User talk:7e8y

Below I replied: "I always appreciate people who report [...] potential errors in my texts (irrespective of whether they are right or wrong)"; please, feel free to instantiate a talk anytime!

Medicine exchanges

A WP:WikiProject is a group of editors who like to work together on articles. If you're interested in improving health-related articles, you're welcome to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. It's a good place to ask questions or to help each other out.

Please also join our informal, low-key contest about adding citations to articles: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Wikipedia/WikiProject_Medicine_reference_campaign_2023?enroll=qyoufwds (All you have to do is sign up at that link, and then edit normally. Everything else is automated.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation WhatamIdoing, but I must decline. I indeed made ~=115 edits on Wikipedia’s entries about medicine, but my interest for medicine should remain temporary (see my main page). If this is not the case, I will join!! Besides, I do apologise for the confusion that I am creating ;-). 7e8y (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It's entirely up to you. The key point is to make good contributions to articles. Wikipedia articles benefit from having a lot of people with different fields looking things over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and for sharing your experience with me; WhatamIdoing, you seem to be a great WikiProject Medicine’s facilitator!! 7e8y (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Geography exchanges

Glad to see someone with an advanced degree editing the spatial pages, they need a lot of work. I recommend you join Wikiproject Geography and Wikiproject Maps. I'm currently thinking through how to implement a Wikiproject for GIS.

Let me know if you have any questions or need anyone to help look over a new page. I can at least proof read and maybe give some citations. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for welcoming me User:GeogSage!! You have created and (almost entirely) written very interesting Wikipedia’s entries, like on quantitative geography, technical geography, internet GIS and web GIS; amazing!!

Thanks again for your support on my first Wikipedia’s entry (about spatial neural networks). So, I can ask you some questions; cool!! Do you know why the Google Search’s result webpage does not return this entry when I type "spatial neural network" in the Google Search’s search bar?

You cannot imagine how much I would like to join the WikiProject Geography (or instead WikiProject GIS if you manage to create it) and also WikiProject Computer science, for practicing collaborative writing with people like you. But for the moment I am in a complex situation, thus I do not intend joining any WikiProject. Once again, I do apologise for the confusion that I am creating (see also the section above;-). If the situation changes or if I create a new Wikipedia’s entry on a geography’s topic, I will notice you right away!! 7e8y (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for noticing those articles! I am a grad student, and use Wikipedia as a way to organize my thoughts and push me to actually do literature review, and those broad topics are covered a lot in my work.

My guess on the Google Search issue is that Google has not yet indexed your new page. I unfortunately have very limited knowledge about how something does or does not come up on Google. You would probably have to talk to an Admin for a better answer.

No problem on joining the projects or not, there isn't much of a commitment in joining one but they help narrow down what articles to look at. I had thought your PhD in Geographic Data Science might mean your interest in geography is more permanent then medicine. No pressure though.

Thank you for your contributions, and let me know if you do have any more questions. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages; indeed, it is probably because of the Google Search's indexing latency. Also you have correctly guessed: my interest for geography and computer science are permanent, but joining a WikiProject in this moment would be super maladaptive;-). 7e8y (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! Glad to see more technically oriented geographers around! I really appreciate your time, as I know how hard it can be to do anything not going on your CV in academia (also AAG coming up is a huge time sink). Wikipedia can also be really addictive when you spend a year waiting for reviewers to reject a manuscript, as it gives you instant feelings of accomplishment. A Wikigroup may be dangerous in that regard, but the door is open and invitation sent!

Also, I hope that I don't step on your toes to much on the spatial neural networks page. I tend to be clumsy in my edits, and Wikipolicy is something I'm still learning on the fly, and you clearly know what you're talking about on that page. Don't worry about justifying removing or modifying any edits I make there, and I encourage your perspective on any pages I've put together. A common criticism I've seen is that a page is the work of only one editor, so more editors in the page statistics are better for the page credibility. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey User:GeogSage, good to see you again!! I definitively share your pleasant feelings of instantaneous rewards that Wikipedia provides. Indeed, Wikipedia can induce obsessions/addictions.

Your social and scientific writing are pretty good!! Is English your native language?

You have not bothered me at all; all your contributions on ‘spatial neural networks’ were constructive. They forced me to handle highly legitimate issues that will almost surely happen anyway. Do not worry too much about being awkward/clumsy; just continue to politely and clearly explain/justify your revisions, in the revision history. Indeed, the more (skilled) editors contribute to an entry/article, the better it is. By the way, I proposed some revisions on ‘quantitative geography’ and ‘technical geography’ ;-). Also I suggest that: i.you replace my HTLM comment in section: Applications of the entry on ‘spatial neural networks’ by something like: <!-- before expanding please read the talk page's section: Suggestions for section: Applications -->; ii.copy/paste my (current) HTML comment in the section you created on the talk page and sign for me, iii.suggest the alternative and highly legitimate advice you wrote in the revision history about ‘eventually synthesising each case study with {1, ..., 3} sentences’; this way, the talk page you created will be more inline with WP:TALK#CREATE. Note that, this is just a suggestion;-). 7e8y (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Linguistic exchanges

Just an idle comment but I thought you might like to know... Would I be correct in guessing that English is not your first language, despite your proficiency in its use? Your use of the word "wholesome" seemed odd to me, so I wondered if it may be a "false friend"? The word is almost always used only in the context of food: "wholesome food" is the opposite of "junk food" – depending on personal values, it might be taken to mean organic, minimally processed, hand-made, etc. However, "unwholesome" is rarely used of food! It tends to be used to express disapproval, as in "an unwholesome interest in dead animals", only a little better than "prurient". No reply expected. I may just be looking at your words through a lens distorted by my own struggles with language learning. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi John Maynard Friedman thanks for the advice/remark; with this kind of highly constructive advice/remark, you are more than welcome on this talk page!! Indeed, "wholesome" frequently happens in the field of health, nutrition and biology in relation with food and states of biological bodies. However, its definition/use is boarder. The Cambridge University Press 2023's English dictionary defines wholesome as "good for you, and likely to improve your life either physically, morally, or emotionally". In fact, philosophy (especially Buddhist philosophy) and psychology has ever used this term for classifying overall positive states of their overlapping concepts (e.g. mind, thinking and thoughts, personalities, feelings/affects and attitudes, actions/behaviours, cognition and knowledge) – see Burnham (1932), Assmann (1994), Salzberg et al. (2004)—Sharon Salzberg is an amazing American author who provides meaningful uses of wholesome in this book, Grossman (2015)—also provides meaningful uses of this word in section: ethical conduct in Buddhist practice, Lee et al. (2017)—use wholesome in the sociology, The Dalai Lama et al. (2020)—ditto Salzberg et al. (2004), Alsalamah et al. (2021)—use this term for naming a software/web application in the field of mental health. 7e8y (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting (and my apologies for questioning your vocabulary). A crossover with wikt:holistic, perhap? Come to think of it, yes, I have come across "wholesome" in the context of healthy consumption generally, not just food. I think the Victorians would have called it "wikt:improving", esp. of books. (I see Wiktionary recognises that usage.)

PS, for a slightly more convenient call to another editor, see {{replyto}} / {{rto}} / {{ping}} / {{yo}} etc. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey John Maynard Friedman, there is no need for apologising; I always appreciate people who report scientifically or ethically/morally potential errors in my texts (irrespective of whether they are right or wrong). You are right, I definitively enjoy adopting holistic approaches;-). By the way, do you prefer that I refer to you by using your username abbreviation (i.e. 𝕁𝕄𝔽) instead? 7e8y (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference: I prefer to sign my edits using the shorter form just because the long version is just a bit "ooh, look at me!" Obviously it has to be more convenient to type {{rto|John Maynard Friedman}} but just copying my sig from an earlier reply ([[User:John Maynard Friedman|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] is probably even easier if it is readily available. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Asymptomatic entry ¤ WP:BRD ¤ writing meaningfulness

Hello. You seem to have forgotten about Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, by reverting a revert of a WP:BOLD edit without discussion. I request that you self-revert, and engage in discussion. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Mako001, thank you for coming there, and I do apologise if I hurt your feeling. In the revision history there is a character limit, so some awkwardness may happen.

I think your concern is probably because I did not improve the 'text semantics'. However, I have definitively improved the 'text meaningfulness' in term of 'scientific writing', i.e. specificity, clarity and synthesis/brevity Lindsay (2011) – aka precision, clarity and concision in WP:WBA. The argument supporting my improvement in 'text/writing meaningfulness' already contains 11 propositions/premises – see Asymptomatic: Revision history. This is enough (even a little bit too much;-). So I will not justify further, but if you have some questions about specific propositions/premises; please do not hesitate to ask me!! If you want to know more about scientific writing, you can look at Lindsay (2020) and Heard (2022); these books are amazing (I read the previous editions).

Wikipedia's contributors like you who are dealing with vandalism everyday are mandatory and highly valuable. So thank you for your great work!! Also please, do specify your concern if I missed something above (and below); I will do my very best to address it;-).

My last edits improve the 'text/writing meaningfulness' in line with Lindsey (2011) and the compliance with the Wikipedia's Manual of Style, so I will not revert them. Please, also notice that my ultimate edit of the entry: asymptomatic (i.e. not the one you reverted) has also improved the 'text semantics', with the proposition/statement that ‘clinically silent’ and 'asymptomatic' are synonyms. Now I would like to add the bibliographic/scientific reference supporting this proposition/statement. However, I will wait that we find an agreement together first. Please, let me know!-). 7e8y (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 , In fact you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asymptomatic. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

— 7e8y (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Addition entry ¤ edit-summary notifications ¤ writing efficiency

You mentioned me in your edit summary and I'm not sure what you're referring to as my edit before yours is just removing peacock terms and superfluous words. Please use either the article talk page or the user's talk page to talk to someone about something specific, you can even link to specific edits there. Collab is what makes WP useful for everyone, but that's not what edit summaries are for. Hope we can get whatever's on your mind cleared up. Lalaithan (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lalaithan I did not expect to see you here, but you are welcome!! There is a big misunderstanding, thus I need some time to properly address your message. However, I will be very busy during the following days. Do not worry, there is no interpersonal issues; the reply is on the way!! 7e8y (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Take your time. I didn't mean you offended me or anything like that, was just wondering about your insight. Lalaithan (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lalaithan I do not forget you!! I will reply tomorrow, since now I have to leave. Today, I made many changes on addiction. So, you will probably understand why I mentioned you in the edit: 1147468810. The most important proposition/statement in my edit summary was: "User:Lalaithan your proposition is also correct but inline citations are mandatory for challenged sentences, which is what I did/[wrote]; alternatively use/adapt {{leadcite comment}}" 7e8y (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I see your changes (I still don't see why you tagged me in that) and am going to suggest you review what I put on that article's talk page about sections, and suggest you see the article talk page of any article you intend to do major changes to in the future. There's no "Definitions" section suggested by the MOS, for a start. I'm on mobile so I'm not going to do anything nor read closer, but at a glance, what you did is at odds with what I presented in the talk page. Lalaithan (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Lalaithan and 7e8y, somehow ended up following this talk page and been getting notifications so pardon me jumping in. 7e8y, I think the issue here is that on Wikipedia we don't normally mention people by user name in our edit summaries. It is assumed that if the person you are mentioning is interested, they will get the notification of change and come in. If you have something to say to a specific editor, this is normally done in the talk pages, not in edit summaries. This is often just done in the talk page for the page in question, not the personal talk page. It is just some Wikipedia conventions that may or not be super formalized. However as it is not normal to call someone out by name in the edit summaries, unless you are perhaps reverting an edit, then it might come off as a bit hostile.

Edit summaries are just a summary of what you did in the edit, so that someone looking down the list can quickly get an idea of your justification without opening it up to see the previous version. Collaboration happens in the talk page.

