Together.pngTogether.pngPeace symbol.svgTogether.pngTogether.png
I am always very busy, and I can't edit as often as I'd like. However, I do check
Wikipedia from time to time. If you leave a message here, I will notice it eventually.
I try to accept criticism of my edits and responsibility for my comments,
and we should be able to resolve any editing disputes amicably.
Feel free to express your opinion or ask for my help.
I have an archive of older topics from this page. It can be accessed here.


Page moveEdit

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks for creating the discussion and presenting this evidence. Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Dekimasu!Edit

Thank you! Happy New Year. Dekimasuよ! 06:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Malformed RMEdit

Per this close, it's interesting that moving one redirect over another to the same article is perfectly OK to do manually, but is considered malformed by the bot. The move would have accomplished exactly what was intended; the redirects are not "identical" as you said, because one of them appears in a category and the other one doesn't. Don't you think it makes sense to use RM for this, to rename the item in the category? It seemed to me like the most sensible way to get some eyes on the question. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dicklyon. There is basically never a need to move a redirect manually either, though; I wouldn't say that it is perfect OK to do manually, but rather that it is basically a null result since it will create a double redirect that's fixed by a bot soon after. Categories can be modified manually without performing moves that would confound page histories. I understand your point about centralized discussion, particularly since there are regulars around RM who have set understandings of the underlying issues, but categories on redirects are still more the realm of WP:RFD than WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
In the past, when I wanted to fix the styling of a redirect that shows up in a category, I usually used move rather than the alternative of cutting the category tag from one and pasting it into the other, as I thought that would be regarded as a "cut-and-paste move". I'll just drop that idea. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisting at Talk:Mirroring (psychology)Edit

You have relisted the move request at Talk:Mirroring (psychology). Two support and two oppose. One oppose is based on a refuted claim ("No primary topic"), the other is invalid per WP:NOTNEEDED. How does your close mesh with WP:NHC? Paradoctor (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisting is not a close. It presents a further opportunity for both current and new participants to continue ongoing discussion. The discussion can still be evaluated by any uninvolved closer at any time. Best, Dekimasuよ! 12:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Put a different way, relisting could be taken as an invitation to build stronger evidence of consensus in favor of a certain close. Dekimasuよ! 13:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right about a relisting not being a close, of course. I still don't see the problem with not closing as accepted, though. After discounting invalid opposes, only support !votes remain. Paradoctor (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Studios Fox (and Living Capital)Edit

For what it's worth, I generally agree with what you said when you pinged me at Talk:20th Century Studios/Archives/2020#Requested move 17 January 2020, I just got to the discussion too late to comment in it before it was closed. We should usually wait for usage in sources to change. That said, such moves are usually actually harmless as long as redirects work and the lead is clear, unless there's something potentially very reader-confusing about the case (e.g. the Kraft others instances in which the old company name remains the dominant brand/service name and all that's happened is a background change of the name of the legal entity, or a merger into a different one). I doubt that 20th Century Studios versus 20th Century Fox has much in the way os major user-confusion potential. If Apple Inc. changes its name tomorrow to Global iDevices Inc., then we'd have a different kind of case, because they'd continue to be referred to as Apple by almost everyone for several years, except in financial news, etc. It's been my experience that it's often actually easier to move barely-notable company names shortly after such a corporate name change, because COMMONNAME barely applies due to the lack of much coverage at all. I.e., there's not much RECOGNIZABILITY to even consider.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SMcCandlish. I don't like the idea of following process for its own sake, but it seems clear that editors should be notified they aren't exempt from naming conventions and policies when someone (who wasn't me, as I didn't even oppose the move!) has already objected. I understand the recognizability argument as well, but it seems like anachronisms should be avoided too. For example, what's going on at List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1999) is probably not worth keeping up with, but the article was moved without discussion, reverted (by me, citing WP:RMUM), a move discussion was initiated, and then the page was moved again without warning to a title not referenced in that discussion with the edit summary "The name of the studio was already 20th Century Studios, not 20th Century Fox anymore." Now, were any of the movies from 1935–1999 made by "20th Century Studios"? No. But moving everything immediately seems to be a priority for some. The page should be put under move protection but at this point I am probably considered involved (score at least one for process, I guess?). Dekimasuよ! 06:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, toward that objection-end, see also the three ongoing related RMs: Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present)#Requested move 19 January 2020Talk:20th Century Fox Television#Requested move 19 January 2020Talk:List of 20th Century Fox theatrical animated features#Requested move 19 January 2020.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

PS: I also didn't notice your "living text" clarification at Talk:Das Kapital, Volume I#Requested move 6 December 2019 until after closure. Thanks for the pointer to the legal sense of a similar phrase, which I had not encountered (or remembered encountering), despite being a non-lawyer steeped professionally in several areas of US law as a policy analyst. It's a good usage to know, even if it's not terribly common.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Your input is requestedEdit

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Added one, hope it is worthwhile. Dekimasuよ! 11:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

nCoVEdit

Of course you're right - a vaccine is not a treatment! Boud (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the sections are finally back together again! Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

"A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro)" listed at Requested movesEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and other Metro pages. Since you had some involvement with pages related to A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and others, you might want to participate in the discussion if you wish to do so. Lexlex (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Although I do not have an opinion on this request, I have had to reinstate the stable page titles for now under WP:RMUM. Please note that when there is previous discussion of the titles on the talk page, that is an indication that moves are not uncontroversial and should not be undertaken boldly. It is good that you initiated a move discussion, but the pages should not have been moved to the intermediate titles per WP:RMCM. Dekimasuよ! 14:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting input in resolution at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreakEdit

Greetings. Not sure if this is the correct channel or whether if this is an appropriate request, but I've navigated to your page through Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and the "Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly" option. As I've noticed your activity on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and thereby be fit to understand the context of the discussion, I've like to request your input in an informal DRR/3 for a stonewalled discussion thread there, if possible. The link to that is here: 1 Best. Sleath56 (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sleath56, sorry that I was not able to respond to this in a timely fashion. The virus article has been taking up most of my editing time recently, and the scale of what needs to be done at the outbreak page appears to be exponentially greater (and the political issues are certainly far more problematic there). I hope this has been taken care of to your satisfaction in the meantime, but I don't think I can cover this area at the moment. Best, Dekimasuよ! 03:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and no worries, it's understandable. I was under the impression the issue was resolved, but its reappeared under the same premise. The invitation still stands if you find time later on, as I believe the issue can only be resolved through a third party DRR/3 at this point. Regards. Sleath56 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. At least I was around to catch this, which apparently put a lot of stress on the servers by filling the pool queue, something I haven't seen in years. I did a small amount of work on the lede but it seems clear that bloat and the number of editors involved are a major factor over there. Dekimasuよ! 06:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for copyright work on CoronavirusEdit

Thanks for your cleanup on Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The same editor you cleaned up after also put 4 large edits in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak that might contain similar material. Can you skim them for copyright violations? oldest, #2, #3, and the most recent. These were all made between 05:25, 3 February 2020 and 10:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello davidwr, I had actually flagged this here since I wasn't able to take care of it myself at the time, and based upon the comments from another admin it seems to have been taken care of in some form. Thank you for keeping an eye out for this. Dekimasuよ! 03:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Free flow of informationEdit

Dear Dekimasu,

I appreciate your input. However, what you have been doing regarding the coronavirus webpages is a clear obstruction of free flow of information. I don't know your particular field of study. However, I can reassure you that there are no available review articles on the novel coronavirus at the moment. The publication added is a good source of information and blocking other people's access to this source does not make sense in any way.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatWikiped (talkcontribs) 07:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

StatWikiped, given that you are inputting these sources in different articles (not only pertaining to the coronavirus) that contain a small number of authors in common, it appears that you may have an undeclared conflict of interest. Per that Wikipedia behavioral guideline, WP:SELFCITE, and WP:REFSPAM, if you are associated with these articles, you should disclose your conflict or interest and avoid editing associated articles directly. Adding references to the articles can be requested in such cases on the talk page. If the sources are essential, then someone who is unassociated with them can add them. This is similar to a small amount of peer review to establish that the sources you are citing are relevant and reliable. If you are unwilling to do this because your intent is to add particular sources of information that you are connected to, then that is against the ideals of Wikipedia. Dekimasuよ! 08:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
In fact, to be clear, I would be likely to support readdition of the source to the "Further reading" section of Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) if the request were made on the talk page in this fashion and the question of affiliation answered; I note that you did not reply to this question at your talk page earlier. Dekimasuよ! 08:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification, Dekimasu. I have no COI. However, since this issue was raised by you, I will not edit any related pages you mentioned and will let other Wikipedia authors contribute to the page. BTW, I don't know what talk page you are referring to. Please send me the link.StatWikiped (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
The talk page would be the talk page of the article into which you are seeking to place the reference. Thank you for answering the question about conflict of interest. Can you see how it would seem to be an attempt at search engine optimization if you add a number of different papers with authors in common as your first additions to Wikipedia, and add cites only without supplementing article text? Dekimasuよ! 04:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar!Edit

  The Bio-star
Thank you so much for your tireless and high quality contributions to 2019 novel coronavirus Mvolz (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hear hear!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 01:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

corona thingyEdit

@Amakuru, Doc James, and BD2412: Hi. Kindly excuse the title for this discussion. As you are aware, most of the articles directly related to the 2019 coronavirus are having move/merge/split discussions every day. Is there any way to make all these articles consistent with 2019 novel coronavirus, and split the current 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to reflect one article regarding outbreak in Wuhan, and China; and other article about the activity of coronavirus in rest of the world? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Urggh, thanks for the message username Kiran although to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of these endless move, merge and split requests myself. It would be nice to just let things stay where they are for a whole and reassess when the dust has settled a little. Your proposal is an interesting one, although I'm a bit sceptical myself - the outbreak in China, and that in the rest of the world, are inexorably linked, so unless the article gets over long and a child article on the China-specific cases us spawned, I'm not sure I'd go with that at this time.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I would support 2019 novel coronavirus Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, even though I have not been participating a lot, I am actually irritated becuase of these requests :D But you are right, we should wait for a while. Thanks for the response guys. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I think I have been holding up pretty well, but it is very frustrating that a significant percentage of editors ignore WP:OFFICIAL and WP:NAMECHANGES and write "support per official name". Dekimasuよ! 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
It looks like a new set of requests was closed before I got back to this. Thanks for writing.
There is an article on the outbreak in Wuhan and China: Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. I am not sure about the "rest of the world", but as an example, I trimmed the Australia section of the main article significantly because it was very bloated, and it looks like all of the material I meticulously cut out has been reintroduced and more. (Do we need "a meat producer in New South Wales reporting to have already witnessed a 10% drop in their orders" in 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak? Of course not. The idea that it's a significant detail is almost offensive, really.) And I simply don't have the time that would be required to help protect the main article from bloat, so I have been concentrating almost entirely on 2019 novel coronavirus.
As to the other question, we could have moratoriums placed on certain kinds of discussions, but I think that should probably wait until we go through one more full set of requests that will show whether or not there is consensus for implementing SARS-CoV-2 (or the written-out version) or COVID-19 (or the written out version). I don't think it's possible to push a top-down solution for rearranging the pages. It's good that there are some admins around on these pages, but that has to be more for stabilization than for change (especially since those you pinged are WP:INVOLVED to some extent, with the possible exception of BD2412). Dekimasuよ! 03:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection to having one article on the virus itself, a second on the Wuhan outbreak, a third on the rest of China, and a fourth on the world outside of China. I note, however, that there is a not insignificant possibility that some countries outside of China may eventually see issues proportionately as severe as China is seeing now. BD2412 T 02:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Apropos the "corona thingy", could you'all decide on a standardize name for this virus? It has at least three that I know of. Use the WHO name? Cheers! Shir-El too 09:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If I were in charge, the Wikipedia titles for this set of articles would all be standardized in ten minutes (and none of them would contain "Wuhan"). It would be easier if I weren't involved in editing the articles, as well. But I'm just one editor, so the best I can do is try to help other editors agree. Dekimasuよ! 09:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Will leave the experts to it. God Bless! Shir-El too 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank You Dekimasu.Edit

