User talk:davidzundel

{{Welcome}} Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Scope of English language Wikipedia

In considering and editing some of the articles on topics related to sexually transmitted infections, I wonder who I should write for.

The common sexually transmitted infections exist everywhere on the planet, but the importance, prevalence, incidence, testing, treatment, and cultural consequence vary by region. I'd like to provide useful information for any reader of English. But I know nothing of sexual health clinics in Bangalore or Norway.

I expect the general question has had discussion, but I have yet to find it. I'd appreciate a pointer to that discussion.

--davidz (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A few references that might be helpful:

Wikipedia:Writing better articles

Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible

For articles about medicine there is also

WP:MEDMOS - manual of style for wikiproject medicine.

If you want to get wider input (more folks who might have answers) on a question like this, there are discussion areas such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force and of course there are the beginners help talk areas, etc.

A question like this on your own talk page is unlikely to get seen, although there is a tag you can add to ask for help on your talk page (sorry, I don't know off hand what it is.) Zodon (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The tag is {{helpme}}. -- davidz (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexual health clinic

Lot of nice improvements to Sexual health clinic.

Did have one quick suggestion about some of your edits to talk:Sexual health clinic. The purpose of a few of the topics you posted on the talk page isn't quite clear. In general one doesn't need to post an explanation of an edit on the talk page unless it is questioned by somebody and you want to discuss it, or you are proposing something and want to get input/help improving/discussion/etc. If you want a scratch area for ideas or notes, your own user page or a subpage of it are better places for that. Not a big deal, but the article talk pages are preserved as a permanent record of discussions etc., and the more material on them, the harder it is to find anything. Hope this helps. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

USPL

I've moved the link from {{USPL}}. It now goes to Public law (United States), which currently redirects to Act of Congress. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.—Markles 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Much tidier than my work. Thanks. I've commented on Template talk:USPL. -- davidz (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Thank you, I had noticed the bot following my edit but did not look closely to see what it had fixed. Your explanation makes sense. And thanks about Clarion Fund. The dispute is still outstanding, but I think I can find a middle ground between the other parties. Stargat (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

STOP STALKING ME

--67.80.174.252 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not stalking. Merely noted and removed defamation from the article about Brigitte Gabriel.[1][2] -- davidz (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

BACK OFF KID--67.80.174.252 (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:davidzundel

Thanks for {{tl}} and fixing the minor issues of <br> and underlines. Unfortunately the {{tl}} edit corrupted the formating of the shortcut box. You might have asked first. -- davidz (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it was a bug in WikEd that caused the killing of the leading whitespace. — Dispenser 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarion Fund "for" template

Hi David, I changed the wording on the template because it wasn't a complete sentence and contained a misspelling. However, the text I added caused the template to break. So I just took out the template and made a note of that in my edit summary. Does that make sense? If you can make both work, that would be ideal. --Stargat (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Stargat. I failed to notice my misspelling. I've changed the article to use the {{about}} template. -- davidz (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Clarion Fund question

Wonder if you have any thoughts about Proxy User who keeps slapping the POV tag on the article? In the past he (I think) has cited WP:OWN as being an issue but has never explained why. I've asked more than once for a more precise explanation -- a specific phrase, new proposed wording, nothing. I'm not even sure if he's reading the article, it seems more like he has a vested interest in the article remaining disputed so as to discredit it. I'm not really sure what to do here. I don't want to get in a revert battle, but since he's not discussing it, that seems to be the direction it's going. Any idea how to handle? --Stargat (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have written to him User talk:Proxy User#Clarion Fund. -- davidz (talk)

This doesn't help [3]. CJCurrie and I edit bumped on attributing it. With an active controversy, the article makes a "pov magnet". Good structure and neutral content may help (broken windows theory). We need to keep WP:WEIGHT in mind. -- davidz (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

the movie obsession vs. obsession the movie

Your reverts do not appear to be of actual vandalism, as both sites exist, and appear to be official. I may add a clarification in external links. Altairah (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry; I violated my own Wiki-policy, "Never make edits before morning caffeine". "themovieobsession.com" is indeed a spoof site, and a very good one at that. Good catch. Altairah (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proxyuser and POV tags

This user has a known history of adding POV tags to articles without appropriate justification, and then accusing the editor removing the tag of bias. I began to suspect he was also engaging in sockpuppetry, but couldn't prove it. Quite frankly, I grew so tired of dealing with the BS that I've been more or less on an extended wikibreak. Additionally, all warnings and discussion regarding his infractions has been removed from his talk page. FWIW. Mmoyer (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back.

Proxy User removed the {{pov}} tag.[4]

-- davidz (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK

But could you not have just done it yourself? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Vijayjva/NUS MCOM ITPM/Information Systems Consulting

This subpage may be deleted, I'm not using it anymore. However, I have removed the content. (Vijayjva (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

Title X

Hi, I just created an article for Title X of the Public Health Services Act. At the moment it is mostly bits moved/copied from other articles (e.g. the section out of Family planning). Thought you might be interested since there was a link to it on your user page. Zodon (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Davidzundel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Davidzundel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)