Leevanjackson

Congratulations!!!: I read it on the talk page but I had not have time until today to give you a note: The first time I had an article on the main page was an incredible sensation. Nevertheless be prepared to be that day full time online reverting vandalism :-). I will also try to keep an eye on the article. We did a fine job, didn't we? Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

We have an incredible section on history, however it may be getting too long. It also seems that you are digging into sources for this section these days. Have you thought of creating an specific subarticle and summarizing the section?: Right now it seems that with 6 long paragraphs and increasing it might be a good idea. What do you think?

On the other hand I was not sure if I answered your mail on the main page day (I was really messed up in real life those days). I suppose that it had to be an honor to receive a mail praising our work directly from Anita Harding and several HD organizations. What did you feel when you entered that day wikipedia and saw your work in the main page?

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Garrondo - I had that feeling earlier that day, I've had a heap of helpful suggestions/corrections from Alice Wexler, I thought the most poignant bit was that there wasn't much evidence prior to vessie/davenport etc. promotion of the idea, about HD being linked to witchcraft etc, so thought I'd better dig a bit deeper - those papers were used as a reference a lot by researchers getting a brief overview of the past so the idea has had more resonance than was due! I am getting hold of a couple of books relevent to the history to sign, seal and deliver the most accurate version so might have to expand further. I do wonder though whether much of this material belongs in Huntington's disease clinical research - could be expanded with its own history section.. what do you reckon?

No worries sorted it out - life is messy ! Goes to show how much appreciation there is out there that we don't normally hear of - most meat space people still haven't grasped the effort us editors put in - or the fact that editors exist and they could contribute themselves... it was very satisfying, but I did seem to spend most of my day trying to explain to meatspace the importance of all this. Ho-hum one day we'll all get medals! Not much vandalism to the article and a host of other editors looking after it so went to a haitian benefit gig in near Falmouth, got separated from my friends on the outskirts of a town I didn't know with no phone or numbers in my head to try and find my way back to a small village which I knew had a 'p' and an 'oo' in its name within 10 miles! Found several clubs and pubs and no locals could help but my description of the brdge in the village centre rung a bell for the taxi-driver guru of the area, two major missions in one day - beauty! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would rather prefer a history subarticle than have a history subsection in the clinical research article: Most probably those interested in history of science are not the same than those interested in clinical research.

Yep we are in accordance - a history section of its own. If it looks like a good idea we could have a section related to its history in the clinical research article ( just a short summary with link to main history article ). Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sounds perfect. I'll keep an eye, but I do not think I will be able to help much.--Garrondo (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You appear to believe that you have proprietorial rights in the page's content. You don't. You say that you moved the radio program link "to specialized subarticle". So where is that? You also appear to have an unfounded faith in the Open Directory Project. The ODP is a joke - it is out of date and uncontrolled. To send people off there when what they want is relevant information is a cruel trick. What exactly is your problem with listing national organisations in the page? I know that Wikipedia is not for lists per se but there are plenty of them where they are relevant and if the lists get too big to handle on a main article page, well hey we can put the list on a separate page eg Old Harrovians. If you want to have a be a proprietor of a page on the web why not apply to be come the editor of the HD page on ODP - it suits people of a bureaucratic disposition. Silent Billy (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, take a chill pill! To answer your questions:

• re:proprietory : I don't - I even worked on WP:OWN a while back
• re:location of link : At the start of Huntington's_disease#Society_and_culture is a pointer to List of Huntington's disease media depictions, as you see it was building up quite a list
• re : listing national organizations: Check out the HD talk page ( it might be archived now ), the IHA lists over 40 country specific organisations and there are plenty more .. we can't possibly cover these fairly in the external links ( which should strictly be to pages with more information about the subject than related organisations). Like I said the HDA is linked to in the article itself, the IHA is listed as a reference.
• re: ODP. Please check it out before casting judgement, the links to HDA and the Australian HDA are in the first five links on the page, the IHA is listed further down. I was editor of it for a bit, but it didn't suit me ;)

I hope that helps, please be a little more civil in future! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

All that said if you have any ideas of how to improve article they are always welcome - the HD talk page would be the place to bring them up... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey Lee, just to let you know I have finished all of the major points raised in the GA review. The only remaining issue is punctuation issues, mentioned in the GA review in a couple of sections. Are you any good with commas? I am okish, I passed my English exams but not with flying colours lol and with it being a GA nomination would rather someone with better English skills do the finishing touches. If you could do that for me when you have the time it would be much appreciated. No hurry, I know you are busy. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

spooky... I was just perusing the GA review and did have those fixups in mind, great work LG on all the other bits! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 18:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two great minds think alike. ;) Thanks, and thank you for persuing the remaining issues. It will be nice to see the article reach GA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have you seen the medicine project talk page? HD is one of the articles that it is going to be externally evaluated by experts... That is great news but also a high responsibility, don't you think? Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's great, and a really exciting project altogether. They seem to have selected a selection of articles of all grades, so HD is one of the FA examples and from a cursory read seems the aim is to see how they can improve them. Bring on evaluation - and improvement I say... thanks for pointing this out garrondo! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well: both are great... I think I will add it to her talk page. :-). I am right now reviewing consistency on HTT and Huntingtin. We should be proud again... Reviewer agrees that article is great.--Garrondo (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes proud indeed! really pleased she came up with some improvements too! Note : I made a comment whilst you were editing - I'm still not completely convinced on the naming conventions, but we should definitely get to the bottom of it, and find the suitable guide/s to put the definition - in order to save others from this fate ;)

