User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Filling in refs

This is a useful tool to help do that [1]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Also one can search pubmed using DOIs to find the PMIDs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649Perhaps sometime you can review my reporting system with me. Right now I standardize my reporting practices for what citations I use by letting the bot make a template and then tracking where I replicate that. I still commit to expanding citations, but I often pause to let the bot fill them in first. I will not leave them as templates. I am open to a better way but need to think a bit more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If these templates are separate from the article in question such as the cite pmid are, then they will not work when moved from one wiki to another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 Not right now and who knows when, hopefully Wikidata will manage these eventually. There is no sense in translating the fields for every citation into every language forever repeatedly. Daniel and I both use the same dois here and on Commons so even that is a mess and duplicated work, and of course with Commons it ought to give info in the user's own language and not just English. We are still generating large numbers of these templates in hopes that someday there will be interwiki template linking for citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Additionally one of the GA requirements is a consistent citation style. Not sure how your reporting system works? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My biggest concern I have with my reporting system is being able to report how the citation looked at the time I used it. When I substitute from a template that becomes trivial. This may not be important but I have been asked about it a few times, and it seems like a reasonable question. I keep a record of what citation I used the history in the template shows if I change it. About 5% of the time I do modify it.

I have no respect for the GA requirements in this regard because for no reason whatsoever various tools give different citation formats. If someone consciously makes a decision to put citations in a certain way then I can respect that. If everyone is putting PMIDs and dois into bots and tools, and the tools all output different results, and the people who made and the people who use these tools are not even conscious of the differences, then I see no reason to worry myself. I do not even think citations will be hard-coded into Wikipedia in 2-3 years because it is so antithetical to translation, and if they are in templates, the GA requirements will no longer matter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I will do the UTI citations tomorrow - I assure you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to get these 100 articles through the GA process. I find it useful. Having a consistent ref style I think is a good idea. People than know what to expect. Have adjusted the cites at UTI.

I do not care exactly how the cite journal templates are formatted. The data however is within the article rather than outside it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 I hope to remain and be recognizable as the biggest defender of consistency in citations and I am not aware of anything that I could do to promote the cause more than I already do. Beyond being useful it is urgent because it connects Wikipedia to the historical precedent of academic publishing. If I fail to recognize anything about my actions which does anything other than promote the use of consistent citations in the least surprising way then let me know.

I agree that all citation data should be within Wikipedia articles, even when copies are stored elsewhere. I sometimes have a bit of lag - I hope never more than 1-2 days - in porting data over when I do use templates, but even that I will try to shorten. Thanks for being vigilant. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles Denham

Flurry of recent editing

You recently edited the Talk page for Charles Denham.

There has been a flurry of recent editing of the related wiki page. Several editors (anonymous and named) have tried to enter specific references to a U.S. Department of Justice statement that the page's subject has received kickbacks to the tune of $11 million in exchange for his promoting a specific product while in a position of trust in a government advisory group (described under Patient safety organization.

In each case, the reference to this official government document has been removed by an anonymous editor. The effect is to make the entry for CDenham incomplete and, from a neutral observer's point of view, overly positive.

There is little doubt that Denham has placed or caused to be placed the Charles Denham wiki page. The existing description is entirely plaudits and very much longer than a that for Lucian Leape who is probably the most famous person in the field. It seems that someone is using wikipedia to maintain a carefully constructed bio of a living person in place and to keep it from being edited in any way that would reflect the current situation.

I write to you because you were [ironry] foolish enough [/irony] to edit the associated Talk page. The pending question on that page is whether there should be further links to the fluffy bio from the Patient safety organization page. I do not think that this would be appropriate for the page as it stands.

If I were to re-edit the bio page to show a link to the DOJ statement there is no doubt that it would immediately be edited out by yet-another-anonymous-editor. Left as it stands, the bio makes the living person appear entirely without blemish.

Please advise me on how this sort of problem is supposed to be dealt with? Can the page be covered with a notice that the details in it are in dispute? Can further editing of this living persons bio be blocked?

