User talk:Treponemapandemonium

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Treponemapandemonium! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! 〜 Adflatuss • talk 05:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello bacteria-interested person!

Hello and welcome! I noticed your username and work at Hideyo Noguchi and figured I'd reach out. There's not a lot of microbiology-interested editors here, so I hope you decide to stick around. Wikipedia is a big place with a labyrinthine set of norms and rules; if you encounter any issues and need a hand, please let me know and I'll do my best to help. If you do decide to stick around, it helps to find your people. Editors collect around shared interests at WikiProjects. The obvious choice is WP:WikiProject Microbiology, but it has largely lapsed into silence. The most related active project is probably WikiProject Medicine. If you have questions, concerns, tasks large enough that you'd like collaborators, etc. feel free to ask at its talk page WT:MED. You're most welcome to contribute there in response to other threads as well.

If you've got some free time, we're currently trying to help WikiProject Unreferenced Articles with their November backlog drive by cleaning up the 115 medicine articles that completely lack sources. Any help is appreciated. Otherwise, I hope I'll see you around. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Katherine Mary G. Davies has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Katherine Mary G. Davies. Thanks! Czarking0 (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Katherine Mary G. Davies (March 12)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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:

The subject of this article is likely notable, but better sourcing is needed. Ref. 1 is a blog and not reliable per WP:RS; Ref. 3 is probably reliable but does not mention Davies at all; Ref. 6 and 7 are probably reliable but also don't mention Davies; and Ref. 5 is reliable but very short. If more significant coverage is found we can have an article. Furthermore, the prose is choppy with some grammatical errors that need to be fixed.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Katherine Mary G. Davies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Treponemapandemonium! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bertha Isabelle Barker has been accepted

Bertha Isabelle Barker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]