User talk:Officer781

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

sources provide are related/associated with the subject for such they are deemed not independent. Stand alone article content needs to support by

WP:Reliable source (such as newspaper) where by the subject is talked about in lenght and dept and not merely passing mentioned. - see WP:GODLEN RULE

Do suggest sourced content (only source content) to merge to National University Health System

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:National University Heart Centre, Singapore and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

talk) 03:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Officer781. That article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Advanced_2D_Materials, can certainly be improved and updated, but I don't quite understand the basis for the statement "it is a minor institute of the National University of Singapore". It's a university level centre and NRF "Medium Sized Centre" (https://www.nrf.gov.sg/programmes/medium-sized-centre), but I'd say more important is the relevance in its field - will you also propose deleting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Graphene_Institute? CA2DM is older, larger in people, funding and scientific production, and if the question is prestige, one of the two Nobel laureates that founded NGI has just joined NUS and CA2DM (https://news.nus.edu.sg/research/nobel-laureate-konstantin-novoselov-joins-nus) Migueldiascosta (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have taken note and removed the prod. Thanks.--Officer781 (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although your correction is certainly correct, I will just point out re your edit summary that transition metals can certainly use their p orbitals for chemistry. This usually happens in low oxidation states when the d subshell is quite full and ligand donation goes into the s and p orbitals (source, for platinum). Of course this clearly implies a strong possibility for this for group 12 too. Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I noticed and reverted your edit at Valence electron, for the reason that the d orbitals are not actually core orbitals for group 12. In fact they may participate at the top of the valence band, see for example ZnF₂. (Fluorine is needed here because the 3d orbitals are small and have gotten the whole d-block contraction already: F 2p is of similar energy to Zn 3d. If you look at ZnS with sulfur 3p, the bonding involvement becomes essentially zero.) So, if you were told at school that the Zn group should not be considered transition metals (so was I), this is kind of a simplification: d is not ionised in known compounds, true, but has bonding participation which you do not see in the p block elements that follow. Many authorities now class group 12 together with the transition elements (some, like Holleman & Wiberg, have been doing it for quite a while too!), and IMHO their exclusion is one of those old ideas that haven't stood the test of later results (the same for the ideas that group 3 or group 11 are not transition groups, too). Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thanks for your messages! Yes I was not aware that the d subshell in the zinc group can appear close to the top of the valence band, that is new. I stated that about the p orbitals because as is probably somewhat known, Weinhold and Landis feel that transition metals should not use their p orbitals. I subscribed to that view until recently when they disputed the use of d orbitals for alkaline earth metals when it is quite clear they at the edge of the s block can use p orbitals (Beryllium and Magnesium) and d orbitals (everything below) and there is experimental evidence for this such as bent dihalides. I immediately reverted some of my edits upon that realization. The tendency for computations to turn out low occupancies for p orbitals in transition metals does quite an amount to advance that position I must say. What are your thoughts on this issue?--Officer781 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should ask, I have a whole user subpage about it: User:Double sharp/Idealised electron configurations. ^_^

BTW, since you seem to be interested in these things: if it is not too much trouble, could you step in at

WT:ELEM talk page. I realise those are really walls of text, so I really won't mind if you can't. Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Double sharp: My preference is for Lanthanides to be defined until Ytterbium only, while Actinides are defined until Nobelium. Lutetium and Lawrencium are d-block and the supposed d electron in Lanthanum and Actinium are to be considered the "d1 exceptions" commonly found in the f-block. You might be happy since a little reading on your long posts suggests we agree on this issue. I admit I am not well-read on this issue so I may not add so much to the discussion. I will need some time to absorb the discussions.--Officer781 (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are in agreement about this: I would prefer to define "transition metals" as "all of group 3-12" indeed, i.e. Sc-Zn, Y-Cd, Lu-Hg, Lr-Cn, (157-166). ^_^ Don't worry about the time; just join in when you feel you can. I plan to start an RFC about changing this only in July when I have the time to do it (currently rather pressed IRL). Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I'd caution against "defining" transition metals since Wikipedia is supposed to base its information on authoritative sources such as IUPAC. We could shift Scandium and Yttrium to the column on top of Lutetium and Lawrencium in the long periodic table but I'd caution against changing their colours to that of transition metals. Same goes for Zinc. The colours of the elements ought to be based on what IUPAC says despite our preferences. I'd most definitely like to see that ugly "jut" or "overhang" from Scandium and Yttrium removed. For the short periodic table, IUPAC seems to have a working group to discuss which to put in Group 3. Seems like no progress yet but the short periodic table could probably stay neutral by having all 15 elements in the outside rows. I'd suggest the below:

• Long periodic table: Remove the jut please. Scandium and Yttrium above Lutetium and Lawrencium. I don't think IUPAC has a definitive long periodic table. Leave the colours for the 15 elements as they are unless IUPAC changes their definitions.
• Short periodic table: The definitive periodic table by IUPAC here probably ought to be followed, so all 15 elements in the row below. Wikipedia putting Lanthanum and Actinium in Group 3 is probably biased on Wikipedia's part because IUPAC does not follow that.

