User talk:Graham87/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Graham87. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Why did you move the Application Programming Interface page? [🇺🇸 COACH Z | #USNavy ⚓] 16:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you blocked 1.32.95.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a year. Was that intentional? In my experience, customers on this ISP aren't allocated an IP address for all that long – maybe several days or week, then they come back on a new IP address to cause more disruption. Sometimes range blocks are a possibility, but I generally try to avoid this because of the potential for collateral damage. I think half of Malaysia is on this ISP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Yes, it was, because of the high number of edits, but I realise now that was a bit silly. I've re-blocked it for two weeks; I used to block those IP's for three months, but I think I'll take your advice on board and reduce any future blocks to one or two weeks. Graham87 07:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that should do it. There's a vandal on this ISP who's been a long-term headache for me, and dealing with him has left me with a somewhat competent understanding of the ISP. Unfortunately, you're in for a lot of Whac-A-Mole. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I was going to do a minor edit from my phone while at home and got a blocked IP message. I realized I was not logged in and also was on cellular for some reason. I did a test. Turning on Wi-Fi - or just logging in to my Wiki account - both let me edit. What a relief! But now I am trying to understand this. Was a block really implemented on a celular-service assigned IP range? How can that be effective? Doesn't that number get randomly assigned to anyone in range of a cell-tower, or maybe even a set of towers, and so it could affect hundreds or thousands of different people at any given time? Perhaps complicating it, due to poor service in my area, I actually have what is called a "mini-tower" in my house providing cellular service, which only my two phones are registered to use. I presume I was on that private "tower" when I got the blocked message, so that is doubly odd. Like I said, I can edit if logged in or on Wi-Fi, so this isn't a show-stopper, but I find the circumstances extremely curious. What can you tell me about this? RobP (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the article on Jody Linscott should categorize the percussion instruments she has played.61.69.217.3 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey why did you block my IP address? I just tried to correct something on the wiki page for my hometown and I'm getting the following message that you have flagged me for abuse:

"Editing from 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled) by Graham87 for the following reason(s):

Editing from this range has been disabled (blocked) by an administrator in response to abuse. Editing by unregistered users from this IP address range has been blocked. In rare cases, usually in response to serious abuse, logged-in editing may also be blocked. Depending on the size of the blocked range, the block may affect anything from very small numbers to several thousands of IP addresses. If you do not believe that you are the person this block is intended for, please follow the instructions below:

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal"

I don't see any IP address listed in my computer that corresponds to that address. Over my time using Wikipedia I've made some minor, only constructive, edits. Please be careful about who you single out! Responding to your action has been a hassle to create an account, register, and figure out how to respond. Please explain . . . why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles e Fromage (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Can always wait until something isn't on the main page as TFA. Courcelles (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Maybe ... I've done this sort of thing before though, and my answer to that hasn't changed much since then ... despite the temporary inconvenience this sort of thing can cause. Maybe I could've waited for that one, because not too many edits needed to be merged in this time, but ... what's done is done. I will tidy up the talk page though, but that won't cause any red links to appear in unexpected places. Graham87 15:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I use a template that does include that piece so I will check your format for future use. Appreciate the help. bobdog54 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Graham87 I would like to edit the page Joseph Stalin Specifically the following is factually incorrect: "An autopsy was carried out two and a half months later. It revealed that he had died of a cerebral haemorrhage and that he also suffered from severe damage to his cerebral arteries due to atherosclerosis." The autopsy was reported in Pravda on Mar 07 1953. It is two days after the death. It is indeed found the that he had died of a cerebral haemorrhage and that he also suffered from severe damage to his cerebral arteries due to atherosclerosis. Also it had found the Left ventricular hypertrophy which indicates the long term hypertension. How I can correct the factual mistake? The page is protected and it indicates you as a gatekeeper.--Armenius vambery (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello - There is a whole lot of activity on my watchlist from you regarding some edits to the Dedham, Massachusetts article. There doesn't seem to be any net changes, however. Can you explain what you did? Thanks! --BrianCUA (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Graham87. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It couldnt have happened to a nicer editor JarrahTree 07:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman and JarrahTree: Thanks very much! And thanks also to Lepricavark for adding me to the calendar! Graham87 07:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy anniversary, Graham! I was planning to improve the other Graham's article (my first) anyway today, because he's planned to be pictured on the Main page tomorrow, - now even more so ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hehehe thanks, Gerda! Graham87 12:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Congrats on 13 years! Lepricavark (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

Graham-day, - Phoenix Arising --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks very much! Graham87 06:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Mz7 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Graham, first off thanks for making this page at least I believe you are the one who made The Coolie rant Page many many moons ago Lol. Just a little correct. I am not from Manchester my mum is I am from London.I am going to look over other stuff but I saw that and thought I should reach out to you. If you can also give me access at some point that would be cool too lol. Pilfers show March 9th come on out Brooklyn Bazaar 7pm early show. Elevation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolie Ranx (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Miriam Makeba

4 March 1932 – 9 November 2008

Thank you for Miriam Makeba, "a musician and activist who had a lasting impact on music and popular culture in South Africa and abroad". I use her expressive face today, her birthday, to illustrate my own singing in defiance, - DYK ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? (March 2014). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Oh wow, thanks for the note! That's cool. Graham87 13:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

--Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

And yes... it's probably about the exact same thing as the others who are emailing you as well... haha. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hehe. I have all this sekret information! Graham87 02:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If the appeal is still up, I'll decline it with an ambiguous and mysterious note.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I WANT TEH SECRETZ!!! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim and Oshwah: They seem to have put up another one. Graham87 03:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurt (Roy Hamilton song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pittsburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You blocked 97.92.91.74 for a year for disruptive editing. Can you please comment on that? I'm not sure I see a problem with their edits which generally seem to add sourced content; the one edit that might seem problematic labeled an article in a scholarly journal a "primary source", and while I disagree with that characterization in this context, it's not totally indefensible (compare what WP:MEDRS says about primary sources). They also left a lengthy explanation of their edits on the talk page that seems reasonable enough to me. What am I missing? Huon (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

How about dealing with the issue at hand, the block? Since the edit was reverted on the grounds that it Violates a Neutral Point of View, there still has ben no explanation of how it does that so that I can correct my phrasing in the future to make any edits have a NPOV.

So it is a content dispute at worst over one edt with one revert, how is that a blockable offence let alone one that should result in a one year block! Hardyplants (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've always been a David, never a Dave. As stated on my User page, my "not" is there because on another forum I got into a heated debate with a person going by David MD. I suppose I could have gone with David PhD, but that feels like bragging about credentials. Anyway, "Dave's Not Here" is a classic comedy piece by Cheech and Chong that you can catch on YouTube. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Ah yes. Hehehe ... what a lovely bit of nonsense! Graham87 15:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh ... have you heard of "The Daves I know" by the Kids in the Hall? That's pretty amusing too ... Graham87 15:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

According to Social Security reports, of 172.9 million males born in USA in last 100 years, 3.5 million were "David."* That means 169.4 million (98%) were not David or Dave. However, my claims is not not-David, but rather David-not-MD. Estimates are 1.05 million MDs in US out of 325.7 total population. Counting Davids and subtracting MDs named David leaves me among roughly 3.49 people who qualify as David-not-MD.

• The howmanyofme website says more Davids, but that includes people born outside USA. David notMD (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Wow, that's a lot of Davids! Or shouldI say, that's an awfully exact number! How do you get 0.49 of a David? It strikes me as particularly cruel to count David Reimer that way; ditto for David Vetter. David Birnie and David Berkowitz probably deserve such a fate, though the former wasn't American. Graham87 15:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I meant 3.49 million Davids who are not MDs. If I add my last name to Google searches it gets peculiar/sad. Turns out that I am not the only David ____ who got an advanced degree from MIT and publishes in bioresearch. And I if search on David ____ +author, I am the fourth best known among those I share a name with. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was almost named, Dave, but an older cousin got it instead. I am not an MD.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Dlohcierevad doesn't quite have the same ring to it. :-) Graham87 16:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all your hard work on Wikipedia! Adam Song 00:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Graham. If you have time and are interested, there is a new essay under development at Wikipedia is not YouTube which may benefit from your perspective.

The essay attempts to codify guidelines for use of video on Wikipedia from the perspective of issues such as verifiability and editability. Its creation was triggered by a dispute and subsequent RFC on the use of long externally made videos on medical topic articles. Some of the central concerns were: factual errors in the videos, duplicating rather than supporting the article content, lack of citations, and a high barrier for Wikipedia editors to make changes to them.

As I recall, you have reflected on the use of various multimedia types on Wikipedia, and have experience with accessibility issues and tools for dealing with them as regards multimedia content. If time and interest allows, your input there would be very valuable. Best regards, --Xover (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: Thanks for the note. I've been vaguely following the recent discussions about the medical videos. I've put my two cents in, but probably not in the area you were expecting. :-) As for accessibility and the ways in which multimedia is used on Wikipedia, I think the essay covers those issues quite adequately already. Graham87 07:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Graham (and ping Xover). I think "irreversibly" is too strong for "trash it". We've had enough people arguing the videos are editable, even when they really aren't, and nothing is irreversible. Of course the freely editable nature of Wikipedia works both ways and to a degree it is much easier to trash a wiki article than it is to vandalise a video. The point is that it gets spotted usually quickly by many eyes. I wonder if there is a better way to explain that succinctly. -- Colin°^Talk 07:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Colin and Xover: Yeah I was struggling with how to get my point across with that part of the essay. "There's little point creating all this freely editable content if people can come along and trash it" ... well people can trash it, and do, but if it's obvious enough/the right people are watching, it gets reverted. Maybe remove that first sentence? I'll leave it to you guys. Graham87 07:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a think. I'm facepalming over the "by many eyes" remark. -- Colin°^Talk 07:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: LOL it's alright. I didn't even notice it until you mentioned it. Graham87 07:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I must admit I always hope for your perspective on accessibility issues. Even more so here since not only is my knowledge of the area a decade out of date, but I've never even looked at it as regards video. Hence, I wouldn't even know what the issues might be, much less what the viable approaches to solving them are. But that being said, if I recall correctly, we discussed image-related issues some years back in the context of featured articles. That discussion left me with the impression that you had given the wider topic of multimedia on Wikipedia some thought. You might say I was kinda hoping for a one-two punch there.

As regards the section in question here, I think the first sentence can just be dropped. It doesn't really add anything that isn't implicit in the rest of the section, and it reads slightly non-neutrally. Probably due to the colloquial tone in contrast with the more measured and neutral tone of the following prose. I think Colin hits it square on the head: the essential point in that section is that other undesireable changes have a much greater chance of being spotted relatively quickly. No content changes are really irreversible on Wikipedia and Commons, so the barrier to editing videos is actually somewhat of a moat against vandals. But once vandalism has occurred, it is much harder to detect in a video than in article prose or an image. --Xover (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: Ah yes, I remember that conversation now. I'm one of the least audio-oriented blind people I know, except when it comes to music (I much prefer to read transcripts than listen to audio/video, for instance), so I've never really thought much about the accessibility of audio/video. As for the first sentence, I've gone and removed it per your suggestion. Graham87 09:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What I quickly noticed when I first played the medical videos was that I needed to turn my speakers on or get headphones. Initially I thought the text on-screen meant this would be one of those videos you can just watch. But no, most of the info is narrated. However, if you listen to the narration only (I did) it makes no sense whatsoever. You don't see the graphics on screen that explain things, and there is some information that is only on the screen (such as little sodium and calcium ions). A transcript for a video doesn't make much sense for a lecture-video, because it isn't adding anything that shouldn't be been put, in encyclopaedic tone, in the article anyway. I could understand if the video was an interview with a famous person or a short clip taken from a TV show, and a transcript could well be useful, and you wouldn't want that in the article as it would be like embedding a huge quotation. But that's a hypothetical since nobody has shown me any such video on WP. -- Colin°^Talk 11:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Graham, I just wanted to say "hi" after a long time away. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sandy! Long time no talk!

@Colin: I'm listening to a video of a page on my watchlist, File:Rheumatic fever & heart disease.webm, and my only real reaction is that it's boring me witless. Sometimes I don't know what I'm missing in videos like this. Re: transcripts: I just meant like on TV/radio interviews and the like ... I agree they would be overbearing in Wikipedia articles. Graham87 11:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

When I had the (not) pleasure of listening to one of them, I thought they were aimed at middle schoolers. Pretty frightening to think that is supposed to be the level of medical students. But, based on what we see when medical students edit Wikipedia, not at all surprising! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I suppose this one's out of the question? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Hehe! I had no idea who the Thompson Twins were before playing that video, so I was expecting to hear a comedy act. I guess the Templeton Twins would have been better for that. Graham87 12:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

These YouTube medical videos sound a bit of a liability. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC) (p.s. known as "Dupond et Dupont" at frog.wiki)

Hi Graham,

This diff looks a bit like Amanda come back to cleanse her article again. I know you've dealt with this before, so would you take a look and see if any action is appropriate please? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I did some research on Amanda Reid/Fowler did go to Blaxland high Found this one her https://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/273587/blaxland-swimmer-selected-for-paralympics/ Looks like she did go to Blaxland high school

And another one about her cerebral palsy

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/sport/cycling/2016/09/03/speed-amanda-reid-19-cyclist/14728248003671Zoe1987 (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm minded to unblock at User talk:Ondrinn after a promise not to use company links any more. Would you have any objections? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi I was just wondering if you could check Amanda Reid/Fowler talk page Zoe1987 (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Graham, and the helpful and (very much) appreciated advice. Grandpadre (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you remove protection from this page? Super Mario Guy (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I see Coffee requested his Admin rights be voluntary removed. Can you please update WP:Former administrators? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Thanks for the note; I'll get to that later today my time. Graham87 07:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Graham87. I have two classes at LaGuardia Community College that are trying to register for accounts to work on a translatathon next week, but you have blocked account creation for our IP addresses. Since we also will have tons of people trying to create accounts next week for the translatathon, it might be advisable to remove the block at least for a while. Thanks, DrX (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Doctorxgc: Hello Graham87. I read your reply on DrX's talk page. You requested the IP range of the school. I do not have that and I do not know whether DrX can get that for you. Getting the IP range is a technical challenge for typical users who host events. I recognize that without the IP address range then you might not be able to perform an unblock if you have blocked multiple ranges. I do not know what to say, except that this is a desperate situation. It takes an investment of several thousand dollars to present an event. Funding comes from a variety of sources including the Wikimedia Foundation, in-kind labor commitments from the school, and other sponsors. We probably will have 100 people participating in this including multiple Wiki trainings, various instructors, librarians, and partners from other organizations observing the event to consider doing their own event. This is high profile for us in New York City and we want it to go well.

I appreciate the security you do and I do not know what to recommend as an alternative. Inside Wikipedia we do not have a clear way to communicate events and get the protection we need. We will need for students to register accounts at the event. I cannot say how this will happen, but too often, Wikimedia Foundation funding goes to waste when events get spoiled for lack of ability to create accounts. It is difficult to talk about this. I do not know what the solution is, but if I had things my way, then you and anyone else who does account security would get funding to travel in person to a conference to discuss this problem and sort out a best practice. I do not know what I should offer or request from you except to say that we want to have a good event.

Here is our event documentation page - Wikipedia:LaGuardia Community College/Translatathon April 2018. I wanted to communicate some of this to you. I am not an administrator and cannot advise on this issue but I am talking about what to do next with Wiki NYC. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Doctorxgc, if you were able to find my name, you should have seen an IP address/range (which could either look like 127.0.0.1 or 2607:fb90::/32) nearby; this is the information I would have needed. I realise it'd be difficult to get this info after the fact or ifyou are not at the location.

This is a very vexing situation. On the one hand, it is easier than ever now to change IP addresses, what with the increased uptake of IPV6 and mobile devices, and it seems to me that fewer people are around to maintain articles, so drastic measures have to be taken to protect Wikipedia content. On the other, editathons are becoming more popular as Wikipedia editing slowly becomes more respectable in academia. It's not an easy situation to be in. Graham87 02:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I have one IP address which is part of the block - 146.111.144.130. I do not know a range. Yes, the situation is vexing, and moreso because outreach coordinators find themselves in this situation repeatedly. Social changes to address the source of this problem include the current discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal, which while this proposal does nothing to address the current problem, are part of a conversation about how to recognize outreach coordinators and connect them to the support they need. Graham, I hardly know what to request, but if you see any block associated with that IP address, then I would appreciate whatever advice you have for removing it for ~2 weeks if that is an option. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I see a block on 146.111.144.130 (that single IP) by User:BU Rob13. I do not see any block (neither single-IP nor range) on either immediately adjacent IP, so it seems like if there is a rangeblock it's unrelated. According to WHOIS, the parent netblock is the whole 146.111.0.0/16 of CUNY. No way I'm going to manually check them all. We really need to know what the message the blocked editors see is, the one that indicated Graham87 as the person to contact. DMacks (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Graham, I'm a member of WM_NYC, and they asked me to help here. In this particular case, I am requesting you to unblock all addresses associated with the college for at least the next 2 or 3 weeks, on my responsibility. I know and trust the organizers of this event, and I plan to be there myself. Obviously, I can give IPBE at the event, but I want the contributors to this particularly important outreach effort to be able to accessWP before that. I assume you know what they are, because you blocked them--or did you block them without knowing with what organization they were associated with. If not, please help us find them.(If you need me to do something as a checkuser, let me know). (I am incidentally planning to bring up the general issue of schoolblocks--vandalism from colleges is not the problem it was 10 years ago, before the edit filters and other anti-vanadalism techniques). DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@DGG and Bluerasberry: Thanks for your help, DMacks; I was looking into those IP addresses but you beat me to it. I also did a search of my last 1,000 blocks going back to 2010 (!) for "146", and found nothing relevant. I usually do a geolocation check on IP addresses I'm blocking, but that often doesn't turn up anything relevant.

I strongly disagree with you, DGG, that vandalism from colleges/schools is not the problem that it was ten years ago. Yes we have edit filters and better anti-vandalism tools, but we also have even larger swaths of unmaintained articles whose creators and significant contributors have long ago left the project. A lot of the pages on my watchlist are only there because they've had unreverted vandalism. To cite a recent example, it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia that this vandalism stuck around for nine months. Another problem is rapidly changing IP addresses, which make it difficult to revert vandalism because all the anti-vandalism tools (including rollback) only revert edits by one username/IP at a time; these necessitate wide rangeblocks. An example is in this page history. Graham87 05:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course we still have episodes of vandalism, but not to the same extent. In my opinion, we should be blocking schools and libraries only for short periods while the vandals are active--and, although there may be some statements otherwise, I think that is the actual rule. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Graham, this might seem like a silly question but I wanted to be sure. If somebody uses the wikipedia thank you function to thank you for an edit, does the notification get to you properly through your screen reader system? I was wondering because I noticed that you added a caption to a photo that I added to an article yesterday, and then I ended up reading your user page, and then I realised why it is so important to have captions. I hadn't reflected about that before, and I was thankful. So then I used the thank you function to thank you for the full implications of your edit. And then I wasn't sure if those show up on your system. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC) BTW you can reply here if you want. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@DrVogel: No worries re the caption ... these things aren't always obvious sometimes. As for the notifications (for thanking and other things), I have no problem accessing them, but there are accessibility wibbles with their location. Graham87 14:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)