User talk:GuccizBud

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!

• Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.

• Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! --LT910001 (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello,

First I'd like to mention that I have been unable to obtain a satisfactory, complete answer to my question, despite trying several different searches in Google and reading through several of the search result pages. I only get bits and pieces everywhere, but the exact procedure still escapes me. Your help will be most appreciated.

What I would like to find out is simply this: how to reply to someone who reverts an edit I make. I do not wish to engage in debate with them, much less start an edit war . . . just want to know how to leave a comment addressed to them. For example there is a "thank you" link on the page that compares the previous and current versions of the text related to the edit, if that's what it is I would like to do, but from that page there's no link I see that I can use for what I'm asking . . . BUT :

If this is right, I did read that, from that very same page above, I can click the "Talk" tab that's next to the "Article" tab, both tabs being just above the title of the article at the top. If that's correct, then it's what I need to do right after this that I haven't been able to find out... what would that be? And how would I address my text to the particular user who reverted my edit (such that s/he would be aware of its existence)?

I'm sorry if this sounds very naïve; I'm really just a "drive-by editor", editing little things on the fly while I read articles that interest me. I've done virtually nothing else Wikipedia-related for the last few years, and so how-to procedure for even common things like the one I'm asking is unknown to me.

Normally that isn't a problem as I would just search for the answer, but this time that wasn't as successful as I'd hoped, so thanks very much for your willingness to help.

Mike M.

GuccizBud (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to "ping" a user (i.e. let them know you're talking about them) you can either use {{u}} or {{ping}}. For example, {{u|Primefac}} shows up as Primefac, and {{ping|Primefac}} shows up as @Primefac:. Both do exactly the same job, so it's really just how you want it to look. Then, you sign your post (~~~~) and the user will get a notification.

When you're on the "Talk" page, I would click the "New Section" button (unless there's already a section you want to comment on), which will put your comment in it's own section so everyone knows you're starting a new discussion. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore is the part of India till 1947. After partition newly state pakistan recieved it. Understand Dedha9 (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Downtown Montreal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bee line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from original editor:

My apologies. I thought it would be alright in this case because the first sentence on the disambiguation page is:

  〝 A bee line is an idiom for the shortest route or a straight line between two points … 〞

… which does do the job of explaining it.

Thank you for the notification. I am consciously talking to a bot here … :)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Never thanked you for the amazing fixes you made at Murder of Joey Fischer. I plan to hopefully nominate it to FA this year, so your edits are greatly appreciated. Happy editing, MX (✉ • ✎) 06:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aeroflot Flight 593, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that in these edits to Byford Dolphin, you introduced invisible characters to the text? Those six bytes could cause problems for anyone searching the text, etc. I'm not sure what you intended to do in those edits, but you may want to check how the app is causing that issue. --RexxS (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You write: It's either that or "Arrhenius" needs an apostrophe at the end to indicate the possessive⁠ ⁠— as the linked article is in fact called "Arrhenius equation", I opted to leave the name intact and chose the former. I believe this is right, but maybe not so obvious. As far as I know laws (Newton's, Kepler's, etc.) are possessive, but functions, polynomials, and equations usually aren't. I remember a big discussion when I was in school about Green functions, which people like to make Green's functions, because it avoids the question about colorful functions. If there is an MOS to discuss it, tell me where and I will discuss it there. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Host protected area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seagate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆

Fixed !  My bad, thx for the heads up.

Regarding this edit. You may find {{" '}} useful for such cases. --Xover (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆

Interesting, thanks!

Hi why have you added sections on liquid cooling without sources? Who are you, Chris Belisarius?

Usage of the word 'famed' without any references to back it up seems biased and original research.

⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆

I seriously don't know what this is about, or who the person you mentioned is, or who you are for that matter.

Hello,

why did you undo it?

Jicco123 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things regarding this edit to 0.999.... First, em dashes shouldn't be spaced in this context (see MOS:DASH), but en dashes are. Second, even if you want to space and prevent breaks (or whatever your intent was exactly), adding invisible unicode control characters like that is never a good idea (some of those were rendering as boxes on my tablet, and even otherwise, it's impossible to see what's there in the edit box when editing later). Use a template if one exists (like {{snd}}, {{thinsp}}, etc), or in the very worst case, if you really need to insert an invisible character, use an HTML entity: &foo;, etc. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆ ⋆

Thanks.

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, very much appreciated your comment / concern about not using a WP:MEDRS compliant source =) Having said that I would like to put this into perspective since the reference used is just that: a comprehensive summary of all available world-wide reliable sources.

Here is the conclusion published by German Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (by Milachowski y Krauss; Fuß & Sprunggelenk):

“The patients had a light to moderate hallux valgus with a mean angle of 28,8 degree. The results show statistically significant correction of the hallux valgus angle (…).”

Finally all references used are reliable and credited such as the above mentioned German Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery, U.S. National Center of Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, University of Yeungnam, South Korea, University of MS&R Adesh (you can find the full bibliography at the end of the reference).

