User talk:Tom (LT)

Review needed on TRISH page

Hi Tom! Thank you for reviewing my article for creation on the Translational Research Institute for Space Health. I have made the requested edits and the article is ready for review. My user page is here. Thank you - I will make any requested edits quickly.

Thanks for accepting the Oxygen Cascade

Hi Tom, thanks for reviewing and accepting the article for creation, Oxygen cascade! Let me know if I can improve it in any way. Kind regards, LearningFromJournals (talk).

Draft:Chennai Interventional Pulmonology and Critical Care Associates

Hi Tom (LT). Hope you are keeping well. I had made this article encyclopedic by removing unnecessary content. Could you please review and suggest if its okay to move it to main space. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Question about GA review - COVID-19 pandemic

Hello Tom, I see you are a very experienced editor and reviewer of articles; I noticed during your GA review of the COVID-19 pandemic article that you mentioned the 'herd immunity' material about Iceland was effectively similar to the endemic phase content(You said I'm not sure how this is in fact any difference), I was just wondering what WP:PAGs you were employing here—it could be argued, and is being argued elsewhere on a similar type of content that since the sources don't mention endemicity then it would be WP:OR to harmonize them. Trying my best to navigate the subtleties of the policies and guidelines here when the content isn't quite so clear. Thanks, SmolBrane (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I can see that the Iceland statement has been removed. It struck me as WP:BIAS and WP:RS to include it. BIAS is because from my understanding it was basically a combination of vaccines and then letting the virus become endemic within less vulnerable groups to maintain a herd immunity around the vulnerable. Which is almost the same intention as other countries; however if it is announced by a developed country it gets called 'herd immunity' whereas if it is a developing country is is labelled 'endemic' (I take into account that these are not technically the same meaning but I think this is the way it is portrayed in the lay press). WP:RS is relevant because, as the article now states, achieving such a level of immunity is unlikely to impossible and, to me, the WHO opinion constitutes a more reliable opinion to include than the original source. Both issues are now not relevant as the statement has been removed. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)