User talk:Chidgk1

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Panthera pardus tulliana, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to make a subsection of common names on the page of panther pardus tuliana? Firekong1 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on Wikipedia rules but I have no objection as long as the names are actually common and you use reliable sources Chidgk1 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So as it has been stated previously, there are sources for the common names on the articles, but the only problem is that I do not want to get into an edit war, because it is not my intention to do so. I simply want to improve the page how I see fit. What do you suggest I do? I shall not edit it right now, I'll wait until you and/or a few other wikipedian authorities let me know when its safe. Firekong1 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your question led me to investigate off topic a bit and I was surprised to find our article is not linked to the one on Farsi Wikipedia. So I attempted to merge Wikidata item Q729713 with Q754336 but was unsucessful. If you are skilled with Wikidata perhaps you would like to try. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I am not an authority as I very rarely edit biology articles Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Just to ensure that I do not seem as if I am starting an edit quarrel, am I allowed to add the section once I create a proper list of common names not used on the page header? Firekong1 (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin - I don’t decide what you are allowed to do - I may whinge about Oxford commas etc but I am not very interested in Wikipedia rules so I have only a couple of times made any formal complaint - it would have to be something serious - for example paid editors who claim they are not Chidgk1 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thank you for letting me know anyway, I thought I’d ask you since you are a trusted veteran editor on Wikipedia. Firekong1 (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was just double-checking the citation you deleted in "Air pollution". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_pollution&oldid=1216214272

Although that paper was published in 2007, it's a highly cited paper (>500 citations) and a systematic review of "all studies published between 1950 and 2007" on that subject - so I think it would count as a high quality WP:MEDRS. I think we should probably put it back but address whatever the problem was that prompted someone to label it "clarification needed". Just wanted to check what you think and if you see some other problem with it?

Thanks! 45154james (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. You probably know better than me so I won’t object if you revert my change.

I don’t understand the info in brackets - perhaps that is why it was tagged “clarification needed”. I thought that nowadays we understood that PM1 is rather dangerous but perhaps that is only for the brain rather than cardiovascular? The info in brackets seems to be saying that the total weight of particles determines the danger - but probably I misunderstood.

Also it only says correlation - I wonder whether anyone has proved causation by now. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts! I didn't want to just revert because there is clearly a problem with it and it does need improving. I'll see if I can rewrite and summarize the latest research with whatever the latest WP:MEDRS might be. 45154james (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your proposed deletion of Escouade de contre-terrorisme et de libération d'otages and I have some concerns as to the reason why you tagged the page: The French article also has no sources. A page should not be deleted simply because it lacks sources, see WP:DEL-REASON.

I will leave the tag because I have notability concerns regarding this page, but I just thought I would raise your attention to this. Broc (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind engagement with my student on the Küre Mountains National Park article! Kaylea Champion (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chidgk1. Thank you for your work on Türkşeker. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed the entry "Forest pathology" from the Outline of forestry, because it redirected to Plant pathology.

A couple of things...

1) The entry itself was valid, even though the link was faulty. There is an entire field known as forestry pathology. Outlines are lists of topics that belong to a subject, regardless of whether or not those topics have Wikipedia articles on them. ;)

2) Upon inspecting the redirect, it became evident that there was an entire article there that someone had deleted by redirecting it. Something to keep an eye out for. I reverted the redirect and restored the Forest pathology article.

Just some friendly feedback. Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist OK I had not noticed there used to be an article and did not know there was such a field. As you obviously know a lot more about forestry than I do might you have time to help with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change#How to clean up the mess around trees and mitigation? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to know much about forestry. Though, I'll be happy to take a look.    — The Transhumanist   08:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did some work on Forestry, rearranging the sections to better reflect article standards. That should make it easier to merge related articles into it. Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   09:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dove in to the article on Forest management and the discussions on its talk page. I've expanded the article with new sections (populated with excerpts), and started a work area on the talk page for gathering resources on the subject and potential headings for the article. I hope you find it helpful. Feel free to leapfrog, or springboard off of those. Cheers    — The Transhumanist   21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tips on topic maintenance in outlines

By the way, some tips on topic maintenance on outlines:

1) Use Google to see if a topic is valid before considering whether or not to remove it from the outline.

2) When coming across redirects to non-matching articles, inspect the redirect's edit history to see if somebody used redirection to delete the article. If there is an article there, check to see if it was a valid deletion supported by consensus formed in a discussion (on the talk page or at AfD).

I hope you find these tips useful. Cheers,    — The Transhumanist   08:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]