Thanks

Richard I. Cook, MD (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I re-added the information. I am watching the page now. The details should not be in dispute, but if someone identifies themselves and makes an argument that the information is not supposed to be there, then perhaps we can put a dispute tag. When someone anonymous just removes information without saying why that is not a dispute; that is vandalism. The editing of the bio cannot be blocked but there are things to do to protect it. I expect that I what I am doing ought to be appropriate to make sure that information from published reliable sources remains in the article. Thanks for contacting me. If you find my response lacking then either tell me your concern again or, as you have already done, put another note on the biographies notice board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to give the referenced article some balance. The original article was a put-up job, explicitly acknowledged by User talk:Hcctmit. My edits to the article attempted to provide references for the things that were reverted or trashed, but this only led to additional reounds of revisionism. The statement by NQF that it had severed all contact with Denham in 2010 was removed in the last round. Ironically, history for the article shows that it was created by Hcctmit after the NQF had severed its connection with Denham. Richard I. Cook, MD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Injecting bias

Please stop injecting your bias into the Denham article. It violates NPOV rules, and subjects you to charges of bias in your obsessive and continuous editing, and insistence that you be the sole arbiter of acceptable content. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and your edits reflect a desire to inject non-encyclopedic, news based content. I'd rather collaborate with you than fight you, but if you continue to revert my edits wholesale, we will simply take the article to arbitration. You may continue your argument on the merits. [User:Ceekay215|Ceekay215]] (talk)

Ceekay215 If you want to escalate the issue then I will assist you. If you have anything to say then you may say it here, but it would probably be more useful to talk on the talk page of that article. We can talk as much as you like. I appreciate your concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect

Just for grins, I reviewed the pending changes to this article and wish to recommend that you disapprove them. The pending changes equate the subject of the article with a political argument. The article itself is about a set of scientific experiments and so the claim that the Dunning–Kruger effect is "also known as" The Malema dilemma is false. The article has WP:Pending changes because it is difficult to appreciate that the article is about experimental psychology and not about what people think about experimental psychology. I added a brief explanation at the end of Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect. I would be happy to have someone write a Wikipedia article for The Malema dilemma (currently empty) and I think it could be appropriate to have such an article referenced in the See also section but the Dunning–Kruger effect article itself would be clearer if it were pruned of analogies including the one currently proposed. Richard I. Cook, MD (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Choosing Wisely

With respect to this ref [2]. Looking at it further it is more or less a small review. I think we can just ref Choosing Wisely without listing all the refs it is based on. People can click on it to dig up the details. Will keep the Wikipedia text less full and make it easier for you. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 There was a time when you recommended citing only the papers and omit the Choosing Wisely piece. Others have told me the same thing. I would like to avoid situations in which the fundamentals of what I am doing are challenged, and I predict fewer problems when I cite MEDRS sources than when I do not. Some thoughts:

• Wikipedia has no policy on grey publication layman public health advertisements as reliable sources, but at first glance they will always be problematic, and that is what these Choosing Wisely documents are.
• I have fifty of these papers, so it really would be ideal for me to have a standardized process for managing them rather than treating them as separate works. Also, after these fifty, the day may come when standard public health education practice is to develop Wikipedia articles, so perhaps a system should be founded to standardize this model generally.
• I am not convinced that having lots of citations in the reference section is bad. Practically no Wikipedia users will ever see them. I share the citations because for each document a top level specialized medical the top level medical society in the United States thinks that they are important to tie to the message, and I can imagine no higher editorial authority for recommending what citations to use. I find no guidance in Wikipedia precedent for this but would appreciate your thoughts.
• If you want to talk this over with me I would meet you on voice or video, and I always have been available to work through this. If you want to talk it over with anyone at Choosing_Wisely#Partners I can arrange that too, but start talking with me now so that I can get review their content and have something to demo for them.

What are your thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the other refs associated with the choosingly wisely paper a number of them such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=3300325 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=3960089 do not meet WP:MEDRS. The point is supported by a mini review by choosingly wisely rather than these papers. Thus do not think they need to be in the text. Yes I know I have changed my position from previous :-) If the refs they used were all recent systematic reviews and meta analysis than I would say we just use the latter. Since they are not I say we use the former. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 When I hear talk about how these layman documents are made, I only hear they commit lots of research and thought into creating them. This has given me confidence to think that these documents are authoritative, and that the references they give are whatever the society wants to present as its recommendation for "best citations". If the citations are not good, then two explanations which come to my mind are that either these references are not good despite being the best that exist, or otherwise the highest organizational authorities in medicine for whatever reason lack the resources or ability to make competent citations to back their recommendations. If the recommendations are the best then I feel they should be used; if the recommendations are not the best then might you have any interest in proposing a revision? If I identified non-MEDRS sources, drafted a letter to name them for purging them, and then gave Wiki Project Med the draft, might you be able to organize a Wikipedian review of the document and then send it off as a request for them to raise their work standards to those that Wikipedia uses? If the problem is that their sources are bad then I might like to fix that rather than not cite MEDRS sources or set a precedent for having health organizations put their content on Wikipedia without being mindful of MEDRS. In the bigger picture, what is happening here could be a model for what we ask every health organization/school/government in the world to do with regard to Wikipedia. If I omitted citing non-MEDRS sources now, then it seems right that whatever I omit should be reviewed by a Wikipedia group and then the society should be informed perhaps in a public letter. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As these documents are position statements from an expert body we can assume that they took into account more than just the refs they listed. When we cite a review on Wikipedia we do not also add all the primary sources the review references. I would say the same situation should apply here. Reviews of course cite primary sources but we do not. We need this extra layer of requirements as Wikipedia is unable to verify whether or not its authors are experts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 The guidance at Wikipedia:Medrs#Medical_and_scientific_organizations makes me think that these documents are not preferable. At a glance they do not look like position statements as they are colorful advertisements not intended to be cited. How would you feel about me bundling the advertisement and all sources which are MEDRS compliant? Until now I have just bundled everything, because I have been using a non-MEDRS compliant layman statement and sometimes non-MEDRS compliant sources, and it only seemed comprehensible to me when it was obvious that the ad was backed by research. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess. I do not see these sources as any worse than the Mayo clinic or emedicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 Think a bit about it. It seems not unlikely to me that any other organization, school, or government which comes to Wikipedia might consider replicating what I am doing. You have always had as much input into the process as you have liked. There might come a day when there are more than 30 regular contributors in an average week to a Wikipedia community forum on medicine and to the extent that there can be a process for helping non-Wikipedian experts and the Wikipedia community itself communicate this seems to me to be the only model ever proposed for regulating the scaling up of operations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Have read a lot of these Choosing Wisely papers and they are fairly well accepted points. If there was a Cochrane review that disagreed we would go with the latter. The quality of sources is a continuum. Whether or not a certain source is good enough depends on what other sources there are and cannot be determined in isolation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway there will never be a simple rule to determine what source are sufficient. Discussion is occasionally required for individual cases.

Usually Cochrane reviews and recent literature reviews in the Lancet or JAMA are a safe bet for being very high quality. Sometimes one needs to contrast different opinions by different organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Illustration for down syndrome

I am wanting this picture for the history section on Down syndrome. [3] Do you know how to get them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 I uploaded it and inserted it as you liked. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Endorsements.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--MrScorch6200 (t c) 22:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN

After the DRN concluded, I found a page using court documents (links to file): [4]. Just letting you know. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

move to close at NPOVN about church leaders

The topic whose discussion you contributed to here seeks comment on its proposed resolution with consensus. Thanks. Evensteven (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I commented. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Preview my article please

--Barbara Jean Ward (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks from Netherzone

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Many thanks Bluerasberry for your help and encouragement yesterday and help with editing today. There is a lot to learn, and I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to history. Will view tutorials and videos now! Netherzone (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Hi Lane! Thanks so much for being so helpful at the Art+Feminism event on Saturday. Failedprojects (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Thank you for your interest in our user study. Please email me at credivisstudy@gmail.com. Wkmaster (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

People rather than patient

Typically we use person or people rather than patient per WP:MEDMOS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. I see you fixed it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Contributing to a talk page

I find it extremely ironic that on the ACA page, four comments above mine are nothing more than unsourced opinion which you had no issue with because either couldn't recognize it as that or because it didn't contain the word bullshit yet you chose to edit out my sourced opinion. Makes a ton of sense, keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

98.225.252.201 Thanks. I deleted yours because it was posted after the "Wikipedia is not a forum" notice. I encourage you to delete all of the other inappropriate posts. You are correct in recognizing that they should be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

From Netherzone

Hope I am responding in the right place, also posted on my talk page. Still learning the ropes here!

I believe I "own" the ART/MEDIA photos - they are stills from video that Steina & Woody Vasulka shot for the project - they were hired as documentarians of ART/MEDIA. To my knowledge, there never was a copyright, as the core philosophy of the project was about free distribution of ideas, art and activation through vehicles of mass distribution (mass media). I've been a custodian of the archive since 1986. I can ask Woody & Steina if it's ok to use the stills, I'm still in touch with them.

Re: the International Uranium Film Festival pix....I've emaile Norbert Suchanek for permission to upload the montage image as Creative Commons. Who do I forward his response to? I will be meeting him for the first time on the 14th. If it's better that it's taken down now, just let me know. I'm still learning!

The image of the Black Hole I grabbed from Wikipedia Commons or Creative Commons, and I think it is ok to use (?). Please let me know. Learning curve!

The other image, Uranium Decay, another editor "Johnfos" put up - What a surprise!- it's of a video still of my work. If that's a conflict of interest, let me know.

People here have been extremely helpful, esp. with learning how to cultivate a "neutral tone of voice". It made me think a lot about communication in general.

If I'm making huge mistakes in how I'm approaching this, please let me know! As a newbie Wikiperson, and am eager to learn the correct procedures and abide by policy.

Thank you for all of your help and support, Bluerasberry. The Eyebeam workshop was incredibly energizing and empowering. Netherzone (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

When you find a moment, please let me know if I tagged this right: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carcass_Sisters,_Activist_Social-Sculpture_Performance_Artists,_1984.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation please?

hey can you confirm that these uploads:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Netherzone

on this page ART/MEDIA are legit? I'm making a video about the meetup on Feb 1 and I'd like to be able to show the page. Victor Grigas (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Victorgrigas I talked a lot with the two who created this page but I did not talk with them about their photos, as it seems they uploaded these after the event. I am happy for their enthusiasm! I asked one of the creators on her page about this. She was at the event covered in the Wikipedia article and she could be the copyright holder, but I requested her confirmation of this. Thanks for bringing this to me and for double checking the products of our event. I will ping you again when I have news. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Victor Grigas (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Wikipedia:

You may have seen this, but I thought of you Dr. Wikipedia: The 'Double-Edged Sword' Of Crowd-Sourced Medicine--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Existing ISSN?

Hi. Thank you so much for your expressed support of the peer review system in Wikiversity. The next step I'm planning is to assign an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) to Wikiversity:Category:Peer reviewed works. With an ISSN, I could then work on arranging for digital object identifiers (doi) to each individual document. However, do you happen to know (or do you know anyone who may know) if the Wikimedia Foundation already has any registered ISSN numbers? In such case, I may not need to register another one. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I think the Wikiversity:Category:Peer reviewed works should have its own ISSN. However, in the ISSN guidelines, it says "Regarding open access scholarly publications, 5 articles are considered as a minimum for making a complete issue", and we're still 2 articles away from this threshold. So there's no rush in the ISSN project. Cute hamster by the way Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)