The adjustments you made to the entry were perfect and exactly what was needed, and you summarized the two entries to say the same thing. And thank you for the reference cleanup and additional information added there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 07:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Great, glad that works for you. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, on that latest removal regarding the "pangolin identified as early as 2003 in a list of illegally traded animals" was added because, yes, as you say it is not been concluded yet and yet at the same time that research is being conspiratorially called a "red herring." It should be shown this "pandolin" connection is not a conspiracy but a natural evolution of focus and thought over the last 17 years, and not even as recent as October 24, 2019. The research in Vietnam, among many that could be cited from that time, began because the world started looking at a list of illegally traded animals as sources of zoonotic viruses. This provides a context for serious consideration and to encourage more to study this scientifically. Finding the reservoirs is the most important aspect of correct antivirus creation.

I will of course, yield to your considerations in the overall scope of the article. Thanks again for your tireless efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 08:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Humanspan, it was not my intention to denigrate the source. Hopefully the South China Agricultural University research can be released soon so that the connection, or lack thereof, can be established and reported upon in reliable secondary sources. Best, Dekimasuよ! 09:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I see I am longer able to add to this page. Can I be cleared of not being a bot? Dekimasu, this is, I believe, what we needed. If not, then the following should be added to the end of the paragraph on Reservoir. Citations below.
Further examination of the pangolin involvement in the genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 by the South China Agricultural University confirms the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of SARS-CoV-2. Other virologists confirm this ancestral relationship further in the RaTG13 SARS virus of bat origin, and reveal recombination and retention is something coronaviruses do "to the extreme." Related pangolin genomes are now represented in the ancestry of SARS-CoV-2 having been recombined with RaTG13 sometime in the distant or more immediate past. This also could show more evidence toward the pangolin as the intermediate source.
SOURCES:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.17.951335v1
http://virological.org/t/ncov-2019-spike-protein-receptor-binding-domain-shares-high-amino-acid-identity-with-a-coronavirus-recovered-from-a-pangolin-viral-metagenomic-dataset/362/21
https://nextstrain.org/groups/blab/sars-like-cov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 07:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. It will take me a bit of time to read the paper, but I see what you mean. I am surprised that this hasn't been picked up by mainstream sources considering that the original story received so much attention, but perhaps that's because it's a preprint. As to your other question, the article is currently semi-protected to reduce vandalism. The system does not think you are a bot, but will not let you post to the page without more experience on Wikipedia. In this case, you can use {{Edit semi-protected}} on the talk page to request an edit. Best, Dekimasuよ! 07:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The paper looks to contribute to the theory of recombination involving pangolins, but this will be a second study coming out of South China Agricultural University that does not show the 99% similarity previously claimed. Dekimasuよ! 07:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not inclined to add the virological.org source to the article, because while it is a technical forum, it is still a discussion forum. Dekimasuよ! 07:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Dekimasu, thank you so very much for your swift response. These are the most reliable sources and we should be very excited Wikipedia will break this first. They are not picking this up because the main stream is not digging. Many journalists are just repeating stuff and many sensationalists are going to extremes. Thank you for protecting the page. It is of utmost importance we substantiate natural origin of this virus. I have two more (just released in last few days) that will show natural origin.
Also, the pace of information is mind boggling on this. I have spent 5-7 hours a day scouring the scientific journals and interacting with grounded virologists, microbiologists including Richard Ebright! He said on twitter to me the other day, "Pangolins are definitely involved." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 07:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Humanspan, in general, it is not Wikipedia's goal to be breaking news, but in this case there are studies available that can be clearly connected to the contents, and in this particular case the consensus at the article's talk page has been that preprints are important because of the speed of developments on this topic, as you mentioned. In some ways it was the very fact that the 99% announcement that was put out through press releases that was the problem here. For articles of this type, we tend to prefer scientific sources over news sources, and while we prefer secondary sources to primary sources in general, the secondary sources that are processed through news organizations tend to be of lesser quality than the secondary sources represented by scientific/medical reviews. I have started out adding one sentence from the biorxiv paper, and switched it to a direct quote (the form that you had it in was already very close to the original phrasing in the paper. Dekimasuよ! 07:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


The 99% issue. The math on the sequence is 98.6% and this second paper is a refinement of that 99%. Look at this quote that is the basis of Nature's page: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/07/c_138763355.htm

They have refined it, and this link is a refinement of that immediate "shoot from the hip" statement back on Feb 7th. This second study you mention is the more relevant information. Perhaps the first sentence can be adjusted to indicate this "was an initial reaction." Depending on how many blocks in the genetic code have been counted, 100, there is only 1 differing! Thank you again for all your efforts. 100%, 98.2%, 96.7% and 90.4% amino acid identity with 2019-nCoV in the E, M, N and S genes, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 07:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again dear sir. You nailed it and your circumspection curbs my passion. And yes, not intending for Wikipedia to break it, but Wikipedia is a great source of information because of people like you. Thank you.

