journal of Huntington's disease cover.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Journal of Huntington's disease cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journal of Huntington's Disease

The article Journal of Huntington's Disease has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable new journal. Indexed in PubMed, but not in MEDLINE (OA-or hybrid OA- journals get into PubMed through PubMed Central, which is not very selective in its inclusion criteria). Not indexed in any selective database. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Journal of Huntington's Disease for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Journal of Huntington's Disease 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Huntington's Disease until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

easy peasy

Thanks for rewording Eric Stonestreet. Way better than getting into a edit war. Of course, I'm sure you rep the west side. 71.57.11.10 (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UK Biobank, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical Research Council. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Net present value

I saw your comments on the talk page about simplifying the article, and particularly, the introduction. I have made some additions attempting to further explain the concept. Let me know if it helps. Cheers, I eat BC Fish (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Dementia Research Centre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dementia Research Centre 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dementia Research Centre (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Please do not remove references attached to each sentence. Our readers expect this and it make follow up more difficult if text is moved around. Have hide them. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with hidden citations, though I still think it's overkill and if every long article adopted this approach, editing them would be a nightmare. The history gives a sufficient account of where information came from and if it's moved, a different citation may be more appropriate in its new context anyway. But I'm happy to leave things as they are for this paragraph, which before my edits was suffering from WP:CITEKILL. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 18:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EBioMedicine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancet. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 June

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

• On the Gillian Bates page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Voskhod

Hi, Dubbin! I know that as an author of Voskhod, Russia I am not, strictly speaking, in a position to decline a prod, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that this is not a "list", but a set index article (one of many), which is not required to be notable on its own merit (not unlike a disambiguation page). Entries are supposed to be verifiable, so I'll be happy to add references upon request (or whenever this particular article comes up in my to-do flow). Let me know if you still have concerns. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2016; 13:15 (UTC)

"Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article" (from WP:SIA). I don't see the point of such an article listing dozens of items that don't have pages. If none of its subjects are notable, then what is the point of the page?

If you can direct me to a specific guideline or AFD discussion on a similar page that is full of red links, I will be content to leave it. Otherwise, the PROD having been removed, I will AfD. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 15:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

DHMIS

Hey, I saw your post on ANI and though I'm not a prolific editor by any means, I have watchlisted the article to help revert unhelpful IP edits for what it's worth. Valeince (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Dubbin^{u | t | c} 19:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I notice that you used the proposed deletion process for William Henry Lyttelton. This process should not be used in such cases as it says "Please note that this process is only to be used for uncontroversial deletion. PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." This is important because there is no discussion in such cases and we don't want plausible topics being silently deleted. You yourself favour medical topics, which is fine, and you might suppose that no-one would be so crass as to try to delete those. But see the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barostat. Such casual deletion nominations are quite a threat to our integrity because they are poorly patrolled now. I do what I can but don't have time to look at the hundreds of daily cases. Andrew D. (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of HDBuzz

The article HDBuzz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable website. No evidence of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of HDBuzz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HDBuzz 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDBuzz until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

am so sorry to see this, Dubbin. Really. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dubbin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dubbin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<font color="#cb7b40">'''Dubbin'''</font><sup>''[[User:Dubbin|u]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dubbin#top|t]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Dubbin|c]]''</sup> : Dubbin^{u | t | c}

to

<b style="color: #cb7b40">Dubbin</b><sup>''[[User:Dubbin|u]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dubbin#top|t]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Dubbin|c]]''</sup> : Dubbin^{u | t | c}

—Anomalocaris (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dubbin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dubbin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Hdbuzzlogo.png

The file File:Hdbuzzlogo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

External academic review and publication of Wikipedia pages

Hi. I notice you've done a lot or work on neuroscience articles. Would you be interested in submitting any for external, academic peer review to improve their accuracy and generate a citable publication?

The WikiJournal of Medicine (www.wikijmed.org) and WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) aim to couple the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, it's a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

The WP:WikiJournal article nominations page should allow simple submission of existing Wikipedia pages for external review. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:European Huntington's Disease Network (logo).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:European Huntington's Disease Network (logo).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Nature Reviews DIsease Primers.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Nature Reviews DIsease Primers.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)