Hello, Traumnovelle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are
semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible
templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only
administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been
blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
How do I create citations?
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>
, copy the whole thing).
- In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A
WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See
this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
Hi Traumnovelle! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor 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. Not a big issue; just so you know. Schwede66 21:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to List of British Jewish entertainers.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 04:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}}
to your talk page.Reply
You reverted the edits I was making to the citations in the French bulldog article before I had finished. I'm now done, having over-written the reversion with the edits I was working on at the time; I think it's cumulative of everything I'd done. You may wish to again revert the edits, since it seems that you are so inclined.
107.122.85.58 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I just saw the broken reference so I reverted, it's fine to overwrite if you're working on an article and someone reverts an unfinished change once you're finished.
- Your edit got reverted by someone else this time. I'd like to note on Wikipedia consensus supports using standardised breed names for capitalisation per MOS:BREED. For example the French Bulldog and Labrador Retriever are capitalised as their breed standard has the name capitalised. Abyssinian cat doesn't have cat isn't included in the breed standard so it's not capitalised. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Immune-mediated thrombocytopaenia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Ingratis (
talk)
10:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
My mistake. Please keep an eye on her, okay? Make sure she doesn't wander off. Feed her twice a day at 6am and 6pm, a half a cup of food. She likes cheese and turkey if you want to give her a treat here and there but make sure to keep an eye on her weight. Panini! • 🥪 20:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cushing's syndrome (veterinary), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.
Thanks again, and happy editing!
X (
talk)
17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! You've made a load of good edits to dog articles, for which many thanks! However, I'm slightly concerned at your numerous additions of a single study in a single country as a definitive source for life expectancy, and have reverted one such change at German Shepherd. As I said there, if there's a comprehensive scientific study of all longevity data published to date, it might be better to cite that. I'd expect such a study (if there is one, I haven't looked) to yield a range of values which might be more reliable than the figures published in the innumerable breed encyclopaedias, but until it's found those probably give a broader consensus figure than one small study in one small country. Don't want to make a big deal of this, but do take it to WT:DOGS if you like. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I broke the reply when editing my comment. Do you feel the inclusion of those three studies in Wikivoice with the figure range presented in the infobox to be fine? I can try and get consensus on the Wikiproject in regards to which sources should be used for life expectancy but I feel that'd be quite slow and have little engagement. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not aware of any meta-analysis/systemic review of life expectancy data for breeds unfortunately. This the largest study to my knowledge that includes breed data and most of the other sources used are outdated by at least two decades. I'm quite certain the breed encyclopaedias are based on anecdotal evidence given the only studies available at the time are mostly breed club surveys which have much lower figures. I do try and include other studies from other countries if they're recent and have good methodology and I believe I did try and search for one for the German Shepherd but only found a breed club survey with a significantly smaller sample size. I've looked again and gone through quite a few studies and found three of potential merit.
This one is same country and smaller sample size but focuses solely on veterinary records whilst the aforementioned study uses several sources: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10341-6/tables/3 I found an Italian study too: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587724000412 both of these have merits for inclusion but in regards to an overall analysis, such does not exist to the best of my knowledge. This Swedish study is a bit old but represents a different country, unfortunately it appears the study may be in Swedish: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1751-0147-46-121
Traumnovelle (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Traumnovelle. Thank you for your work on Hypersomatotropism (veterinary). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Thanks for providing this interesting page on hypersomatotropism. The page seems to be framed around the relevant chapter from 'Canine and Feline Endocrinology', although there are many other sources to support the ideas from there. Regarding this citation, if you are citing from a book chapter, you should include the chapter title (for example, perhaps in this case it's "Disorders of Growth Hormone" by Reusch - unfortunately I can't see the 2014 edition you seem to be using). If you or other were looking to expand it, it would be great to look at this in other animals.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}
. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Klbrain (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Klbrain: it does rely almost exclusively on one source but I don't believe that's an issue? Over time other sources will be added and I will come back as I encounter other sources. I cited the pages relevant to the condition which are part of a larger chapter. The chapter is about the pituitary gland with subheadings/subchapters for specific conditions.
