User talk:BallenaBlanca/2017

Aruss20 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Just leave my comment for today i need it for schoolAruss20 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aruss20: Sorry, but you must follow Wikipedia policies.

The page has been protected: "Protected "Turner syndrome": Persistent sock puppetry: Students / meatpuppets need to provide references and join the discussion on the talk page"

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you wanting equal emphasis on plaque psoriasis and pustular psoriasis. Plaque psoriasis is 90% of cases and deserves greater weight.IIIBALESIII 19:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiibalesiii (talk • contribs)

Iiibalesiii, I had no interest in giving more prominence to pustular psoriasis. You are right, the page looks now better. Congratulations on your work!

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiibalesiii (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It is wonderful to have a gastroenerologist fixing up Vitiligo. Nice referencing.

Best Regards

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Barbara, you are always so kind! It's a pleasure to collaborate with editors like you.

And thanks also for your help here :)

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 09:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations from #13 to #16 You are quite prolific, Doctor

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Barbara, thank you very much! You gave me a pleasant surprise, I did not know this ranking nor could have imagined that I could be in such a high position.

Receive also my most sincere congratulations! From #16 to #13 ;)

Kind regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 23:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I have read the Wikipedia guidance page you refer to. Nothing on it makes my reference ineligible. If you think it does then please write the specific sentence (s) that you think disqualifies my reference. After your referencing of the wikipedia guidance page and my saying I cannot see anything in the page that disqualifies my reference, can you please narrow the guidance down to specific sentences / definitions - to help me try and see if you have a valid point. In the meantime as neither you and the other editor have answered this question I will reinstate my reference. Arch0172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Arch0172, here you have a good explanation.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

After I asked for clarification as to what sentences in Wikipedia guidelines made my reference invalid for inclusion in the Wikipedia article "Anxiety" you posted a link to me saying "here is a good explanation". I clicked on the link and all it did was take me to the main Anxiety article. Both editors who have undone my edits have failed to show me specific guidelines that make my reference invalid. I am therefore reinstating my reference in the article.

Arch0172 (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You have reverted both edits I made to this article - the first for being from an unreliable source, the second for being from a primary source. Instead of simply deleting the edits it might be more constructive to find a source which satisfies the criteria you cite so that the essence of the contribution may be added to the article. Ciao Paul venter (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Paul venter, you're right. I searched articles that cite it: there are three reviews. Only one of them is free access, to check it out quickly. But the mention to your source is more general, does not support your text. (ref 26). That's why I undid your last edit. Sorry, we are very rigorous with this policy WP: MEDRS

If you want, I can try to get the full text of the other two reviews and see how they quote your source. What do you think?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 20:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do whatever is necessary - thank you. regards Paul venter (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you ever write about the gut-brain axis?

Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful here Ballena. Barbara is attempting to draw you into further conflict with me. She has a history of doing this kind of ugly game-playing and was blocked for 6 months for it (later reduced). See block log and this ANI. They appear to be unable to stop themselves from this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in answering, Barbara (WVS) and Jytdog. These past days I had no computer and I only did some reversions.

The gut-brain axis is a topic that interests me a lot and is already on my watchlist. Probably someday I'll look at it more in depth but not for the moment.

Thank you, Jytdog. It is not my intention to encourage conflicts, I just want to contribute to Wikipedia. I believe that you and I have always been able to resolve our differences of opinion without big problems and I hope that will continue to be so in the future.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 09:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca, the reason I am asking is that there seems to be some connection between the GI flora (microbiome) and other areas of the body. I have found a few sources that I don't completely understand. I have edited and created content regarding a number of microbiomes, but it appears that the GI microbiome is the most complex. Let me know when you begin working on this topic because I would be glad to help you out.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Barbara, you're very kind. I will consider your offer. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 22:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the weblink. I have read this page in the past.

The Lancet is one of the oldest medical journals and has a reputation for being fairly reliable. Singapore has one of the best virology laboratories in the world so the evidence presented in the paper is likely to be reasonably reliable. The methods used in the journal - Bayesian phyologenetics - have been tested repeatedly for over 20 years and produce what appear to be fairly reliable results.