If it were up to me I'd definitely side with you, but again Wikipedia does not belong to us.--Officer781 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"What IUPAC says" is a surprisingly fraught question. First, let's check the Gold Book:

Although that excludes group 12, nobody listens to it anyway, because it literally implies that uranium is a transition metal. A gaseous uranium atom sitting alone and minding its own business has electron configuration [Rn]5f³6d¹7s².

So, now that we've thrown out that definition, let's check the Red Book:

So, that exactly supports my preferred definition. Group 12 can be included, it can also not be, both are fine. But chemically speaking it surely is not too different from group 11: both use d electrons. Yes, literally speaking this means that Lu is both a lanthanide and a transition metal; Lr is both an actinide and a transition metal. Well, nothing wrong with that, it just makes colouring difficult.

I rather suspect you will find an awful lot of mutually contradicting definitions around for such things anyway. This is the same Red Book that recommends "lanthanoid" and "actinoid" instead of "lanthanide" and "actinide", and that is not widely followed. ^_^

As for group 3: I rather think that the current Sc-Y-* IUPAC table is not a good example to follow when IUPAC itself says the only alternatives it is considering for its group 3 project are Sc-Y-La and Sc-Y-Lu. So, no matter what is decided, it is going to be deprecated. Not to mention that it literally implies that group 3 has 32 elements in it, which is rather emphatically a fringe view by now (it makes chemical nonsense anyway, just think of uranium). There are a lot of things that IUPAC recommends that nobody follows. And in that case I think it's wiser to look at other sources. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)@Double sharp: The way I see it, for the short and long periodic tables there are safe and not-so-safe moves:

Long periodic table:

• Safe (do this please): Shift the placement of Scandium and Yttrium to be above Lutetium and Lawrencium.
• Not-so-safe (icing on cake, probably not so neutral): Change the colours.

Short periodic table:

• Safe (do this please): Shift Lanthanum and Actinium out into the rows below the main table.
• Not-so-safe (icing on cake, probably not so neutral): Put Lutetium and Lawrencium into Group 3 or change the colours or both.

Me thinks safe measures should be proposed separately lest they don't get passed just because the not-so-safe ones weren't accepted. I'd really like the safe measures passed.--Officer781 (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I was planning on proposing was the safe measure for the long periodic table combined with the first bit of the not-so-safe one for the short one: that way, Sc-Y-Lu is consistent everywhere. The reasons are that (1) the long periodic table is supposed to be literally the short one with the footnote pasted back in, and so they shouldn't be different, and (2) Sc-Y-Lu reflects the consensus of most sources who argue about the group 3 issue. But I was not planning to change the colours as people can probably guess already that Lu and Lr are both transition metals and lanthanides/actinides respectively. ^_^ It'd look like

this (I haven't recoloured group 12 here, we can fight that one separately to not muddy the waters). Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Double sharp: The reason why I feel putting Lutetium and Lawrencium into the main table is unsafe is this logic:

1. When one constructs a long periodic table from scratch, he will not split a block without due reason. So having an unsplit d-block is in fact unbiased. Splitting it is biased toward the La/Ac position. There is no other way to do it so we are forced to choose one. We simply choose the unbiased choice.
2. However, in the short periodic table, we do have a choice to put both outside or put either one in. By putting either one in, we are being biased. The true unbiased choice is in fact to leave all 15 elements outside.

I think the IUPAC set the standard for what it means to be unbiased until their task group comes up with which one to put in. That might be the good time to shift either one or the other into the main table for the short periodic table.--Officer781 (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my logic is that the 18- and 32-column forms are not supposed to be different; they represent the same structure. You can move the footnote back in and out mentally. If you put La and Ac in group 3 in the 32-column form, you also have to do it in the analogous 18-column form; same for Lu and Lr. If you go for a Sc-Y-* table in the 18-column form, then you literally have to stretch the boxes for Sc and Y in the 32-column form to create the same structure, and I don't think anybody does that. And I suppose we should note that creating such a strange group rather than having single elements under Y is also not something people will do without due reason. ^_^ Not to mention that it makes no chemical sense whatsoever, and that you will not find people seriously claiming much that uranium is a group 3 element, and that the one thing we know about IUPAC's project is that they are going to deprecate this form no matter what.

