I'm just dropping you a note in case my recent edit to Niger seemed like I was calling yours "vandalism." And that's not the case. What happened was this: We both went to fix vandalism at the same time. My edit came in after yours, and I commented (in my edit summary) that all the previous edits were vandalism. That didn't include yours, because I didn't see yours.
The clash didn't impact the actual article contents; since we were reverting the same vandalism my edit didn't actually clobber yours (just some of the ones before it). I just don't want you to get the wrong impression from my edit summary. -- Why Not A Duck 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded. Excellent work. You've been popping up on my watchlist a lot with your additions of nutrition data to various edible plants. And I see you've branched out with your recent additions to Manilkara zapota.Plantdrew (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Chango -- no problem with your revision but shouldn't the SR25 IU value be used (950), giving a higher % DV? As an orange-red pulp, papaya is recognized as a primary vitamin A fruit which is then a feature in the Article text.--Zefr (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- In a way, as a public reference, Wikipedia should reflect what is in most common use by consumers. That is the %DV (which is expressed on food package labels), and for 100 g of raw papaya, the vitamin A %DV should be about 20% per 100 g consumed. I'm missing something from how the USDA table converts ug beta-carotene or vitamin A to RAE to %DV. Might be that provitamin A carotenoids other than beta-carotene need to be included for the calculation, such as beta-cryptoxanthin and alpha-carotene, if in sufficient amounts. --Zefr (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eugenia uniflora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tupi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
TemplateData is here
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Speedy deletion nomination of Dispositional Greed Scale
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Dispositional Greed Scale requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. I dream of horses (talk to me) (contributions) @ 00:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Chango. It would be useful for you to review WP:MEDANIMAL within WP:MEDRS, addressing use of animal studies for citations in Wikipedia articles. With due respect for what I am sure was your sincere effort to add new content from research on blueberries to the article, studies in rats do not convert to understanding of human mechanisms until confirmed in clinical trials. My suggestion would be to leave this finding alone until confirmed by additional studies. Simply stated, the conclusions reached in that report do not necessarily involve polyphenols, but rather could have occurred from blueberry fiber or manganese or another undefined nutrient. It's just a vague conclusion that shouldn't be part of the article at present; see WP:NOTJOURNAL. All Best. --Zefr (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Chango. Yes, I reviewed it. Yes, WP:MEDANIMAL does apply. I think these studies on the development of arterial tissues are fascinating. However, in Wikipedia, we avoid single studies. WP usually treats basic research somewhat differently from clinical studies of medicine. But generally, we would want repeated studies to show a scientific consensus, or at least a viable controversy. I could do a PubMed search on arterial tissues and find thousands of good studies, but we don't have room for all of them and have to select the most significant. Thanks for your contribution, and I'm sorry you put so much work into an addition that got deleted. It's hard to learn how to write according to a style sheet. Don't take it personally. Keep at it. --Nbauman (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
File:Pachymic acid 2d.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pachymic acid 2d.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)