Dekimasu, we have a new study and possible addition to the Reservoir/Pangolin. "Continued examination of the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2, suggests suggest that the development of new variations in functional sites in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike seen in SARS-CoV-2 and viruses from pangolin SARSr-CoVs are likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination." Source: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036/5775463

This is an acknowledgement of how a 60 amino acid sequence in the Sub Unit 1 98-99% match to Pangolin can end up being in the receptor binding domain of SARS-COV-2. "...likely caused by mutations and natural selection besides recombination." We will probably never find the intermediate source because of this explanation also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 04:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Humanspan, there have been some doubts raised about this study. They are under discussion at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Add mention of multiple strains. The doubts do not discuss the link to pangolins directly, but dispute the idea that the changes are due to selective pressure. So far, we are trying to wait for more responses in reliable sources in this case. Dekimasuよ! 06:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, thank you for referencing the discussion prompted by this academic.oup.com study. The L and the S "multiple strains" is insignificant, shown by Trevor Bedford by mutation history. However, the portion of the link cited still includes any possible manner of natural selection, i.e. selective pressure, recombination, mutations, et. al. therefore believed it was relevant. Will continue scouring scientific articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 23:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, patience has paid off. The 98-99% pangolin amino acid sequences of the Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain of SARS-CoV-2 is now being reported as a clear indication this of natural selection or natural origin. (based on the discussions above you recommended we wait for to be published). It is also now being reported in LiveScience.com

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-not-human-made-in-lab.html

This reality is the single most important questions about the virus, as it determines whether it will recirculate or not, and now a preponderance of peer review and professional journalism has established that. Therefore a final paragraph with citations to the article(s) above would be fitting:

The appearance of the 98-99% pangolin sequence in the Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain, including all six key RBD residues, "clearly shows that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein optimized for binding to human-like ACE2 is the result of natural selection."

I am very excited that the Nature.com link above cites all of these materials we had been finding and put it all together just like you recommended.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 19:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 

Furthermore, "The KD values for the bat and the pangolin SARS-like CoV RBDs indicated that it would be difficult for bat SARS-like CoV to infect humans; however, the pangolin CoV is potentially infectious to humans with respect to its RBD. " Without the pangolin reservoir, this novel coronavirus would never have become so potentially infectious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 19:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Humanspan, it appears to me that the preprint you are linking here is not too concerned with the role of the pangolin or to the origin of the spillover, since it is citing selection pressure as a reason for development of increased ACE2 affinity, and it is looking for variations within SARS-CoV-2 in human populations. The only part I see that is close to what we have been discussing here is on page 11. In either event, I think this might be one of those cases where we are better off waiting for acceptance or publication. Was there something in particular that you thought should be altered about the current article text? Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Dekimasu, I hope you and your family are doing well. Yes, I agree with you on the overall assessment of the preprint. The preponderance of scientific viewpoints is now that a pangolin sequence in Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain explains giving SARS-CoV-2 its infectious ability. It has been shown Pangolin involvement cannot be denied as a part of the Reservoir sections.

I am going to be more precise. Here is the 3rd paragraph under Reservoir section:

A metagenomic study published in 2019 previously revealed that SARS-CoV, the strain of the virus that causes SARS, was the most widely distributed coronavirus among a sample of Sunda pangolins.[46] On 7 February 2020, it was announced that researchers from Guangzhou had discovered a pangolin sample with a viral nucleic acid sequence "99% identical" to SARS-CoV-2.[47] When released, the results clarified that "the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the newly discovered Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of 2019-nCoV, with one amino acid difference."[48] Pangolins are protected under Chinese law, but their poaching and trading for use in traditional Chinese medicine remains common.[49][50]

Adding:

A metagenomic study published in 2019 previously revealed that SARS-CoV, the strain of the virus that causes SARS, was the most widely distributed coronavirus among a sample of Sunda pangolins.[46] On 7 February 2020, it was announced that researchers from Guangzhou had discovered a pangolin sample with a viral nucleic acid sequence "99% identical" to SARS-CoV-2.[47] When released, the results clarified that "the receptor-binding domain of the S protein of the newly discovered Pangolin-CoV is virtually identical to that of 2019-nCoV, with one amino acid difference."[48] Bats and pangolins are suspected as the reservoir and the intermediate host. The receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein plays the key role in the tight binding to human receptor ACE2 for viral entry." https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.15.991844v2

Furthermore, "The KD values for the bat and the pangolin SARS-like CoV RBDs indicated that it would be difficult for bat SARS-like CoV to infect humans; however, the pangolin CoV is potentially infectious to humans with respect to its RBD." Hence, the 98-99% pangolin amino acid sequence in Sub Unit 1 of the Receptor Binding Domain of the virus, explains how the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV2-2, gained its ability to infect a human host efficiently.

Pangolins are protected under Chinese law, but their poaching and trading for use in traditional Chinese medicine remains common.[49][50]

"The genome sequence of the virus isolate (GX/P2V) has very high similarity (99.83-99.92%) to the five sequences obtained through the metagenomic sequencing of the raw samples, and all have similar genomic organizations to SARS-CoV-2". https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0_reference.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 04:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Humanspan, I will look at this as soon as I can. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, the point of these entries is not to say the pangolin is the immediate reservoir, but that the pangolin sequence in the RBD is significant. And SARS-CoV-2 like viruses in Pangolins prove pangolins can be a reservoir of a human infectious strain. We believe this is noteworthy and applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanspan (talkcontribs) 02:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Titles, MOS, Tree of Life, etcEdit

Thank you for opening my eyes to several topics at the end of the SARS-CoV-2 move request. It had not occurred to me that there is no WP:MOS for something like viruses and that they likely should be separate from WP:NCMED. Also, thanks for the pointer to MOS:ALTNAME. Finally, I went back to the move talk discussion tonight after seeing a new Lancet letter suggesting the CSG's proposed name be changed. It may be weeks (or more) till the name is truly resolved in the scientific community. Best, Inkwzitv (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that this was helpful to you, Inkwzitv. If you happen to bring up a discussion of the guidelines at some point, please let me know. Best, Dekimasuよ! 12:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