I think the one who put it best was William B. Jensen:

(Although I wonder what people then thought about cerium. Surely cerium(IV) was well-known already...) Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added you to my "Acknowledgements" list for my woefully incomplete manifesto. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Sure. You probably do have a point there about the short periodic table. I'm not leaving the option out though especially if people object. How successful are such proposals going to be actually? I'd really just want to get rid of the Scandium/Yttrium overhang in the long periodic table. It is ugly and very artificial IMO. I am pretty okay however else.--Officer781 (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My plan was always to propose Sc-Y-Lu, FWIW. And then see what consensus decides. ^_^

As for chance of success – we had a five-way discussion on

WT:ELEM, which so far has three (including myself and an experienced computational chemist) explicitly supporting Sc-Y-Lu, one explicitly supporting Sc-Y-La, and one who seems to be more sympathetic to Sc-Y-Lu but has been urging me to see where the Sc-Y-La side is coming from to argue better. (Well, I was on that side till I learnt more. XD) So, I think that we have a significant chance of success. XD Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Double sharp:Wow. I just saw your acknowledgement. I'm placed in front. I didn't really provide much, haha. Although it is okay if you insist. ^.^ I'll back your side up if there are any discussions, do ping me if you have any active ones.--Officer781 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put everybody in alphabetical order; that's why you were in front. ^_^ Unfortunately I just realised I forgot somebody, so I beg forgiveness for bumping you to second place again. m(_ _)m

Thank you! Although I hope it's because of sources and not just because I say so. ^_^ I will be sure to invite you to participate when the RFC launches (still planned for July). Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Thank you too, for the discussion and acknowledgement! May I know what the RFC is? I don't usually participate in WikiProject stuff so I'm not very familiar with things around here.--Officer781 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Oh I found it here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Will read.--Officer781 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I just read some of the long posts on the WP ELEM talk page. Although I had one or two long Wikipedia exchanges on talk pages before it is not my wish to go about debating things over a long period of time. Are there any plans to change anything? Id be happier to participate on those rather than debates especially if we run afoul of Wikipedia's neutrality rule. I do not intend to spend my limited lockdown time having long walls of arguments. I notice that many points have been said which are beyond the depth that I could contribute. I only know some layman's arguments for the Lu/Lr that I can think of.--Officer781 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far we just seem to have a disagreement on the material at Periodic table summarising the group 3 issue. As I said, I plan to start the RFC for actually changing to Lu/Lr in July. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I have thought about what you meant by "chemically active subshell" (currently a placeholder) and thought that "valence shell" is the most commonly used term that seems similar to it that is scientifically incorrect. I also thought about how professional chemists refer to it and realized, don't we call these things "valence orbitals"? That's the correct scientific terminology for orbitals that can react and gain or lose electrons. See [14] for example.--Officer781 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. I used a less standard term mostly to avoid getting into quibbles about things like Ne 2p, which is obviously involved in determining Ne's (lack of) chemistry but is obviously not reacting. And also because otherwise you get into a pickle with the d involvements of Zn, Cd, and Hg. But maybe these are not so different from normal "valence shells" as to need different terminology. I may change it.

I personally think that so far, the best way to define what exactly I want to talk about would indeed be to look at chemically normal bonding structures and see what orbitals are contributing significantly to the bonding. (So not weird things like CsF₃, say.) This just requires some common sense for neon 2p with no expected neutral compounds (helium 1s at least has some predicted metastable ones, which is all you will get for superheavies too anyway). Or maybe it should be broadened even to charged species... Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did change it. Neon is not a problem, you can get it to bond in charged species. Only neutral species are problematic. XD Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I think the "shell" and "subshell" terminology, while accurate for describing the quantum numbers, is not very helpful for chemical reactions. Somehow it's still ingrained in chemical thought.--Officer781 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Periodic table".The discussion is about the topic Periodic table.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked at

There was one article claiming they do in LuF₃, but the findings were questioned later by others, and later calculations suggest there really isn't such bonding (4f involvement calculated was even less than for IrF₃). Probably significant IMHO as electronegative ligands like F and O should be best way to bring out deeply buried subshells (e.g. ZnF₂, YbO when 3d/4f respectively become valent, whereas if you replace with ZnS or YbS they're not significant IIRC). Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there needs to be a consensus for this. I would greatly appreciate your input, for or against. :) Neovu79 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neovu79: I am afraid I am out of touch with this topic for years and as such am unable to provide constructive input. My apologies.--Officer781 (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping you on my talk page. So: the reason why I wrote it out explicitly is to not actually say what elements are in group 3. But: if it causes this much drama even if this is not said, then it's not worth the trouble to be explicit about exactly which elements have which valence orbitals. So, I am fine with you keeping it this way and will not edit it further. Double sharp (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for your edits on Pollotarianism Justiyaya (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Electrification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). You may be intereted in the CC wikiproject:

Please accept this invite to join WikiProject Climate change, where we work together to improve Wikipedia's content related to climate change. Simply click here and follow the instructions to accept! {{{Signature}}}

I don't use a mobile device for WP because of so many bad experiences with it, so I'm not surprised that any special formatting requires care. Regarding this change, is the underlying cause that there was no </div> for that tag? DMacks (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess you are right (no closing div tag), although in this case I am not too sure what advantage the div provided. Since I am not too familiar with the markup I simply removed it.--Officer781 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someday, someone will sort out the history of SPH and the redirect will turn into another SPH article. ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯ – robertsky (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: Lets see what happens to the "other businesses" SPH first. May get bought over (by Keppel or Cuscaden?). In which case I think the current arrangement will be enough. I'm okay with another SPH article as long as other Singaporeans are okay with it.--Officer781 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: Seems like someone moved it back. I will leave it to WikiProject Singapore to decide I guess.--Officer781 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: Thanks so much for your help. Turns out you are that someone. I didn't have much idea on how to rewrite that article and didn't really find the time to do it. But nonetheless this was quite needed--Officer781 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, you started the ball rolling. it just needed some refinement. – robertsky (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... if you are moving SPH Mediaworks into the history section of SMT, would it be more appropriate if it is just excluded totally since the division only existed in SPHL? – robertsky (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: I think that seems fine. I will remove it.--Officer781 (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: Wow you beat me to it. Ok.--Officer781 (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. decided to be bold about it. 😂😁 – robertsky (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, noted that you moved the page but did not add a source on the name change afterwords. Are you able to provide a reliable source for this name change? Thanks~! --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk)

@Justanothersgwikieditor: Please compare this image here: [15] with this image: File:Concord_International_Hospital_Building.jpg. Also, if you google the two the address is exactly the same: 19 Adam Rd, Singapore 289891. I could not find a proper source for this despite the name change being half a year already since the safety lapse incident. If you check MOH's website: [16] you will notice that Concord International Hospital is now missing and that Crawfurd Hospital appears in its place. Also Concord International Hospital site is no longer accessible. All these are indirect though unfortunately. We might need to see if the Singapore news sites cover this name change. I have nonetheless added CNA's "could reopen under new name" source in one of my previous edits: [17].--Officer781 (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until there is a reliable source, or even primary source just to indicate they were renamed, we should not make the name change. Based on your evidence, they could have sold off the hospital and some other company starts a new hospital without any changes and that will be a new article on its own. I try to dig around and see whether can I find any sources to support the name changes. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk)

@Justanothersgwikieditor: Thanks for the help. Actually, I would like to point out that it was not Concord initially, so this is the second time this selling has happened to that particular hospital. We do not have a separate Fortis Colorectal Hospital article, so I do not think that it is notable enough to warrant a separate page. We can just note on the current page and find the references for it. Concord did sell the hospital though as stated here: [18]. I will try to add this to the article.--Officer781 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Navies/WO/Romania has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I don't think hatnote means what you think it means. Nardog (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for the heads up! It looks like the correct terminology is explanatory footnote. --Officer781 (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that this will not work to activate a ping. It has to be recognised as a completely new chunk of signed text for the notifications to go out. You might want to ping again to get the comments you are seeking. SpinningSpark 12:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Media Player has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just like to clarify that La Salle and NAFA should have the UAS portion as part of history. Even if it is current event, it would be considered as part of history eventually and hence into the history section. While in future, if there is enough content or the effect of restructuring into UAS has a profound impact of history, we can create a subsection from the moment UAS is created. IP editor should not reverted the changes for NAFA in the first place. Thanks! Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I didn't want to edit war with the IP. Anyway, I just wanted to make the two pages somewhat equivalent in terms of the recent changes regarding UAS. Thanks for helping out. We could go to the talk page if the IP decides to revert again.--Officer781 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I will usually revert them once and see how they behave. If they reverted again, then I will attempt to engage them in the talkpage and wait a few days for any replies before reverting again. Of course, you can choose how you want to engage with them. Thanks for all the help in Singapore related articles. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:IDF Enlisted ranks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:National Healthcare Group Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:National Healthcare Group Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]