|Wikipedia Ads||file info – show another – #60|
my talk page archives
- 1 Minor question about Choosing Wisely
- 2 E-mailed response back re: publishing press releases and n:Wikinews:GLAM
- 3 Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
- 4 Merry Christmas BR
- 5 New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
- 6 Speedy deletion nomination of Chair of the Unique Identification Authority of India
- 7 Thanks from Netherzone
- 8 A barnstar for you!
- 9 User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules
- 10 Invitation to User Study
- 11 People rather than patient
- 12 Contributing to a talk page
- 13 Confirmation please?
- 14 From Netherzone
- 15 Dr. Wikipedia:
- 16 Existing ISSN?
- 17 Lyme disease controversy and Lyme wars
- 18 Please comment on Template talk:Infobox legislature
- 19 Education Program technical update, February 2014
- 20 re: Should Michael Moore's Relevant Comments Be Mentioned?
- 21 A barnstar for you!
- 22 ADAM
- 23 Bluerasberry, You are famous in India.
- 24 You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March
- 25 Talkback
- 26 A beer for you!
Minor question about Choosing Wisely
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allecher (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 March 2013
E-mailed response back re: publishing press releases and n:Wikinews:GLAM
Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
Merry Christmas BR
|Victuallers talkback is wishing BR Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger
inspired by this - you could do the same
New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
|NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5|
Dear Fellow Wikimedian,
You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians's 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please come, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Chair of the Unique Identification Authority of India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Ahumantorch (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I resolved this by redirecting the article about the cabinet position into the article for the office. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks from Netherzone
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)|
- You are awesome for thinking outside of everyone elses' context. I always like your ideas. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
People rather than patient
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- 188.8.131.52 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)
hey can you confirm that these uploads:
- 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Lyme disease controversy and Lyme wars
Thank you so much.
Your support and thanks on the Lyme wars talk page meant the world to me. It is a fascinating and horrible experience to be putting yourself out there in an aggressive corner of the internet.
I have been trying very hard to be a good Wikipedia editor, and have put a lot of effort into researching. I am not so good at editing yet, and so really appreciate the help that I have been getting from more experienced people. I really appreciated you noting the effort I was making to respect MEDRS but still expand the encyclopedia.
My odd medical journey has left me aware of missing information in Wikipedia. But I am not fully skilled in knowing the rules and tone. I live in Mercer Island, BTW, and would love some UW Med contacts. I had major surgery at UW in late October that left me psychotic for a few weeks and disabled for a time after that. No MEDRS I could find on post-surgical psychosis, although Sandra D'Auriol jumped off a roof in January from the same issue, so there are lots of holes in our medical knowledge.Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Request for advice
Hi. I think I could write an excellent set of MEDRS and med history articles I have the skills to learn the tone and I write well.
The challenge I am having is being a thin skinned newcomer who feels bitten a lot. Of course most errors have been by own.
Two items of back ground. I write on the internet sometimes, and I wrote this about my experience with Wikipedia, and my sandbox holds a subset of my research:
After I wrote this I was contacted by editors who encouraged me to try again. I thought I would learn by working with experienced editors. I may still have their help, I may not. I am not sure.
It may simply be a matter of learning the rules, but if I am honest, I tried to shadow different MedRS editors, and there seems to more aggression than guidelines, and aggression is not my strength. I totally agree with the central premise of MEDRS: That we should be very clear on a single voice in representing medical consensus. When controversy is expressed, it is expressed in a way that is not confusing to a potential patient. I get this. I agree with this. I am not a fan of using an encyclopedia to promote alternative perspectives.
I like the controversy title. It makes for a richer article that I think I could build consensus around. However I know from watching the MEDRS editors, that stamping out fringe views is a central tenant. I went into this research ignorant, and found an immense amount of source material, and it paints a very different picture than what is in Wikipedia. It is not my job to fix wrongs. In my blog article (that I linked before) I had made the judgment that Wikipedia had made the right choice to be an organ of mainstream medicine. This is not criticism.
But mainstream medicine makes mistakes, and the Lyme wars tell that story. The Lyme wars story also is about patient advocates who did immense harm, and about professional feuding that ground research to a halt. I predicted that Wikipedia would see this article as an assault on mainstream medicine. I don't see it that way, I see the story as being more similar to Denham: A few bad actors, a few imperfect organizations, a lot of good intent. I probably have the skills to work within a consensus environment to create encyclopedia articles.
What I have found, however, is that most MEDRS editors see all minority views as fringe until they become consensus views. Again I am comfortable with this fact when it comes to MEDRS: there can only be one consensus, and there can be only one medical body that gets to declare consensus. But the anti-fringe mentality spreads into RS as well. Outside of MEDRS the standard for Significant Minority opinion is well understood: And the Lyme debate clearly contains a significant minority by the non MEDRS definition. I believe the MEDRS editors will argue that significant minorities cannot exist in medicine without the permission of the consensus makers. Writing an article about the homeopathy controversy is about mainstream good science vs. fringe bad science. Writing an article about the Lyme Controversy is about majority bad faith vs. minority bad faith. Regardless of my skills and intentions, it is hard to see why MedRS editors would not view that as giving a voice to a fringe.