PlantersEdit

I think you should have closed Talk:Planters#Requested move 17 February 2020 as "no consensus to move" instead of "not moved". Yes I realize that the arguments against the move were probably stronger than those in favour in the !votes, but I had provided provided a significant rationalization in my nomination statement with reference to the guidelines and conventions (previous discussions). While there were only 2 supporting (with 1 weak) v 4 opposers, only 2 of the opposers contained any substantial rationalization, the 1st originally being a personal attack (that was removed by another editor) and the 2nd only with a link to PLURALPT which usually (but not always) supports the singular and plural forms going to the same place. While the 2 supporters didn't contain as much rationalization they did appear to allude to the 2nd criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While I realize that this change doesn't actually physically affect the outcome I think it would more appropriately reflect the discussion since "no consensus" to move is usually in between "not moved" and "no consensus", thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, first, I apologize that my intention was unclear. In large part I do agree with you on your reading of the discussion (that the discussion did not exhibit a consensus). Part of the issue that arises here is that I have been closing moves since well before WP:THREEOUTCOMES existed and propagated a certain definition of "not moved", and I wasn't involved in the creation of that section. Also, that page implies that it's a guideline while I don't think it has ever been elevated to the level of a guideline. But communication of what I intended to express via the close is important.
To go into a bit more detail, years ago I used to only close move requests as "consensus to move", "no consensus to move", or "consensus not to move". These are statements based upon reading the consensus of the discussion, so I prefer them. (I also try to avoid long statements on my closes because they tend to lead to disagreements over reading of particular arguments rather than the overall outcome, so I usually write "per the discussion below".) At this point many other closers focus on the effects of the discussion rather than what form of consensus is shown, which leads to statements like "moved". I generally only use the statements "moved" and "not moved" in a limited set of circumstances. One might be an unopposed request with little discussion; to me this will result in a move, but is not a very good indication of strong consensus in favor of the action.
Another is what we had here. In my reading of this discussion there was not a strong "consensus not to move" the page, and if there were I would have used that phrasing in my close. However, at the same time, I intended to discourage the initiation of another request based upon the same set of arguments in the future, because I do not see any indication in the discussion that it would move forward toward a consensus in favor of a page move among a different set of RM participants, and it does not appear that there is anything that would prompt a significant shift going forward (such as the possibility that one page or the other might now be coming to prominence, or that its name might be changing). Thus while in effect there is no difference in the outcome (as you stated), I was in fact trying to make a somewhat stronger statement than would have been reflected by closing the discussion as "no consensus to move", which might encourage future attempts to make the same request. One of the reasons this tends to be effective is probably that there has recently come to be a wider acceptance of the idea that "not moved" is a fairly forceful wording, so I have probably benefitted from the newer definition at times. But at the same time I did intend this to be a more nuanced close, and as I wrote above I wish that my intention had been clear to you.
I am fine with changing the close to "no consensus to move" if you'd like, but I would discourage making the same request again in 3 months, 6 months, etc. Dekimasuよ! 02:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed I have noticed that you usually use "at this time" in you're closers which suggests that although there is a consensus (or lack of one) at the current RM there could easily later be a different consensus. In this case you're "not moved" "at this time" suggests that although there is consensus against that specific RM there could easily be consensus later. I agree with you that a new RM in 3 or 6 months probably wouldn't be a good idea unless significant new information was presented or it was by someone who didn't participate in this RM, Talk:Wyndham Vale is an example of one that had a new request about 6 weeks later by the same user with the same reason. In the case of Talk:Dowland (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 January 2019 you used "consensus not to move" (which was unanimously opposed) instead of "not moved" here, compare this to Talk:Peter Sutcliffe#Requested move 2 January 2019 where you noted clear "consensus not to move". So yes while I agree there might have been a slightly stronger consensus against the move than for it I think "no consensus to move" would have been more appropriate. I'd also note that because primary topic was at play (rather than best title) there is some consensus that the burden should always be on those wanting a primary topic to get consensus for that even if the article has been a stable primary topic. Consider that if the move was being made the other way round its unlikely that there would be consensus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have noticed most of my strategies. In general, they work fairly well. I haven't been taken to WP:MR in at least a year now, I think. The question of what would happen if this were "no consensus" and the other way around is probably another factor that led me to use the closing statement I did. If "no consensus" were taken to be evidence that nothing should have the primary topic, then again, I think the most appropriate result of the discussion in this case was that nothing should be moved at this time. Dekimasuよ! 12:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I think a statement like "no consensus due to the arguments on the oppose side being slightly stronger than the support side" would be better. Otherwise we would be left in situations where we have to close as "moved" due to no consensus (where arguments for and against are split) and "not moved" in situations where the arguments against are slightly stronger. I think "no consensus" is an appropriate outcome in cases where the arguments against are slightly stronger as long as that's noted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn't realize that this was still an ongoing issue. When I offered to change the wording of the close, I was under the impression that you did not want to take me up on the offer. Thank you for the notification of the move review. As far as your final comment here is concerned, there have historically been cases involving dab pages in which pages have been "moved due to no consensus". This is probably rarer now. Dekimasuよ! 11:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I did want you to change the wording of the close per the comment of I think a statement like "no consensus due to the arguments on the oppose side being slightly stronger than the support side" would be better but I probably hadn't made that clear. As I said at MR I understand you're busy and because you have several messages further down its possible you missed my later message but anyway its probably better to let this be sorted at MR. Thanks again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

What is your variety of English?Edit

Just wanted to know what your variety of English is so that I can replace the ugly {{EngvarB}} template on Coronavirus disease 2019 with the correct regional one, like {{Use British English}} or {{Use Australian English}}. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Haha, good question. Actually, I believe Template:EngvarB was already in place when I started editing what was at the time Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). When I helped split what was then 2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease from the virus article, I moved the template over as well. However, while I understand your concern, I don't think it should be necessary to switch the template to something else. EngvarB is not deprecated, and the topic has no strong links to any national variety of English, so I think for it to be nondescript is just about right. Not having any such template on the page at all might have the same effect, but I don't think we would want the page to be "colonized" by a specific variety later on. (To answer your question to some extent, I use American spelling in the mainspace when there's nothing telling me I shouldn't. I think I am responsible for most of the body text at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 if you'd like to diagnose my dialect.) Dekimasuよ! 12:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
It's alright; I identified the originator of the text. Thank you for the help though. In response to what you said, a template for keeping an English variety in flux goes entirely against the guideline of keeping a variety consistent. The {{EngvarB}} template is not without criticism and is understandably seen by non-Americans as US-/North America-biased. It's also virtually useless given that 99% of the time it's referring to a {{Commonwealth English}} variety, most often British English. But thank you anyway. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I found it too. An IP editor in Indonesia. Interesting. As far as consistency is concerned, I tend to think there is a difference between aiming for flux and aiming for retaining a variety without label(l)ing it. But I see your point. Dekimasuよ! 12:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

help with Move for Heated Tobacco ProductsEdit

Hi, I don't know the procedures for summarizing a Wiki discussion and actually performing a Move of "heat-not-burn products" to "heated tobacco products" now that it has been under discussion for a week and the consensus of support looks consistent. Could you perchance do so or let me know who can? thank you very much. DrNicotiana (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

