User talk:Bk33725681

• A report by the
  cigarette smokers was 88.9% (56 patients), whereas 4 subjects (6.4%) had never smoked. 3 patients (4.8%) stated to be ex-smokers, but 2 of these had quit smoking only recently and after onset of the disease. The rate of smokers in the matched-pair control group was 46%. The significantly higher proportion of active smokers among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa can be expressed by an odds ratio of 9.4, the calculated 95% confidence interval was 3.7-23.7 (p < 0.001). The expected smoking prevalence in Germany was 26.7% according to national statistics. 73% of our patients had no family history of hidradenitis suppurativa whereas 27% reported at least one affected first-degree relative."^[1]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding {{reflist-talk}} so that the citation stays here.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Chicago torture incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was asked to look at this edit. I believe it was reverted because 1) it is not yet known whether Aashiq Hammad was the suspect's alias or not, ABC just mentioned that there was an investigation "to determine whether the alleged shooter created a jihadist identity for himself using the name Aashiq Hammad" and 2) this is not reported widely in mainstream media - so it looks to be too soon to include this, per

OK. Thanks for the explanation. Bk33725681 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The websites making this claim about his "alias" are also known for making dubious claims for partisan causes. Now I am not saying only they can be partisan, but they are definitely not reliable. Even I managed to gleen off a few discrepancies in their claim. And mostly they have been reporting about any alias. Even the authorities are stating that they are still investigating whether he really had an alias and only this has been reported by the reliable sources. Articles about crimes should be based on facts and investigation. As such until the authorities investigate and determine, we cannot say he has an alias. If they determine and say he did, then we should add it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thank you for taking the time to explain that. Bk33725681 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem friend, we need to see what is noticeable and has been confirmed. Even I added about FBI is investigating into whether he really had a profile name by Aashiq Hammad, but later realised only very few reliable sources reported it. Until anything is confirmed by authorities especially seeing as there can be sometijes contradictory or inaccurate information, and is very noticeable, it shouldn't be added. I hope I can help you in whatever way I can. Happy editing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Banana island (diet) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banana island (diet) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FourViolas (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating

Wikipedia editor Triptothecottage just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Just have a look at how I fixed the redirect - this is how they're done.

To reply, leave a comment on Triptothecottage's talk page.

Learn more about

Triptothecottage (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Linda Sarsour. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bk33725681. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bk33725681,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Time-Life Treasury of Christmas for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia, and the artist doesn't have an article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on

• I've declined the speedy deletion of this article. But see below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Time-Life Treasury of Christmas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable compilation albums; no clear claim to notability has been made per

WP:NALBUM

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]