User talk:Traumnovelle/Archive 1

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Traumnovelle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

December 2023

Hello, I'm HistoryTheorist. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Greg Foran, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on The Fellowship (Christian organization)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Fellowship (Christian organization), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Traumnovelle/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Remsense留 01:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

January 2024

Hi Traumnovelle! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Not a big issue; just so you know. Schwede66 21:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Reusing references

Hello, I reused the reference you added to Dog skin disorders because I assume that's what you were trying to do. See the relevant help page. Also, when you linked to "extremities", that link went to a disambiguation page (i.e. a page with various meanings of the word "Extremity) rather than an article; I changed it to link to "Paw". Graham87 (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I actually forgot to add a citation myself. But that was the source I was using. I linked to extremities because that's what the paper referred to which includes paws amongst other things. I left the disambiguation as multiple pages there were correct/relevant, although that may be confusing/not apparent. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes. We generally much prefer no link at all rather than a link to a disambiguation page except in very unusual situations. Since "extremities" is a common English word, I think it's fine to leave it unlinked ... and have just put that word back again. Graham87 (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Kooikerhondje

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kooikerhondje, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Shorthair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moggies. 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) 06:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hello, thanks for your removal of the spam at Dog skin disorders. However, when you see a bad edit (or several), please revert/undo it wholesale before making any further edits, so the bad edit can be tagged as reverted in the page history I've done that for you in this case. If you see this spam link again, please let me know if you can. Graham87 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was spam, I assumed it was a good faith addition of an unreliable source. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Immune-mediated thrombocytopaenia has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Immune-mediated thrombocytopaenia. Thanks! ‍ Relativity 02:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The period would've been a mistake I just simply didn't notice, thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:SWYGT

Regarding this edit, [1], per WP:SAYWHERE, we cite the source where we read the information, which in this case was a 1992 pest control conference. Not where the source we're citing found it. Geogene (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on JFS (school)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page JFS (school), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to List of British Jewish entertainers.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 04:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

AfC notification: Draft:Immune-mediated thrombocytopaenia has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Immune-mediated thrombocytopaenia. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of French bulldog article

You reverted the edits I was making to the citations in the French bulldog article before I had finished. I'm now done, having over-written the reversion with the edits I was working on at the time; I think it's cumulative of everything I'd done. You may wish to again revert the edits, since it seems that you are so inclined.
107.122.85.58 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I just saw the broken reference so I reverted, it's fine to overwrite if you're working on an article and someone reverts an unfinished change once you're finished.

Your edit got reverted by someone else this time. I'd like to note on Wikipedia consensus supports using standardised breed names for capitalisation per MOS:BREED. For example the French Bulldog and Labrador Retriever are capitalised as their breed standard has the name capitalised. Abyssinian cat doesn't have cat isn't included in the breed standard so it's not capitalised. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Immune-mediated thrombocytopaenia has been accepted

Immune-mediated thrombocytopaenia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ingratis (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

CN tags at National Canine Research Council

Did you check the La Presse reference at the end of that paragraph before you placed all the CN tags in this diff [2]? It seems strongly implied that all the information in that paragraph would have come from there. Geogene (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can't speak French but Barry Pless isn't mentioned in the source. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

My mistake. Please keep an eye on her, okay? Make sure she doesn't wander off. Feed her twice a day at 6am and 6pm, a half a cup of food. She likes cheese and turkey if you want to give her a treat here and there but make sure to keep an eye on her weight. Panini! • 🥪 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cushing's syndrome (veterinary) has been accepted

Cushing's syndrome (veterinary), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