DrNicotiana, since we have participated in the discussion, it is best to wait for an uninvolved closer to read the consensus of the discussion and move the page for us. I agree that the outcome is clear, but allowing the process to play out this way is useful for avoiding any disputes that might arise subsequently. Dekimasuよ! 16:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

About archival bot on Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2Edit

The bot is meant to free up whatever menial work the manual work entails, but if you think is fine still, let's put it in much later as you have mentioned.

The RM section can be pinned just like what's done with Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#Semi-protected_anti-vandalism_request_on_3_March_2020:

<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 08:46, 1 March 2030 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1898585168}}<!-- END PIN -->

robertsky (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will use this if/when it becomes necessary. I rather like manual archiving (though pinning would have the same effect) since it's easier to highlight perennial questions and previous consensus that way. Best, Dekimasuよ! 13:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey,

I'm a journalist writing about the COVID-19 wikipedia page. Any interest in talking real quick? Thanks! Journo0000 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Journo0000, please send me a short summary of any further information you can give via e-mail using Special:EmailUser/Dekimasu. I am probably happy to answer questions but would like to know more. Also, in case you are on a deadline, please note that my current time zone is UTC+09:00. Dekimasuよ! 16:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard workEdit

  The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Hi Dekimasu, just a note of thanks for your ongoing work on the coronavirus articles, ensuring they're kept factual, on-topic, and free from spam and POV pushing. It's at times like this that we realise what an amazing body of editors we have working here, and how fantastic this project really is. Keep up the good work!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, I appreciate this, and I regret that I haven't been able to keep up with WP:RM lately. Thanks for all of your work as well. Dekimasuよ! 06:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Covid infection section is incorrectEdit

Hi Dekimasu,

I saw you edited my contribution to the Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2 Infection section. Unfortunately, the resulting paragraph features the early February WHO spread model which discounts asymptomatic transmission, but it has been superceded by the results March 16 article from Science, showing the majority of infections are from pre-symptomatic shedders. That is extremely important information. I am ready to update but figured you would have thoughts and want to avoid revision conflicts. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed as soon as possible.

Thanks, Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My main qualm with this is that the WHO guidance is based upon direct observation, while the study arguing that there must have been asymptomatic transfer is a mathematical model. There are other variables that could create the same results, up to and including the presence of a considerable number of symptomatic people who didn't seek or receive medical attention. I will try to reply further on the relevant talk page. Dekimasuよ! 10:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

On SARS-CoV-2Edit

Hi there! I noticed that you reverted my edit to SARS-CoV-2. However, I'm a bit confused as to exactly what was wrong. COVID-19 is the official name for Coronavirus disease 2019, and nCov-19 was it's provisional name (Novel Coronavirus 2019, as it was unclear as to if it was a disease or syndrome). Neither of which, are viruses, and simultaneously, you can't have a symptom of a virus be a virus, as you seem to indicate. In reality, the only change I made was change the symptom from it's provisional to its official name. ItsPugle (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ItsPugle, COVID-19 is the shortened version of Coronavirus disease 2019, the name for the disease caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2. "2019-nCoV" was the provisional name of the virus, not of the disease (the disease's provisional name was "2019-nCoV acute respiratory disease"). It stands for "2019 novel coronavirus", so yes, "2019-nCoV" was a virus name rather than a disease name. The article you were editing is the article on the virus; COVID-19 is not a synonym for SARS-CoV-2, and the field you edited was the field for synonyms of SARS-CoV-2. Does this make sense? Best, Dekimasuよ! 01:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Agh! I hate myself, I can't believe I thought it said symptoms, not synonyms! So sorry ItsPugle (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
No problem! Dekimasuよ! 01:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOR COVID-19Edit

Hi Dekimasu,

Unlike the two previous deletions of the entry I wrote regarding LTB4, you've made an interesting point, that deserves some consideration. I think your reason for deleting my entry is a bit of a gray area because the conclusion that LTB4 may be worth considering for future research is a soft conclusion that in the current context I think justifies some slack with respect to the Wikipedia no original research policy (as stated on the page that you helpfully directed me to). I get the purpose of the WP:NOR policy, but in this instance I think it applies weakly and for the sake of the greater good (because of what is currently at stake) should perhaps not be so rigidly adhered to.

Regards,

Elariphe (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your reversionEdit

Hi Dekimasu, you reverted [1] my edit [2] stating it would not improve the article.

Actually, my edit realized quite many detail improvements, so I'm a bit puzzled about your reversion.

Regarding 4-digit years, MOS does not require 4-digit years for consecutive years, but it recommends them unless there are strong reasons not to use them. Why should we use abbreviated years? This is fine for space-constrained areas, but otherwise it looks very unprofessional (after all, we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and this is about a virus, not a sports season or such). Regarding broken links, can you point me to one, I must have overlooked it. It was certainly not my intention to break anything.

Regarding the expansion of the citations, a reference not even properly naming the authors is almost worthless. I therefore changed it so that all authors are displayed and their forenames can be spelled out as well. Authors, for which we have articles, can be linked as well (already started, but requires more work). Also, this change significantly improves the produced metadata. Some citations were using abbreviated Vancouver style names, others did not, that's why I made sure that all citations use the same consistent format. If there would be consensus to use Vancouver style it would be possible to add |name-list-format=vanc to display the names in that style while still providing the proper names in metadata.

|year= is a deprecated parameter kept only to support a special case (not used in the article), which should be replaced by |date=.