Agreed. Revert me if you feel it is best as it was until we reach a decision.--Garrondo (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

:) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm right here.

Oh, and this is off-topic, but I lol'd at "For your excellent, thorough and well thought out work which helped to promote alcoholism" directly above. I'm nothing if not juvenile, I guess. A F K When Needed 10:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear! Thanks for offer of help ... I'm always interested to know how the help system fairs to new editors especially .. is it easy to follow, paced right, too technical, too basic ... that sort of thing ... T

Hello, I was talking about you behind your back (all nice things of course. :) I was wondering if you are interested in being nominated for adminship?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I overheard the conversation - thanks for your confidence, I am considering it - all that talk about RFA looks intimidating, but along the lines of be bold and others beleiving the rfa process should be less harsh I would be happy to see if there is any flak! I fair few things on my real life - and wiki to do lists so have some catching up to do. Seems a possibility but have to think more and await reply as to what there is to do as admin .. I am quite happy editing content - there's more than enough to do , but if we need a few more admins to perform menial maintenance tasks that shouldn't require too much extra brain juice! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

To respond to your question, I think adminship is useful but I have personally strayed wide and far - my temperament does not allow Wikiwarring, and I now use my admin tools sparingly. That said, it would be very helpful with basic gruntwork such as undoing a controversial move. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

To add to what Jfdwolff has already said, I don't think that you have too much to worry about on RfA. Reading over your talk page, and checking your block log, it looks like you have a "clean bill of health"; there is not much for the community to say against you. The only difficultish bit for you I think will probably be how you respond to questions posed by the community. There may be a couple of other people running for admin from Wiki Med, so if you are "on the fence" as to whether or not you run, you could wait until they have run before deciding if you would like to run.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks guys, I'll have to look into it a bit more methinks after I've caught up with current todos - whilst keeping an eye out for situations that admin tools would be useful... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeap... I'll try GA some day, but it is still far from it... Maybe in a few months. I am going section by section in it. Right now I am improving the history section. If you want to help you can fix the l-dopa and levodopa issue. The prognosis, epidemiology and society sections are in very bad state, so if you want to search for some high quality sources and even begin rewritting them it would also be of great help... You can choose... :-) I have been alone in the article for 3 months so some company would be fun. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just for curiosity: take a look to what I found a year ago and compare it with the article now... I am quite proud even if theres is still a lot of work to do...--Garrondo (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey Lee, I'm still around in a very much reduced capacity. I don't have much of an excuse to be so inactive given I've nothing to do until September so I might start collaborating a bit more on articles soon. As for the featured topics project, very few people really stepped up to the task (which is fair enough because it is some task making featured topics!). You're welcome to mark it as historical if you wish, especially if our numbers have dropped low enough to make the task unattainable. It might be worth marking it as 'inactive' rather than historical, as I would very much like to return to the idea of featured topics if we get the consensus to do so. Poliomyelitis got pretty far down the line, it'd be a shame if we didn't finish it off at some point!

Hope all is well! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Was that a criticism? I'm unsure. Tony (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, now I notice your edit-summary. Thank you very much! A few people have expressed concern that we don't put all of the featured pics in a gallery at the bottom. Then others have said it's fine without. Hmm ... my only concern is that people may not know they have to hit "nom" to see each pic at reasonable size, rather than the huge, slow-to-download images you get from the first-positioned links for each. Tony (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear - an ambiguous compliment - I must improve on that ;) I was really referring to the whole page - makes an excellent read compared to old list of... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• • You're very welcome! Tony (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem :) Thanks! --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'll take a deeper look at the reviews this week. It's really a great project. NCurse _work 05:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you.   Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to human. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you.

