User talk:OlliverWithDoubleL

April 2020

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Asus, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi, it looks like you are making good copy edits to a broad range of articles which is great. However, I would argue that many of your changes (like this) should be marked as non-minor as you've made quite significant edits. Keep up the good work though! |→ Spaully ^~talk~ 10:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're absolutely right. I did some further reading on Wikipedia's guidelines for minor edits and realized my mistake. Thanks for letting me know OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that you need to acquaint yourself much more with the Manual of Style. In particular, based on the two edits of yours that I've just reversed, MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:LEDE. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! and a second note about minor edits

Hi there OlliverWithDoubleL! I recently noticed the numerous cleanup and improvement efforts you've made (especially on some pages that I watch); thank you for all of your hard work and effort.

Some edits that you have made in the last several weeks are still being marked as minor when they should not be, even after your previous discussion with user:Spaully. Some of these edits change hyperlinks, metadata, or content that doesn't actually fit into the definition of minor edits. Minor edits should only be used for fixing misspellings and other typographical errors, minor formatting errors, or minor rearrangement of text that does not change the content or meaning of the article in any way (including hyperlinks inside or outside of Wikipedia).

Not to worry, no need to go back and change any of your previous minor edits, but please keep this in mind for future edits. I ask that you please double check all edits that you make in the future make sure that the minor edit button is not checked if they contain any non-minor changes. If anything isn't clear about this, please see the Wikipedia page on minor edits or feel free to ask for clarification - sometimes I have to refer to that myself!

Cheers and thanks much!

Velocitay (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your praise - it really helps a newbie like me know I’m on the right track. I don't mean to create more work for you, but could you direct me specifically to the edits you thought weren’t minor? I admit there were a few times when I accidentally marked one as minor, and now that I’ve read the minor edits page (in full this time, sorry), I know to create a dummy edit whenever that happens. What I want to clear up is my idea of "edits which no other editor would dispute", which probably isn’t the same as you guys'. For instance, a very common edit of mine is to add the overarching subject to the beginning of a lede (e.g. "In anatomy," for the temporal bone, "In mathematics," for Pythagoras's theorem) and I don't think any editor would disagree about those. Am I changing the meaning of the article by including that? OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again! I took a look back at your recent edits marked as minor, and I reviewed the Minor Edit page myself (again), and I actually think you're technically in the clear. I'm often pretty conservative about using the minor edit button, and I think what I had seen in your edits that tripped me up was addition of some Wikilinks.

I do see that Wikilinks are specifically called out as allowed minor edits, both on the minor edit page and on the talk page for minor edits. That policy makes me feel a little... uneasy, as who's to say that any Wikilink added (even in good faith!) is actually the correct link for the concept that the original text author would have intended? Since minor edits are designed to be 100% indisputable, but addition of a link that might point to an alternate topic than the original author intended might be disputable, there seems to be a grey area... However, I realize that's Wikipedia policy and that's a point for me to debate on the minor edit talk page, not here! :)

At any rate, thank you for your understanding and asking me to clarify - you've led me to learn something myself and now I am going to ask my own question for other Wikipedians!

Velocitay (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Velocitay: Why doesn't Wikipedia notify all participants in a talk page thread when a new comment is added?

Anyways, my actual reply is above - I got worried something was wrong, did some digging and figured out how to do it properly this time. Ah well. OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC) OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About your shortening of Trumpism article description

Can you explain why the description must be shortened to 90 characters? The trouble with your current shortening is that the preponderance of sources do not subscribe to the view that Trumpism is an ideology. Perhaps you could substitute a different term? It is kind of like saying populism is an ideology, which most academics describe more as a political style rather than a fixed set of ideas. Specific to Trump in the article, see the Bolton's or George Will's explanations why such the ideology sort of description is mistaken. J JMesserly (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can revert it then - I shortened it because I do all my edits through the Wikipedia App, and the app recommends that all article descriptions be 90 characters or less. I know some of the meaning was lost in doing so, but I wasn’t sure how else to word it. OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	There are many types of Wikipedians, and all are necessary. You do the mostly thankless job of tidying up, and it is much appreciated! Neopeius (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking redirects