- The book is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9781455744565/canine-and-feline-endocrinology and the pages are included under section 1 Chapter 2. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your recent editing history at Aidi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Changing content to reflect what the citation actually describes isn't edit warring. Your behaviour of reversing an edit to an unverified claim that contradicts the citation then slapping an edit warring notice on my talk page is quite indicative of your own behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Don't feel too bad about that AfD, I'm sorry that I missed it as I would have voted "Delete". One thing that I have learned while trying to get some sort of consistency for earthquake articles in terms of notability is that almost nobody reads WP:EVENT properly, as far as most participants at AfDs are concerned WP:GNG trumps everything, ignoring the fact the EVENT guideline was written because some startling events do not deserve an article due to the lack of "enduring notability". Another "guideline" I've noticed is that if an earthquake affects an English-speaking country, as long as lots of Wikipedia editors notice it, it doesn't matter what the long-term impact is, it will be kept, unless it's really tiny. The 2020 Caribbean earthquake was in my view kept because people were evacuated from buildings in Florida. It used to upset me but I'm trying to just ignore the inconsistencies, the project's not perfect. Mikenorton (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah I've dealt with quite a few WP:ILIKEIT discussions that ignore policy, I just move on because ultimately there are greater issues with the project than the Americentrism in regards to non-notable events and places having articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! You added a statement to this article saying "A UK study found the Shih Tzu to have a 4.02 times greater risk of impaired hepatic perfusion.
" Could you clarify what this means? Great risk compared to what? Other dogs? Other mammals? Something else? I would have done this myself but I don't have access to the journal article that you cited. Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Other dogs/breeds. I thought it'd be obvious but I will clarify it, thanks. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- In fact after making these edits it is probably for the best given some studies just take the rate for mongrels and use that to calculate an odds ratio. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi! I've tried to add some reliably-sourced dog diseases at Weimaraner. Several of them are red links and I'm not seeing where if anywhere to direct them. I think this is pretty much right in your field – can you help at all? Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I've linked to appropriate articles for all but two. For eversion of the cartilage of the nictitating membrane I added a parenthetical explanation although you could format it to be like eversion of the cartilage of the nictating membrane. I'm not sure which is better for readers.
- Usually those breed predisposition textbooks reference a study, do you know which study mentioned neutrophil function defect of Weimaraners? Traumnovelle (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Hi, didn't see this! – many thanks for your help there. To be honest I'm not sure how great a source that Gough book is; it does have a list of references, but many of them are textbooks rather than individual papers. One of those cited is this, which discusses the thing as "Weimaraner neutrophil dysfunction". Scholar search shows a few possibly relevant results too (as before, this is not my field). Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- By the way, where did you find the lifespan figure in this source? – the only instance of 'Weimaraner' I can find is in figure 5, which doesn't give figures. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Supplementary Table 3 in this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50458-w#Abs1 Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks! Now added to the ref (perhaps add it to other citations of the same source too?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Do you know of a way to automate that or do it much quicker than fully manually? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The closest article Wikipedia has currently is: Neutrophil immunodeficiency syndrome. There does not appear to be a generalised article for neutrophil deficiencies. Neutrophil is another potential target. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- A more recent textbook appears to describe the same condition (same symptoms) but calls it a form of chronic granulomatous disease. It cites: In vitro immunologic features of Weimaraner dogs with neutrophil abnormalities and recurrent infections.Vet Immunol Immunopathology which may be the same study cited in that book Gough cited? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The Gough book doesn't list any paper containing 'Weimaraner' in its list of sources, so probably not. Anyway, I think I'll leave that one as a redlink for now. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article of wagwalking that calls the predominately-black colored calico cat a “black calico” is a vet reviewed article thus I believe it can be considered a reliable source. Besides that this naming seems quite logical.
when searching black calico in google I mostly got cat results and only a few calico fabric results. I feel this does not justify the deletion of the paragraph about black calico cats and the picture.
Moreover I would like to add that if one searches for “black calico cat” there are dozens of pictures of cats that are mostly black but calico and this to me also seems to justify the value of the edit.
Thank you for your consideration and I am looking forward to your kind feedback! Lepke99 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, no. It is a pet insurance company and many of these online pet websites mention veterinary review but will often just be lying about it. I contacted a British equine vet who was for some reason writing about cats and she told me she had never even heard of the website she was being presented on. This website doesn't even provide any information on the reviewer, and the article has been updated since said review. Reliability is not presumed for online sources, I see no good reason why a pet insurance company would be a reliable source. A tortoiseshell cat that is predominantly black is simply a tortoiseshell, not a black calico. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply