User talk:Nerdseeksblonde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Nerdseeksblonde! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Shubinator (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles


The article Dendreon had a lot of unsourced personal opinion and copyright violations, which I've removed. The tone of the article is still not encyclopedic. I noticed many comments to editors, and comments saying it was a work in progress. You can build up articles in your own userspace for this purpose. In general, above are some of Wikipedia's guidelines. In particular, see the guidelines on copyrights, conflict of interest, original research, and verifiability. Shubinator (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I noted the unsource material pending time to do the research. Since I'm familiar with the material I'm reasonably sure it is accurate. It would be more appropriate to turn it into a comment, not delete. Further, there are no copyright violations as all material is sourced and easily fair use. The story section is the one you failed to touch. History is not a story. I will revert most of it back except for moving the annotations and comment the unsourced stuff for now. The pipeline section is the core of the company's notability.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Extensive quotation of copyrighted material is not allowed, per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use. I would suggest you work the article in a sandbox before adding it to mainspace. Also, you seem to have a conflict of interest that shows in the article. It would be best if you did not edit the article without others checking it for bias. Shubinator (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[ got an edit conflict with your input, trying to fix this... ]

I verified the Wiki terms of use of non-free material and explicitly states that even there that fair-use quotations with attributions are allowed and fine. As all of the material, is noted as free to view and all quotations are a small component of entire work, it seems to fit under the wiki fair use guidelines. If there are specific instances where a quote needs to be reduced or edited for size fine but they do not appear to be large pieces of any work.

Again, I have reverted some edits and left others. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the topic or material and if you have a particular reason why you believe any quotes to not be fair use please be specific. I posted notes as a caution to reader, BECAUSE CITATIONS ARE NEEDED TO VERIFY INFORMATION I BELIEVE TO BE CORRECT OR POSSIBLY SHADED WITH OPINION, not because I inserted frivolous unverifiable content. It will now take me longer to sort through what you have done. Are you familiar with this topic and can you add citations to the pieces that I myself marked?

And, further, the one story section is the only one you didn't bother to edit...

The defense of the FDA rejection and perceived threats is noteworthy and part of the notability of Dendreon and contributes to a balanced and complete description of the company and its significance even if not flattering to them or reflective of the company itself. I guess I would concede it is arguably but I'm not sure it should be axed at this point.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Extensive quotation as described at Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use does not mean it is a large portion compared to the source itself, but extensive on its own. The multiple-sentence quotes are borderline.
The bigger issue here is conflict of interest. Much of what you write seems like a scientist's view inside the company. Again, see our policy.
I am not familiar enough with the topic to find sources. I have worked on science articles myself and I know it takes a lot of effort to bring it up to standards.
The best way to avoid reverts is to improve the article in your userspace, then introduce sections to the mainspace articles once they're fully sourced. Shubinator (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume "extensive" absent specific criteria is in relation to fair use criteria and in this context when depriving copyright holder of revenue or creating a derivative work is not an issue I would think that multi-sentence quotes establish context as with other scholarly works. I have traded their stock, maybe a disclosure section would help but certainly the stuff you deleted is largely unfavorable to the company. Before accusing me, discuss the specifics. If you can't put my own warnings in context, don't just delete the material. If you have a specific organization in mind then that may help too. But, the public outcry around that BLA is a large part of notability and is relevant.

I think if you actually knew the topic you would revert many of those edits or just comment them out pending documentation. Because I am familiar with topic I presume my text is close to accurate and would serve the appropriately warned reader( I will verify and if the reader cares now, he can verify etc).

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you must have warnings to the reader, the material should not be in the article at all.
Even if you have no intention of creating revenue from this article, others might. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, specifically the "Quotation" section for more on quoting extensively from non-free sources.
To me deleting the material is equivalent to commenting it out. The content is easily retrievable, and I expected that you would take your previous content and work to make it presentable. To be clear, when I deleted the material I did not think it would stay deleted, but it would come back sourced, with bias removed. I'm not necessarily saying those whole topics aren't relevant, I'm saying those sections need more work before appearing in mainspace.
I can't take your word about the public outcry. You must have reliable third-party sources for contentious material. Shubinator (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If you improve the article in userspace I can help with the article's tone, and other general issues, when I'm free on weekends. I can also try to find sources. Shubinator (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I had those citations and you edited them out. By most examples of fair use, creation of a scholarly work that doesn't deprive copyright holder of revenue or create a derivative work shouldn't be a problem for a few sentence quote. The quotes you removed are generally from free sources and many from non-commercial sources and all are clearly attributed. Unfortunatley, many commercial sites CHANGE LINKS and without a quote a reader has no way to google to find a current link ( indeed, this aids the publisher's page view counts for an interested reader in many cases. Absent a specific objection from an owner, I fail to understand your concern) Many of the undocumented claims were quite obvious to someone familiar with the material, and while personal opinion may have colored the tone, the facts could be checked. In many cases, a citation was made a few lines above material you deleted but since you don't know the material you have no idea what applies to what. In particular, the defense of the FDA section is largely documented in one reference to their own publication but I'm not going to put the same footnote on every sentence. Enumerating those things is important to someone new to topic and the citation would be apparent if they looked up the once reference. Your approach would be to include a sentence like " but the FDA didn't like their filing[x]" leaving the reader to hunt.

I put the comments there again to alert a knowledgable contributor to comment or for a reader to be wary- I do get confused sometimes while editing. It was not speculation or particularly tentative, just lacking in clarity and completion. Your deletion didn't help get to a final product ( again unless you knew it to be inaccurate or misleading or purely opinion). (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC) (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is copyrighted, it doesn't matter if it's for a commercial purpose or not. The Wikimedia foundation is non-profit, but the Wikipedia logo in the top left of your screen is copyrighted. Public domain sources can be used, yes. The quotes you had also did not illustrate the point much, and contributed to the unencyclopedic tone. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite material. Possible future dead links are why we have access dates on references.
Large stretches of text were unreferenced, written in the tone of someone who has a conflict of interest, which is why I deleted the content. There were multiple places where you had said it was personal opinion, so I assumed it was. In any case, the information was not referenced, and unreferenced material can be deleted on sight. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for our policy on sourcing and unsourced material. Shubinator (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are claiming that any sentence or phrase without a reference is fair game for a casual reader to delete? Again, on some cases my warnings may have even been old and often one citation covered a paragraph- if you didn't know the content of nearby references, did you see which sentences they did and didn't cover in my text? Since you may not even know what the point was, how can you comment on this? Dates and bibliographical citations are of little value on many news sites or google but a few phrases can be a big help- if you believe that is the problem, then find a complete citation and replace the ( fair-use) quote to make passage more readable. The citations to advocacy groups are those who want publicity. I've never even been aware of a paragraph violating fair use except maybe some of the shorter news articles perhaps. To avoid original research, I quoted abstracts for REVIEW articles- clear reputable secondary source- from a gov site and FDA documents. Did you look at the nature of the sources before deleting whole sections?

You keep claiming I'm biased but how do you know the context if you don't know the topic? Statements of fact, direct quotes, taken together may make a case of some kind but how did you determine this? I did not build my own pro-FDA case but simply pieced together things from various sources. The FDA did rule a certain way and explaining their case without my own commentary is hardly an expression of bias. I don't think I ever commented on the merit of either side, except perhaps trying to pick and choose issues to include or not- your alternative is a one sentence reference to the FDA's own publication. Not even a review can be entirely free of bias but that needs to be decided by someone familiar with the material in the absence of overt opinions in the text( " I think this is dumb but the FDA also thought " wasn't there for example).

I did note many of your incremental edits I would agree with in isolation- but the net effect was to remove important factual data that balances the story. Largely the information derogatory to company was delete and you left the section that was a story alone???

At this point it would still be easier however to revert all of your changes and just clarify the citations that cover paragraphs of company derogatory information and put into comments the stuff in need of clarification. Quotes can be reduced somewhat for clarity but still don't buy your fair-use issues in most cases. (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There were many issues with your material. Any one alone, if it did not exist throughout the article, I would have made an effort to fix. The problems were: 1) Unsourced material, 2) Opinions, as you yourself stated, 3) Highly unencyclopedic tone, 4) Random passages of text from sources, many from non-free ones, 5) A conflict of interest, as you yourself said, which also leads to bias. If I tried to comb through the article it would have taken days. Instead, I chose to delete the material and inform you, hoping you would conform to Wikipedia's standards, and most likely add in the content after working with it in userspace. Shubinator (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You deleted 10's of references to journal articles and government sites and fail to state specifics of why you believe the tone, ex by bracketed comments, is unencyclopedic or specific content which is biased- we all have biases and I'm just being clear. Can you even point to one citation of mine which required payment to view? I currently have no financial interest in DNDN, I have traded in the past. Since you are not familiar with the material and don't know which citations to scholoarly works support which pieces of the text, and since most of what you deleted is unfavorable to company, I am going to make one attempt to undo your deletes and just put in redundant citations.

Puffery has no place in an encyclopedia and my comments were flags to people familiar with the topic to fix this, not delete it. Unless you tried to find nearby citations and determine they don't support my case, or the langauge was clearly opinion (" this is clearly wrong but Dr. Welby argued that blah blah blah ") I believe the pieces were encyclopedic, served the reader, and just in need of editing.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see I deleted 20 references. One of them was accidental and I've restored it. Quite a few were not explained in the article, and just had a "see here". Also, many were promotional, with one comment encouraging donation to a site. Again, "payment to view" has very little to do with copyright violation. Wikipedia is free to view, but you can't copy the logo. When we say "free" on Wikipedia, we mean free as in "free speech", not free as in "free beer". Again, see Wikipedia:Non-free_content, specifically the first paragraph.
Specifics, then (note this list is not exhaustive):
The side comments, in general – ... blind [ find citation- were there any dummy antigens unknown to DNDN processing ttechnicians, ???] or ...[ this needs refs but I'm not even sure where to put it now as the cd54 work and a general section on DNDN taxonomy problems may be helpful ] (brackets not added)
Unencyclopedic tone – Apparently One question during the meeting was answered by Dr. Provost, ...His assumption seems to be that a T-cell response ...You are looking for predictive value uninfluenced by various biases.
Original research – admitted in the edit summary
Possible bias (if it is true, must be sourced) – Developmental stage, publicly traded biotech companies are well known for issuing overly optimistic press releases and engaging in other practices which result in shareholder actions such as lawsuits.
Conflict of interestA message board post from someone familiar with Dendreon [eh, this is myself but I still consider it to be a good summary of the situation- thought folks??? ] lists other considerations with a reference to yourself (diff)
For the first three points here, you should look at our policies, and for concrete examples see our Featured articles and Good articles. The last two suggest you should not edit the article. If you must, work it up in a sandbox so others can check for bias. Shubinator (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you do not understand the material or the article in its state upon your first read. The "unencyclopedic tone" derives purely from my own editorial comments as you suggest, in all cases set off in "[]" for KNOWLEDGABLE parties to fix, not delete. These are easily commented out as others have done. The article as written was generally useful to the reader as an encyclopedic reference but, as per my comments, clearly in need of editing. Encyclopedic does not mean glib or shallow, extra details may turn out to be irrelevant or not but generally do not merit sweeping deletion. Content which would be considered "general knowledge" to person in the field can be documented later if needed, not deleted by an ignorant editor.

Citing repeated copyright violations for quotes typical of scholarly works, with attributions and links to free government sites, confined to perhaps several sentences, strikes me as a difficult to interpret as an act in good faith.

One of the links was to an advocacy group, which may in fact have requested donation as does wiki. However, this was quite notable and not uncommon. The only time payment was an issue was a citation to Cancer Letters to which I found an alternative. Sometimes authoritative material is not free and see wiki guidelines here. The only comments I made other than that that could be taken as advocacy of a position were for better automated access to information, and again these were in "[]"

Everyone has conflicts and I am simply being open about mine. Again, disclosure, hence my "[]" comments, is how conflict of interest is resolved. Would you prefer drugs are only evaluated by people who are not paid by the industry or who are paid by sponsors or their competitors? If you believe the material lacks quality that is fine, but of course everyone has some conflicts. Again, your objection here is frivolous and uninformed. You can attack quality if you know the material or even the source "journal." Self-citations in unbiased or review works always require great care, which is why I pointed it out, but they need review by someone who understand the topic.

I would concede the cd54 quotes were attributed quite aways away, I never bothered to put in the one reference needed to make that clear but from context it would have been obvious to a reader INTERESTED IN THE TOPIC, that these were from the CITED FDA transcript. IN MY OPINION, this exchange came off as stone-walling and evasive and is likely derogatory to company but if you knew the material you would understand relevance and could probably find a citation . I guess I could comment this part out until I find citations or create a better context.

I still think, based on understanding of wiki and prior things I've written, that the best approach would be to revert to the original version which includes rich detail and relevant facts and comment out questionable material. The shell article you have left reads like a glib superficial story and you don't seem to be able to add detail yourself.

Balance is important in these articles and often all you get are the positive side. The facts I have added are quite important to obtaining perspective.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There were many reasons, explained before, why I removed the text. If it was just unsourced material, or just editorial comments, I probably would have acted differently. Again, I did not think the deletion would be permanent.
Large passages of scholarly works are copyright violations. This isn't good faith or bad faith, it's the our policy. See Wikipedia:Your first article, including do not quote more than a couple of sentences of text from anywhere.
Copyright has very little to with "payment to view" or not. Most material is copyrighted under a non-free, even if it is free to view. However, suggesting editors donate to a site is not allowed, free or not.
Although disclosure is a good start, it conflicts of interest are not resolved by disclosure. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, including COI editing is strongly discouraged.
Opinions should not be on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; included in the things Wikipedia is not is "Opinion pieces". If it is sourced, it is less opinion and more fact, which is why we ask for sources for possibly contentious material.
The facts can be added back in once sources are found. I am not against a balanced article, but unsourced opinion paragraphs do not make an article balanced.
I have offered to help with the article. The offer still stands. Shubinator (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I cited larger passages of scholarly work, I said that the wiki page is a scholarly work and my text cited fair-use quotes to make that work. In fact, however, the scholarly work is written to be cited and quoted by other work. You can't possibly consider a few sentences to be copyright violations as this invites inaccurate contexts etc. I guess quoting from some of the ad supported news sites you could cut down but objecting to quotes from patents or freely available scientific abstracts is simply absurd. Maybe you could object to this as original research, and I guess I am thinking about these articles when I think of the quotes, but not as copyright violations. Wiki policy is not equivalent to US law, if you only want out-of-context factoids and text-bites that is your call.

I think I said I'm biased, not conflicted but I'll go with that for now since "COI" is shorter to type than "biased" and I may have used the wrong term. Had I not pointed out the COI, your obvious unfamiliarity with the material would have let them get by you. You are essentially saying you want an uninterested ( not disinterested ) author. FWIW, I currently have no financial position in Dendreon and any COI is based on ego but certainly I could take a position in a security at any time. There is no escaping that. Since you don't know the material, you can't say if it is "fair." Certainly I have an OPINION, as do the people writing about abortion. I pointed out some self-citations, not all, for the sake of editorial review and reader wariness not as a message "delete this." If you had read the citations or been familiar with the material, you would see the FDA continually faces even larger problems getting familiar people to tell you which drugs you are allowed to consume but conflicted people generally are needed.

I was actually going to suggest a disclosure section for all authors on public companies, or for that matter all topics where even significant personal biases may impact text. This is standard practice, at least the COI part, in many research journals.

I don't recall suggesting that an editor donate to a site. I think I talked about "supporting efforts" to make information available- you can delete it if you want and I would concede this is advocacy of a specific position but it was not a request for money. Had you followed the citation, it was to a government site that provided medical literature for free or maybe to a comment letter to a different government cite that advocated free information. This issue is a big problem in writing research/ scholarly articles and other areas ( like buying real estate) but may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia.

There were links to advocacy groups that may have solicited donations, as does wiki, but in any case they do establish a notable relevant position.

There is no doubt that paper encyclopedias can be quite terse. Relevance and other factors are a matter of editorial policy but I'm trying to make the best use of available resources for the stated goal of informing readers with a balanced and neutral set of fact and I think the last revision is a better starting point that what you have up there now.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I would mention that the self-citation I overtly warned on was to a forum post but the reason for finally citing it was that the author ( me ) had been making a series of posts for years and just prior to this post of concerns had expressed an OPINION that he would do as the FDA later did and demand more clinical data to support efficacy. I submitted it to which is a somewhat reviewed source, and they accepted it but didn't want to use the alias and I wasn't willing to give it up. Clearly none of this is documented and probably isn't even relevant but the cited blog post does appear to represent one route by which to understand the FDA actions ( that again resulted in pickets and bodyguards for oncologists that came out against Provenge). Certainly the TOPIC relates to public perceptions and, in this case, blogs may be reasonable sources. So, again, I'll be the first to concede that self-citations to blogs are questionable but I would invite an editor to find more sources that tend to put the FDA actions in perspective and not just include pro-Dendreon material.

Wikipedia policy is that sources should be paraphrased, with a link to the source, not paragraphs of source text. If the paraphrasing is accurate, source text isn't needed. As I have said many times before, it does not matter if the original source is an abstract on Pubmed or the full article only accessible through a subscription. For both, more than a couple of sentences should not be quoted.
Our best articles are written by editors who care about the subjects. If you must edit, given your bias, the article you produce should be free of any biases and opinions, as COI editors are held to a higher standard.
References from advocacy groups are ok. Asking editors to support another cause is not.
The article before read like an opinion piece. The content has to be brought to Wikipedia standards before being added back in.
Blogs and message boards are not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Even if it was more reliable, the fact that you wrote it would ask for a higher standard.
Shubinator (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you will find very few paper encyclopedias that have paragraph quotes, but the existence of paragraph quotes doesn't mean they are copyright violations when they appear in someone's thesis for example. If you checked the edit history, I was slowly moving the clutter to the bottom and recognized this as an editorial issue, not a legal one. To be clear, again, I don't have a current financial insterest in the stock but I've got my own opinions. The sections you gutted were largely about the side of issues that were NEGATIVE towards the company- so, sure it had a POV similar to that of the FDA. That doesn't mean I TOOK A SIDE. You can have a section about a notable court case that is dedicated to one side or the the other without expressing an opinion on merit which is what I bleieve that section was close to doing. One notable aspect of DNDN is the perception of death threats towards those coming out against Provenge. The regulatory history here is quite important but sure you could argue about a level of detail appropriate for wiki. Except for my own editorial comments ("[]") it was largely FACTUAL and, had you read the sources that were references, admitedly as much as a few paragraphs away, I think you would have found most, if not all, the material to be sourced by the time you got there ( although it took a while for me dig up many of the references to which my earlier [] often applied ).

I can live without a solicitation to join a crusade, esp if there is a related talk or sourcing page to discuss such issues :)

Yeah, I checked the Wiki sourcing standards but even without that there things are always questionable.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright violations, specifically material copied from other sources without the permission of the copyright holder is likely to be a copyright violation.
Most of the "Problems and Concerns with Earlier Provenge BLA" section that I deleted was not sourced. Even if the editorial comments would have been removed, it still would have read like an opinion piece or commentary and not an encyclopedia article. I am not saying the subject itself is not suitable, I'm saying it needs to be sourced since it's controversial. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If I couldn't connect the dots, the average Wikipedia reader won't be able to either. Shubinator (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, see fair-use criteria to put your isolated quote into context :) Further, there were at least 4 primary sources cited in various places ( the FDA transcript would have been an obvious one as were the Cancer Letter manuscripts as well as secondary sources that sited the Cancer Letter which itself is available only on a pay basis ). I'm not claiming it was well written but the sources were that were cited ( somewhere ) would have supported the ideas I meant ( but arguably not all the ones I wrote). The average motivated reader who CARES, could have found the right source once citations were fixed to meet some standards ( would have had page numbers etc to find stuff) . Again, I'm not defending that state of affairs entirely but it seems the better response was for someone who knows the material to check facts. Someone who didn't know the material had enough sources to document it but sure it would have taken extra effort to find the right source.

The only other recent contributor in fact added some unsourced material on which I could not comment but a quick google search indeed found supporting sources which I added. I guess just in terms of benefit-of-doubt at least read the sources that do exist. My biggest concern with your sweeping deletion was having to recreate all that stuff but since there is an older version I can cut/paste if needed.

You can't possibly describe any controversy without some sections expressing a POV. The words themselves do not state an OPINION about the MERIT of that case, merely explain (someone else's ) POV by reference to documented facts. I suppose you could mix the POV's issue for issue in a "he said she said" style and to some extent that happens with editing.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content says Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.
The average reader is reading the page because they don't know much about Dendreon. Very few will take the time to dig out references.
Please actually read the policy pages. That's why I've provided links. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. What you wrote was original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy.
Again, as I said before, there were many issues with the article. Any one alone I would have tackled; as it was it would have taken me days to unravel. Much of the material as it was should have been deleted as original research and extensive quotations.
If the controversy itself is documented by reliable secondary sources, that's fine (assuming, of course, that references are added gratuitously).
Shubinator (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, final post on subject, "extensive" would need examples and long before you exceed fair use precedents you would clutter an encyclopedia entry ( as I admit to doing in some cases but was working on moving or editing, not deleting).

Yes, I read that you would rather listen to Billy Crystal imitating Elmer Fudd singing Bruce Springsteen than just listen to Bruce Springsteen- and that is fine since until Billy Crystal does a parody who knows if Bruce is notable. Secondary sources are fine to establish notability and avoid original research but that doesn't reduce utility of primary citations. Everything I've ever been taught or learned myself was to go to the source and ask the horse. Certainly as a service to the reader a few extra citations backed by the secondary sources shouldn't be a problem. You objected to "common knowledge" to someone familiar with the topic because you didn't bother to read the obvious citations and you object to original research where there are citations. Again, this is why I wasn't sure about good faith or just trying to remove company unfavorable information.

If you want to find some of the quotes in the sources, try using the original text as a learning guide and see what you think. I'm glad there is someone else here but I just wish you would have approached it differently. In general, I've looked at other articles and read the policies and tried to consider "peers" and their benefits and drawbacks etc.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, more than a couple of sentences is questionable. See my post at 01:11 two days ago.
See Wikipedia:No original research. It has nothing to do with referencing journal research articles. Instead, it says that you cannot provide your own analysis of events; you are limited to the analysis of other reliable sources. Wikipedia policy encourages secondary sources and discourages primary sources. You seem to think that an article should be mainly primary sources, with a few secondary sources; Wikipedia policy says the balance should be the other way around.
The references you did have in the sections I removed were mainly primary references. Content cited by primary sources is often original research. See my last post.
I am simply enforcing Wikipedia policy. If you wish to change it, start a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
Shubinator (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of all that. The issue is what backs up a claim and what is inserted for an aid to the reader. Essentially you complained about no documentation and then primary sources and copyright violations eliminating essentially everything with each elimination being inaccurate. Original research usually has a thesis, original ideas, and hence a POV. Secondary sources, aside from reputation, are only right or wrong by appeal to primary sources. You eliminated scientific review articles ( reputable secondary sources), news articles , primary journal articles pointing to original work while NOT eliminating the AUA conference presentation in the first paragraph ( which is EQUAL TO OTHER ORIGINAL RESEARCH I CITED IN NON-FAVORABLE CONTEXTS ) etc. I have to conclude you used platitudes to dismiss the work that was not favorable to the company while not making an affirmative case that any of my contributions met criteria you cite.

Would you object to the following? If you DO NOT revert my edits, I will remove the AUA citation to ORIGNAL RESEARCH in the top summary paragraph due to being a PRIMARY source of less quality than the peer reviewed papers I cited. Then, I will take out all primary sources in the Antigen Selection paragraph which cite favorable company efforts in original research ( by the Dendreon, not myself).

There is nothing unencyclopedic or anti-Wiki as I understand it about the content or sources used. If you insist on listening to Billy Crystal doing Elmer Fudd doing Bruce Springsteen, once you have established that Bruce is notable, it may be nice to find a link to Bruce and not just the parody. Secondary sources are never faithful to their primary sources. If you can make an affirmative case with citations to wiki or US law decisions fine but otherwise I think you are just raitonalizing what you want to believe.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. It is not about the source, it's about material added to Wikipedia articles by Wikipedia editors.
You're not seeing the bigger picture. The main section I removed ("Problems and Concerns with Earlier Provenge BLA") had many problems. There were a few journal article citations, which were fine, but the section as a whole was not. Also, you often just linked to the sources, which is not what the body of the article is for (example: The documents from both sides are available [35] and the statistics review [36] in particular may be helpful. The complete transcript of the review meeting [37] is also available)
The AUA citation is for the sentence Phase III clinical trial results demonstrating a survival benefit for prostate cancer patients receiving the drug were presented at the AUA meeting on April 28,2009, which is a cold hard fact. It's ok to cite facts like these with primary sources. Opinions and possibly controversial "facts" should be cited with secondary sources though.
The AUA citation shouldn't be deleted. The sources in the Antigen Selection paragraph are reliable sources and also shouldn't be deleted. The first part of the paragraph should have more references though.
Here's a (not exhaustive) list of fundamental Wikipedia policies and guidelines that suggest using secondary sources and discourage primary sources:
Shubinator (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I used the SAME SOURCE TYPES FOR ANTIGEN SELECTION AND THE BLA SECTION . You are simply using platitudes to defend what you like. The "are available" sentence is a cold hard fact, hardly a statement of opinion and should in fact be edited to show relevance ( "are available" is of questionable relevance if you don't understand the material ) and cohesiveness with rest of text but deletion for copyright violation or lack or source or primary source is simply absurd. Again, these are all minor edits to someone familiar with the material who isn't afraid of information which explains why the earlier BLA was controversial and why oncologists were afraid of Dendreonites.

If you had bothered to check the source types for the opinions, you would have seen secondary sources, many or which you deleted for spurious copyright violations. A notable figure in a controversy made have an OPINION which can be cited as a fact ( it is a fact that someone has expressed a certain opinion just as you could post the results of a vote or exit polls etc ).

In short, I am not confusing notions here but many are intertwined. Citing primary sources in one case doesn't make the wiki article original research in one case you don't happen to like while being acceptable in another.

We are going in circles at this point. The summary seems to be that you accept primary credible sources but you contend that a conference paper prepared by someone working on the research is more credible that refereed articles or FDA presentations.

Also, I get the impression you ignored the fair-use criteria to justify deletion when the real problem was editorial policy ( cluttered with extra junk that made it hard to read ). Certainly violations of law or depriving the holder or revenue would require some actions possibley beyond editing. But, absent that, edirting would have been more appropriate.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are going in circles. There are many reasons why I deleted the text. I did not delete the "are available" comment for copyright violation or improper sourcing, but because random links do not belong in the body of an article, and because the section in general had overarching issues. One overarching issue was original research. I didn't see as much original research in the Antigen Selection section, so I left it mostly as is.
I did remove many secondary sources that had extensive quotations in the article, which is against Wikipedia policy.
Yes, documented opinions can be added to articles with a citation. That wasn't the issue.
Citing primary sources itself does not constitute original research.
No, that's not an accurate summary. A more accurate summary would be that conference papers, refereed articles, and FDA presentations, if used properly, can be used in an article. Similarly, if not used properly, they shouldn't be there.
How did I ignore fair-use criteria? Wikipedia:Non-free content, which describes our policy on fair use, says extensive quotations are prohibited.
Shubinator (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have much to add on this issue apart from my agreement with Shubinator. His explanation above is about as succinct and accurate as I would have suggested. Remember also that Wikipedia strives for verifiability, not truth, so the fact that you may know more about the subject than either of us is rather irrelevant. Unless you can cite claims to reliable sources, do not add the information.
Quotes are okay; extensive quotes are not. Large blocks of quoted text is not appropriate for a variety of reasons. There are indeed copyright implications, but aside that, there are other factors to consider (reliability and misrepresentation come to mind). That is about all I have to say here. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I never cite my secret knowledge as a source, simply pointed out that the references were there and appropriate and applicable while conceding perhaps slightly misplaced. From what basis do you come to your conclusion? I guess the quote argument hinges on "extensive" and I pointed out that I myself was trimming and reducing that. And, sure misrepresentation is always a hazard with isolated quotes so I agree that longer quotes would help in that respect but they clutter the article. So, you agree that the claims I made were not in any of the citations, which were generally deleted for different reasons? If either of you can argue the FDA or the 3 oncologists I cited constitute an unreliable or fringe source I will drop the argument. Short of that, factual matters are not something that are put to a vote. An opinion about a notable matter can in fact be verified and the verifiable opinion of the FDA is what you are choosing to delete.

To mirror your argument, the AUA paper cited in the first paragraph is a biased primary source which only reflect original research. Maybe you could find a Seattle Times article that cites it, but what about the antigen selection paper- clearly a primary biased source but at least it is peer reviewed.

And, sure again, I have to concede a bit of annoyance when attitudes like this get large groups of people to act contrary to good science as it slows down the development of medicine and other fields. So, I'm being quite careful not to let my concern be reflected in the text. I think the section is generally factual, indeed the author points to factual neutral statements (" are available") and then deletes them because he didn't want to edit the text to make relevance to the following paragraphs quite clear. Actually, now that I think about it, that sentence should have been enough context to make the source of the following paragraphs quite clear.

I can create another account or recruit someone to support me too :) I guess we need more precedents not adjectives. I looked at the Tysabri entry as well as some others for more controversial material. I'll try to find some examples and post later.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, what conclusion are you referring to?
As I've said before, the "Problems and Concerns with Earlier Provenge BLA" section was removed mainly for unsourced possibly controversial information and original research. All but one of the citations not deleted in the section were presented as "see [X]", with commentary after. If it can be verified, then add a reliable source, with a proper citation (see Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite properly). As PeterSymonds said, we strive for verifiability, not truth.
The AUA reference is fine for the sentence it is sourcing. The sentence does not say that Provenge helps prostate cancer patients survive, it says that clinical trial results showing that Provenge helps prostate cancer patients were presented at that conference. In this case, the presentation is by Dendreon, but the fact is there. Now, if a lot of people said they never saw Dendreon at the conference, it would be considered a controversial claim supported by a primary source, and would be removed. And again, the AUA reference is not original research. The term on Wikipedia refers to content on Wikipedia articles where editors add material that isn't in the references possibly by drawing their own conclusions or inserting their own opinion or speculation.
Which Antigen Selection paper are you referring to?
You yourself said [ I'm inserting personal opinion and thoughts here that need to be documented and verified ]. If you use a particular source a lot, you should at least cite every paragraph. One citation for six paragraphs is not enough, and it isn't clear where the source is.
Information in the body of the Tysabri article is cited every sentence or two, and there are no extensive quotations.
Shubinator (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In roughly reverse order, yes, I know that regarding Tysabri. The controversy and notability were somewhat different however as that was just another antibody with side-effects. I also need some precedents that addresses controversial material but you are claiming that a conference paper is somehow more reliable than a "controversial" FDA document and the published work of 3 different oncologists are reputable institutions. Their opinions are controversial, the accuracy of sources should not be- it can be verified that they made certain claims, as you point out not addressing who is right or wrong. If you can't look at my own editorial comments in "[]" and determine to which material they apply then don't worry about it, just don't read it as if it has been proofread by people like yourself but with some background on the topic.

Are there religion papers or Holocaust pages that present controversial information? Surely you aren't putting my FDA citations into that classification but even still non-fringe beliefs can be presented by relating the verifiable putative "truths" of the notable proponents.

I have no objections to many comments you made, and even renaming the section may be worthwhile but there is no controversy that the FDA held a meeting and presented an argument or that oncologists opposed to Provenge hired personal protection. That is notable, see the QUOTED reliable secondary source ( this is so bizarre I thought it had to be quoted- most people don't settle scientific debates with anything that can be perceived as a threat ).

"And again, the AUA reference is not original research." What? It is a primary source as it refers to new work by the [biased?] authors and constitutes, by your criteria, my own research I guess since it wasn't on CNN although maybe I could find a more distant source if notability is an issue.

The antigen paper I've mentioned is attributed to Dendreon collaborators without a citation to verify that at least one of these authors has co-authored other papers etc with DNDN[ but it would be obvious from the AUA paper OR a few words or digression I didn't bother to point out the short coming of this text however]. This primary source, the produce to authors and my own "original research" is probably not cited on CNN and by your criteria should go,

"...discovered that other enzymes expressed in nerves are identical to PAP [5] [6] and there is ongoing work to examine post-translational modifications to PAP and its correlation to disease state [7] by Dendreon collaborators."

J Proteome Res. 2009 Feb;8(2):620-30. Glycomic characterization of prostate-specific antigen and prostatic acid phosphatase in prostate cancer and benign disease seminal plasma fluids. White KY, Rodemich L, Nyalwidhe JO, Comunale MA, Clements MA, Lance RS, Schellhammer PF, Mehta AS, Semmes OJ, Drake RR. Department of Microbiology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia 23507, USA.

Surely the above should go too, again to mirror your argument.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The controversy was not why the BLA material was deleted, but a lack of citations and original research.
I did not say the conference paper was more reliable than the FDA document or published journals. I did say the conference paper was used correctly as a reference, the others were not.
Again, I did not say the subject does not belong in the article.
Sources are not original research in the Wikipedia sense of the term. Have you read Wikipedia:No original research? Do you have questions on what constitutes original research on Wikipedia?
Journal articles are not primary sources, and are considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia.
Please read Wikipedia:No original research before replying. We're not on the same page if you don't understand "original research" in the Wikipedia sense of the term.
Shubinator (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you agree that the Dendreon favorable citations are ok, and that the FDA brieing material and primary and secondary sources that reasonably reflect the OPINIONS from some reputable oncologists are allowable sources, I think I can just move some citations around and [ eventually ] fix the footnotes to include pages or more details to factually describe the controversies and perceived physical threats.

The last time I looked at any of those, I do remember a distinction between review articles and original research journal articles. Both types can be contained in refereed journals but IIRC only review articles were considered secondary sources.

The way I understand this is pretty much as we've all stated: listing the factual information ( and statements of OPINION from those relevant to the article- be it Dendreon, the FDA, or a Nazi - can be verified and it is not our job to decide who is "true" on this we agree ) without adding any new theses, hypotheses, or conjectures. My own notes should have been read by someone familiar with the material or at least someone who was going to look or ask for the supporting citations, not deleting all the unfavorable stuff claiming harm to IP owners- I guess that was what created a stronger reaction from me, nothing about Wiki policies.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see above comments as I am making two consecutive posts. Which of the following do we agree upon:

1) The text you first edited ( OT, original text ) was unlikely to be harming copyright holders or violating legal fair-use criteria. Rather, quotes were cluttering the text and seemed, in your opinion and that of newest commenter, to be "extensive."

2) Credible but biased primary sources expressing an opinion that Provenge does something useful such as the AUA presentation are allowed and helpful to the reader. Claims related to the antigen investigation paper about some group being a Dendreon "collaborator" do not need additional citations if a casual reader of existing cited sources could determine such a characterization to be true even if the immediately cited reference link does not substantiate that claim ( but the reader would notice same authors on AUA presentation for example).

3) You and the newest commenter do not know the material and were reacting largely to my comments when making your decisions. You did not read any of the references which you deleted but thought cited material unfavorable to the company.

4) Making a factual description of a controversy if OK as long as the Wiki article maintains a NPOV and the editor happens to like the opinion ( let's be real here, from CNN to wiki there are some topics that publishers just won't admit exist).

5) Controversies needn't be resolved on Wiki, just described and documented.Indeed, such attempts at resolution would constitute original research by any standards.

6) Making a statement that "such and such a reference is available[foo]" is a statment of "cold hard fact" that itself does not express an opinion or inflict a POV onto the article.

7) The Tysabri article, Natalizumab, contain plenty of references to primary sources such as scientific original research articles. The sections on "In multiple sclerosis" and "In crohn's disease" each contain extensive paragrpahs containing only 1 citation each ( exclusive or wiki highlighted words which several people have pointed out "don't count" as sources ). Speculative opinions and controversies can be noted, for example, "Natalizumab appears to interact with other immune-modulating drugs to increase the risk of..." Tysabri wasn't involved in other notable events such as death threats so we need to look elsewhere for example of how to document these.

If we agree on the above, I am going to revert the text to the OT which you began, make multiple citations for the "unsourced" claims, and make a quick scan for any remnants of my own opinions in the FACTUAL description of the OPINIONS of the FDA, leading to the notable pickets and perceptions of death threats against doctors. I'll move my editorial comments to real comments hidden from the reader.

Personally, if I don't know the material and there is no immediate harm being done, I would just comment and leave it alone or recruit someone with the needed skills to fix it. Or, do a little research, look up the cited references determine if the article is factually accurate and make a call from there. As you have demonstrated, it is easier to delete a block of text than compose it. Clutter can be fixed but recreating stuff is more difficult. An encyclopedic reference needs to inform the casual reader and get a researcher started on a literature search.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, the sources themselves aren't "wrong" (the one exception that jumps out is the self-reference blog).
Articles in refereed journals are considered reliable sources per WP:Reliable sources.
Yes, only documented information, cited properly, should be added. If you want your work to be read only by readers familiar with Dendreon, Wikipedia is not the place for it.
  1. No. Extensive quotations are not allowed for many reasons, one of which is copyright.
  2. Yes and no. The reference is biased, but the Wikipedia sentence using it as a reference is not. A citation for the collaboration information would be good.
  3. No. I removed the "Problems and Concerns with Earlier Provenge BLA" section for many reasons. Most of the references that were removed were in that section.
  4. Yes, except for the "editor happens to like the opinion" part.
  5. Yes.
  6. Yes, but such a sentence would be removed because it's unencyclopedic.
  7. Those aren't extensive paragraphs. One citation at the end of a paragraph usually means the whole paragraph is cited to that reference. Note in general the article is liberally sourced.
I suggest you put the original text in a personal sandbox to work on it until the issues are cleared up.
I usually do fix articles. As I've said before many times, the numerous issues here led me to remove.
Shubinator (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles in refereed journals are considered reliable sources per WP:Reliable sources.

OK, so you will NOT object if I cite essentially ONLY PRIMARY SOURCES that contain NEW ORIGINAL RESEARCH as per the AUA presentation?

  1. No. Extensive quotations are not allowed for many reasons, one of which is copyright.

Since the Wiki guidelines for an encyclopedia entry are more restrictive, I guess this is a moot point. Although, I would like to see you write a scholarly work with these restrictions you claim apply to me :)

Yes, only documented information, cited properly, should be added. If you want your work to be read only by readers familiar with Dendreon, Wikipedia is not the place for it.

I wanted EVERYONE to READ it, but I thought I would get COMMENTS from people like you and further you would be CAUTIONED about the state of the article. I thought EDITS would be confined to people who know the material ( and can cut quotes based on relevance and notability ).

  1. Those aren't extensive paragraphs. One citation at the end of a paragraph usually means the whole paragraph is cited to that reference. Note in general the article is liberally sourced.

They are at least as long as the items you deleted in the Problems with BLA section.

I suggest you put the original text in a personal sandbox to work on it until the issues are cleared up.

Pending a few more circles, I think I can put citations at the end of the offending paragraphs and remove my own warning comments and let people new to Dendreon assume I am an authority on the subject :)

  1. Yes, but such a sentence would be removed because it's unencyclopedic.

6) Making a statement that "such and such a reference is available[foo]" is a statment of "cold hard fact" that itself does not express an opinion or inflict a POV onto the article.

Someone familiar with the material would have probably made the grammatical changes required, not forced me to start over leaving only a story and company favorable material on the main site.

Personally, I guess if you have followed the string of biotech bubbles you would appreciate my concerns in this area- we don't need any more hype in biotech or real estate or perceptions of threats against oncologists. So, I recognize my biases and proceed carefully for an encyclopedia.

However, since no one has pointed to glaring errors yet, I'm still pretty sure I will just revert on main page. But, have you added anything or just deleted my stuff? The edit strings on both sides have been a bit confusing.

Thanks in any case. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't object to journal articles. Reliable, secondary sources are preferred. We even have a cleanup tag for an article with only primary references: {{primarysources}}.
The "Problems and Concerns with Earlier Provenge BLA" section had long stretches of unreferenced material, one lasting six paragraphs.
Why do you object to a sandbox?
I haven't added any content.
Shubinator (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider this example,

containing an "extensive" quote from an ACM source [ IIRC, these are generally not free but some texts may be ] surrounded by text containing no citations other than wiki pages. This material however is more familiar and often considered more pedestrian than immunotherapies. If you had read the nearby references however, the reliability of the information would have been clear. A casual reader would be able to take it as credible since it "makes sense." I'm not trying to be insulting when I criticize you for being unfamiliar- I'm suggesting that a real reader would in fact find the references if not already familiar. From context, it would have been clear to check the FDA citations for the claims I made. And again I'm not defending the work I had there, just pointing out that had the material been perceived as less esoteric, it probably would have passed and the quote length is quite reasonable etc.

So, unless you want to delete the Bottleneck section or claim that an interested reader should take my claims differently from those made in that paragraph, it seems to be hardly that big of a copyright or sourcing disaster. But, certainly english not good... I guess I could wiki link terms like pre-specified or other stats terms but these would only be a conveinence and not a sourcing fix.