Lalithan, thank you for not not biting the newcomer (not sarcasm, I appreciate your patience and moving it to a talk page). 7e8y is really smart from what I've seen and learning fast, so they will certainly be a very valuable resource to Wikipedia for as long as we can keep them around. Really like to see geographers on here with advanced degrees. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi GeogSage, thank you so much for defending me!! Indeed, Lalaithan has a very defensive approach... Also, MediaWiki provides the software feature for noticing/pinging users within the edit summary; it optimises the writing/delivering efficiency... see more tomorrow in my reply to Lalaithan. Anyway, I super happy to see you again on my talk page!!! Actually, I was super super worry because you have never addressed my last post... What happened to you? Was my question about your native language inappropriate? 7e8y (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Lalaithan today it was Easter Sunday and I have not had enough time for addressing your legitimate questions/issues. Now I must leave; sorry, I will reply tomorrow. I see your post on the addition's talk page citing WP:MEDSECTIONS; I read it. Please do not raise any other issues, because i am already preparing a very very long reply;-). It remembers me some exchanges with students when i taught at the university. In fact, I think you have no experiences in scientific writing, e.g. writing on a topic without agreed definitions seems not bothering you; worst a topic where the main term definitions/uses are even strongly conflicting... Note that, I have no obsession with atypical sections like: 'Definitions' (aka 'Terminology'). Look at the two entries that I recently created and wrote on spatial neural networks and thought-action fusion. They not contain such section, because the term definitions/uses are crystal clear;-). 7e8y (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Dear Lalaithan and GeogSage, I do apologise again for the delay.
Motivation for contributing to this entry. I was merely questioning the definitions/uses and differences between obsessions, compulsions, impulses, and addictions. All these terms are specific neuropsychological symptoms that happen in specific mental disorders (GeogSage, mental disorders are conceptual models defining diseases of the mind through specific clusters of mandatory neuropsychological symptoms, plus clusters of optional neuropsychological symptoms). Unfortunately, the literature in medicine, but also in psychology and sociology, is highly conflicting (only) about the definition/use of ‘addiction’ – see section on 'definitions' in the Wikipedia’s entry on 'addiction' I wrote. I did not expect wasting so much time on this theme/topic... 7e8y (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer-collaborative writing efficiency using edit summary. Exchanging through the ‘edit summaries’ is actually the most efficient way to perform peer-collaborative writing. Besides MediaWiki provides specific software features for notifying/pinging users/editors in the revision history, alongside with the rationales/reasons supporting the changes (e.g. change one proposition from a previous edit of an identifiable user/editor, which does not require a 'revert'). Exchanging over the edit summary avoid wasting time on talk pages; thus saving time to contribute on the Wikipedia’s entries/articles. But there is a character limit in the ‘edit summary’, so awkwardness or confusion happen – see above the exchange with Mako001, or with GeogSage who was worrying to be clumsy/awkward. Whenever an awkwardness or confusion happens in the edit summary, this is your right Lalaithan to ask for clarification. It is the duty of the other user/editor (i.e. here me) to kindly address your questions. So I will do my best!! 7e8y (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Reason for noticing/pinging Lalaithan in the edit summary. In my edit on 2023-03-21 (see also edit summary), I have made a big switch in the definition/use of addiction. I defined 'addiction' as a 'neuropsychological symptom' instead as a 'mental disorder', and supported my proposition with the WHO’s ICD-11. However, this definition/use was incomplete and highly challengeable/conflicting ('challengeable' also exists in MOS:CITELEAD). Therefore, I was expecting legitimately strong complaints by other users/editors. In addition, I did not want investing more time on this Wikipedia’s entry. I was waiting for a complaint, so to explain the situation and encourage the editor to clarify this challengeable/conflicting definition/use of addition (as symptom vs. mental disorder vs. harmful habit vs. etc.). During 2023-03-24--31 Lalaithan makes several good contributions to this entry, without complaining about my challengeable/conflicting definition/use. Instead on 2023-03-24 (see also edit summary), Lalaithan even removed the ICD-11 reference supporting this challengeable/conflicting definition/use, incorrectly claiming to be in line with MOS:LEAD. On 2023-03-03-31 (see also edit summary) I reintroduced the ICD-11 reference in the lead/introduction, and notice/ping Lalaithan in the ‘edit summary’ so to explain that the ICD-11 reference is mandatory because it roughly supports a highly challengeable/conflicting definition/use – this time fairly in line with MOS:LEAD and especially MOS:LEADCITE. 7e8y (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Justifications for changing the lead and writing the atypical section: Definitions. Recently Lalithan complained because the section: ‘Definitions’ that I created not belongs to the advised sections by WP:MEDSECTIONS. Indeed, these guidelines not advise such section. But 'WP:MEDSECTIONS' does not explain how dealing with definitions/uses of topics and subtopics which are polysemic or conflicting/ambiguous over the literature. However MOS:LEADALT and WP:OTHERNAMES explicitly specifies addressing long polysemic and conflicting naming/terminology/definition issues in a separate (special) section. Lalaythan, you are probably developing very good writing skills, but your reaction expresses an inexperience in scientific writing. In fact, (separate) special sections constitute the standard method for dealing with such comer cases in scientific writing – see Heard (2022)’s chapter 16: Beyond the IMRaD Canon. I actually read the previous edition of the book, and whose the chapter 16’s name was: “Deviation from the IMRaD cannon”. For example, Patouillard et al (2018) created an entire section: 'terminology' for clarifying the definitions/uses of the main terms from geography and especially spatial analysis, the literature on life-cycle assessment had inconsistently or conflicting used for years. Then I rewrote the first paragraph of the article’s lead in line with MOS:OPEN and MOS:FIRST, i.e. I synthesised the definitions/uses of the main topic/term (i.e. 'addiction') and related subtopics/terms (i.e. 'addictive disorder' and 'dependence') in the first paragraph's sentences. I also referred to the section: 'Definitions' for the details/issues and bibliographic references about these definitions/uses, so to avoid cluttering the lead in line MOS:CITELEAD – while writing a tailored version of {{leadcite comment}} template. Finally I created 4 well-formed paragraphs in the lead and wrote the 4 HTML comments specifying the main idea of each paragraph, in line with MOS:LEAD;-). 7e8y (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I realize I never responded to you so here it is, with apologies because spring holds a difficult anniversary for me. On that article and anywhere else on here, do what you want. Wikipedia is for everyone, as a team! Not just experts and that's what makes Wikipedia valuable. Now, I know a year has passed and you could be a totally different person but it's not very neighborly to assume what a stranger doesn't know or whatever (in reference to "have no experiences in scientific writing" and I don't see whatever question you asked about my native language and I have no interest in searching it out). I've seen it happen in real life, comments that merely point out someone's wrongs, perceived or real, break up teams and wreck quality. There's no point in defending my CV anonymously to people I don't know because in the end it doesn't matter what you or I assess of another editor on here, what matters is improving the articles. I confess this was a part (certainly not the only reason) of why I left for so long and will no longer be doing more than copy editing on Wikipedia. My time is more appreciated where I volunteer as well as work in health care and actually get to see the difference made vs. well, this place. I wish you well. Lalaithan (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)