The data itself - most recent common ancestor, mutation rate and reproductive number are of considerable interest to anyone with an interest in infectious diseases. The mutation rate - which itself was once of great interest - now functions as a reality check: if the estimated mutation rate is very different from what is typically found in this group of viruses then there are concerns about the rest of the calculations in the paper. The figures in this appear about right for this type of virus. The reproductive number - which is difficult to estimate - gives an idea an how fast an infectious disease can spread and what level of vaccination is required to prevent its spread. Measles has a reproductive number of about 9: vaccination rates have to be above 90% (and probably above 95%) to hope to prevent measles outbreaks. Reproductive numbers less than one mean that there is nothing much to be concerned about: such outbreaks will be self limiting. The most recent common ancestor gives an idea about where and when an outbreak originated. Examples here may help: the recent Ebola outbreak was traced partly with phylogenetic methods to a meal of fruit bat in a village in Africa. Hepatitis C seems to have originated in South East Asia and then spread to Africa and then to Europe. These facts are all part of the story.

As the page you linked to mentions primary sources which can be regarded as reliable can be used as sources of factual data which is what has been done here. Virion123 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I answered here, to keep the discussion on one page. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 08:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about the source I used. Terrible source. Unfortunately, I am unable to cite a proper source. I've learned over the course of thirty years that sleep has a direct affect on bowel movements. Sleeping more than six hours per night produces a situation where in those early morning hours the intestine is "flooded" with fluid to move the excrement farther down the line in preparation for the morning evacuation. If one is sleeping only a few hours per night than this process is stunted, thus producing constipation. I was constipated for over thirty years Obviously this does not affect everyone the same way but in my experience it affects many people. Sorry for wasting your time. 8675309 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear 8675309:

First of all, you do not have to apologize, do not waste my time, do not worry. It is always interesting to talk to other people and see their points of view.

It is true that the viscus contracts according to a circadian trend and is responsive to physiological stimuli such as meals and sleep, but constipation is usually multifactorial, can not be attributed to a single cause. And on many occasions, it is possible to find underlying causes and manage them, but it usually takes years until this happens or even, the patient never gets a diagnosis and remains classificated as "idiophatic".

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 18:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I talk with Jytdog??? Wikipedia is so confusing... BallenaBlanca (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joltzipper (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker)Please use the talk page of the article to discuss article content. See Talk:Varicocele. This is explained in the WP:Talk page guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations, Jytdog.

@Joltzipper: You have already edited at Talk:Varicocele before this message. All you have to do is continue there and reaching a consensus.

And if you want to talk about other topics with Jytdog (or other users), the same thing you did when you wrote to me here or when you wrote to Doc James some time ago.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 07:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there - I was wondering what the reason was for reverting the revisions I made to the last paragraph of the lede? Thanks in advance for your explanation! Mrtk999 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You removed well referenced content and added a non reliable source (see [1].)

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 08:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hola Doctor,

Pareces interesado en los "uncomfortable realities" relacionadas a el veganismo (medicamentos, sensibilidad de las plantas, etc). No creo que sea apropiado discutirlas más en esa página per WP:FORUM, a menos que usted esté proponiendo agregarlos (¿sin proponer fuentes?). Article talk pages are not an appropriate place for venting your ideological disagreements with vegan philosophers.

No obstante, he hecho una buena cantidad de lectura sobre el veganismo y soy estudiante de biología, y si quieres, podría discutar estos argumentos un poco aquí, o proporcionar links a papeles relacionados (solo en ingles, desafortunadamente, porque como ves mi español está débil). FourViolas (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hola, FourViolas.

Muchas gracias, ¡me ha hecho mucha ilusión que me escribas en español! Dice mucho de ti :) De verdad que agradezco tu esfuerzo.

