User talk:TylerDurden8823

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter!

December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.

January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).

February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!

Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2[edit]

That was a tough FAC; but, look how much better the article is from when you first started! Thank you for working on such an important topic. Next time you send it up for an FAC please email me and I will post a review again. Once it becomes a FA you are going to have such a huge sense of satisfaction. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Core, but I don't think I'll be resubmitting the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I was looking forward to a renomination. It is an important article. It is worth FA status. So what if it was closed. Happened to me (Lead, Metalloid); happens to other people. Get up and have another go. The objective is to get to the mountain and enjoy the view, never mind the jungle, swamp, and piranha-filled river you have to cross. I have my own projects, articles and RL obligations but am willing to help when I can. At least the pressure is off---I find it a more enjoyable to do editing after an FAC has been closed, rather than during it. Other editors are available to help. Sandbh (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not looking forward to it and I will not be renominating it. I refuse to work with the folks at FAC ever again. I would be willing to work with you again, Sand, but not with most of the others. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought your most recent acne edits were very good! --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Acne listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acne. Since you had some involvement with the Acne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Not interested, you can have the conversation without me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Looks like you need one after that epic featured article nomination! You've made great improvements in lots of medical articles, and your work around here is greatly appreciated. Hope you can keep it up after a suitably reinvigorating rest :) Tom (LT) (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 5 years ago...[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, TylerDurden8823. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Per MEDMOS we tend to reference the leads for medical articles. Did someone suggest they be removed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Sandbh repeatedly requested this on the FAC and talk page stating that it's not typical for FAs to have refs in the lead (though I've seen multiple FAs do this). No one objected when this point was raised multiple times. It doesn't matter to me. If the community feels differently, feel free to rollback the changes I made. It probably warrants further discussion on the talk page but I was being bold. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
MEDMOS actually says "Adding sources to the lead is a reasonable practice but not required", which is not exactly as strong as "we tend to do this". However, because acne is so common, IMO this would be a particularly useful article for the translators to take on, and translators sometimes only translate the lead, so I'd support including them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It's okay with me. I recommend talking about it on the article talk page so everyone is on the same page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg 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.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


Hello Tyler: You said - Is there a reason none of the USDA nutrition tables I'm looking at on various food pages display their copper content? I realize it's a micronutrient that doesn't get the spotlight as often as some of the others but it is still considered an essential micronutrient and deserves mention. Do you have any thoughts about this? Frankly, I don't know why it's not included in the standard WP nutrition template and have always assumed there's a template error prohibiting it to be displayed. Now I feel guilty about not pursuing this. To show the error, I edited the two tables for kiwi that you worked on today, using the alternate "opt-in" code (which works for everything else), but copper still doesn't display, indicating there is coding that prevents it from being shown. Perhaps a request to WP admin about this should be raised. Here's the NAS review discussing copper as an essential nutrient. Let me know if you need further input or support. --Zefr (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Nutrition and MEDRS[edit]

Could you give your thoughts about this, please? The editor is debating whether nutrition is governed by MEDRS. I looked through dozens of WT:MED archives and didn't find a specific discussion supporting nutrition as a MEDRS topic, although we all know it does. Issues I raised (or would raise) included:

  1. the lede sentence mentions "maintenance, growth, reproduction, health and disease of an organism", which collectively imply MEDRS
  2. last lede paragraph mentions numerous diseases which result if nutrition is poor or absent, implying MEDRS
  3. DRIs are based on diseases which develop if a specific nutrient is absent, demonstrating MEDRS
  4. the other editor objected when I removed an opinion article which she wanted to use for a lede statement that the nutrition field is only "half-understood" by nutritionists and poorly understood by the public. I can agree to both assumptions, but the NYT article is a survey and opinion, not a MEDRS-quality review.

Or do you feel there would be value in raising this with the community at WT:MED? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


I don't get it - talk to who, you or the other guy? where? There is need to show there is another theory even if not yet proved or disproved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talkcontribs) 18:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Soaringbear, you can talk to me, James, and all other Wikipedia contributors about the changes to the article you're proposing on the vitiligo article's talk page. At the top of the article you'll see a button that you can click where it says "talk". If you go to that page, click new section, and state what change you would like to make to the article, based on what source(s), and why, that will get things rolling. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Undoing is just a click, but, just before, take the time to read the initial (and returned) article's paragraph: Does it make sense as it is written? Is NALP1 the correct name? Has it been introduced elsewhere in the article? Is something widely known? And where are the sources connecting it to the caspases? Are these the correct caspases? Maybe the sentence you deleted included sources? (Anyway, it is just a sentence..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, 5! Yes, I did read your edit before I undid your edit with a click and I have read the original paragraph. You added a sentence about NALP1 so I'm really not sure why you're doubting that (it is mentioned elsewhere in the article already under the subsection "autoimmune associations"). The sentence I deleted did include a source (as mentioned in my edit summary) but it was a primary source (not a secondary source as preferred (see WP:MEDRS) such as a literature review or systematic review/meta-analysis). If you can find a high-quality secondary source to support the content you wish to add, then please feel free to do so. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
5 here! Thank you. If you also read the reference, you would see that, what i wrote, is there noted as "reference" (other people's work that is). Therefore my reference is a secondary source, some people that agree with the result and take it further. The term NALP1 is first time used in the autoimmune section, as you agree, and someone has to say at least that this is a gene. That is why i inserted an intro of some words there. Also, people and wikipedia are not using the term NALP1, but the term NLRP1. Anyway, please feel free to delete all my above comments.
Hi 5, please reread the autoimmune section. I clearly see a place where it says "NALP1". Additionally, the issue wasn't so much what you wrote but the supporting reference you chose. Per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (e.g., literature reviews or systematic reviews/meta-analyses) are strongly preferred (if you need any help with proper formatting of a secondary reference, please let me know). This [1] is the article you selected and it is a primary reference/original investigation; it is not a literature review. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2017[edit]

Rudy Moise[edit]

Hi TylerDurden8823, I’ve noticed that you made a few useful edits to this article around the same time of last year and was wondering if you would care to offer your thoughts in its AfD? Face-smile.svg Thank you kindly. Savvyjack23 (talk)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017[edit]

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, TylerDurden8823. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen.

Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year.

March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.)

April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words).

May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words).

June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words).

2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated!

July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words).

August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words).

September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words).

October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words).

November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words).

2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating!

Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry X-mas[edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello TylerDurden8823, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you, James! Happy holidays to you as well! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

GOCE February 2018 news[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days.

Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated!

End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress.

January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words).

February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

...for all your improvements to the Vaginal tumors article. I am taking a pause in its improvement and you more than welcome to continue to edit it. I am not certain at this point if other editors have ceased editing it, but my proposed future improvements would be:

  • alphabetizing the entries
  • filling in more epidemiological information
  • there even more tumors than are listed here and I would like to include them some time in the future.

Of course I don't expect you to make these changes, I just wanted to let you know what I think some of the improvements could be. Best Regards, Barbara    01:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)