Yes, that article is quoting extensively, and the quotes should be removed or significantly reduced.
However (as you say), that isn't the crux of the issue. Six paragraphs with no citations is (one of) the big issues. There were no nearby references for me to look at.
Shubinator (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that was the only quote and while many words it is only 3 sentences, which may or may not be a paragraph but I would have a hard time calling it extensive. If you hadn't removed by crusade recruiting comments, maybe someone could lobby the federal courts to make their PACER system free and I could cite some related fair-use opinions if you are really worried about it. I don't think anyone has objected to the bottleneck section without extensive citation- probably because it is all "common knowledge" to most readers. Now, since I am trying to factually describe a controversial opinion, clarity is important but one citation would have probably made my words at least presumptively plausible.

At issue is just how to proceed. I just didn't want to go to hassle of sandbox and thought it could be close pretty quick. [ signbot never came by ] Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are three block quotes in the article. The one in the bottleneck section is the smallest.
Since there are so many issues here, it's unlikely this will be that fast. Also, if you do it in a sandbox I won't revert your edits. I can get it deleted afterward if you want. Shubinator (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to get your input but now that I understand it I think I can get it pretty close on the important points pretty quickly and I'm again not sure that deleting stuff either here or on neumann article would be constructive for either wiki or any readers. In the absence of harm to copyright holders or risking larger harms to readers with disinformation instead of ignorance, I will probably go ahead on main page. I liked the bottleneck section as a reader and, assuming quote is accurate, it seemed to be informative and easy to read. Quotes of that size or larger can be common in historical review works from what I've seen. Personally, there can be too much concern with trying to copy paper things like encyclopedias into a computer format- the wiki guidelines seem to recognize that terseness is not as big an issue here as it would be for a collection of paper going into someone's home.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're aware of all the issues. You seem to think I'm stuck on the extensive quotes part, but that's not what led me to delete the BLA section. If you do continue in mainspace, I will remove any unsourced paragraphs added in.
Don't quote extensively. It's against policy, and is rarely helpful to the reader.
Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice that I put the disclaimer on the page to yank my individual editorial comments into on vague excuse for everything. This seems to be wiki practice. I guess it comes down to the text being better than nothing- none of the issues you raised made the text counterproductive or damaging and as such a warned reader should benefit from it as it was. Wiki policies all seem to recognize that voluntary collaborations need to accomodate a variety of works-in-progress. As I pointed out, there is a lot of "general knowledge" that goes unsourced. I'm not defending leaving it that way, just that a a work in progress that is just fine. Further, I was in the process of removing clutter when you deleted the whole thing- I didn't know that disclaimer existed but that seems to be the best way to go as it gives the reader fair warning. If you know the material and fair-use issues, then edit away, correct and help me dig up references. If you simply want to act as an interested reader, at least make some effort to find the sources before chopping everything. Don't just start deleting stuff because a few citations are in the wrong place. If you can cite some court decisions where a few sentences from a scientific paper or even a commercial news provider caused economic harm to the copyright holder then feel free to take action. Even spam gets tagged for speedy deletion not just yanked. Since you didn't know the situation and seemed to have exaggerated the danger with glib copyvio claims, I don't really think deletion was or would be in the future apropos.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We've covered this before. I removed the material for many reasons. How are editors to know if unsourced material is true or not? With large swaths of unsourced content, conflicts of interest, unencyclopedic content, and original research, the material was removed. The extensive quotes, violating our policy on non-free content, were a minor issue. And I've also said I did not expect the material would not be covered in the article after this was resolved. I will see if I can help on weekends, if you want me to help. Shubinator (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, spam got more of a hearing than you gave to this material and you reacted solely to my own comments. If I put spam up and it was unsourced it would have first gotten a notice for speedy delete and a hearing opp, at least a brief one. Sloppy just gets a notice for clean up, wiki-extensive is purely an editorial call of no concern to copyright holder. Since you are just accusing the material of being sloppy, to the extent this asserts a testable claim according to the criteria I tried to use to make your platitudes specific, I agree completley but this is not criteria for ignorant deletion ( again, ignorant is not meant to be an insult, merely reflecting lack of factual knowledge concerning the material as "common knowledge" is routinely use uncited in other articles).

If you want to contribute fine but this was a step backwards AFAIK.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material may be deleted on sight; there were six paragraphs of it. The section was not common knowledge; in fact, it was controversial, so the claims must be sourced. As I've repeated what must be over 5 times now, I didn't think the material would stay out of the article completely, but would be added back in conforming to Wikipedia policies and standards. Shubinator (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Random section break[edit]

Hi. I was invited to weigh in here on the question of extensive quotations, since copyright is an area to which I dedicate a lot of my Wikipedia time. First, I need to clarify that Wikipedia does not attempt to replicate the US fair use allowance, although we do reference it at WP:NFC. The policy portion notes that among the rationales is "[t]o minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law." This policy was in part adopted because Wikipedia permits and even encourages reuse of our material in all contexts, even commercially, and we strive to make our material as freely reusable as possible. That policy portion notes, as pertains to Wikipedia, that "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." That said, in terms of determining fair use, the US government not only looks at the proportion of duplication in relation to the size of the origin document, but its proportion in relation to the size of the new document; among other factors it considers is the centrality of the material to both works. For Wikipedia's purposes, brief quotations are not only allowed, but encouraged. Multiple sentence quotations, as in this version, is not. Even in terms of fair use, the replication of text from [1] is questionable. The quotation in our article represented a full 10% of the original and is easily replaceable by a combination of paraphrase and limited quotations, as in Oncologists Howard I. Scher and Maha Hussain, who have been central to what The Washington Post describes as "an unusually bitter debate of an experimental therapy for prostate cancer" since the FDA delayed approving the vaccine Provenge in part on their evidence, felt it necessary to bring bodyguards to their presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 117 words is reduced to 11, with the rest paraphrase. Of course, a different paraphrase quote combination might better serve the needs of the article, but the point is that the 117 words are unneccessary and hence not allowed. The brief quote is sufficient to attribute the Washington Post POV.

Although this was not something I was asked to weigh in on, and I am not evaluating content in order to keep my own input clear of conflation with other issues, you ask, "You are claiming that any sentence or phrase without a reference is fair game for a casual reader to delete?" Under Wikipedia's policy, that is the case. Wikipedia:Verifiability notes that "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." It's recommended that readers try to find and add sources themselves, but if they cannot, they have the option of tagging the information as unverified or of removing it altogether. Even if you think the material is common knowledge, if it is challenged, you must source it. The burden of proof lies on the individual who places information on Wikipedia.

And with respect to your note that "I can create another account or recruit someone to support me too :)", please don't. :) This is either sock puppetry or canvassing, and in either case is disallowed. Asking uninvolved but knowledgeable contributors to weigh in on a dispute is part of the dispute resolution process. Faking additional input or soliciting favorable input from biased individuals is not. You might want to consider other venues list at DR, though I'm not sure personally that RfC is all that productive. My experiences with it in the past have been spotty; sometimes it brings responders. Often, it just doesn't. WP:COIN or WP:ORN might serve better.

I have to dash--doctor's appointment. Please forgive my lack of time to proofread. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks- I don't think anything you said is in much dispute except for how to react to it and perhaps one of the news article quotes as written pushes fair-use( I'll have to take your word on the 10 pct figure). I conceded many of those points early on, it was just a matter of how to proceed. Mass deletion was a bit of a set back and I would not have objected to tagging the article as unsourced or trimming or eliminating the quotes as I was doing much clutter removal myself at the time. The issue with fair-use was just to help determine a best response: if it is just wiki policy, then it can be edited, if it is causing loss of revenue to the copyright holder then even here just deleting the quotes would be fine.

I found at least one other article where much common knowledge was unsourced but I didn't personally bother to read or check anything. If you just let people go through deleting sentences that don't contain a "[]" there won't be a lot left and it will read like a redacted FOIA response. I'm not defending this practice as a goal, but you need to add words sometimes and maybe spend a paragraph describing a citation's relevant contents and adding "common knowledge" without a footnote may be a service to the reader until someone can check it.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Back from my doctor. Thanks for your response. You don't have to take my word—you can do like I did, and paste the excerpt and the article into a word processor document and run "word count" on each. :)
One thing to remember, of course, is that what we're talking about is removal, not deletion. All the text is still viewable and retrievable in history. Material that is deleted can only be retrieved by administrators. If you find sources for any text that has been removed, or can add them, you can go into the history to the proper version, hit "edit" and just copy the text you need. As far as common knowledge is concerned, we rely on the overview of multiple editors to help determine what is and what is not common. If a contributor removed text like "A cat is a mammal", other editors would almost certainly support restoring that text. But even if knowledge is common within a specialist field, Wikipedia is written for general readers, and sourcing for those general readers is going to be a bit different than it would be, say, for a specialized publication for nuclear physicists. Professionally published encyclopedias and textbooks don't deal with the same challenges that we do, that anyone (specialist or otherwise) can add text. This gives us a potential for rapid expansion that specialist publications can only envy, but also leaves us open to serious error. WP:V, with its placement of the burden of evidence on contributors, was created to address that unique need. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's be constructive and figure out how to proceed. The better option is creating a sandbox and editing the sandbox as if it was the real page. If the content conforms to policy, the corresponding edits can be made to the mainspace page. I'm online almost daily, so this option shouldn't result in editing being bogged down for long periods (and others can look it over too of course). The other option, which I don't recommend, is editing the mainspace article directly. I think this would result in more reverts and less discussion. Shubinator (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

(Note: Below copied from this note on my talk page to keep the thread together)