Most importantly, the overall goal of Wikipedia is to present right and useful findings for our readers. Current conclusion “there is no evidence that any of these techniques reduces the physical deformity” is misleading. This is because 80% of bunion’s pathology is mild (i.e. Manchester Scale Grade 1), and on these cases the bunion splint is effective in reducing deformity.

Hope to have answered your concern and very much open to your POV. I wish you a wonderful day

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the Murder of Tess Richey article. Regarding your recent grammatical edit, while it's usually the case to not capitalize after a colon, MOS:COLON makes the following exception: In most cases a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it. When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter. (This is part of Wikipedia's house style; there is some discussion on this guideline at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 218 § MOS:COLON entry.) In the case of this article, the colon is introducing multiple sentences; that is, what precedes the colon applies to the rest of the paragraph. It's effectively an inline list. I was hoping that the capital following the colon would help to signal this. I reverted the edit back to how it had been (per WP:BRD), but I'm open to ideas if you have a better way to phrase it. Thanks, and happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While you did it on purpose, 99.9% of the time it's done because the person's grammar sucks, and doing it on purpose makes you look like you're in that group. If that doesn't bother you it's your business. In any case, I'll explain my position. I've made this particular edit dozens of times and will continue to do so because it is wrong, looks very wrong, and in the intelligent reader's mind lumps the author in with writers who don't know better, don't know what ess-apostrophe is, and don't know a run-on sentence from a sentence fragment or a misplaced modifier from a hole in the wall. I'm confident my edits are an improvement and see a revert as the other party's loss, and it happens infrequently enough —7 reverts out of 7,000 edits I think, give or take — that it really doesn't matter. As a result I not only don't engage in edit wars, I don't engage in debate or even discussion on these matters. I did reply to you, however, because your tone invites it, and deserves it. Best of luck to you, and regards. GuccizBud (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spidroin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dalton. 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) 06:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your removal of coca addiction controversy, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coca&diff=973217277&oldid=973209701, that you didn't mention anything about that in your edit summary. Please take to Talk next time. --Bawanio (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. Vnosm (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using faux italics in edit summaries, as here, can cause accessibility issues for those reading them with screenreaders or other assistive technologies. While I don't use any such technologies myself, my understanding is that a screenreader is likely to read your summary as something like Copy edit (minor) black right-pointing small triangle double quotation mark left square bracket mathematical small letter s mathematical small letter i mathematical small letter c right square bracket... -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I had no idea. I guess I'll say thx for letting me know, even though you're taking some of my fun away... :) GuccizBud (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The date of birth is disputed as multiple sources provide different years of birth for Buono. In order for any date to be included, per policy, it must be supported by reliable sources within the article. The talk page has additional information regarding the discrepancy in the reporting of her birth date.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only way I could figure out to reply to you without creating a new section; hope it's right. You're right—I looked at the dates too quickly. While they were all "March 1", I missed the fact that some were "1971" and some were "1974". My bad. Thx for clearing it up.GuccizBud (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was really interested in your recent edit to UTA Flight 772 which stated the aeroplane's crash site monument was made from Ashford Black Marble as this unusual stone is very local to where in live in the UK. Could I ask how you know the 'black rock' to have been Ashford Black Marble, and to supply a reference please? Because it is produced in only extremely tiny amounts these days (enough for personal jewellery and small ornaments) I struggle to understand why a limestone rock from Derbyshire could not only have been chosen for a monument in Africa, but also how such large amounts could have been supplied, when it is so rare. Reading the existing references it seems the stone was used to create a memorial so large it can be seen from space. So, anything you can supply me with would be of extreme interest. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--

I knew that edit would get me in trouble :)

Truth is, I don't know for a fact that it is. But I'll tell you my reasoning.

The original edit simply said "black rock", written just like that, but thought that it was more likely that this was a reference to an actual type of rock, rather than just meaning "rock which happens to be, like, really dark" :) in which case I'll link it to the pertinent article.

If you look up "black rock (disambiguation)", near the bottom of the list is "blackrock (geology), type of limestone". Ah! That's very likely it, as nothing else on that list comes close.

I go to that link, which redirects to "Pembroke Limestone Group". It turns out this is an extremely short article, with no info I can use, but at the bottom under "See also" is "List of types of limestone", so I go there.

In that last article I search for the word "black", and there's only one result: "Ashford Black Marble". Hmm, doesn't sound right. But wait, it ALSO says "not a true marble; carboniferous limestone". A-ha—limestone. Sounding promising again. So now I go to the "Ashford Black Marble" article.

That article is not conclusive, but it does confirm that despite its name it's not really marble, but a fine-grained sedimentary rock.

Here endeth the research.

Usually, when I do this type of thing (although it doesn't normally involve this much runaround), it ends with my being certain, in which case I use it, or, a minority of the time, it's too uncertain for me to use, in which case I leave it alone. This one was somewhere in the middle, and even though I was inclined to leave it alone, I was at that moment possessed by a mischievous spirit who took control of my hand and forced me to link it.