X (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Lifespan of dogs

Hi! You've made a load of good edits to dog articles, for which many thanks! However, I'm slightly concerned at your numerous additions of a single study in a single country as a definitive source for life expectancy, and have reverted one such change at German Shepherd. As I said there, if there's a comprehensive scientific study of all longevity data published to date, it might be better to cite that. I'd expect such a study (if there is one, I haven't looked) to yield a range of values which might be more reliable than the figures published in the innumerable breed encyclopaedias, but until it's found those probably give a broader consensus figure than one small study in one small country. Don't want to make a big deal of this, but do take it to WT:DOGS if you like. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I broke the reply when editing my comment. Do you feel the inclusion of those three studies in Wikivoice with the figure range presented in the infobox to be fine? I can try and get consensus on the Wikiproject in regards to which sources should be used for life expectancy but I feel that'd be quite slow and have little engagement. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any meta-analysis/systemic review of life expectancy data for breeds unfortunately. This the largest study to my knowledge that includes breed data and most of the other sources used are outdated by at least two decades. I'm quite certain the breed encyclopaedias are based on anecdotal evidence given the only studies available at the time are mostly breed club surveys which have much lower figures. I do try and include other studies from other countries if they're recent and have good methodology and I believe I did try and search for one for the German Shepherd but only found a breed club survey with a significantly smaller sample size. I've looked again and gone through quite a few studies and found three of potential merit. This one is same country and smaller sample size but focuses solely on veterinary records whilst the aforementioned study uses several sources: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10341-6/tables/3 I found an Italian study too: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587724000412 both of these have merits for inclusion but in regards to an overall analysis, such does not exist to the best of my knowledge. This Swedish study is a bit old but represents a different country, unfortunately it appears the study may be in Swedish: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1751-0147-46-121 Traumnovelle (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Traumnovelle. Thank you for your work on Hypersomatotropism (veterinary). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for providing this interesting page on hypersomatotropism. The page seems to be framed around the relevant chapter from 'Canine and Feline Endocrinology', although there are many other sources to support the ideas from there. Regarding this citation, if you are citing from a book chapter, you should include the chapter title (for example, perhaps in this case it's "Disorders of Growth Hormone" by Reusch - unfortunately I can't see the 2014 edition you seem to be using). If you or other were looking to expand it, it would be great to look at this in other animals.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Klbrain: it does rely almost exclusively on one source but I don't believe that's an issue? Over time other sources will be added and I will come back as I encounter other sources. I cited the pages relevant to the condition which are part of a larger chapter. The chapter is about the pituitary gland with subheadings/subchapters for specific conditions.

The book is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9781455744565/canine-and-feline-endocrinology and the pages are included under section 1 Chapter 2. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vaginal cytology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exfoliate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

pit bull story

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit on the pit bull death in NYC. And I see now that's because the NYPost is considered an unreliable source. Here's another source for the story in case you'd like to revert my reversion: https://abc7ny.com/police-officers-fatally-shot-a-pit-bull-mauling-his-owner-inside-bronx-apartment/14737414/. Cheers. Juliakamin (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked it up now that you mentioned it, but all the reports appear to be local. There's local consensus to only include incidents with non-local coverage, if you look at the other entries you will see they are either mentioned in a national publication or mentioned in a publication from another area. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

And if you take a moment to google "pit bull nyc" you will see at least a dozen other sources. Cheers, Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliakamin (talk • contribs) 10:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Your recent editing history at Aidi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Changing content to reflect what the citation actually describes isn't edit warring. Your behaviour of reversing an edit to an unverified claim that contradicts the citation then slapping an edit warring notice on my talk page is quite indicative of your own behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Border Collie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedigree.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not refer to sources as Israeli or Jewish in the context of their reliability

As you did here and here.FortunateSons (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Further: please do not say "Israeli" when you really mean "Jewish". It is imprecise and offensive. Zanahary (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle, please acknowledge this FortunateSons (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I presumed they were Israeli sources. Drop the stick and stop focusing on a quibble like that. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Alopekis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alopekis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Alopekis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alopekis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 New Jersey earthquake

Don't feel too bad about that AfD, I'm sorry that I missed it as I would have voted "Delete". One thing that I have learned while trying to get some sort of consistency for earthquake articles in terms of notability is that almost nobody reads WP:EVENT properly, as far as most participants at AfDs are concerned WP:GNG trumps everything, ignoring the fact the EVENT guideline was written because some startling events do not deserve an article due to the lack of "enduring notability". Another "guideline" I've noticed is that if an earthquake affects an English-speaking country, as long as lots of Wikipedia editors notice it, it doesn't matter what the long-term impact is, it will be kept, unless it's really tiny. The 2020 Caribbean earthquake was in my view kept because people were evacuated from buildings in Florida. It used to upset me but I'm trying to just ignore the inconsistencies, the project's not perfect. Mikenorton (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I've dealt with quite a few WP:ILIKEIT discussions that ignore policy, I just move on because ultimately there are greater issues with the project than the Americentrism in regards to non-notable events and places having articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Shih Tzu

Hi! You added a statement to this article saying "A UK study found the Shih Tzu to have a 4.02 times greater risk of impaired hepatic perfusion." Could you clarify what this means? Great risk compared to what? Other dogs? Other mammals? Something else? I would have done this myself but I don't have access to the journal article that you cited. Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Other dogs/breeds. I thought it'd be obvious but I will clarify it, thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact after making these edits it is probably for the best given some studies just take the rate for mongrels and use that to calculate an odds ratio. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Dog diseases

Hi! I've tried to add some reliably-sourced dog diseases at Weimaraner. Several of them are red links and I'm not seeing where if anywhere to direct them. I think this is pretty much right in your field – can you help at all? Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I've linked to appropriate articles for all but two. For eversion of the cartilage of the nictitating membrane I added a parenthetical explanation although you could format it to be like eversion of the cartilage of the nictating membrane. I'm not sure which is better for readers.

Usually those breed predisposition textbooks reference a study, do you know which study mentioned neutrophil function defect of Weimaraners? Traumnovelle (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, didn't see this! – many thanks for your help there. To be honest I'm not sure how great a source that Gough book is; it does have a list of references, but many of them are textbooks rather than individual papers. One of those cited is this, which discusses the thing as "Weimaraner neutrophil dysfunction". Scholar search shows a few possibly relevant results too (as before, this is not my field). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, where did you find the lifespan figure in this source? – the only instance of 'Weimaraner' I can find is in figure 5, which doesn't give figures. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Supplementary Table 3 in this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50458-w#Abs1 Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Now added to the ref (perhaps add it to other citations of the same source too?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of a way to automate that or do it much quicker than fully manually? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The closest article Wikipedia has currently is: Neutrophil immunodeficiency syndrome. There does not appear to be a generalised article for neutrophil deficiencies. Neutrophil is another potential target. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A more recent textbook appears to describe the same condition (same symptoms) but calls it a form of chronic granulomatous disease. It cites: In vitro immunologic features of Weimaraner dogs with neutrophil abnormalities and recurrent infections.Vet Immunol Immunopathology which may be the same study cited in that book Gough cited? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The Gough book doesn't list any paper containing 'Weimaraner' in its list of sources, so probably not. Anyway, I think I'll leave that one as a redlink for now. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ragdoll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MYBPC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Calico cat

The article of wagwalking that calls the predominately-black colored calico cat a “black calico” is a vet reviewed article thus I believe it can be considered a reliable source. Besides that this naming seems quite logical. when searching black calico in google I mostly got cat results and only a few calico fabric results. I feel this does not justify the deletion of the paragraph about black calico cats and the picture. Moreover I would like to add that if one searches for “black calico cat” there are dozens of pictures of cats that are mostly black but calico and this to me also seems to justify the value of the edit. Thank you for your consideration and I am looking forward to your kind feedback! Lepke99 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no. It is a pet insurance company and many of these online pet websites mention veterinary review but will often just be lying about it. I contacted a British equine vet who was for some reason writing about cats and she told me she had never even heard of the website she was being presented on. This website doesn't even provide any information on the reviewer, and the article has been updated since said review. Reliability is not presumed for online sources, I see no good reason why a pet insurance company would be a reliable source. A tortoiseshell cat that is predominantly black is simply a tortoiseshell, not a black calico. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oklahoma City bombing. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feline hyperthyroidism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caudal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Matthew Crooks

Stop vandalizing and edit-warring the Bethel Park High School page or I will be forced to refer you to Wikipedia admins. Skcin7 (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The only one who would be receiving administrative action are those violating WP:BLP, please read through it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feline hyperthyroidism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Q.d. and Pinna. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Auckland suburbs

We clearly have different ideas about what constitutes a suburb. I'm not opposed to merging some of the suburb articles together, but perhaps rather than adhoc merges which don't actually merge anything, and requested moves which generally take a long time, we can come to some agreement on a list of suburbs of Auckland. I suggest Talk:Auckland would be the appropriate place for the discussion. New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard would be an alternative, as editors from other cities might have some insight. The discussion should be advertised at both locations.-Gadfium (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This has more to do with notability, but if it is kept I would prefer it (and the others I've nominated) gets referred to as a statistical area, as that is the only thing that can be actually sourced for it. Calling it a suburb just has the potential for citogenesis, and I'm willing to believe some mentions I've seen of other places in the media are just examples of citogenesis.

It's not a legally recognised locality and unlike Greenwoods Corner they have no SIGCOV, or even any real coverage. I can't even find anything confirming that Northpark is a housing development (I presume it is one).

I redirected to Howick because I merged the school to it. But when attempting to find actual coverage on it I found Tarnica Park being considered within the area. Auckland Council considers Tarnica Park to be in Botany: https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/news/2019/08/solar-lights-to-improve-tarnica-park/ Traumnovelle (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations you succeeded

Congratulations you have made all my wikimedia uploads will be deleted you will make me suffer and can't sleep (: I Kadékk Gilang (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Your userpage

I just want to let you know that I love all your cat userboxes haha Di (they-them) (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Gastric dilatation volvulus

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Gastric dilatation volvulus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Your recent editing history at JD Vance shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to post at BLP/N but this is an obvious BLP violation as I've explained on the talk page. There is no support by reliable sources that this merits due weight for inclusion into the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on New Zealand articles and catching an error I made! ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I came here to award the same barnstar for your tireless diligence in nominating NZ topics for AfD, and your reasoned and balanced approach to arguing your position. Thank you.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pancreatitis (veterinary), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstitial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:V

About this comment: You might be interested in reading WP:Glossary#verifiable. A broken website doesn't make something unverifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The website was almost certainly broken when he added it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like that particular website is more "badly designed" instead of "broken", but it doesn't matter. The fact that there isn't a working URL (until you click the button) in the ref does not make it impossible to find that material in a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't appear when searching the site either.

>does not make it impossible to find that material in a reliable source

But not the reliable source it's actually cited to? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:V cares whether there is a reliable source, somewhere in the world, that contains the information. Except for certain specified types of statements, it does not care whether there is a source cited in support of it.

For example: the statement that "Smoking tobacco causes lung cancer" is verifiable:

• if there is no source cited at the end of the sentence,
• if there is an unreliable source at the end of the sentence,
• if there is an irrelevant source at the end of the sentence, or
• (only desirable case) if there is a WP:MEDRS-compliant source at the end of the sentence.

Putting no source or a bad source at the end of the sentence does not make it impossible for someone (although not necessarily you) to check whether a reliable source contains the same information. It only makes that process of checking take more effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Hello. In a recent edit to the page amoeba, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The article says 'use Oxford spelling', 'spelt' is Oxford English. Look at the source code. ENGVAR supports the change. Also 'spelt' is not archaic and I would prefer if you don't call my variety of English 'archaic'. I have not insulted American English despite my opinions on it. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh and the oldest version uses UK/Oxford spellings: [3] Traumnovelle (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed the tag in that article. I have moved it so that it is more visible in the source editor.

Nevertheless, the OED source is paywalled so I cannot examine. I can see however, that both "spelled" and "spelt" are listed as the second definition of the verb "spell" (see https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=spelled), and all other references I find say that both forms are acceptable in Oxford English, and both forms are used in the UK. In keeping with the principle of least astonishment, the word "spelled" should be acceptable everywhere, whereas "spelt" is a more localized spelling.

While I use UK English in many articles I monitor and edit, there are some words that do come across as archaic, including spelt, whilst, admidst, amongst, and betwixt (and in the case of whilst, several British style guides recommend against it).

Oxford English spelling is something I am not accustomed to seeing often on Wikipedia, honestly. To my eyes it looks like a strange mix of American and British spelling when the "-ize" words are used. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Oxford spelling is British English but with -ize where etymologically appropriate. You can google 'spelt dictionary' and Google will display the definition from Oxford Dictionaries which states it's the British past and past participle of spell. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Waipareira block moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Waipareira block, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Schwede66 05:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Canine hip dysplasia

Hello Traumnovelle,

Apologies for the edit conflict (and accidental revert) on Canine hip dysplasia. I was in the process of editing the article when you removed the badly referenced section. I have reinstated your edit, but I wanted to make you aware that there are many more issues with that article (including unfinished and many unreferenced sections).[4] Unfortunately, following the revdel&CCI that affected much of this article's recent history, I can no longer tell where some of those issues were introduced. I don't usually work on animal health articles, and ended up there by chance. Maybe you can do more to resolve the problems I've tagged? Renerpho (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of issues but I have other articles on my to-do list so I don't think I'll be get around to this one for a while. I removed that specific content because it has the potential to mislead a reader and cause harm. Other unsourced treatments are accurate if unsourced and even if not you cannot do surgery at home which really limits any potential harm it could cause. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Shane Jones query