Bueno, creo que ya nos estamos aclarando. No se trata de discrepar sobre la filosofía vegana, ni mucho menos. Puede que te sorprendieras de saber lo que pienso y cómo actúo en la vida real, pero eso lo dejo a un lado, porque como bien sabes las propias ideologías no son argumentos para las discusiones.

Solo estoy intentando buscar la neutralidad, exponiendo todos los puntos de vista. Sobre todo información para que el lector pueda sacar sus propias conclusiones y que pueda hacer una dieta vegana que no afecte a su salud (ni física ni psicológica), si así lo decide, y el artículo cojeaba en este aspecto.

Si hay algo que aprecio mucho en las personas es poder intercambiar opiniones cortésmente, aunque a veces se discrepe, por lo cual te felicito. Es un placer hablar contigo.

PD: Tu español es muy bueno. ;)

Un abrazo. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

¡Gracias por tu respuesta tan amable! Aprecio tu cortesía, y comprendo más tu perspectiva. El veganismo y la animalidad son temas muy complejas, y es probablamente imposible representar justamente la diversidad de enfoques y puntos de vista. Te agradezco por tu cuidado por el salud de nuestros lectores; creo que he hecho mis puntos en la página de discusión, y voy a apartarme por el momento.

Abrazos, FourViolas (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Muchas gracias a ti también, por tu amabilidad y tu empatía.

Es muy cierto, son temas muy complejos y a menudo muy frustrantes, pues no se puede lograr lo que nos gustaría, es muy difícil equilibrar la balanza. Este mundo es cruel...

Un fuerte abrazo. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

These are different. Thus some of the additions are not really supported. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, what is wrong with the edits I made? You are systematically deleting everything that I write regardless of whether it is extensively supported by the literature and the wiki already contains multiple references to secondary sources. Losing all faith in wikipedia. Do not see how I can ever trust anything I read here any longer. What an abysmal waste of time. No wonder the number of people making edits is declining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andorin (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And please explain to me what you think this means because you seem ever so attached to it: "each of small effect and unknown transmission and expression" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andorin (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andorin: I think you should re-read your conversation with Doc James. My answers are the same.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 23:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please explain to me what you think this means: "each of small effect and unknown transmission and expression". Please provide secondary references for "unknown transmission and expression".

Do the edit summary concerns me in the mentioned article? If yes, I explain why did I do. The IP deleted a huge part of the article, he/she did not add plus content instead of it. So it seemed to be a normal section blanking/vandalism. Csuja (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition, if someone do so, he/she should further explain it why did he/she remove that part. Yes, I agree, we should, we must be neutral. Csuja (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, no, the IP added sources and also added content. Sorry, but I was editing on phone, I did it hastily. I vow I won't edit on phone. So think the other comments void. Sorry! Csuja (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Csuja, excuse me for the delay. I see that is already clear, it had nothing to do with your edits. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 22:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, now I leave... Csuja (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, excuse me, what the hell are you doing? You are using rollback rights to impose a political position. The summary line is incongruent, it is unacceptable. As you have clearly stated here, it is about your political position and not the building of a better article, that is how you showing it. Needless to say, it speaks volumes of your rol in the article. Please stop. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, remember WP:TALKNO. Thanks. You are also wrong about "rollback rights", in English Wikpedia I do not have rollback rights. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 14:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi BallenaBlanca

Thought it better to discuss your reverting my edit rather than just reverting.

You have made a definitive statement that they are not 'political prisoners' based on one opinion piece written in El Pais. I thought the opinion piece was part of a blog - the Hechos Blog - but perhaps I am wrong in that. In any case, you can not make a definitive statement based solely on one opinion, even if it is not from a blog. I will attempt to reword to make the claim less definitive.