After surfing wiki for a while, I'm still considering reverting to this version and continueing my clean up, the page that is up there now retains much of the worst components. As I remove the clutter, I can edit for relevance from a position of familiarity with material. There is no indication that the quotes, ex the one from a commercial source, are even possibly copyright vio. I'll remove the one commeercial quote but otherwise continue cleaning thjs up and remove my own warnings or put at top. I hate leaving a reader with a false sense of confidence but it may be the only way to stop people from deleting material without knowing context. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with you improving the page in a personal sandbox.
The "position of familiarity" is part of what's bothering me. Editors in such positions must cite more liberally than others, and the page before was below our citation standards.
It's clear that Wikipeida does not allow the quotations in that version. Another editor has also weighed in on this particular issue (see "Random section break").
Back to the bigger picture. You seem to think that the extensive quotations were the main reason I removed content from the article. This is not the case. Please see our discussion for my points.
Also, note that Chris Capoccia agrees that the part of the "Problems and Concerns with Earlier Provenge BLA" section that isn't currently in the article was not suitable for mainspace: his edit. (Chris, please correct me if I've taken your edit out of context or mischaracterized your position.)
Shubinator (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware that the only other person with commentary generally agreed with you but I was able to find other cases that seemed to be just fine to everyone else- similar quotation lengths, similar level of documentation, etc. You can't possibly claim copyright on patent excerpts but certainly we agree on clutter, which again was being cleaned up. I guess it was readable and afaik accurate but it can take forever to track down citations of things I've seen a zillion times. Again, it is a matter of pespective on what is familiar or not. The material was there you just couldn't match text with citations, just as would be the case for many other articles with a few cites/paragraph. Seek and you would have found, in most cases. I'm not sure what you have against the main site, I just don't want to keep flipping back and forth. That is still the best version I've got and the clutter removal was going quite nicely. I don't really see the point in backing up so far. Even citations are hard to review as verification (" yeah the source is there") doesn't always get context ( but then there are 50 sources disputing the claim) and it can take a while to put together negative information. Following them for a while, I happen to have a coherent picture but needed to put sources on right sentences. And, I've been a supporter or provenge ( if you don't know what this is then ... ) for at least 3 years now but even with a biotech success a discerning reader needs to understand all the relevant facts and once the bandwagon leaves the station, it can be hard to find anyone willing to make derogatory comments... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl said, "Multiple sentence quotations, as in this version, is not [allowed]." She showed one example in the article, but her general gist was that the quotations do not follow Wikipedia guidelines. (Again, Moonriddengirl please correct me if I'm mistaken.) PeterSymonds similarly said, "Quotes are okay; extensive quotes are not."
The article had large stretches of unreferenced material that isn't common knowledge. Moonriddengirl said, "Even if you think the material is common knowledge, if it is challenged, you must source it." PeterSymonds said, "Unless you can cite claims to reliable sources, do not add the information."
You mentioned "a few cites/paragraph", which meets our guidelines. The Dendreon article had multiple paragraphs with 0 citations, which does not.
If you cannot "find anyone willing to make derogatory comments", the material should not be in the article at all (the corresponding guideline is Wikipedia:No original research).
Sandboxes are generally used when a user wants to work on an article, and in it's current state the article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. You wish to improve Dendreon, and a number of editors have said it does not follow guidelines, so the reasonable choice is a sandbox.
The removal of text from the article was based on multiple Wikipedia guidelines, like Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you wish to change our guidelines, open a discussion at the corresponding talk page, like Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.
Shubinator (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If I put it in the sandbox and someone else makes a sand box article, how do they merge? It seems that a work in progress was ideally suited for where I had it. "Extensive" is an adjective relative to many things, it is not an issue with copyright vio for attributed patents which are public domain. Wiki style is something "we" can work on , not just delete ignorantly- eventually trimming andmoving quotes may have obliterated them entirely. "Derogatory comment" is not the same as " unsourced insult." I mean that the information is just as well documented as the company positive stuff- the more company negative stuff was largely what you deleted but admittedly it can be harder to piece together since secondary sources often parrot company PR- since cancer companies are agruably about medicine and wiki explcitly find medicine to be "Special" primary sources are encouraged ( this is another annoyance, knowledge and evidence transcend topic, yet they seem to make special cases for medicine, pointing to it being esoteric creating biases of the type which I am concerned here ) . If you want to argue over words we will go in circles and more readers will be left ignorant with more fluff material. If you will work with me and try to determine context, we can make an article of benefit to others who wish to learn and grow, not just hide stuff. I'm pretty sure if you delete everything you don't understand, and force authors to exude unjustifiable confidence and avoid being direct with quotes and primary sources, wiki will not gain any quality. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that someone else has a sandbox version of Dendreon that they're currently working on. Two editors have explicitly said that the material does not belong where you had it.
Are you saying that the quotes in that version do follow Wikipedia guidelines, even though three editors have told you otherwise? (note this question relates to Wikipedia guidelines, not copyright)
All material, and especially controversial material, must be sourced. I removed content because there were few/no citations, and the material was controversial. Both "unsourced derogatory comments" and "unsourced insults" do not belong on Wikipedia. If it's documented, add citations.
Secondary sources are encouraged, not primary.
"Fluff material" with citations is better than original research without citations.
I've explained the removal many times. "Delet[ing] everything [I] don't understand" is not one the reasons. My responses above have detailed the many reasons, based on Wikipedia guidelines, for my edits.
I've said multiple times I'm willing to help improve the article.
Wikipedia:No original research says editors should avoid primary sources. If you wish to change the guideline, start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research.
Shubinator (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to collaborate and I had plenty of stuff to edit that others could work with. None of the editors AFAIK attempted to check the citations that were in place to determine which material was sourced. No one cites each sentence although we could approach that. I'm saying that first of all copyright vio is incorrect, and a topic-ignorant editor, approaching this as a reader, could have trimmed many quotes. Guidelines are just that, if you want to talk talk. Don't start hacking in ignorance. I'll put up confident sounding citations and wait for someone to find out they are wrong an leave readers with an in accurate impression rather than hoping to elicit a constructive check in the future. If you don't know what is OR, then read the sources...Also, see the wiki guide on med lit, surprising pro-primary sources again within OR limitations. I'd extend that to many things but in any case there is no reason not to cite a primary source if the secondary source cites it, unless you want to force a reader through multiple levels of junk. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The "plenty of stuff" was lacking citations. For multiple paragraphs there were no citations for editors to check.
You're right, Wikipedia is run by consensus, not guidelines. Three editors saying the quotes did not belong, with one saying they did, suggests that consensus is that the quotes should not be in the article.
If the quotes were the only issue here, I likely would have taken the time to fix it myself. However, with the numerous issues with the text, removal seemed best.
You said "I'll put up confident sounding citations and wait for someone to find out they are wrong an leave readers with an in accurate impression rather than hoping to elicit a constructive check in the future." If the citations are wrong, they shouldn't be there in the first place. If that leaves the text with no citations, the text should not be there in the first place.
There are many reasons secondary sources are better. Wikipedia:No original research: Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. and Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source. The Dendreon article in some places cited primary sources, then analyzed the source and came to conclusions not in the source.
Again, our guidelines prefer secondary sources over primary sources. Talking with me is not going to change those guidelines.
Shubinator (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you know this since you didn't read the sources I did cite, "The Dendreon article in some places cited primary sources, then analyzed the source and came to conclusions not in the source." I was hoping someone could check me against the sources, not just assume since I was concerned I must be adding OR. If you believe this enough to yank the material then you may have affirmative evidence that is what I did, otherwise you took the absence of a cite on each sentence of OR. So, how do you know this beyond my own comments in the text? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One example: here the article said "His assumption seems to be that a T-cell response is inherently an indication of a drug effect ( rather than prognostic ) and even assumes a link to survival improvement". You copied and pasted the primary source (violation of guidelines), and the source doesn't say that. Shubinator (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you read my comments which is what they were intended for, obviously that wasn't something that would survive as with the other comments. The hope was to go back and fix it or drop it, not drop the whole section. Quoting is not a violation of policy, we have been through all of that, and if you do quote cut/paste is less error prone than manual typing, again all of the clutter was being removed but it is easier to delete pieces knowing the context rather than recreate the whole thing- the other one-time contributor left an unsourced assertion that I could verify on google- which I did rtaher than delete his ( unsourced ) comment. The focus has to be on making a good article, the guidelines are there to help but don't accomodate everything. There is no fundamental policy AFAIK against quoting free stuff. I did just find an example of what you mayhave been thinking, this guy just dropped a bunch of unsourced legal actions onto this webpage,

which I guess is how the patents could have been perceived. Someone reverted these, apparently they didn't seem relevant or sourced and maybe it wasn't clear why such a list was relevant. With Dendreon, the notability is coupled to the product and regulatory history. There are plenty of failed biotech companies and plenty of FDA disputes but this one had a lot of extreme or notable points besides the fact that their drug seems to be the first-in-class to work. The technology details should be of interest and relevant as well as anything we can get about the earlier rejection and alledged death threats.

If you know some of the material doesn't conform to guidelines quite yet, you should work on the article in a sandbox. You agree that the sentence was original research, which is why it was removed. You can follow through with your hope; just use a sandbox as the vehicle for getting to the result.
About the patent list removal, are you referring to this? I agree with the removal; the list wasn't helpful to the reader.
Adding content on the FDA dispute is fine, but it must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. That's the crux of the matter.
Shubinator (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag parameters[edit]

You can find out about the parameters for a tag, e.g. {{advert}}, by going to template:advert. Alternatively you can put a comment box on the article by using {{comment|<your text>}}. But neither of those is intended for an extended comment such as you wanted to put on the article - that should go on the author's talk page, or perhaps on the article talk page. Then if you wanted to put on a PROD, it could say something short like "this seems to be promotion - see talk". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meeting architecture[edit]

Two SPAs have placed on the article talk page comments which I have just copied into the AfD debate, with my responses. The first amounts to "Wikipedia ought to explain this new idea to the public", but the second says "The subject needs an article, this isn't it but you could write one along these lines... " and made me reconsider whether we should keep the article in the hope of improvement. I have decided I'm not convinced, but I'm letting you know so that you can look at the debate again and see if you want to change your !vote. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Diam1.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Diam1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shubinator (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I got the sourced version and word from legal its fine and I got a bunch of other images too...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now the image says it's public domain, but images from journal articles are not in the public domain. Shubinator (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What are you looking at? The one up there now is US govt work- I verified with

sponsor lawyer...

The article doesn't say it's government work. You might be able to send the lawyer's verification to OTRS (see WP:PERMISSIONS) so Wikipedia knows it's government work. Shubinator (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually buy a reprint? All the authors are govt employees and it was published before the language was ever used AFAIK. They sent it and their lawyers said it is fair game without additional authorization as does the wiki site. There no indication wiki has any specific criteria of this type AFAIK.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't buy a reprint, I can see the full text without paying. Wikipedia places the burden of proof of copyright status on the uploader. The image has been published in a journal, which generally copyright material appearing in them. The burden is on you to show the image is in the public domain. If you insist on that image, the best way to do this is an email to OTRS from someone representing the journal. Shubinator (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to verify then that the work was all funded by US government as per acknowledgements in paper- ONR and NASA. Wiki has a separate page for US government supported work and that is the status I claim. Even if the journal says in menacing language that they own the Goldengate bridge, wouldn't you still drive on it without paying them? NRL lawyer said it is fair game based on govt status but one author did say to contact the journal. AIP hasn't gotten back to me yet but wiki and legal person suggest credible claim of US goverenment funding is prima facia case. However, in the absence of a notarized email from aip, here are their own guideleins. I think everyone but you is happy although if the other contributor re-appears she seems to have a lot of IP research on her page perhaps she can help too,

Maybe you could make some argument based on effective dates of laws and pub date but they don't say anything here,

"Copyright 'Applied Physics Letters, [...]All rights reserved. No claim is made to original U.S. Government works. '"

and then they go on,

"Web posting Only authors are allowed to post their AIP articles on the Internet, subject to AIP’s Web posting guidelines. "

suggesting that authors can post entire text of article on any website as long as AIP copyright and link is prominent. The journal probably doesn't even want to be bothered with my email but all we are arguing about it putting a (c) AIP on the image caption as the link is there ( or maybe I have link to doi but it isn't relevant given overt US funding status).