In a few cases, the author was given as "World Health Organization"; we don't normally specify an author if none is given in the source (and the publisher is the same anyway). What we usually do is add a hidden comment "staff writer".

{{cite news}} and {{cite newspaper}} are the same, but specifying "news" could be confused with {{cite newsgroup}}, that's why spelling it out as "newspaper" is better. However, this is only cosmetics.

|website= is typically used for website names (like google.com or nextstrain.org). If the site has a real name / logo or such, this typically goes into |work= instead (or into |publisher= if it is the publisher). Periodicals like New York Times or Wall Street Journal go into parameters like |newspaper= (or |journal= or |magazine= if we were using {{cite journal}} or {{cite magazine}} rather than {{cite newspaper}}), not into |website=. There's certainly more tweaking necessary here, this was just the start. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Matthiaspaul, I recognize that there are several parts of your edit, and I will try to respond to them part-by-part.
First, as for the years, they are given as in the linked articles and templates. The use of the 2019–20 style is well-established in this set of articles and in most article titles using consecutive years, and while as you stated it is not mandated, this usage reflects the titles of the linked templates and articles. Most importantly, the pandemic's article is at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. The templates that you altered were not reader-facing, so I don't see a benefit in changing them either way, but they are all at titles using "2019–20", so this was simply changing them from direct transclusions to transclusions working through redirects. The same goes for switching to the direct template use of "Cite news" to the redirect "Cite newspaper".
As far as I am aware (meaning anything that was not introduced in the last few days), all of the cites used Vancouver format. I was maintaining the Vancouver format fairly assiduously. Of course, the article is attracting new sources every day, so that takes some work. The last= first= format is not specifically more difficult to maintain, but it is much harder to edit because it makes each citation at least twice as long. For editors, it can become difficult to find the actual text in such a heavily-referenced article. I'm sure you're aware of this, however. I do recognize the general usefulness of having the full names of the authors available, but if all the texts are online and linked (they are), then I'm not sure how helpful it is for readers, particularly if that data is not being used in the references section.
These were the two changes, which made up the bulk of the additions, that I disagreed with. I agree that year should be replaced by date, and also agree on standardizing work/publisher. I am happy to have the WHO references standardized in any reasonable way. I apologize for reverting your edit, but there are clearly a range of different issues involved, and to run them through as one edit (perhaps you were using a tool? I do everything manually) makes it very difficult to engage in this sort of discussion. Dekimasuよ! 12:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I am under the impression that you are knowledgeable in this area, but I am unsure why reformatting to avoid vauthors= would not fall under WP:CITEVAR. The Vancouver system is not deprecated. I was only able to find one cite in the article that did not use that format; it was added within the last few days, and I have fixed it now. Dekimasuよ! 12:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Addendum on Template:Cite news: if you really feel this is ambiguous, you can suggest moving the template, but it is not being treated as ambiguous by the community now, is it? Dekimasuよ! 12:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
|vauthors= is not deprecated (yet - some users want to ditch it), but it appears to be used rarely outside the context of medical articles. At least, I haven't seen it being used in technical articles for quite a while.
I have difficulties to understand why someone would find this oddly abbreviated style (not even following common interpunctation standards) desirable in an article when space is not an issue (WP:NOTPAPER) and when better alternatives exist. To me, it seems as if editors chosing this style just can't be bothered with providing complete citation information, something I find is going against our core ideas of compiling, presenting and preserving the past and present knowledge of the world for anyone now and in the future.
But that's just output style. Wikipedia infrastructure and template development is slowly reaching a point where the output of citation templates can be controlled by users according to their preferences, and, I'm sure, we will see full user-configurability in a couple of years. So, their is not much point arguing over presentation style - people have different needs and tastes, and the whole idea of using citation templates is to separate information from presentation and be able to centrally change the output in the future, would this become necessary. However, what concerns me more is when we miss out the chance to provide complete information in the first place. Information can be transparently trunced down if not needed for a certain output format like Vancouver, but it cannot be presented in other styles if it hasn't been stored in the template. That's why, even if I would prefer Vancouver style myself, I would try to collect the complete author information in a citation using |last=/|first= and then use |name-list-format=vanc to override the output format, so that the template would still contain all information for metadata and other styles.
You mentioned that interested users can use the links to look up this information externally, which I don't think is a really satisfactory solution. We have a general principle to not rely on external sources, but to incorporate relevant info into the article itself. While external links like PMIDs or DOIs are meant to be more static than normal urls, they aren't guaranteed to exist forever, unfortunately (we've seen too many broken PMIDs and DOIs already). So, if we want to create something that can survive many decades or even centuries into the future, we should try hard to remove external dependencies.
So, if you think we should continue to use Vancouver style for output, I will have to accept this as you have provided more input into the article - and earlier. However, for the sake of technical progress, I would still propose to provide it through a combination of |last=/|first= and |name-list-format=vanc instead of |vauthors=.
You mentioned that blowing up the source code of the citations makes it difficult to work on the prose. I see that point. My solution to this problem (in articles I created or provided much of the information) is to move the definitions into the references section so that only the anchors remain in the text portion - very convenient. This has other advantages as well, f.e. it allows to work on all references in an article in parallel (and to swap them out with improved versions used in other articles) without searching for them in the body of the article and without having to block the whole article for longer periods of time.
So, seeking a good compromise between full citation information (my requirement), Vancouver style output (your requirement), unobtrusive appearance of citations in the source code and easy future maintainance (our both requirements), a combination of |last=/|first=, |name-list-format=vanc and list style instead of |vauthors= appears to be a workable solution. If you are not familiar with this variant, I could demonstrate this for a test citation so you can see yourself. What do you think? (PS. Like you, I don't use tools or scripts for security reasons.)
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Matthiaspaul, I do agree that we should be able to compromise here. There were some reasons for the article to be set up this way that are less of a concern now; it was originally covering Coronavirus disease 2019 as well as the virus, for one thing, so when we standardized it we standardized to the more medical form. It is still often useful to treat this as an article subject to WP:MEDRS in order to maintain a high standard for the types of research and reliable reporting that are being cited. The article attracts some WP:FRINGE editing.
I do not take issue with expanding the list of authors and moving the definitions to the references section if Vancouver is retained. This is a bit more feasible now than it was before, because the article is much more stable than it was when we were starting out (a significant proportion of the cites at that time were accepted preprints). But since it is still being edited quite a lot, it will also take more work to keep up with orphans.
I am happy to do much of the author expansion, including filling out the full first names, later today (Asia time). It is still possible that other editors may object, since this is a high-traffic article at the moment (80k~100k hits per day). That is another reason I would suggest implementing these sorts of changes in a more piecemeal fashion, which makes it easier to determine what the points of contention are. If you are willing to help standardize the work/document/website field, that would be appreciated.
More broadly, I of course do not intend to WP:OWN the article, but since I have done a lot of work maintaining it, it came as a surprise to see a large-scale bold change like yours, and I assumed it was script-based. After reverting I did try to go back and institute a few of your changes right away. Once again, sorry to have reverted wholesale, particularly now that you've told me the edit was not simply done by a script. Dekimasuよ! 03:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest to first move the definitions into the references section so that they can subsequently be edited without much interference with other editors editing the prose.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Move review for PlantersEdit