Hi Traumnovelle, I am sorry that we got off on the wrong foot. I just wanted to patch things up. I am thinking of making some edits to the Shane Jones article but wanted to run them through you first. I wanted to add information from an RNZ article published in late August 2024 and a NZ Herald article published in early September 2024. I could write a small paragraph saying that Jones was the subject of a complaint from the New Zealand Bar Association for remarks about Judge Cheryl Gwyn in May 2024, which they regarded as an attack on the judiciary. Jones then claims that his comments were taken out of context and rejects the Bar Association's complaint. The Bar Association complains to the Attorney-General Judith Collins who meets with Jones to express her disapproval of his "communist judge" comment. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters initially defends Jones but later backtracks and sides with Collins. I could draw upon content from New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy relating to Jones to provide some context if needed. Wanted to ask if this content would meet Wikipedia's notability and WP:BLP requirements for a biographical article before I add it in. Thanks for your time Andykatib (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to consider WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RSPRIMARY. Contemporary news reports are primary sources and don't present a good balance on what things are notable/important long term. Articles often end up being a timeline of news reports rather than an encyclopaedic overview of the person. Consider the WP:10YEARTEST and whether Shane Jones' off hand remarks (of which he has made hundreds throughout his career) will really be remembered about and be of importance to the reader. With the Seafood thing, he simply met with some people as part of his role as minister, it is a routine thing he regularly does and unlikely will have any long term significance/secondary coverage in the future, but if he passed a law relating to the seafood industry that is more likely to generate secondary coverage.

The BLP thing wasn't your edit but his Parliamentary voting records being used to describe his positions/views. WP:BLPPRIMARY states Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. If the way Shane Jones voted on a bill is really important it will be covered somewhere other than Parliament's records.

This is a good secondary source on Shane Jones' career prior to the current government for example: [5] it covers important parts of his life and political career and leaves out the stuff that people have forgotten about. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Traumnovelle, thanks for your advice. Having read through your response, I think the Seafood lobby remarks would be considered "red herring" that won't be ideal for a biographical article. I will focus on more important things that he did or will do such as passing legislation, ministerial roles, policies or any other career-changing moves. I will be more careful in how I use primary sources such as news articles and reports in the future. I read the Spinoff article and it gives a idea of what people remember about a person and what is forgotten. Will move on from the seafood lobby remarks and look at other things. Have a good weekend. Andykatib (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on JD Vance. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have reverted several editors to remove the content. Consensus is not with you, and I am fed up with your and KC Masterpiece's WikiLawyering on this topic _pbp 19:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, your claim that "people aren't required to continue to reply." is inaccurate. Please read WP:CCC, another talk page discussion, or additional comments in an existing one, CAN change consensus, with or without an RFC _pbp 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't address anything about people being required to constantly reassert their opposition in the same thread. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to cast WP:ASPERSIONS you could at least ping me so I can return the favor. There have been a plurality of editors who have objected to inclusion so to pretend there is consensus on the matter is delusional at best, WP:TENDENTIOUS at worse. I've pointed to two examples on that page which seem to indicate we have a small group of editors who are exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior by refusing to open an RFC. (because they know it'll get closed with no consensus). The only person edit warring here is you @Purplebackpack89. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Can't be edit-warring if I only made one edit. And you and Traum making a hundred comments between the two of you doesn't count as consensus. RfC is needless and unnecessary bureaucracy if a consensus can be reached without one.

Please note, KC, that if you take me to ANI on this, I will be insistent on a boomerang to you, not only for your actions on JD Vance, but a greater pattern of right-wing/anti-left-wing POV pushing across many articles. _pbp 19:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There also a discussion on BLP/N about it: [6] it is not just KC and I. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no reason to go to AN/I again. Editing against consensus is considered edit warring, especially when it comes to defamatory material and BLPs. You can also read another discussion where editors have also disagreed with inclusion. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive362#Shitposts_in_biographies Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks/RFK Jr

1. Please stop calling me a liar. That's inappropriate and you've done it twice
2. In the middle of all that, you nominated a redirect I created for deletion. Coincidence...I think not! Smacks of stalking/hounding _pbp 04:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

   It is also inappropriate to imply a hoax about a BLP may be true.

   >In the middle of all that, you nominated a redirect I created for deletion

   Correct, I looked at your contribution history to judge where you were coming from and saw something else that I considered problematic. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

   I never said that it was true.

   And you admit to stalking? Oooookkkk.... _pbp 06:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

   I said imply, not state. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Semadeni residence has been accepted

Semadeni residence, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Schwede66 17:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Plummer Terrier

Hello, nice to meet you. I have rv'd the article Plummer Terrier back for discussion purposes. I have started a discussion on the talk page and I look forward to discussing the article, so we may improve it. I am willing to abide by the consensus of the discussion. Thank you SurgeArrest (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Charles Swan

On 19 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Henry Charles Swan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Henry Charles Swan, a law graduate from Oxford, spent more than 25 years living on a yacht in a stream in New Zealand? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Charles Swan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Henry Charles Swan), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)