User talk:Димитрий Улянов Иванов

NOTICE

• ENGLISH

For effective communication please employ the following:

• Converse only the subject(s) relevant to the topic.

Do not outsource irrelevant subjects in your replies.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

• Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please open this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

ВНИМАНИЕ

• БЪЛГАРСКИ ЕЗИК

За ефекивна комуникация, моля, използвайе следно:

• Разговаряйе само по темата(ите), която е свързана с темата.

Не възлагайте на външни изпълнители неуместни теми в отговорите си.

• Добавете или отговорете на съществуващ разговор под съществуващото заглавие.

• Направете отстъп на коментара си, когато отговаряте, като използвате подходящ брой двоеточия ':'.
• Създайте ново заглавие, ако оригиналният разговор е архивиран.

• За да започнете нов разговор натази страница,

моля, отворете тази връзка.

• Трябва да подпишете вашите коментари. Можете да направи това автоматично, като въведете четири илди (~~~~).

Your two recent edits of the Bulgarian language article

Hello Димитрий,

I have reverted your last two edits to the "Bulgarian language" article, because they removed instances of language templates being used correctly. You can do a quick check yourself with other language-related articles - e.g. Greek, Macedonian, Norwegian, etc - and you'll find that the language infobox, and often the leading article sentence, do contain an appropriate "lang" template.

Chernorizets (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Editing

Hello! Thanks for letting me know about the troubles with that. Might I add however, the reason why I rescinded the BG marker is to make better character support. Most platforms (including Windows, Mac, Linux etc) support the proper representations of Bulgarian (български) however, IOS does not and oddly represents print type Bulgarian in a cursive font when the marker is applied: It is shown as бълƨapcku opposed to български which is not the correct way to display the Bulgarian language. Removing the marker doesn’t affect the display of the page in any way, so it shouldn’t be an issue? Surely we want to ensure it’s displayed correctly on all platforms? Let me know your opinions on this.

Kind regards. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Strange letters

You're introducing strange letters into Bulgarian text, such as <ƨ>, which is a Zhuang letter. I know that handwritten <г> (at least in Russian) looks like <ƨ>, but it's still <г>, which is a Cyrillic letter. Please check your keyboard layout. phma (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

False! This is actually Bulgarian Cyrillic localisation

Bulgarian utilities slightly different character representations under localisation for prefered character forms. Гг is Russian Гƨ is Bulgarian. Please read into this before doing anything! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

ϹΤΟ (into the, Greek with lunate sigma), СТО (hundred, several Slavic languages), and CTO (chief technical officer, English initialism) look alike (same glyphs), but have different Unicode points.

The bean (or bobsled) is ready: боб готов боб готов боб готов бобcode: srp promoted to code: sr готовcode: srp promoted to code: sr боб. Macedonian and Serbian бобcode: srp promoted to code: sr look different (at least on my computer) from the others, but the characters (code points) are the same. The г on my computer looks the same in all four languages. If you think it should look like ƨ in Bulgarian, I suggest you contact WP:TECHPUMP. phma (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Georgi Dimitrov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leipzig trial. 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) 06:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 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. Sundayclose (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Serbia, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. —Alalch E. 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bosnia and Herzegovina, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Croatian and Bosnian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Degrees in infobox

Hi, I noticed that you added <br/>{{Nobold|[[Ph.D]]}} to infoboxes on multiple pages. Such information is not meant to be added to the name field, see Template:Infobox_person/doc#Parameters for documentation. Please revert. Cheers, Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no such specification on that page as a doctorate (Dr. [name] / Ph.D) is a title associated to the person (i.e John K Smith, Ph.D) similar to how "Sir" is used (i.e Sir John Smith) and this is acceptable to be placed on the name field, i.e see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer. It is not a honorific. Thank you for checking on that issue. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Sir" should not be included in the field name either. Template:Infobox_scientist explicitly says to not include honorifics in that field. The field honorary_prefix exists for that purpose. For an example, see Isaac Newton (who, by the way, did not have a PhD, contrary to your edit).

The documentation in infobox_person also tells that one should not use that field for routine things like "Dr." or "Ms.". Similarly, PhD is not mentioned in the postnominal letters in the infobox. The degree of the scientist is included by adding the university and the graduation year in the field "alma_mater" or "education", and does not need to be mentioned twice in the box. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I stand corrected. I shall redact those edits.

Be well.

Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and have a nice weekend! Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page De novo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Hi Димитрий Улянов Иванов! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder 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. Mason (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, that was not my intention. It was a mistake. Thank you for checking on that issue. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for addressing it!! The challenge with marking things as minor is that editors who have the page on their watch list won't see the changes. I did tweak your revision a little, to make it clearer that your environmental examples are, well, environmental (as in non-genetic factors). Mason (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem. That's understandable and I will refrain from falsely marking edits as minor in the future. It was only rushed due to time constraints. I appreciate your notification and your most recent edit to the ADHD page.

Thanks again and be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Receptor site name formatting

Hello, I notice that you've repeatedly changed α_2A and α₂, across several articles, to alpha-2a and alpha-2, primarily in infoboxes. I pinged you in the talk page of one of the articles asking why you're doing this and didn't receive a response. Is there a reason you're preferring to replace something that is both more terse and stylistically consistent with something that's neither of those things? As I said in one of the edit summaries, the mentions of these receptor sites are wikilinked (especially in infoboxes), and so if someone manages to not know the Greek letter α is read "alpha", then they can click or even simply hover over the wikilink, as the main article on those receptors specify both "spellings" in the lead sentence that will show in the preview. I suggest you take a look at several other articles for compounds that aren't interacting with α receptors, but perhaps look at some nicotinic acetylcholine receptor ligands, some beta receptor ligands, or even serotonin receptor ligands, and see that they're written in the terse, Greek-letter style (or, in the case of serotonin, in the 5-HT_X style), and are also wikilinked to their respective receptor main articles where both "spellings" are again provided. Kimen8 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for writing! Fact checking is always appreciated. My view here derives from abstracts in articles where guanfacine and clonidine are predominately referred to as 'alpha-2/2a agonists' as opposed to its acronym 'α', at least in my interpretation of the research literature. Notice that my edit was also intended to be consistent with the guanfacine page, where 'alpha' is used.

That said, I didn't see your ping or explanation previously so I apologise for that. I wont belabour this and I accept the reason for your edit.

However consider changing 'α₂-adrenergic agonist' to 'α_2A-adrenergic agonist' to indicate selectivity for 2a as I believe that is more accurate. Be well. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding abstracts in articles using 'alpha' rather than 'α':

In my experience, these articles will generally "spell-out" alpha in the abstract, but in the body it seems the transition to using α is rather common; the reason I don't think it needs to be expanded here is twofold:

• infoboxes should be rather terse compared to the article body even, and
• unlike in the articles/abstracts, here the reader can hover or click on wikilinks for abbreviations or other terms that they don't know.

I would support the first use of 'α' in the article (outside the infobox) being spelled out if you'd prefer that, and then follow with using 'α' in the rest of the article.

I do support changing 'α₂' to 'α_2A' and I believe I made that fix on the clonidine article after noting my reason and mistake on that article's talk page.

I'm rather new to editing and so perhaps a more experienced editor could offer an opinion on one of those articles' talk pages about the preferred format; for now though the above reasons are how I'm trying to operate.

I do appreciate the work you've been doing to ADHD-related articles.

Kimen8 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 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) 10:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 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) 10:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed you have been editing some ADHD-related articles recently. If you'd like to meet other editors who are interested in Wikipedia's medical content, you're welcome to join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put it on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time.

By the way, you are just one edit away from getting access to Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. That will give you free access to a lot of expensive sources, including several medical journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I will check them out. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will review this as soon as I can . Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cognitive disengagement syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DSM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Medical references

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here.

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note, or post to the talk page of the Wikipedia WikiProject Medicine

Please don't replace secondary with primary sources as you have done in Viloxazine. An astonishingly high percent of biomedical research simply cannot be repeated. That is why Wikipedia insists that medical claims be backup by secondary sources. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and for your comments, but I am confused about the basis for the reversal.

I did not replace existing secondary sources; rather, condensed them. Four meta-analyses were cited comparing the effectiveness of atomoxetine and methylphenidate, two medications unrelated to the article (viloxaxine), but done to _further_ substantiate their overall comparative efficacy in other comparisons. Is there any reason why this should not be condensed?

Second, I cited a peer-reviewed comparative review on the effects of viloxaxine to other medications, secondarily pooling data from randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) to conclude its effectiveness is equal to AXT and MPH and not merely in paediatric patients, thereby supporting my edit. How has this been considered a primary source?

Respectfully, Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello. We recently got into a debacle regarding the ADHD page a few days ago. I wanted to apologize for my behavior towards you. While I disagree with the consensus that ADHD is strictly a disorder that only causes impairments (I just hope that that more scientific research goes towards identifying what strengths it may provide so it isn't purely anecdotal), this is only true from my experience of having it and I know that for others, it causes nothing but pain. In my case, it went undiagnosed for a long time which caused my family, teachers, and schoolmates to criticize and lambaste me constantly. As a result, I have a lot of pent up anger that I am working through with my therapist. It was incredibly immature of me to act the way I did. I hope you can forgive me. BlueFlare5059 (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi BlueFlare,

No worries and I accept your apology. These sort of edits are certainly provocative of a range of opinions and can initiate quite a conversation online. Of course, only 1 of so many viewers replies so they are not representative of all viewers but it’s good to get some feedback nonetheless.