Lin4671 (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lin4671: This is not the place for this conversation. We must talk in the specific discussion pages, so that the Wikipedia community can see it and participate. I've answered you there. Thank you very much. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 18:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a way of improving the first sentence. I take your point about officially could imply an unofficial side. Lin4671 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

How about the change I have made? By rewording I think I have found a way to be neutral taking into account your comment about 'officially. I have also definitively stated that the issue of political prisoners ended with the amnesty of 1977. Lin4671 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you made a mistake by going back to write here on this topic. Leave your messages on the corresponding talk page [2] and I will answer you. Thank you very much. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 22:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As you might have seen, I got bold when I saw that page dominated by a coatrack that belongs on other articles. [[3]] I'm sorry that I removed a lot of material you may have spent awhile writing -- same for the other contributors. Feel free to rescue it using the article history and place it on appropriate articles. I really think that level of detail doesn't belong on an overarching page about pol. prisoners in Spain however, especially given the POV/RECENT issues afoot. --Calthinus (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I just saw the changes you made. I agree with all of them. Once again ... good work!!. Thank you very much. Best. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 09:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

We tend to put these in the body of the article for medical articles. Or the end of the lead. Rather than in the first sentence. Best :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

following on that - If you are not aware, the WMF Reading Team made some drastic moves because in their judgement the first sentences of WP articles were too cluttered with shit like alt names, and people on mobile (well over half our readers) had to actually scroll to even find out what articles were about. This has led to ANIs and RfCs and all sorts of drama dealing with WMF, but on the side of the editing community, there has been a move of people who are aware of that to simplify first sentences. There was a discussion at FAC here, and the sections on LEAD at both MEDMOS and PHARMOS have been updated accordingly. We want to keep first sentences clean and concise. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Doc James and Jytdog, thank you both for your explanations. They make a lot of sense and of course I agree. What happened was that I copied the format from this page: [4] I just adjusted [5]. Agree?

Best. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 22:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the other one :-) The more people we have doing this the faster we will reach greater simplification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Political prisoners in Spain 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/Political prisoners in Spain 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. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have come back here for your pretty unconstructive intervention in the above article, I would say rather confrontational, despite our long talk here when I voiced my concerns about misrepresentation of sources and unsubstantiated statements in the above article. I will explain, I took the pains to double-check the content of the sources in the section Irregularities, I was appalled to see statements and content did not match, so I acted, after you restored that material in that section; I made there my point clear and short, we do not need noise, please bear this in mind in your future edit summaries. After I restored part of the original info (an oversight of mine), you revert me all in a rush but revert yourself in the confusion , but then decide to put it your own way here, deleting all my clean-up and statement, responding with a long edit that does not clarify much.

So I [checked your first restore of refs ("Restored text and refs unexplained removed by an IP". As it happens, foreigners is nowhere to be found if we stick to its usual meaning in English for the time being, I corrected that but you reverted. "Unsealed ballot boxes were transported containing ballots inside,", that is not what the source says, I corrected but you reverted me. Thirdly, there is "the kids voting". That, I have to say, it may be in Ok Diario, a clearly partisan, nationalistic unreliable source ("La utilización de los niños en el referéndum: primero escudos humanos y luego votantes", sic), which I removed straight away. However, you decided to insist in restoring your sources again, clearly uncooperative: "Unsealed ballot boxes were transported containing ballots inside", it does not say that (check the source yourself). Misrepresenting sources is a serious offense to the WP community's trust, and I have identified a number of them in this article, some added by you insistently, which comes across as careless and Tendentious_editing, if not WP:BATTLEGROUND.Iñaki LL (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Iñaki LL:

IMO, the content is now correctly adjusted to the actual content of the sources. I will be happy to discuss about this topic on the specific talk page. In this way, other users can give their opinion. As you know, these are the procedures of Wikipedia.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 11:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, IMO, the problem is the reactive and non-constructive nature of some of your edits, it is no good to say that when someone identifies misrepresentation of sources in your edits then you do something else, remove what others' have improved, and put it again your own way see if it goes through; that is not very collaborative: take responsibility for your actions; else they may be interpreted as WP:TEND and WP:DISRUPT. E.g. "Unsealed ballot boxes were transported containing ballots inside," is not what the source says, sorry but I do not have to be guessing or interpreting anything. Then you have added a posteriori more sources to strengthen your point, using Huffinton Post reporting what T5 and TVE (not very neutral any of them) aired and the Huff Post home-recorded in images of average quality at best. You have synthed that report saying "at least an unsealed ballot box was transported containing ballots inside" with little level of detail or attention to the whole piece of news. In fact they were inside a black bag ahead of the vote to carry the ballots to the place circumventing police forces before anything had started. You provide all these pieces of info all in a long WP:SYNTH sentence [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017#Irregularities based on choosing partial segments of info, please take the time to read the link. And yes I may take a look and discuss aside of attitude issues, if I have time, after all (this). Iñaki LL (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I will be happy to discuss about this topic on the specific talk page. And I remember you again WP:TALKNO. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 15:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sir