Hi Lee, I didn't understand exactly what your edit comment on the About page "– if its not it doesn't need to be avoided" refered to. Trev M  ~  15:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oops, that is a head spinner like that! A crucial word got lost due to touchpad tussles! It was meant to say 'if its not there - it doesn't need to be avoided' , i.e. user will only see recent misinfo that hasn't been removed! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification... I needed a while to try to work out if there was anything else encoded in that sentence that your shortening took out with it, but I think I agree. Apropo the rest of the lead section, and discussions in the general Lead section talk page, if the lead is so long that the Contents box is off the bottom of the first reasonable resolution uncluttered screen, then the lead section is not doing what it's there for: to give a compact overview of the page before providing the reader with the opportunity to scan for specifics. I'm quite astonished, considering the profile the page has up there in the sidebar, and the 3000 odd watchers it has, that it is neither more refined nor more titchy about changes! Best, Trev M  ~  19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

References are not required in the lead. The references for the bit on asthma treatment can be found in that section.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The ref added to support "are often used to treat children as they have less adverse effects" says "Overall, inhaled corticosteroids provide better asthma control than leukotriene modifiers.86,96,101-103 As a result, an inhaled corticosteroid is the recommended drug of first choice in the treatment of patients with persistent asthma, including children of all ages." Please clarify... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah head cold fog caused a lapse in thoroughness... I thought 'if mentioned in lead this drug needs a context', grabbed the info from Leukotriene antagonist article assuming it was ok - wrong! I generally follow the style of the article as I find it for stuff like references in lead. Thanks for clearing up both articles, your doing great work doc james! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

No worries assumed as much :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I notice you reverted an anon on the basis that "glutamate is different to glutamine", which is true of course. However, glutamine is the amino acid that the Huntingdin gene repeats code for and which does the damage. I'm not sure whether glutamate is involved at all. The reference immediately following this part of the article [1] talks about glutamine but not glutamate. It looks to me that the anon is correct, although I am not an expert in the area. If you do change it back, you might like to look at the mention of glutamate in the following paragraph as well.-gadfium 18:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cheers for spotting that gadfium.. will double check.. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

List of common misconceptions has alcohol is healthy line, dbl check. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

-) I hope to hear your comments during FAC. --Garrondo (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi... How are things going? You made a few comments on the Parkinson's disease FAC. I tried to address your comments with best or worst luck. It would be great if you could give your opinion on them, make further comments and/or say if you believe that the article fullfills the FA criteria.

That's all right - my comments are really suggestions for a second opinion and not solid comments, have been inundated recently to help as much as I wished...! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand a few weeks ago I took a look at the Huntington's disease article and the pathophisiology section has been growing over time since it became a FA. Most probably it would be a good idea to do some trimming over inconsistencies and mid-quality references; and also create a sub-article and summarize the section in the main article. Had you notice it? What do you think? --Garrondo (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes have let a few edits slip to see how they panned out, and once its a little quieter plan a revisit and spring clean of the HD article, there's been a fair few developments since the lancet article was published which I need to look at again! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks... Has been a really harsh FAC, but probably worth it... specially since it is a vital article that receives many visits. I hope it appears in the main page April 11 (World Parkinson's day). Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you went through the mill - sorry I wasn't around a bit more things got in the way - been stuck on a welsh mountain the last week for example! As for the front page - I can't see why not - there is a place to suggest it - I'll find it or second it Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Greetings and thank you for your work on the great HD page. I think the HD prevalence content just posted by our lab would satisfy some of your need for "Epidemiology global statistics and map of prevalence" noted in the Huntington disease Discussion page To-do list. As much work was done to assemble this information and references for a recent paper we want to make this available through Wikipedia on the Huntington's disease page so that the community can use this and ideally, keep it up to date. If you agree, how do you recommend we proceed? Is there a way to translate this large table to a form that is editable and compatible with the existing HD page? Deferring to your experience here and keen to get this information out there. We do have permission to use the map figure according to EJHG's rules: "According to the clause 2d of the License to Publish, it states authors retain the right to reproduce figures in other works created by them. All that is required is an acknowledgment of the journal and Nature Publishing Group." Best, SButland (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, just assuming good faith seems to succeed! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello! My name is Shelly and I'd just like to know a little bit about you. you seem like a nice person/people and I'm new here, so yeah. lol ;D

Shelly :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShellyLUV (talk • contribs) 01:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, wikipedia can be a very rewarding environment... replying on your talk page... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Lexx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel 5 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

To respond to your point, yes. The tables will be fine, as well as a one-sentence lead addition since it's just a general comment. Anything that seems to be original prose that is not often on his articles is very likely to be a copyright violation, and that's what will have to be cut out. Wizardman 15:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

-- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Medmos. Since you had some involvement with the Medmos redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Genetics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.Reply

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Category:Wikipedia project help, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Qwika. Since you had some involvement with the Qwika redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Wishva de Silva | Talk 03:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi, I'm Famousdog. Leevanjackson, thanks for creating Subcortical dementia!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Needs an

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Leevanjackson! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 11:02, Friday, September 21, 2018 (UTC)

Hello Leevanjackson! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to streamline the welcome template. Sdkb (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Task Center#Refining the tasks listed here. Sdkb (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Sdkb (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Huntington's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. buidhe 22:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Help:Wikipedia, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:Wikipedia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Help:Wikipedia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 26 § Category:Wikipedia XX-Class level-n vital articles on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 14:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply