A3BDFAD9EC0B, you are invited to the Teahouse
Reference Errors on 30 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Mulchmen page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)
I've had a hard time finding a reliable secondary source for Parrot's sign. I believe it is too obscure to mention on meningitis, but perhaps meningism (which discusses the physical signs of meningeal irritation) is a useful page to link the content. JFW | T@lk 12:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- JFW, I'm a new Wikipedian, so maybe you can help me: in cases like this, is it appropriate to request deletion of the article? The source (not a very good one) describes the term as "obsolete" -- obviously I haven't referred to a neurology textbook, but I doubt I'll find much. What does one do in cases like this? -- A3BDFAD9EC0B (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think there are reasonable grounds to have the article submitted for deletion. Some clinical signs might be discussed because of their historical interest (e.g. Homans sign and the numerous eponymous signs in aortic incompetence); often they have been studied recently.
- In Parrot's sign I could not find a single mention on PubMed, and the source I added was a self-published book on obscure clinical signs. JFW | T@lk 14:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hello A3BDFAD9EC0B, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by . Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as 's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.came to my user talk page and said he
What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.