You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Clear liquids, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Tavix(talk)07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your disruptive creation of edit wars and repeated failure to follow WP:STATUSQUO
Working on an infographic to represent the flow of data in Wikidata
Work on multi-content revisions in order to be able to store an entity (item, property, mediainfo) and wiki text in the same page (This is needed for Commons) (phabricator:T107595)
Did more interviews with editors as preparation for the work on automated list generation for Wikipedia and co based on Wikidata data
Fixed a bug with data parsing in Korean and a few other languages (phabricator:T139509)
Added "non" as a language code for monolingual text values (phabricator:T137115)
Removed display of calendar model for dates with precision of 10 years or larger (phabricator:T133973)
Fixed issues in some of the forms on special pages on mobile (phabricator:T138413)
Okay, sure. Thought you wanted to keep signs and symptoms in the English version, but if you're fine with simplifying it I will go ahead and remove it as I come across it. Carl Fredrik 💌📧18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpted from the Project Medicine page under Comments: CF: I'm still feeling reluctant about HTA as the highest level of evidence in the draft chart for guidelines under WP:MEDORG. The HTA article is about "technologies" specifically, such as telemedicine within MAST. A position statement based on systematic reviews as Level I for evidence-based medicine would likely be the highest standard for a clinical practice guideline which would be adopted and held unchanged for 5 years internationally if sufficiently strong. As for the other charts and text you have drafted, what tasks remain needing collaboration and what is the process for implementing the consolidated changes for MEDRS? Thanks for the excellent drafting to date. The charts are effective. --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zefr — HTAs refer to "technology" in the very broadest sense - calling pharmacological agents technology. If you look at the WHOs definition: [4], they go even further, to include any intervention (page 11):
A health technology is “any intervention that may be used to promote health, to prevent, diagnose or treat disease or for rehabilitation or long-term care”
That means that this report on food in obesity qualifies as an HTA [5]. Basically HTAs are what practice guidelines are based upon — sans the politics, in essence: very high quality reviews. Maybe we should get some more input on this from other users, but I think they should be there. I don't think they should be on the study image, because they aren't always entirely apolitical. Carl Fredrik 💌📧16:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO document is a good rigorous definition, but the term is both more complicated with underlying definitions and is not lay-user friendly (not one that I as a health scientist would use or previously knew). I agree input from other editors on the best possible term will help. Would be helpful if your discussion could be refreshed. --Zefr (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue with the draft, and once I feel good enough about it I'll post again. It might be good to have a couple of references for this information to avoid confusion. Carl Fredrik 💌📧17:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carl: a few reviews below that hopefully give you useful information for the rewrite. Let me know here if I can help. --Zefr (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Sometimes, the visual editor required saving twice. That problem is now fixed. [7]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 July. It will be on all wikis from 28 July (calendar).
It is now possible to mark all Notifications as read on Special:Notifications, by clicking on the cog icon. [8]
Wikipedia search will now detect the language of your search if 2 or fewer results are found. It will then show results from the matching language Wikipedia, if any relevant article exists. It will start to roll out in 5 languages. [9]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 26 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is "an extension that implements an authenticated key-value store". The meeting will be on 27 July at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join. [10]
Future changes
The current icon for Notifications "Notices" (in English "Notices") will be changed from a bubble-speech icon to a tray icon for consistency. [11]
Godsy — The indentation is used to clarify where responses are made — and when longer discussions arise: how they behave chronologically. QGs message was unrelated to my response, which was not directed to the discussion writ large, merely to SmokeyJoe. Changing other peoples comments violates the WP:TPO guideline, while WP:THREAD merely contains suggestions (which I actually followed). Please refrain from changing other peoples' comments, doing so may invite disciplinary action. Carl Fredrik 💌📧15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The action I took is explicitly allowed per WP:TPOC (Fixing format errors, Fixing layout errors, and/or Sectioning bullet points). WP:THREAD references WP:LISTGAP, though setting the accessibility concerns aside wouldn't have substantially changed my edit. The closest guidance at WP:THREAD gives in relation to this situation is "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to." which is not in line with your format. — Godsy (TALKCONT)16:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TPOC allows fixing errors. This cannot be considered an error, because it was the result of an intentional choice and if you look at WP:Indentation (which holds the same weight as WP:Thread) — the practice is shown in their examples. Neither WP:THREAD or WP:INDENTATION should be enforced by other users, as they constitute guides primarily directed at beginners. Refrain from doing so in the future unless you are positive that what you are seeing is truly an error and not intentional. And please do not ping me 4 times like you did in writing your response here. Carl Fredrik 💌📧16:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which example at Wikipedia:Indentation? In the examples, the reply to Example's 12:34 comment by Place holder at 12:44 is always shown before the reply to Example's 12:34 comment by Sand box at 13:57, i.e. in chronological order. I often... I suppose clerk is the best way to put it, at MfD by fixing poor formatting to keep discussions orderly. This aids those attempting to follow or read the discussion and the closer when they are assessing the consensus. That being said, we fundamentally disagree in regard to TPOC, so I don't see any point in discussing that aspect any further. I made two slight copyedits to my second comment here, resulting in the software automatically notifying you multiple times, I didn't ping you. I don't intend on altering the format of your reply again in the concerned mfd, I just thought it was worth pointing out that replying in that manner isn't the best practice. We may have to agree to disagree, but there is no need for this to turn adversarial. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)19:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