Your revision on infertility as of 15:12, 16 November 2017 was reverted by me (Ansha Patel).

As per your comments, the secondary sources are required by Wikipedia:MEDRS for the edits that I made.

I am thereby attaching the published details of these. 1. Psychological effects of infertility in women:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817284/ 2. Psychogical impact of infertility in men: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5124340/

Both these articles had been published my me as principal researcher and part of pilot work for a doctoral project registered under Clincial trials registry, under Indian Council of Medical Research (INDIA) . The CTRI registry number for same is CTRI/2015/07/005973 [Registered on: 06/07/2015, http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=9324].'

Kind consider the edits

Best regards

Sincerely, Ms. Ansha Patel Reg. Clinical Psychologist & Presently Ph.D. scholar Dept of Psychiatry & Manipal Assisted Reproduction Centre Kasturba Medical College Manipal University Manipal (576104) Karnataka, India. Email Id: ansha_patel@yahoo.co.in

For Profile details: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1766-9558 https://www.mendeley.com/profiles/ansha-patel/?viewAsOther=true Anshapatel (talk) 10:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Anshapatel:

We have to comply with the Wikpedia policies. Please read WP:MEDRS.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 09:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you completely removed all the edits I made to a page on dog odor. This page is for a school project, and I was wondering if you could help maybe offer more details on how to fix our page, as I have been working for over a month on that page, and removing all of my hard work hurts me in the course I am in. I apologize for making mistakes, I am new to wikipedia and do not fully understand all of their policies. I am open to advice on fixing our page. Please and thank you.Laurajones11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Laurajones11:

Sorry for the delay in answering. Do not worry, your work is not lost. Everything is saved in the edit history.

I left you messages with the Wikipedia policies that you were not fulfilling in the edit summaries.

I propose that you carefully review your edits and recover the part that really fits what the sources actually say, that there is nothing without referencing, and that everything complies with Wikipedia policies, with secondary, verifiable, and not promotional sources.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello BallenaBlanca you appear to be using an image file in your user signature. This is not allowed (c.f. Wikipedia:Signatures#Images). Please adjust your Special:Preferences to stop using an image file in your signature. Thank you for your attention to this matter. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Oh I'm sorry! I did not know that the policies on the signature in the English Wikipedia are different from those of the Spanish Wikipedia, where it is admitted the signature with images, providing they meet certain characteristics (no more than 30 x 15 px, not animated gifs, not offensive...). Thank you very much for the warning.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Following up on xaosflux, you could use Unicode characters to get whale and mars symbols: 🐳 ♂ Obviously not as splendiferous as your image files, but it's something. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: You're very kind. Thank you very much for taking the trouble to respond here! You have made me smile. As you can see, I have already put your proposal into practice. ;-) This whale is not white, but it is enough. :-)

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help out. Thank you for your cooperation and removing the images! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, but thanks a lot for your warm welcome on my talk page! I'm not quite sure if people automatically get notiifcations if they're linked to like Facebook tags (I linked to you in it thinking you may get the message), but in case you don't, just wanted to say thanks. :) Prominencenova (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Prominencenova Thank you very much for your collaboration and your kindness! Wikipedia does have a ping system, but I have problems and sometimes I do not receive notifications.