So now what this story is missing is YOUR input, since you know something about this. Seriously—if you judge it unlikely to be Ashford Black Marble, I'll revert my own edit.

Yours.

-- GuccizBud (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me with that explanation, and for the humour in which you wrote it. I understand the logic of how you came to that conclusion, but I'm 100% confident the edit really should be reverted. I think perhaps there's rather a bit too much WP:OR in your, not unreasonable, desire to wikilink to the right stone. But I don't think it is the right stone at all.

By way of my background story: I used to be the Senior Keeper of Natural Sciences at Derby Museum (located about 30 miles from the ABM quarry at Ashford in the Water). We have quite a large collection, not only of Ashford Black Marble ornaments, but also of the implements and components used in the 19th century to cut and inlay it. I've also studied and written about one of the inlayers White Watson, whose Uncle Henry (if I remember the relationship correctly) owned the water-powered mill at Ashford in the Water where the stone was quarried from, and where this local craft was centred. There were a handful of very small quarries nearby that produced the rock, but they were all really tiny sites, and as far as I know has none have been actively quarried for many, many decades, if not for well over a century. This is all that remains today of one such quarry, Arrock Mine near Ashford, although I understand there are some reserves of previously hewn material that are still worked by one extant specialist today - it it costs a fair bit, too, as the rock is extraordinarily hard and difficult to work (see here). Until it's cut, polished and treated with oils, Ashford Black Marble is a greyish rock. It's certainly not reddish in colour, as suggested in these archived photos of the memorial under construction. In fact, they look typical of desert rocks - very rich in ironstone, and certainly not blocky, as ABM is when its quarried. For the quantity of stone needed to create that wonderful memorial in the desert, it would have required a major quarry reopening in the Peak District National Park, and I'm sure I would have heard of the uproar that would have ensued had that happened at the time - especially as I was nvolved in schemes to protect things we called 'Regionally IMportant Geological Sites' of which all these mines would have been desingated. Not to mention tales of the incredible cost of extraction and transport! So, as there also seems to be no geographical linkage between Derbyshire and the crash site, or the 170 murdered passengers, I'm of the opinion that (as much as I'd love it to be) it's simply the wrong wikilink to have added. I apologise for my long explanation, but it's rather taken me back to my days putting on our geology exhibitions and in promoting the story of one of the local geologists who used this stone in his work to explain the strata of Derbyshire. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me... link has been undone. Thx for the info. And I find it interesting that the one time I ignored my better judgement, you were there to catch it. Are you God? Am I talking to God? So, God's real name is 'Nick Moyes'? :)

Meh. It sounded funnier in my head.

All the best. GuccizBud (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good copy edits / catches all, at TDW. Thanks for the attention. Have a post into the legal folks to get that part of the article attended to. Cheers, HNY.2601:246:C700:558:D87:7AFA:6C0D:481A (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding [1], [2], please see MOS:FORMULA. Formulas are to be indented one stop. We never center them. I have undone these edits. Please review some other edits that you might have made and that I missed. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Salicylic acid. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Renat 11:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RenatUK Understood, and thanks for pointing it out. Thx also for the unintentional humor ⁠— to understand what I mean, read your message over again, only this time keeping in mind that I registered over 8 years ago and have contributed over 10,000 individual edits so far 😄😄😄. That aside, as I said, thx for your vigilance, and understood. GuccizBud (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Roy Whiting—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I reverted your edit to Triboelectric effect as it was a clumsy sentence. You made the minor change to "The underlying mechanism has not as yet fully been scientifically established." It should perhaps be "been fully" but "established science" is the same thing in less words. I have also just changed "mechanism" to "details" to be more general. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954 It was a good edit, as are all of my edits, so I disagree. But what you're doing has happened fewer than once per 1,000 of my edits, so it is immaterial to me. I have never argued over it, nor will I now. You didn't really need to let me know, but perhaps you did as a courtesy, so... thank you. And all the best to you. GuccizBud (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GuccizBud! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Laconic phrase 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. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. NebY (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

brownies are pretty good, here, have a bite. XxLALANotListeningxX (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XxLALANotListeningxX

Um, I like, need to lose weight. But um, thanks! 😁👍🏼 GuccizBud (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, idk if i have missed a new rule or something on this site, but direct quotes should not be edited https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuck_Schuldiner&diff=prev&oldid=1222283798 FMSky (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky Hey there. This is from MOS:QUOTES:

❝ Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text; for example, "Ocyrhoe told him his fate" might be quoted as "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate". If there is a significant error in the original, follow it with [sic] (producing [sic] ) to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia.

❝ However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically).❞

... and I considered my changing "any more" to "anymore" and capitalizing "it's" at the beginning of the sentence to be "insignificant" because they don't remotely change the original meaning, or even add a different inflection than intended.

And I like tidy grammar. 😏👍🏼 GuccizBud (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Soot—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]