Can you please stop breaking redirects without then restoring them. Polyamorph (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph: What happened? How did I break them?OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding the simple description to a redirect breaks the redirect. They then show up in the recent changes feed, which is good otherwise they'd go unnoticed! Polyamorph (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are doing is trying to create wikidata sitelinks, then this workaround is the procedure to follow (1. Remove the redirect code from the redirect page you want to link to. 2. Add the page as a sitelink in Wikidata. 3. Revert the removal of the redirect code from the redirect page). Polyamorph (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph: I'm afraid I don't really know anything about Wikidata or sitelinks; all I like doing is just standardizing short descriptions. The Wikipedia app tries to make that easier by including a little button to add a short description to a page lacking one: it has you input the text you want and then it automatically adds the template to the source. After looking through it some more, I think what happened is that the function doesn't distinguish between the article's page and a redirect page when it inserts the template. I'll go back to just adding it in manually, and maybe send the folks in charge of the app an email. Also the app doesn't have a way to undo or revert edits, I'll try and look through them on my computer later today. Thanks for the heads-up OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem, and thank you for your efforts in standardizing short descriptions! Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits (again...)

I see this has been raised with you before... Hi OlliverWithDoubleL! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at MV Astoria that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghmyrtle: Oh that is an embarrassingly stupid mistake, I must've accidentally misread the bit about the "latter ship" sinking. I'll double-check my edits more closely in the future, and thank you for alerting me to the issue.

On the bit about minor edits though, in my defense, this time it was not a conscious decision. The short description editor on the Wikipedia app automatically sets all of its edits as minor, which is why my edit to it was automatically made minor without my input (and why I've assumed so far that all short description edits should be minor edits regardless of content, an assumption I'll now change). I’ve had problems with the short description editor before - some of my prior talk page messages are on issues caused by it - and I’ve sent an email to the developers detailing the issues. Thanks for letting me know though. OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double space after sentence

Re this edit. Removing sentence double spaces can be controversial. I suggest you stop doing that. MOS:DOUBLESPACE covers this and there is more information in my essay. SpinningSpark 11:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation error solution

Hey there! I noticed you often link to WP:DISAMBIGUATION links. One gadget setting I like to use prevent this, by making DISMABIG links orange instead of blue, so I can catch them before publishing. You can find the settings here: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah:

I really appreciate your suggestion, but I’m afraid I mainly use the mobile app for my edits, which doesn't allow for gadgets as far as I’m aware. That's a great idea to implement though - I'll shoot the devs a suggestion email.

I’ll go through and fix the disambig links at some point, but right now I’m a little busy with some other things. Thank you for the advice though - I really do appreciate the thought. OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edit frequently on my phone, switching between mobile and the desktop version which works well on mobile. You may appreciate this essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing about it. Happy editing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short description tool

Hi, I don't know if you've come across WP:SDHELPER yet so thought I'd let you know. Dawnseeker2000 23:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please be cautious about using the term "Murder" for homicide cases such as Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori. The accused in this case was charged with manslaughter (not murder), and was acquitted in the criminal trial. Thanks, Muzilon (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:SDPLACE

To quote: "If (unusually) you need to add a short description to a redirect, you should add {{Short description}} below #REDIRECT" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824:

My apologies for the short descriptions being added to redirect pages; that isn’t supposed to happen. As discussed with another user who brought it up with me, the Wikipedia app (where I do nearly all of my editing) has a major flaw in its short description tool in which it automatically adds the short description template to the top of the source code of whatever page it is on, which breaks redirect pages. That wouldn't be much of an issue, except that redirect pages are indistinguishable from normal pages on the app unless you try to edit the source code, and they appear as normal for a few refreshes after the tool breaks them. I try to catch accidental redirect mistakes wherever I can and undo them but sometimes I miss one.

