No problem! (You could also use the thanks button so you don't have to post every time. Also, please only give barnstars for extraordinary efforts; it's not fair to the editors who have worked very hard for their barnstars for me to be given them for relatively minor ones. ) Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
pls.could you change my picture into small I've put the picture full of the page.
Thanks for the typo fixes on the Virtual Reality article. The whole thing is an unwieldy mess. I'm trying to bring it up to a better standard, improve it's usefulness for the average reader, etc etc. Would you mind keeping an eye on it as well? - Seazzy (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be more than happy to keep an eye on that. The topic is fascinating, and it does deserve a good article. Thanks for taking the time to improve it! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at my comma edits as apparently they are dreadful? It would be helpful to learn from an experienced editor what I've done wrong. Sorry to bother you, but my profs at uni failed me. Thanks! 🙏 😘 Here2help (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@Here2help: Hello! It's no problem. From a cursory look into your contributions, I personally see no problem with your more recent edits of commas. Are there any specific examples you'd like me to look at? I see someone has already linked you to MOS:COMMA and MOS:OXFORD on your talk page; perhaps those can shed more light than I can in the meantime. (If your profs failed you for comma usage, that's rather harsh of them...do they have very strong opinions on the Oxford comma, by any chance?) Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking out my edits. Am relieved you think they were fine. Those links weren't very helpful as no one has criticized any specific edit of mine, and I think my edits have kept to those comma rules. I have no idea what my profs think about Oxford commas. I have avoided asking professors questions that will have me laughed out of their offices ever since a professor confused my desire to "prosecute" with a desire to "prostitute". Yes, apparently they don't all know everything... - Here2Help
You're very welcome. I concur that it is difficult to determine the problem without specific examples, and I don't trust myself to be able to review all your edits properly. As long as you follow the MOS it should be fine.
What a strange fear to have...a human can hurt you but a typo can't. It would be a useful fear to have if boggarts were terrorizing your town though...;) - Here2Help
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Hi, I created a page called Cabum but it was tag with issues that needed to be addressed.. I did few subtractions and addition to it and will like you to review it and let me know if I can remove the tag..Bloomshouse (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I took a look at the page. I deorphaned the page and performed a minor cleanup, but the concerns about notability are beyond my expertise. It appears that there are sources for most of the information, but those were identified as potentially not reliable. The best thing to do would be to find reliable sources that demonstrate the criteria laid out here. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I wrote someone this as an explanation for the edit: "I stated, 'x,y,z'" has more proper punctuation than "I stated: x,y,z". To keep the colon, I would have had to add, "I stated as follows: x, y, z". Is that right or wrong?
Hello! No worries, I am happy to help. As far as I know, a colon can be used before a quote if the quote contains/is an independent clause, not only when it is preceded by an independent clause, so I think the punctuation was correct as it was. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello , I was was wondering if u can help me look at two pages for me both kweku Aacht and mista shaw ... Will really appreciate that 45.210.60.160 (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
My name is Kyurim Kang. On the behalf of the Academy of Neurologic Music Therapy, I am posting this message. First, we appreciate your contribution to the NMT Wikipedia page. We are now trying to develop and revise the NMT Wikipedia page under the NMT Advisory Council to ensure that we provide accurate information about NMT to the public. We recognized that there is some ambiguous information on the page, so we are considering editing the entire page. However, we would like to kindly ask your permission before we delete your information. We are also happy to have your suggestions for editing the NMT page. If you have any questions, please email to kyurim.kang@mail.utoronto.ca.
Again, we really appreciate your contribution.
Do yo have any proof that Nairs main diet was pork. Its a dish of Syrian Christian in Kerala. Please don't use Wikipedia for your views and suggestions.
I have removed some sources in the article "Anti-Vietnamese sentiment" because they don't represent political equilibrium, because they are bias.
Bhuyquang1 (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey there's a mistake or 2,(more like two or three._.)
There are a few typos where there's the character explanations for the book explanation of Sarah Dessens, The Moon And More... And I also suggest that you add in the ages for some of the characters like Benji, Emaline's half brother. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know, and I also made this account so I could tall u about the typo, so I'm probably gonna delete it so I don't have to remember all of my 5,000 apps and such attached to my email address. So yea, thought I'd let u know. Have a nice day!!! 😊 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomboychic (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Welcome, and I'm sorry to hear that you're not staying around (I do hope you change your mind, though!). Thanks for the heads-up. (In the future, a notice on the talk page of the article that needs fixing might work better 😊) I've not the sources for the ages unfortunately (I don't have the book) but if you have them, you're more than welcome to add them yourself. Hope you have a nice day as well! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
On "See alsos" I usually split them into two columns to make it more readable by inserting
==See also==
{{columns-list|2|
* [[xxxxxx]]
}}
Up to recently you could replace the "2" with "3" or "4" to make 3 or 4 columns for long See also lists but that does not work anymore. (The reasons are quite obscure). Putting in "3" or "4" now just gets interpretted as "2".
However you can legimately get round this by using:
Look out for old {{columns-list|3| that wrongly appear as two columns and fix it by replacing with {{columns-list|colwidth=18em| to give three columns. {{columns-list|colwidth=15em| will give you 4 columns but you dont need it very often.
Hello again! Thanks for the examples. There have certainly been some interesting changes to those templates, and I'll keep an eye out for those. (I think I usually alphabetize the See alsos, but a reminder never hurts.) Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I was unaware that there was now an official Wikipedia MOS. Last time I looked, punctuation just had to be compliant with common rules in an English-speaking country (which do vary). Forgive the nitpick. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, one question--you are a male, correct? After all, I initially left the gender section blank because I didn't know what your gender is; then, I fixed it to male because for some reason leaving the gender section blank gave the title "Working Woman's Barnstar." (You can see all of this in my edit history on this page.) Futurist110 (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I am honoured that you think I deserve it. Thanks again!
Hi there, I am new to Wikipedia editing and came across a strange artifact. When I look at this page anonymously (i.e. not signed in) there is a an error
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Top
Some cookies to welcome you! A video describing Editing Wikipedia for medical content (WikiProject Medicine) - also very relevant for sanitation content (WikiProject Sanitation)
I am EMsmile, and I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve sanitation-related articles on Wikipedia (which also includes topics around water supply and public health).
After running our first SuSanA Wikipedia Edit-a-thon for World Water Day in March 2017, we are now doing something similar but better for World Toilet Day. This drive is taking place during the two months prior to 19 November 2017. We've put together an outline of how we see this working here in our Meetup page. This time we are focussing on a select few number of articles (we have chosen 70). Also we are focussing mainly on improving their readability scores and their leads.
Can you help? Then please start editing and improving any number of those 70 articles which are listed here. And please get in touch with us on the talk page of that meetup page because it is always more fun to feel part of a team effort!
You have received this message as you are one of the most recent names in either the source or destination article's history page. This proposal serves two purposes, namely
To suggest a merge (obviously) of the overlapping material
To draw attention to the source article (the info to be merged into the destination article, which requires expansion)
Recent dummy edits: Feel free to delete! [A copy of this message has also been posted to the page of Jonesey95]
Hi!
I am just writing to inform you of a couple recent dummy edits I made at the Environmental racism in Europe article. Please feel free to delete! I reverted and reinstated my own edit on several occasions; apologies for any confusion. An incorrect edit by another user was made to the first sentence of the lead section (so I felt a need to fix it immediately), however, in my haste I found myself needing to re-word my rationale (which, again, I felt was necessary since this was the lead sentence).
Hello, Me, Myself, and I are Here. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)05:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)01:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention! Unfortunately, I don't think I'm qualified for this, since I have no substantial content contributions to speak of and only an understanding of the letter of policies. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I am not quite sure what you're requesting here: I don't think the article fits the criteria for being a stub, so I changed it to a start-class article. I am afraid I cannot improve the article further, since this is not a topic where I have expertise; I may return to do some copyedits when I have more time. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize that they display the same. I just looked at the edit page that I sent you. Makes sense, thanks! DocTox (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I've been writing about vaginal anomalies and left a link on the Genetic diagnosis of intersex article because these two articles seem to be related. I am not sure at this point what to do (if anything) about some of the content in the intersex article. I saw that you recently made some edits to the intersex article and thought you could help. The article has 'diagnosis' in the title but medical content in the article contains references that do not meet the requirements of MEDRS. My impression of the intersex article is that it is written more from a sociological perspective rather than a medical perspective. What is your opinion on this? I've blundered into controversial and contentious situations and would rather not have that happen again. This is why I'm approaching you on your talk page before I raise a storm in editing this article. I would rather work with another editor on this rather than going off on my own. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 23:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Barbara (WVS)! Thanks for writing to me. I have to admit that since I am not an expert in this subject, my opinion is likely not very useful, and a second opinion would probably be best. I do agree that the article largely seems to discuss more the sociological than the medical side of things. I'm not sure if it would be best to remove all of this content, since some of it does seem relevant to the topic, but a rewrite and reordering that recasts the usable content as explicitly sociological (section heading: Social impact of PGD?) and the addition of more content about the medical process might work. I'm not sure what your plans are for the article, but if there's anything else I can do to help, please let me know! Have a nice day, Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for such a kind reply. I have contacted another editor who was involved in the creation of the article. We have worked together in the past on similar topics, but they seem to be on break. I'll take a stab at editing since I have spent so much time on the vaginal anomalies article. I found so much relevant content to use as sources for this topic, it would be a shame to see it go unused. If you could put the intersex article and talk page on your watchlist for a short time that would be great. Also feel free to edit the content and re-ordering of the sections to your preferences. I may start by trimming medical references and inserting better sources. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 07:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It's my pleasure! I've added the pages to my watchlist, and I certainly will help edit whenever I can. I'm always glad to see people so passionate about improving articles. Have a nice day! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent edits to some of the articles that I recently created. You made them even better and you are always welcome to 'follow' me around to do this. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 09:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
1. It took me 13 minutes to figure out how to communicate with you - as opposed to the 30 seconds it would have taken by email, or chat, or some other communication technology.
2. I edited the article "Living Educational Theory" because I wasn't able to figure out any other way to communicate my concern that the article is misleading and makes false claims. It should be a VERY simple process to send a notice of concern.
3. My claim is that the article in question makes claims that are obviously false and misleading - that is, anyone of reasonable intelligence and good faith would come to that conclusion, or would, at least, have concerns about the manner and substance of the claims. There is no way to "cite" that claim.
4. If other Wikipedia editors aren't able or interested in investigating, then so be it. In that case, Wikipedia is on its way out .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RQParks (talk • contribs) 23:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, RedUser. You've highlighted some important concerns.
There is an email function, though the talk-page method is more common for these types of discussions since not everyone has an email linked to their user account and it's less easy to find. I agree that this method (talk pages) may not be as fast or intuitive as other methods, though changing this will take time, and many editors have grown used to it.
I am sorry to hear that it was so difficult to find a way to express your concerns; it should indeed be a simple process. The article's talk page (linked next to "Article" at the top of each page) is usually the place to go for that.
Unfortunately, I will not be of much help here if there is no citation, since the policy that everything needs a source is unlikely to change. If a citation for the claim that the term was first used by Whitehead could be located, however, that would be sufficient to justify a rewrite.
I am not sure if other editors are all unable to help, since those who can help may not even be aware of the article – Wikipedia is a very large site. Reposting your concerns on the talk page might draw more attention to the article, though there is no guarantee.
Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. I won't be revealing myself in real life anytime soon, but hopefully I'll get to work with you further in cyberspace. :) Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Researching article selection
Hi,
I'm building tools to create and develop lists (and similar navigation aids).
So, I started looking for people who work on lists a lot.
A few minutes into this hunt, I came across your contributions and noticed the wide range and volume of topics you edit.
This piqued my curiosity immediately, and so I have a question for you...
How do you select which pages to work on? Whether by list, backlog, administrative categories, listmaker, search, tab loader, other browsing method, or some combo, I'm very interested.
I've read your user page, but it doesn't reveal how you navigate to the pages you edit.
If this is too personal, then no worries, I understand. I'm merely interested in methods, in case they can be adapted into useful tools or navigation aids.
The main tool I'm currently working on is SearchSuite.js, and I couldn't help but wonder if it could be used (e.g., in conjunction with "insource:") to create lists similar to your contributions. Which made me all the more curious as to how you navigate the 'pedia.
P.P.S.: If you reply, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT
Hello The Transhumanist! Thanks for your message. I'm happy to elucidate my erratic browsing habits for the good of the 'pedia, though I'm not sure if my methods will be of much help to other people.
I use a combination of different methods. When I have more time, I go through all the links (this is just a matter of finding the page in question and clicking through the links one by one) in administrative categories (CS1 errors, PMC errors, orphans, etc.), indices, outlines, lists, see also sections, navigation templates, or any other place where there is a heavy concentration of links that look interesting (e.g. lists on userpages, course pages for articles edited by students as part of a class assignment, the New Pages list). (Oddly enough, one area especially rich in linkage is the "Interactions" section of an article on a gene. That rabbit hole can go on for a while.) If one error (e.g. vandalism) is propagated through a number of pages by one user, I'd likely go through the contributions and fix those. Sometimes I use the "Random Article" link to explore the lesser-known corners of Wikipedia. Nowadays, I usually only edit articles that appear on my watchlist. (I used to add every article I edited to it, but switched to manual addition after a few months; the list still managed to get very unwieldy.) I also search for topics of interest or browse the wiki casually, editing as I come across things to fix. This mishmash creates the range of topics and volume of minor edits in my contribs.
I would be very intrigued to see a tool that mimics the results of this search pattern. I've been trying to get myself to learn to use a script since some of them would likely save me a great deal of time. I applaud all script-makers for doing that work for us non-computer-literate people.
I hope this helps. Have a nice day!
(P.S.: I've found the Tips very useful. I am working on a series of condensed guides to editing with images/audio so I can rope my acquaintances into editing Wikipedia or assist newer users, and there is significant overlap with TOTD. Once I finish reading all the Tips of the Day, perhaps I could add a tip or eliminate the redundancy in mine.) Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
One-by-one, eh? I've been thinking about a page analyzer, but more in the context of a bot. But such a thing, that activates every time a new page is opened, could be very useful for a User. I'll add that to my list. Thanks!
Your hunting grounds are also most interesting. That has "navigation" written all over it. I might be able to come up with something based on that, and I'm sure others will find your methods as interesting as I have. You have given me a pretty good idea of how you find pages to work on, but I'm still curious about what you look for once you are on a page. Do you look for a particular thing you decide on at the beginning of your hunt? Do you scan a page quickly looking for formatting problems, or do you read through each page and fix the problems as come across them? Or however else you go about it. I look forward to any details you wish to provide.
By the way, thank you for sharing. And, since you like tips, the least I could do is comment on your procedures, with a few tips. I hope you find these useful, if not enjoyable...
I use the Firefox browser, but I'm sure the other major browsers have corresponding features to do the following... When you hold down Ctrl while clicking on a link (with your mouse), that article is opened in a tab. You can also have Firefox set to not go to the tabs when you create them. That way, you can click on a bunch of links in rapid-fire succession opening them each in their own tab, and navigate between them when you are ready. Then you press Ctrl+Tab ↹ to navigate between the tabs. When you are done with a tab, Ctrl+W closes it, moving you instantly to the next tab. This saves much time over backtracking to click on the next link in the starting page.
The Ctrl click method works very well on the random page link. Just keep clicking on it with Ctrl held down and it keeps opening up new tabs with a random article in each. Do that 20 to 50 times, say, and then cycle through the tabs, nuking them with Ctrl+W as you go.
Wikipedia's search has a parameter called insource: which lets you specify a search string for it to look for in the wikisource of pages. With that, you can include wikicode in the search. When used in combination with SearchSuite.js, you can get a single-spaced list of links to pages with the precise error you are looking for.
If the fix is the same for each page you are working on, a search/replace across those pages could really speed things up. For that, you could use either WP:AWB (in Windows) or WP:JWB (from any user account).
You mentioned that you like to find places "where there is a heavy concentration of links that look interesting". I noticed you did not mention the search results page. It does leave something to be desired, but there is a way to control the results so that they are much more interesting. That is, by making them match your search string more closely. The tool for this is SearchSuite.js. It has a built-in feature that if you use intitle: followed by a string in quotes, it will only show you pages with that string in the title — it strips all other results out of the list. This of course works best the more results you have selected (5000 is the max, with instructions on the talk page). This script also provides a menu item that provides sorting that you can turn on and off, and another menu item that strips out details to present the list as single-spaced entries.
The watchlist is usually a jumbled mess, but there is a simple tool that can make it easier on the eyes, and much easier to browse, by sorting the results by namespace. I was amazed when I started using this, and now I can't stand looking through the watchlist without it. I liked it so much that I adopted it to maintain it (it was abandoned). It is called WatchlistSorter.js.
Another watchlist trick is how to get a list of bare links without wikiformatting to add to your raw watchlist. SearchSuite.js can provide lists of pages as a list. Just copy and paste it straight into your raw watchlist. You can get very close matches using insource: or intitle: (followed by a quoted string). The nice thing about this list is that the destinations are as displayed, with no pipes or redirects.
Which brings us to the tips of the day. There are a number of ways to browse these if you want to read them all. One way (the slowest) is to click "next tip" while on each tip. There is a chronological list of tips at WP:TOTD, and a categorically arranged library of tips is presented at WP:TIPS. But the most convenient way, perhaps, is to have the daily tip displayed automatically on your own talk page. The basic template is {{totd}}, and there's a random tip version too: {{totd-random}}.
To hang a template, like the tip of the day, at the bottom of your talk page, use the reference trick, and put the template inside <ref></ref> tags somewhere on your page (usually at the top is best). Like this: [1].
I hope you find these tips useful. Also, if you have or come across any other useful tips or procedures, I would be very interested in learning them. I'm always on the lookout for the best and fastest methods in making use of and improving the 'pedia.
@The Transhumanist:: You're very welcome! I'll try to respond in order. I'm glad that my methods are interesting, at least to some people.
When I'm on a page and I'm not interested in the topic, I generally scan the page briefly for errors (e.g. I'll look at the table of contents for MOS:HEAD violations or layout iffiness, scroll through to see if curly quotes are being used instead of straight quotes, look at the see also for ordering, duplications, external links, redlinks, etc., and maybe perform a cursory Ctrl + F search for refpunct and dash problems). I also have my preferences set to colour disambiguation links orange, so I can spot them without having to check the link. If I am interested in the topic, or if the article has issues (overlinking, grammar, style, no italics for book titles, etc.) throughout, I will read each section through and fix things as I go along. I'm not usually looking for any errors in particular unless it's part of a series of articles containing similar errors (e.g. they were in a maintenance category or created by the same user who made the same mistakes in each). It's hard to explain how I spot formatting issues: they just sort of stand out after I've spent such a long time looking for them.
1. I use Google Chrome most of the time, and that particular shortcut is the same for us. (I stumbled upon it when I first started to use wikEd. For the longest time, I kept opening links without meaning to when I tried to copy links with the Ctrl + C shortcut, until I figured out I was pressing the P key a bit too slowly.) I am unfortunately used to right-clicking and selecting "open in new tab" when not in the edit screen, but I'm sure I can train myself to use this faster method.
2. Ah, I would do this, but my poor computer can no longer tolerate having 20 to 50 tabs open at a time. I will probably open at most nine at a time.
4. I do not often use the AWB because I'm not very familiar with it, but I've found it quite helpful for delinking. This conversation is motivating me to try to learn to use it more effectively, especially when the issues in a long string of articles are exactly the same and not just similar. Thanks for introducing JWB to me! I can now recommend it to editors without AWB access.
3. and 5.: SearchSuite.js sounds extremely useful! It'd make slogging through search results less irritating, at least. I didn't know I could pair insource / intitle parameters with the use of this script. (I do use the search results page, but so infrequently I didn't think to mention it. I only use it when I have nothing else to do, because otherwise I'd spend hours on here – though I suppose I spend hours on here anyways.)
6. I'll have to look into the watchlist sorter! I desperately need a means to organize the pages I already have. As for #7, I should probably not be trying to get more links on my watchlist, but I'll file this away if there's ever a day I'll need it.
8. and 9.: I am ashamed to say that I was using the slow method. I'm switching to the display method. Thanks for pointing this out to me!