I sympathise with your encounters with stigma and its truly awful that this happens. Often myself and my colleagues don't know how to deal with such people. They are hard to change because many have adopted a very stigmatised view of ADHD and expectations of child behaviour in general.

I also appreciate the fact that you consider the ways in which the disorder can be inherently problematic. This differs from the pseudoscientific point of view given by some neurodiversity political advocates that ADHD is only a disorder because of modern society, which many people with ADHD have found invalidating.

But in my opinion we can celebrate the successes of people with ADHD without misrepresenting the disorder itself as somehow conveying cognitive gifts or other substantial benefits.

If you are interested, here are some references on the topics of scientific investigations in the effects of ADHD and elevated ADHD symptoms on creativity and perseveration:

Healey and Rucklidge (2008) review https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/adhd.2008.16.3.1?journalCode=adhd

Paek et al. (2016) meta-analysis review https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0016986216630600?journalCode=gcqb

Hoogman et al. (2020) meta-analysis and review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763420305935

Abraham (2014) review of creativity and psychopathology – the concept of an inverted-U https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00750/full

Hyperfocus or perseveration (summary literature review): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfGvDmWRIZA&t=86s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRamOI5bE9I&t=81s

Thanks for writing.

Be well, Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered?

Have you considered including a transliteration into the Latin alphabet of part of your username to ease communication with non users of Cyrillic? I presume you are called Dimitri (from Δημήτριος/Demetrios), the vast majority of users have to cut and paste your username to address you, even casually. I'm aware that the English Wikipedia is not fond of user names in alphabets other than Latin, I think for good reason. Urselius (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Would this involve altering the username into the transliteration or adding an alternative that can be displayed and cited for English users? I appreciate you bringing this to my attention; I would consider doing something like this, especially when the majority of articles I am now editing are in English. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for your attention to detail. I appreciate the work you have done on ADHD and adjacent pages, and the attention to detail you are providing on Autism. You seem to stick to your guns without being rude and seem to be involved in collaborative editing for larger changes. Kimen8 (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Kimen8,

Many thanks for your very kind message! That's very encouraging. I also appreciate the constructive work you have been doing too.

All the very best, Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I have noticed the work you have done on Autism. I want to thank you for your valuable contributions to the article as well as your informative, respectful, and well-sourced comments on the talk page. Pinecone23 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Trump rv

Re: [1]

"Extensively" is not in consensus item 49; it was a recent addition to the article. Where is the consensus to add it? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

On the talk page, a consensus for changing the sentence has been achieved, and sufficient time has elapsed for its determination. See: Talk:Donald Trump#c-Димитрий Улянов Иванов-20241210210500-Proposal for altering a lede sentence Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Only you and JacktheBrown supported "extensively". That is not a consensus. Even without that, it would take significantly more participation to modify the existing 13-8 consensus. Could you self-revert? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

From my interpretation of his comment, Jack supports the change as he stated explicitly that he supports it fundamentally, although he feels personally uncomfortable with the word. That's understandable, I also feel uncomfortable with some words due to their pronunciation, for example, but I can still acknowledge their suitability.

Please keep in mind that - as established by Wikipedia policies (1) - a consensus is not a vote, but rather the occurrence of constructive deliberation in which something was supported or established. Thus, we do not need to gain precisely more than 14 people to overturn the prior consensus, especially when others have not contested the change. Articles also die down in popularity and can be infested with sock accounts to support change, and would thus make changing articles a near impossibility in many circumstances if consensus was based on the precise number of editors endorsing a change. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

All that aside, few editors other than yourself would say you have a consensus there. Furthermore, the long-standing consensus process at that article is:

1. Establish talk page consensus.
2. Update the consensus list (particularly when an existing consensus item is affected).
3. Modify the article.

As I said, I believe you have skipped #1. You have objectively skipped #2. If you attempt to modify the list, I will actively oppose because I don't think #1 has been met.

Must we make such a big deal over one redundant word? How could he do it to a degree unprecedented in American politics without doing it extensively? What real reader value did that word add? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's all perfectly fine, I shan't belabour this further. But the term is suitable for the reasons outlined in the post. I don't think it's redundant at all. Thanks for checking on this issue. Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)