I’ve sent the app devs an email and they told me they would fix it. Until then, I'll try to be extra cautious. Thank you for the advice though.

OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	great work Syunus (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic orbitals

I understand why you changed:-

Short description|Wave function for one electron in an atom having certain n and ℓ quantum numbers

to:

Short description|Mathematical function describing the location and behaviour of an electron within an atom

but there is a problem. Atomic orbitals are only used when you are using an approximation to the total wave function. Having one electron functions having certain n and ℓ quantum numbers fits that but "Mathematical function describing the location and behaviour of an electron within an atom" appears to be looking at a more sophisticated and accurate wave function. We use lots of simplifications in looked at atoms, but the accurate wave function is very different. I am not sure how we resolve this here on WP. --Bduke (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions

Short descriptions should be 40 characters or less. Also, please be aware of WP:EGG and WP:OVERLINK. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding short descriptions that are more than 40 characters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate:

Hello. My apologies on not responding back before - college semester just started today. Thanks for directing my attention to the Easter Egg phenomenon with links; I'll be more aware of that from now on.

On the topic of short descriptions, let me first say the same thing to you that I said to another user who discussed this with me previously: I primarily use the Wikipedia app to do all of my editing (for personal convenience), and the app, for whatever reason, recommends a limit of 90 characters. I have adhered to this suggestion for the entire time I've been here, though I really do try and keep things as succinct as possible. It was later when I learned of the 40 character convention, and while I understand and appreciate your philosophy of minimalism, I feel that in certain cases the 40 character limit can be detrimental, at least to the mobile version.

If you're unaware, the mobile version of Wikipedia displays the short descriptions below the title of the page, unlike the website, which appears to only show them as search suggestions. The app states that they should provide a quick, one-sentence summary of the article, something which I find extremely helpful when surfing mobile Wikipedia as it basically forces editors to condense articles which can be extremely technical or verbose into a quick preview. 40-character descriptions are (generally) perfect for articles that discuss events or objects: "1971 battle of the Vietnam War" or "2004 NASA Mars rover" for instance. But in the case of articles which discuss concepts, 40 character summaries sometimes over-simplify the topic so much that they’re almost useless. For instance, the article "Radio astronomy" could have the <40 description of "subfield of astronomy" or "astronomy using radio waves", but this doesn't tell anything more about the article than the title does. The current >40 (and <90) article description, "Subfield of astronomy that studies celestial objects at radio frequencies", gives extra context left out in the title and pretty much perfectly summarizes the whole article for anyone reading or searching. There are other examples, perhaps ones that get across my thinking more effectively than that, but I hope my explanation is somewhat clear.

OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what your mobile app recommends. Wikipedia's guideline is to keep it to 40 characters. This is a short description, not a substitute for reading the opening sentence. It is to help people understand if they're at the correct article, not to summarize the contents. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have asked you multiple times to stop doing this, and I've pointed you to the appropriate Wikipedia guideline, but you've continued doing it. The next time I see you do this, I will block you. You are making work for other people, who will have to fix your short descriptions so that they conform to our guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: cool your jets about this. The guidelines were recently changed to prevent people like you from policing the character count. Please reread WP:SDLENGTH. Thrakkx (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Now then, about this "linking."

A supply "chain" of "linked" processes, suppliers, depots, and what-not is not the only way of supplying yourself. You can just buy your inputs on the open market, and if you have the money it'll turn up willy-nilly, often in bumps and jiggles entirely unconnected -- not at all chained -- to one another.

Supply "chain" must therefore be an ideological term, a piece of propaganda of some sort, pushing the notion that all of your very special suppliers have chained themselves together for your good. Implied, perhaps, is the notion that you don't just have to be nice to the delivery-boy: you also carry a heavy load of overdue gratitude to everybody lined out, possibly with their palms out, behind him.

How did this come about? Where did this very loaded phrase come from? When? Why?

Should Wikipedia be reporting on it without acknowledging that it's a work of propaganda?