Thank you very much for your reply and the tips! I'm having plenty of fun wikignoming, and I'm sure to have more with these new tricks. I now have more ideas for what to put in my guides as well, and I'll be sure to mention any new tips I come across to you. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
On AWB, the major features I've not yet used are Plugins, Make module, and the Find and replace Advanced settings. If you come across intelligible instructions for those, or figure out how they work, let me know. I've done tens of thousands of edits with the other features. Probably over half my edits. So if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
I'm just getting started with JWB, though it has a smaller feature set and looks simpler to use.
Another tip: You can force the search results page to show by including a parameter in your search. Saves the extra step of clicking on the magnifying glass if you are going to use parameters anyways.
I've swapped out the totd template with the preview version {{Totd-day-after-next}}, that shows the tip a couple days early, to help catch typos before the tip goes live. ;)
Let me know how the scripts work for you, as I'm always trying to improve them.
Thanks for the new tips! I will be plugging away at learning AWB and new scripts that once I have more time. I'll be sure to pester you with questions as they come up :) Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Using the search string "insource:SearchSuite.js, with the user namespace clicked on advanced search, I noticed you installed SearchSuite.js. What were your first impressions? — The Transhumanist12:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I haven't used it very much yet, but I've found it extremely helpful for narrowing down searches to a list of similar articles to edit by eliminating all the imprecise matches. I am looking forward to using the wikicode search function once I decide which formatting quirk to work on next. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that I love your dedication towards improving this place in your corrector's way. Thank you for your edits, and I hope to stumble upon you again at some point in my editing. 10/10 user page. Double Plus Ungood (talk)06:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the kind words! I'm glad you like my userpage. (I love your username, by the way.) I hope our paths cross in the future as well; I'll be on here for a while, in any case. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Death of a 1000 cuts practice outlawed in 1905 in China & also enacted in Vietnam
Hi. The opium given to condemned men & women was NOT to take away Pain but it was given for stupefying purposes so the victim was in a trance like state & did not struggle or fight back until he was incapacitated, literally.
There was NO feelings towards taking the victims pain away & if you look into this debauched practice in.history you will clearly see that the opium was given for the crowds pleasure, not at all in empathy for the mutilation that was to Happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two.dogz (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello! This isn't the best place to leave this message since I'm not a content contributor to the lingchi page. Perhaps Talk:Lingchi would be more appropriate. If you have more sources to support these statements on the use of opium, I'm sure other editors would love to have them. Have a nice day! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi BubblySnowflake! What kinds of repetitive actions are you thinking of? I can recommend quite a few for many of the edits I usually make.
If you'd like to start browsing on your own: I'm not sure if you mean wiki bots specifically or just automated tools in general. If you'd like a bot, see Wikipedia:Creating a bot. For tools, see this link or WP:Tools. The page for user scripts / Wikipedia:User scripts/List might have also something useful for you. Feel free to ask me further questions about user scripts/installing user scripts, though I'm just starting to use them myself and might have to consult another editor for more complex questions. Best, Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
In March 2016 I presented a Wikipedia workshop to a physical therapy class as described in the Programs and Events Dashboard instance. I was looking at outcomes and noticed that you reviewed some student edits within a day and developed their contributions.
I am writing to thank you for this and to give you the feedback that what you did was part of a positive university experience that lead to the professor repeating the Wikipedia project in 2017 and 2018. Probably they will go forward.
It is challenging to identify the impact of what Wikipedia editing does and more difficult still that sometimes the impact of an edit can take years to recognize.
Thank you so much for the kind words! Feedback is always a pleasant surprise, and I appreciate you taking the time to tell me about the impact of contributions I thought had been buried. I am so glad that the students and professor found the Wikipedia project a good experience, and I hope that future students will have the chance to experience the same. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The lead section of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, generally appears between the lead section and the first subheading.
Rule of thumb: If a topic deserves a heading or subheading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.
The lead section should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide a preview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to want to read more. The following table has some general guidelines for the length of the lead section:
)! To insert a picture into an article, you simply type "[[File:Image name]]" into the code. You can also add a size or a direction (for example, [[File:Ash Tree - geograph.org.uk - 590710.jpg|100px|right]] produces the image on the right). 
) of the overlapping material
Lead Section Size