Best. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Billy the Kid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morris (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) 10:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion on the gluten free diet page was done without reading the talk page. If you do not agree, please give your reasons.please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.169.31 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edits were a copyvio violation WP:COPYVIO and other irregularities.

WP:COPYVIOis a non-negotiable policy. Copyright violations are enough to revert.

I answered more in detail on the gluten-free diet talk page [6].

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have initiated a Good Article Nomination for Milk allergy. Not my first in the allergy field, as I succeeded with Egg allergy last month, and there is a lot of overlap. I am not a MD, so I would appreciate the favor if you would look at and edit the article to correct errors that are apparent to someone with medical training. I want to be a bit more confident about the science before someone starts the review process. My education and training are in nutritional biochemistry, so I have a higher comfort level on the milk side of the topic than I have on the allergy side. Thank you. Feliz Navidad. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: Sorry for the delay. I have little time... I will look at it. You could also ask Doc James. He is a very active and competent editor.

Thank you very much for your effort! You are doing a good job. ;-)

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Doc James and I have a (usually) cordial relationship and he does keep an active watch on the allergy articles, also on the vitamin and nutrient mineral articles, where I have also been active of late. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I added text and citations to better describe the non-IgE diagnoses (FPIAP, FPE, FPIES). Added only to Milk allergy article. If it stands up to your evaluation and the Good Article review, I will then add similar content to Soy allergy. David notMD (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The GA reviewer has agreed to start the process Friday. You are welcome to chime in. I added a Regulation in labeling sub-section which I believe addresses the nuance between deliberately added ingredients and how labeling is done to cover potential for inadvertent cross-contamination. David notMD (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I made some edits [7] We also need to add information about reactions by inhalation, for example this source PMID 24992548 and the issue of drugs that contain not declared trace amounts, which are not mandatory as in the case of food. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Milk allergy about the value of the table of foods - which you deleted. I also questioned the quality of the reference for the statement that medications which have lactose as a bulking agent or delivery system may trigger an allergic reaction if the lactose is contaminated.

Allergy events triggered by airborne allergens is real (hayfever!), but I do wonder how common it is for food allergy proteins in general and milk proteins in particular, other than in the context of food manufacturing facilities where they can be a lot of particulate exposure. For peanuts, I did find mention of infant/child allergy more common in houses where adults consume peanuts, which supports inhalation and topical exposure as sensitizing. Also an article PMID 17448326 in addition to the Leonardi citation you mentioned above. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A bit more looking. There are more reports of anaphylaxis from exposure to steam from cooking lentils. However, other than one mention of inhalation exposure in a dairy worker PMID 29016916 I did not find support for allergy by inhalation for dairy. I added text and citations on the inhalation topic to Food allergy article. Suggesting not the milk allergy article. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I answered on Milk allergy talk page [8]. It is preferable talking about the article there, where other users can see it and participate, keeping all the specific discussion together. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I will not add a warning template here to remind you that you are engaging in edit warring, since you seem to be an experienced editor. I am myself a veteran editor and have dealt with many kinds of editors. I will add a second concern before I decide what to do with counter-collaborative, reactive behaviour I am observing in the edits you made. I would like to remind what an edit summary is, please read it so that we don need to come back to this again.

As I tried to explain in the talk page of the Catalan referendum, we do not need vague, generic or long edit summaries citing WP policies, especially in controversial edits or reverts of content contrary to our views, and you have clearly asserted your position in this article's content beyond technical considerations. Do not get me wrong, I am not blaming you for having a certain slant, I do have mine, that in not the issue. Undue inherent biases and ungrounded statements may be fixed by others. WP is a collaborative project, and a WP article is no one's courtyard. This revert of yours and its edit summary you added have nothing to do with my edit, and this is not the first time, and your enumeration of a number of WP policies in the edit does not shed more light, but noise, do read this. Please as of now, in order to avoid needless litigation, with anyone but especially with me, be coherent, specific, in talks strictly adding diffs, and detailed explanations. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, do not make (more) mistakes. I am not engaging in an edit warring, I did not violate 3RR, instead you did. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You have been warned. Bye. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)