Cheers,

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1096389091

Hello, I assume your change from $o(n^{\varepsilon })$ to $O(n^{\varepsilon })$ was unintentional? The article links "little-o notation" specifically and also states that it grows more slowly, which would correspond to a little-o rather than a big one. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Yes, that was my mistake, I assumed it was a typo. Thanks for letting me know. OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new color legends

Hey! Just checking into Wikipedia to do a quick scan as I'm away at the moment. Thank you so much on adding the color legends to the mechanisms. I was not aware you can have colored lines!

Just for future reference, I have the colors I use for the mechanisms on my Wikimedia page. I wanted to alert you that I was going to fix up the color legends to match the exact colors, and also complete the legends for the rest of my mechanical animations when I return, but if you want to jump ahead and correct the rest while I'm still away, absolutely feel free.

(The colors are in RGB rather than HEX because... GeoGebra uses RGB. Sorry about that!) Arglin Kampling (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglin Kampling: Hey, thanks so much for your reply. Most of the notifications I get on this page are from users politely informing me I've done something wrong, so it's nice to get good news for once. Anyways, I'll use your colors in any future edits I make to your animations. It's wonderful that you made them, by the way – no amount of words could ever make up for a simple animation just showing how they work visually!

I have a question with regards to the Hoecken linkage. When I generalized the dimensions, I stated that the rod (link 3) could be any multiple of the unit length a, but is that true? Is there a range for which the end point of the rod fails to trace a straight line, if the rod gets too long or too short? OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks so much for the compliment! Unfortunate that most of the messages here are regarding errors, but I do suppose that is Wikipedia for you. Hopefully I helped brighten your day a bit.
(*ฅ́˘ฅ̀*)

Ah! And about the Hoecken linkage... yes, you're absolutely right. Changing the dimension of the yellow link will change the dimensions of the output. You can find more information on them on Wittgenstein's rod.

Oddly enough, I couldn't find any simple-to-use applets for Wittgenstein's Rod on Desmos or GeoGebra, so I bodged one together if you want to play around to get an idea: [GeoGebra Applet]
Change Parameter1 for the length of the cyan link, Parameter2 for the distance between the ground joints, and Parameter3 for the length of the yellow bar.
(Sorry for the portrait dimensions, off-color parts, and any potential bugs; ended up throwing this together on my phone. >~<)

For now, I would say just write it as any multiple of 9a (which was what I put down originally), albeit it's not a great generalization... there are definitely other arrangements that can yield some form of approximate straight line motion. If you can find some more nice arrangements, definitely let me know!

It's actually kind of hard to generalize. The dimensions I used for the animation were actually achieved entirely by trial and error, unlike a lot of the other straight line linkages I've animated, which I've either already mathematically derived an optimal arrangement of link lengths, or have (almost) fully generalized. (I'll get back to this later on as the Harts and Peaucellier-Lipkin inversors have a bit more generalizing to do.)

I do have ideas that I want to try to see if I can look for a generalization on the Hoecken linkage when I'm back. I'll see if I can return a follow-up. Arglin Kampling (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ring_(mathematics)

Hi, I noticed that you reformatted the page Ring_(mathematics). That is nice, but you introduced a huge number of typos into what had been a carefully edited article, so the article is worse than it was before! I tried fixing a few glaring typos, but there are probably many more. Can you go through the article carefully and fix the errors you introduced? Otherwise probably the best solution will be to revert your edit. Thank you, Ebony Jackson (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebony Jackson:

Thank you for alerting me to this. After trying to fix my mistakes by looking through the compared revisions and getting hopelessly lost, it would indeed just be better to revert the edit. Nearly all of my time on Wikipedia thus far has just been smaller-scale editing and whatnot, this is my first foray into larger edits. Since I messed this up really badly, it might also be better to go and revert some of the large-scale ones I've made to other math articles just to be safe. I'm sorry for the trouble.