I was advised to try a different topic (outside of areas related to my experience as a patient). I took the advice and walked away, but was encouraged back. Should I be bold? Should I tell a properly balanced truth while learning from the community? Or should I recognize I am on the losing side of an unimportant debate? Or should I just continue to work with more experienced editors (like Chemist and Carrie) and watch how they thread the needle?
- Thanks for sharing with me, Bob. I have had a lot of bad experiences on Wikipedia myself and what is happening to you unfortunately happens a lot. It is unfair, it is a problem, and no one really knows how to stop this. There is something fundamental in Wikipedia's infrastructure that makes these negative exchanges happen. If you like, perhaps it would be useful for us to have a voice or video chat and in conversation, perhaps I can share with you ideas which have worked for others and you can also tell me what more you need to be able to accomplish what you like. Email me to exchange contact information. I live in New York.
- The best advice that I could give is to continually check yourself to make sure that Wikipedia is satisfying to you, and if possible, fun also. As long as you are happy here then any other problem you have here will only be a game. To the extent that I am able, I would like to help you resolve whatever is happening that is not fun so that you can only have fun here.
- In the meantime - it is difficult for me to look into this and understand what is happening. There is a huge churn of content here and multiple people involved. Sometimes with Wikipedia it is difficult for me to understand what is happening. I see that what you have written is on the talk page and parts of it are in the article, but seemingly not from your version. Perhaps let us talk, and you tell me what you see, and then we decide what to do next. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also your sandbox has great content. I expect that most of this could be posted into the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of well sourced content written by experienced editors.
I think I missing some unwritten rules of Wikipedia. I must be, because I am feeling bitten again, and the people on the project are very good. I noticed that you put a comment on Jytdogs talk page (I REALLY respect that guy).
"Thanks for joining me in conversation in several places. I am traveling from this "Wednesday and on for a week, and do not expect to be on-wiki so much. I will rejoin the conversation when I return. If anything seems out of place feel free to delete anything in any article which is making Wikipedia worse; everything can be sorted later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)"
I also see that a consensus to rename an article because a de-facto decision to delete the content. I only decided to participate at the urging of experienced editor(s) who did the actual editing. And yet even with this great care, the article is gone. Unless this was an honest mistake (and I certainly make a lot of them!!!) I really do not understand. Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have replied to your concerns on the talk page. That's where this discussion should happen, and not through any canvassing. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's cool. All new users are welcome on my page for any reason. His content was really good, right? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox legislature
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox legislature. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Education Program technical update, February 2014
We've started working on "editor campaigns", a system that we expect will eventually be able to replace our current Education Program extension (and be useful for many other purposes as well). The early work with that project will focus on a system for signup up new editors for editing campaigns (such as courses, but also edit-a-thons, Wiki Loves Monuments, etc.). Because of that, progress will be slow on the current course page system. However, we have several improvements that should be available within the next few weeks.
- Anyone can edit the main text of course pages
As part of the effort to make course pages behave more like regular wiki pages, we've enabled editing of course pages by anyone. Users who currently have the right to edit courses will have access to all the fields (so that they can change the start/end dates, and change the enrollment token). Users who currently cannot edit courses will be able to edit only the "page text" portion. This change should take effect on 2014-02-27.
- Simplified course editing interface
We've considerably simplified the interface for editing course pages, removing the options to rename courses. Changing the title of a course would also move the course page, creating confusion and leading to a number of bugs. Several other parts of the course editing interface were not very useful, so we've removed them to make it easier on newcomers. This change should take effect on 2014-02-27.
- Additional Notifications
Two students participating in the Facebook Open Academy mentorship program are currently working on additional Notifications for course pages. For the first of these, users will be notified whenever someone else adds them to a course.
re: Should Michael Moore's Relevant Comments Be Mentioned?
A barnstar for you!
|The Editor's Barnstar|
|Excellent user profile...plan on using to beef up my own! DeWriterMD (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)|
- I removed it. I will follow up with whatever else I can find tomorrow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, You are famous in India.
Dear Blue Rasberry, I am a member of the Programme Committee for 2014 Wikimania and was review submissions for the 2014 program. An Indian editor submitted two program requests and I was digging into the editor's background when I found his fashion blog. You (or a picture of you) are part of the fashion blog. The editor is Sou boy. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Geraldshields11 Oh, it is nice to be recognized! I know this person very well. I have lived in India for more than a year and would like better relations between US chapters and Indian chapters, if possible.
- Are you coming to the NYC Wikiconference this summer? I am not sure if you ever got leverage to start an economics project like we discussed but even if you have not started anything, just talking about it with others may get more momentum. I care about this stuff. Thanks for the notice and thanks for doing review for Wikimania. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March
|Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!
|New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page.
Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)
A beer for you!
|Thank you! Netherzone (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)|