An editor has asked for a Move review of Planters. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

MessageEdit

Thank you for all you do...peace be with you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100b:b124:b002:81d4:b3cc:32b2:7829 (talkcontribs)

Thank you, same. Dekimasuよ! 05:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020: reversion on Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2Edit

My edit was intended to render the sentence in concise English. The word "so" spells out what is already clear and obvious from the prose. If your native language is not English, I see where you are coming from. It's important to realize what the previous sentence imparted to the reader. If the reader is not generating their own "if...then" scenario based on the preceding sentence, how are they managing to understand the article's prose in general? My guess is that you are a native speaker of an Asian language, as the construction you employed is characteristic of the usage chosen by editors from Asia who are editing in English. I revert them all.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Quisqualis. I am a native English speaker, to the extent I am anything. "And" in this location in the sentence indicates that there are two separate thoughts being conveyed: one, that the virus was discovered in Wuhan, and two, that the virus is sometimes called "the Wuhan coronavirus". Were that the case, those would not belong in the same paragraph in the lede. Instead, we are emphasizing that the virus was discovered in Wuhan because it explains why the "Wuhan coronavirus" name has sometimes been used; that is, these are part of the same thought. To change this to "and" overemphasizes the importance of the fact that the virus was discovered in Wuhan at the same time it distracts the reader from the purpose of the paragraph, which is to describe a variety of names for the virus strain.
I am not sure concision plays an important role here, since "and" is not significantly more concise than "so it". Dekimasuよ! 04:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussionEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "China virus" and "Wuhan virus".The discussion is about the topic Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Thank you. Sorry about this, but I don't think the discussion will be resolved until it goes to the noticeboard. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I had already asked for a close at WP:AN, but no one has processed it yet. If no one who is actually advocating for a change is interested in starting the RfC, then I think it will eventually be fine to archive the section. Dekimasuよ! 11:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2Edit

you've made article read worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfdooger (talkcontribs) 02:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Dfdooger, sorry, but this is not an improvement to the article on the virus. Deleting multiple sections without discussion is also not productive (structural biology of the virus is clearly something to be covered on the virus page). We have an article on the virus and an article on the disease. Your change was reverted and should not be reinstated without discussion. If you take issue with the way the pages are constructed, please discuss it with other editors. There are many who disagree with you, and this is a collaborative project. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Dekimasuよ! 02:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for disrupting. pls put ecp indefinitely to the article, (since I also have no idea you're an admin and still requesting for protection on the page) so It'll prevent me from editing it again Dfdooger (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Im requesting Indefinitely block, thank you, so ill be off this site, it's really hard for me to ignore it. Dfdooger (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I do not process requested blocks, particularly if I am somehow involved. You can look at WP:SELFBLOCK if necessary. Dekimasuよ! 03:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'd like to hear your opinion on this pollEdit

Poll: 102,000,000 or 1.02 million Thanks! Feelthhis (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I left a few comments, but I don't have strong feelings about this. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2Edit

Hi Dekimasu, [3] "undo de-capping, not mandated for piped links in this way" I'm surprised that's important enough to revert?! No edits are, in fact mandated, as it's voluntary. Is it an improvement? Well, not for readers no. For writers, arguably yes...my justification is User talk:Widefox/Archive 5#Caps in piped links . To me, it's a good indicator of a need for a copyedit of an article. In fact, I was suprised just how these SARS/COVID articles and dab were missing vital items in the lead, now fixed. Regards Widefox; talk 14:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus reached on "China virus"Edit

Hi Dekimasu, I guess from your lack of editing that you're pretty burnt out by the whole coronavirus thing, especially around the whole "China virus" debacle. The NPOV noticeboard discussion suddenly started several days ago and has now reached concensus, that "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" shouldn't be used in the lead, after nearly two months it is finally over. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Airtours International AirwaysEdit

 

Hello, Dekimasu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Airtours International Airways".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Demons & Wizards ( album)" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Demons & Wizards ( album). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Demons & Wizards ( album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The revert tagEdit

About two years ago, you created the revert tag, do you recall the reasoning? I can't find a use at that time. It's basically unused and I think it's likely to cause confusion, especially as the devs plan to add a reverted tag (phab:T254074). ~ Amory (utc) 21:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


"King of Pop" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect King of Pop. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 17#King of Rock and Roll until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Demons & Wizards ( album)" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Demons & Wizards ( album). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 3#Demons & Wizards ( album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus 2019" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Coronavirus 2019. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Coronavirus 2019 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)