Update: I went and undid my large edits to the other abstract math articles I tried to improve (quotient ring, affine variety, field (mathematics)). I believe the edits on smaller articles (such as additive identity and the geometry ones) can still stand because the smaller size helped me remain focused and therefore resulted in fewer errors, but I'll still try to check them over as well. OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! Ebony Jackson (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trihydrogen cation

Hi I see you were editing Trihydrogen cation. However you have put some unsuitable style elements into it. {{chem}} tags should not be used as they produce inaccessible output. But you can use {{chem2}} which actually has simpler input. Also you used <chem>. This should not be used at all. If you need some complex markup that chem2 or sub and sup or symbols cannot manage, then use <math> markup. The last issue is the Short_description which should not duplicate the lead sentence. "Ion" was acceptable. Lastly don't use unicode subscripts like "₃". Have a good day! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commas in ordered pairs

In this edit, you replaced in many places "(a, b)" with "(a, b)" or its equivalent. The latter form is unambiguously not right: the variables are italicized because it is important to set them apart from normal letters, but other symbols (like arithmetic operations and punctuation symbols) appearing in equations should not be italicized. --JBL (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JBL: Fixed it OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frowns on wave vector

Greetings @OlliverWithDoubleL:. I noticed you added frowns to some of the vectors on wave vector. I just don't see that anywhere else and in particular it is not in MOS:MATH. Unless you object, I am going to remove those frowns. Constant314 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Constant314:

The frowns were already present in the article before I edited it, I just changed the formatting from the HTML templates to <math> because I thought it looked nicer. If you dislike it you can remove them OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess your edit just brought it to my attention. Cheers. Constant314 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Don't do this. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The topic of an article is the thing its title describes, not the title itself. Etymology of the article title is off topic. The first sentence of the article needs to define the topic, not provide peripheral information like etymology. Srleffler (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Trap" terminology

I'm sorry for include your name in a section of talk page for "Trap", but in your user page, you stated that you're a grammar nazi. Please, you shouldn't be a Nazi in Wikipedia. JK, hit me back on my talk in that talk page. See ya! Qadri223 Talk to me like a true conservative my contributions to the Wikipedia 15:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please don't replace LaTeX with mvar templates

Also, while we're at it, can you please never use a single {{mvar}} template for " $a, b, c$ "? This makes italicized commas, which are pretty much never appropriate. Stick to either " $a, b, c$ " or typically better " $a$ , $b$ , and $c$ " or " $a,$ $b,$ and $c$ " in LaTeX. –jacobolus (t) 02:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Can you please stop always adding overlines to line segments, arrows over vectors, etc.? The precise way these are notated is a matter of taste, varies from source to source and field to field, and changing it everywhere is more disruptive than helpful in my opinion. See MOS:STYLEVAR for the relevant general style guideline. (If there's inconsistency within an article, by all means standardize on the earliest or most common one.) If you personally plan to dramatically expand or substantially work on an article, writing new prose, tracking down new sources, and so on, then you can probably make some stylistic decisions reformatting previous content. But just drive-by trivial reformatting of large numbers of articles doesn't really help anyone. –jacobolus (t) 03:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1+2

... 222.152.172.104 (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		I've noticed your username a lot on my watchlist recently and checked your contributions and noticed you've been adding a lot of short descriptions to medical pages. There was no Barnstar for adding short descriptions, so I decided to award you a special barnstar. The medical side of Wikipedia can be hard to edit as it has its own set of rules and is heavily monitored. But a lot of the medical pages need work, and need someone like you who is willing to do the tiny little things to improve the pages. I really hope you continue to edit the medical side of Wikipedia as your contributions don't go unnoticed and are highly valuable! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions

I notice you seem to have set yourself a project to review short descriptions. Many of these changes are helpful, but please refamiliarise yourself with WP:SDSHORT, "short descriptions should be no longer than needed to fulfil their functions effectively", and WP:SDCONTENT, "they are not intended to define the subject, but for purposes of disambiguation". Several of your changes appear excessive. I do not have the time to review them all and correct them where necessary. Perhaps, since you are more familiar with your own changes, you could reconsider whether they all comply with the WP explanations? Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]