The only restrictions may occur if I charge you for legal advice :)

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The journal article says the work was supported in part by the government agencies. Copyright status of work by the U.S. government says that A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." Being funded by the federal government does not mean the work is a "work of the US government". Shubinator (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
If you managed to find the affiliation, all the authors are listed as US government employees at an institution that could reasonably do the claimed work. The presumptive funding source is their employer. Additional funding, "in part", came from other government agencies including their employer. No private or other sources were cited that could be subject to covenants or other problems. The laws change, but even if not everything that the

government does is open access in this case even if you believe it is not government applicable the publisher's site, the claimed (C) people, give specific standing instructions for citation etc. Authors can post complete articles with no obvious restriction on location, maybe you could make some argument about unattributed excerpts but there is no indication of that being a concern here.

I sent everyone interested party a link, but it looks like the presumption of govt applicable is reasonable.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've listed the image at Possibly unfree files to get more opinions. The authors work at the Naval Research Laboratory, yes. Work done by contractors is often not public domain though. There's a high chance the image is public domain, but since it has appeared in a journal article, it's best to be sure. Shubinator (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged the image with {{OTRS pending}} since you've sent an email to OTRS about the image (please remove it if I'm mistaken). Note I had suggested this option much earlier. Shubinator (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Please don't add comments or other conversational language in articles; articles are supposed to be ready for readers. You can add comments in your own userspace, but once it's move to article space the comments need to be cleaned up. Things like "ok, so one piece of caption is under the image tna dthe rest is to the right????" aren't appropriate in articles themselves.

Also, please cite actual names (of papers, patents, etc.) when you refer to them, rather than just a footnote. For example, the text

Figure 1c in [1]

should actually have a noun, and be something like

Figure 1c in some paper[2]

A reference number just floating there isn't enough; the article should be written in a way such that a reader can follow along and understand it without clicking the reference number.

Finally, where did you find that the image File:Bullseye.JPG is US government work? It looks to me like it's a figure from a journal article published by civilians? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I made comments re the refs on the article talk page, a reference is a noun and since you can just click on it, the extra noun is clutter but I don't really care one way or the other as it is more a wiki issue. I've tried to put editing comments in source but not show up and preview before posting but sometimes I run out of time or patience.
I can probably get a confirmation on that new image but I need to know how to do that. What is OTRS or the wikigroup for that? In any case, it is the same authors as the other works. I'm not sure how readily text is available but the citations are listed both on the upload page and in the article that refs the image. I haven't checked the ECS policy but I can contact them if there is doubt about US govt status.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It turns out the text comes up in a book by Dismukes on google scholar,

but page 626 is not available as a free preview nor are the acks page AFAIK. I thought I cited this book elsewhere previously but can't find it in refs...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone can confirm that the image really is government work, that person (one of the authors, a government official, etc.) would have to send an e-mail to specifying the URL and name of the image and verifying that it is public domain. If that cannot be done, the image will have to be deleted after a week or so. There is more information at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When_permission is confirmedrʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

An email should have been sent regarding the 2 images and related works, I'll see what happens...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Please fix whatever text editor it is that you are using to not insert newlines in the middle of paragraphs, especially when those paragraphs are within lists. Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, that would be my brain, or more accurately my mind... Yeah, I've noticed that and always complain when hotmail does that to my text. Just habit...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen this happening a lot; are you typing in an external program (like Notepad or something) and pasting it in?
Also, please note that a single newline in the edit window doesn't show up as a new line when you save, you need to type two new lines. For example,
loren ipsum
loren ipsum
shows up as:

loren ipsum loren ipsum

loren ipsum

loren ipsum
shows up correctly as

loren ipsum

loren ipsum

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Guenter Brueckner[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Guenter Brueckner 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, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Patchy1Talk To Me! 01:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is to advise you that I have declined the request for speedy deletion of this article. You may wish to touch base with the folks at Wikiproject:Physics for some pointers on how to continue to improve this article, however. Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you'll stick around and join in. Best, Risker (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

signature format[edit]

Hey, on EAR it would be really helpful to keep formatting together if you wouldn't insert a line break before your signature. Just type the tildes at the end of your last sentence, without hitting enter - because it doesn't indent your sig like the paragraph, and it gets confusing (at least for me). Thanks! Fleetflame 01:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[edit]

I have requested help from the Mediation Cabal.[[2]]. Dave thinks you may be unaware of this. We're waiting for you to give the go-ahead. 21:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talkcontribs)

  • huh? Since I still don't know what you are talking about he is probably right :) I was just trying to find some factual basis on which to work as it sounded like to topic had been rehashed a lot but there was one specific issue you were trying to resolve. Still not sure what you were doing going forward but I'll take a look. Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor Assistance[edit]

link=User talk:Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User Subpage Move
Hello, Nerdseeksblonde. You have new messages at [[User talk:Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User Subpage Move|User talk:Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#User Subpage Move]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Minor nit[edit]

Hi -- have you read WP:NOTWIKI? Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, actually I remember using wiki now and knew at the time the language problem. I just tend to write sloppy things, like penguiny goodness, sometimes... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
No worry, I do too at times. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia does not need placeholders. When you are ready to flesh out the page, then feel free to contribute to it. Till then you should work on your articles on the sandbox or anywhere in your subpage. Here is the original article and hopefully when you have time you can work on it:

Virtual State (physics)Notability Assertion

( This is a placeholder, I'm starting to write this but don't have time right now. This is the search I would use to assert that the topic is notable ):

Cheers!Calaka (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


I still operate high-resolution (FEG) SEM, STEM and TEMs, in my lab. Building your own is not a good idea. Buying (a second-hand, but fully operational) one might be Ok, but you must understand all details of operation before that. There is a dozen of essential practical items you need to know, and I could tell them upon further questions. Usual SEM/STEM/TEM is never for home use as it needs dedicated power, water and vacuum lines. There are new table-top models which plug to a usual net and barely need water supply, vacuum system built in. You'll never get atomic resolution with those, but tens of nm they provide. Those you need to buy - too new to be second hand. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it a private company that you own? Well, I was curious to see if I could put one together from pieces. Power supply at issue would only be AFAIK the accelerator voltage source, some glorified neon sign or old TV crt sources may due, I was only looking for 25-50kev. I guess you need vacuum pumps which could be a power issue, don't think diffusion and ln2 trap would get it. Need electron optics, which I guess you could make or buy somewhere used but I wold have to learn how to design. Not sure what to do for cathode but presume I could buy a bright point source somewhere. Detector may need to be cooled- I guess if you want to do energy analysis maybe a cooled CCD or something but just for simple counting secondaries a piece of window screen for energy filter and phosphor+PMT may do. I presume it isn't hard to get drive electronics to make a raster and I don't need a CRT display, I can digitize and show on PC directly.

I understand you can build things by hands, so was I, but this does not work with electron microscopes, they are the most complex (room-size) machinery I ever worked with. It is not like building a laser or telescope from scratch, which is a matter of a day. Without going into detail, please trust me you must have practice (full alignment + maintenance, not only "user-style" mode) with an operating microscope. No, my lab. is research, not private. Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal? I'm not even sure if you need vibration isolation of any significance- you could probably weld a basic vacuum tank together but I guess you need to get samples in and out. Any alignment you can probably do with computer now or do you still have a home convergence setup for your TV set? The bulk is all the vaccum junk- don't think you could use a diff pump without a source of LN2 and don't know if they will deliver to residence but I would like to have all my walls coated with silicone oil LOL. Not even sure what kinds of pictures you get at 10-6 but turbo pump may be cheap or does that vibrate too much? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The biggest deal is all hardware bits are non-standard. You either go to company and they charge you a lot or use junk, which would finally give you same micron-scale resolution you'll get with usual optical microscope. We've built operational cathodoluminescence setup from scratch, with beam focusing of only 100 microns .. Vacuum is the easiest part there. Proper (not TV-level) electron optics is tough. BTW, sample preparation (not SEM, but transmission mode) is difficult too. You've got to go through the whole cycle - sample prep, microscope alignment, observation, maintenance (that what all our post-docs do when they arrive), only then you may laugh (at your own blunders, which will happen every day :-) Materialscientist (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep talking about resolution- I think the optics wouldn't be that difficult but would require some learning and hopefully use of computers for design and even active compensation may make things easier ( fiefox keeps hanging, I have to reboot more later).

Read this (free download), for starters. The author is the God in STEM optics - he designed it all. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep talking about TEM, I don't seen any knives advertized on TV sharp enough for sample prep LOL. There has to be something you can do with computers for electron optics and detection. The really cool thing is that even if you have 10nm resolution, most of the components are macroscopic. You can make most of this junk from roof flashing and other stuff you can buy in a hardware store- you can probably even compensate for a lot of tolerancing/slop/drift with active control loops. I guess that would be a target- 10 to 50nm resolution. If the optics don't work I'll use it for LEED LOL... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Don't understand the speedy tag, esp. as you're claiming it's an advert! It cleary meets the notability guidelines for a film (screened at Cannes, no less), and stars Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson! Do you know anything about Nordic cinema or the criteria for WP:SD? Lugnuts (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestive, not conclusive, "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:" " * The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."

Certainly there are some topics that have presumed notability that I don't always personally think are likely to be encyclopedic. As written it seems like an ad, just find some independent sources and it will be fine. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, an advert would be something like "... is a 2009 film, considered the best of the decade. Please come and see this film it is great!!! This film can be viewed at the Odean in London on 19 September. That is an advert...just because you disagree with the subject matter doesn't make it an advert. If you think something is not notable place a {notability} instead. Himalayan 15:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A collection of facts with no indication of notability doesn't suggest it to be anything encyclopedic and the information there doesn't even really assert notability or a reason for it. The ref to cannes, as I understand the relevant criteria and dates in the stub, fails the time frame required as if "hey this got some passing attention when it came out and then faded away." Inheriting notability from notable cast needs to be qualified too of the best you could hope for is merge with the notable cast's bio. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, being a dick about EAR formatting[edit]

Hey, not to bug you, but can I ask why you commonly format your responses at EAR like deletion debates so often? The *bold formatting leads the resulting discussion in a "list" format that I simply can't follow. I don't know if you are doing it intentionally or not, but if there a reason why? Thanks! :-] Fleetflame 20:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Maximum Entropy Production[edit]

I don't know the topic well enough to rewrite the article, thus just cleaned it up. No in-line refs were deleted - only repetitions consolidated. Deleted further reading, yes, because of one-person show and because many are not easily accessible, and because further reading is optional. My intuition it is COI+POV. This topic is hundreds years old and is closed in physics. I know it is "rediscovered" in biology etc, but I do not believe Swenson is the only and key player. My another concern is sources: no any respectable journal. Yes, quite some books, but, after 1980s it became much much easier to publish a chapter in a book or entire book than an article in a good journal. Personal invitation (often without knowing you, just picked up professor title from internet, even Drs.), no review (only style edit) and you get published. A physicist knowing well thermodynamics should have a look at this article. Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re "Team Swenson" - have you put in a RFCU? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vacuum level (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Vacuum level (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unnecessary dab page as there is only one article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)[edit]

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination), which was closed as no consensus and later relisted after a DRV discussion, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on a conflict of interest[edit]

You stated here that you have made "several COI contributions" to Wikipedia and have told other editors to do so as well. It seems you may not understand WP's COI policy, which is stated below.

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. OccamzRazor (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Expert Help on Esoteric Garbage[edit]

Hey, I appreciated your prompt response under the Editor's Assistance section. I am new to this, as I mentioned, and was not 100% clear on your suggestion. How do I request expert assistance? I put up posts on the WikiProject Writing Systems site, on all the sites of individual contributors who claim to speak Arabic. But nobody has responded anywhere, including and especially on the Middle Bronze Age scripts site... I'm pretty close to just quitting the whole process. You'll note that Kwami is a general editor - mostly concentrating on Chinese dialects and writing. My interest was only in this, and in Semitic alphabets; but I am not necessarily a qualified expert. Also, I found the Wiki help pages ... helpful, but pretty confusing regarding processes like these. Is there anything I can clearly do? Because I think Kwami wants me to quit so that he loses the only source of resistance to his unilateral edits. At this point I don't really care as much as I've kind of found enough research to not need Wiki as a first-source (not primary source) in the future anyway. So what do I do? (Thanks) Michael Sheflin (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured that out I think, thanks. I didn't want to clutter the other page more... lol, I guess sorry if that implies I want to clutter your page... The main issue is that everything on that table from the hieroglyphic origins to the actual character relations are pretty hotly disputed across academic literature, with some broader consensus. So. To keep it in its current format with one letter one language is to essentially force a severe editorial exclusion of the scholarly actuality. One conceivable suggestion would be to have either different tables or different column blocs for the few published hypotheses. The other problem is that the table is Colless's (explicitly) though he has only published partial hypotheses for the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions (the distinction is place and dating; he's only published on those inscriptions found in the Sinai Peninsula). So keeping one table in one article about two bodies of work is somewhat disingenuous.

This does create the problem that the only two published accounts are a) an Orientalist who published almost a hundred years ago; and b) an Egyptologist not really qualified to publish how he did. Re: b) I pointed out that this man now guides charter jet flights to tourist destinations in Egypt and maintains that the script is from 1800 BC though it has never been dated (this would make it the oldest provable alphabetic inscription and thus a world famous find). As for the first, you are correct that despite the fact that the rest of his field of study is increasingly seen as not credible and racist by the peoples they in fact study, it should be included - both actually should. But this table includes neither. It only includes the unrelated Colless account that is applied to those other inscriptions found in Sinai (and generally dated later). Additionally, he has not even published on his blog about Wadi el-Hol but has compiled almost all the information seen on Wikipedia as pertaining to me as part of what he sent me in an email about his future publication. So... the largest amount of material included now (on Wikipedia) is effectively the unpublished ramblings of a fringe 'academic,' who's published I think maybe 3-5 articles in one journal about the Sinai scripts. Yet the table is on a questionably aggregated article for both passing it all off as fact to people not interested in doing all this research. That's my issue with it. Thanks for joining the fray of this lobotomy zone! Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's move this to the article talk page. I'm never really sure what wiki does with qualifications as the issues involve notability and "reliability" which generally has to do with secondary sources- if a primary source was noted by secondary sources known to be reasonably reliable at getting primary sources right, it could qualify for inclusion. Truth and accuracy and morality are not factors which wikipedia should address and in fact these theories about the past are hard to sort out. Consider something like Creation Science- thought to be fringe by scientific merit and current popularity but it has its own page and within the context of that page it may make it easier to put controvesia topics into context. I argued there that the topic is notable and "fringe" would relate to prominence within the topic. So, I guess if you have multiple unreconciliable theories on your topic you could have separate articles. In any case, unpublished works can't make it into wiki as verification is a basic requirement. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: paul luu article[edit]

Re your message: No, I stopped really reading around the third or fourth paragraph and then skipped to the bottom before I hit delete. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Bannerman High School[edit]

Secondary schools are generally regarded as automatically notable, even without third-party references, so tagging ones such as [Bannerman High School]] for notability isn't useful. Articles on high schools almost never get deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, unless there are copyright issues oir the article is a hoax. Articles about schools below the secondary level are typically merged into the articles for their locality or school district, unless notability can be demonstrated. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I originally reacted to the vandalism but the whole rest of the aricle seemed to be trivial detail, irrespective of inherent notability. The talk page mentioned something about an apparently derogatory term "ned" that seemed to be a ( legit ) part of article for a while. I couldn't figure it out so I just thought I'd flag with the first thing that came to mind. In any case it almost seems to make fun of the school based on the selection of observations, and that has nothing to do with the autism unit which done better may have been a notable feature. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide[edit]

I don't think the article about Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide is an advertisement. Part of the way notability is established for books is through reviews in newspapers and magazines, and the comments from reviewers are a legitimate part of the article. You are welcome to improve the article, of course. I added a review from The New York Times. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, it contained a lot of puffery and something that read like an ad. Maybe it can be fixed and there is nothing wrong with highlighting reviews, it is the overuse of unencyclopedic ad claims. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Outing on EAR[edit]

I deleted the post. Outing requires oversight, not just redacting and if you look in the histoy you will see those edits are no longer accessible. There was no need whatsoever to reveal the users real name and profession, despite their claim it is public - it is not public on his Wikipedia page and that's all that counts. SpinningSpark 00:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought he reposted without outing and while certainly irate may not have known policies etc. OK, that does make sense but I guess with a situation like that with IP issues and other business/personal things wasn't sure if anything important buried in there. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The first post was definitely outing. Then I called in oversight and they deleted the second one themselves before I read it so I couldn't say whether or not it was outing, but presumably it was. What is on the page now is their third attempt, under a different account because I blocked the first one. SpinningSpark 00:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is "them". The third "attempt" was posted under username just to keep a better track of this. We didn't know you blocked the IP. We didn't know about "outing" rule and would gladly edit the original post if asked (it was deleted instead). There was no "outing" in second post -- editor was mentioned by his Wikipedia name which is public. Our second post was deleted nonetheless...
Nycfoto98 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)NYCfoto98
Actually, you still used my last name when you wrote "We haven't attempted to contact Mr....", but you probably didn't realize it. Again, you were played by someone looking to start trouble on this site, and what they did hurt your case further and made people antagonistic toward you; that's unfair, but you also chose to believe them instead of politely contacting me directly. If you know who they are, I suggest you report them to this message board. -->David Shankbone 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see that we forgot to remove your name from the middle of the post. I hope you understand that it was not done on purpose. The whole "outing" issue came from the email content that we provided. We had no intention to "out" anyone. Editor could have removed your name from the sentence or notified us about it, instead the post has been deleted and IP blocked, which is a hostile one-sided approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycfoto98 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Relevant links removed from numerous articles[edit]

Our post was finally accepted, after all references to the editor have been removed... You can see it in Editor Assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycfoto98 (talkcontribs) 03:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Flashpoint Studios[edit]

Instead of restoring the PROD tag, you can nominate the article for deletion. WP:AFD outlines the process. Note that I've started one for his other COI article, Kevin Carvell. (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests#External links and the Godess Cybele SpinningSpark 18:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Law of maximum entropy production[edit]

"The Cybernetics of Complex Systems: Self-Organization, Evolution, and Social Change" by Intersystems, ed. Geyer 1991 appears as a rare collection of articles. It exists, and I speculate that a failed request to have a copy of the article by Swenson there, only reflects the rarity. Same comment may apply to some of his other articles. While searching, I came across a couple of websites apparently self-published by Swenson. IMO, this all might indicate attempts to spread his message, but a superficial look does not reveal an out-of-line behavior. Materialscientist (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nerdseeksblonde. You have new messages at Template_talk:Hoax#No_.22about.3D.22_attribute_or_other_qualifieds.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Table-top TEM/STEM/SEM[edit]

Low voltage electron microscope is what I was talking about. Materialscientist (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that you could build at home if you could get the electro optics corrected enough to make it worthwhile. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Interesting work. A few things to clarify, though:

  1. How is it invoked?
  2. What does it do that adds to or improves on existing tools, particularly user:dibberiuser:diberri's tool and user:Citation bot?
  3. The format produced by dibberi's tool is widely used for biomedical articles per WP:MOSMED#Citing medical sources. For best compatibility, please reconsider the use of last= and first= vice author=, as this introduces odd separators. Earlier efforts at explicitly stating the separators to use have been less than completely successful.
  4. There's no need for year= if it is already included in the date= parameter. The templates handle this for us already.

Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I have no idea what existed and I changed my format after the bot fixed my old one. I just had a journal template I tried to use. All this does is take the XML file

from an eutils search and create a file of wiki citations and abstracts that you can edit locally or upload enmasse for others to examine. the idea is to make it easy for others who may know about the topic to contribute without much cut/paste mechanical stuff. I find it easier to delete citations that match pubmed rather than re-type. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so mainly used as a single pass, for starting fresh articles in a sandbox then? I'd suggest checking out the others and comparing notes with their maintainers. You might toss a short notice on Template talk:Citation and Template talk:Cite journal. Smith, Iberri, and Eubulides will almost certainly have useful input for you. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Wheat[edit]

Hello Nerdseeksblonde, I updated the article that I created-Natasha Wheat, with an article from the Oregonian newspaper. This is my first wiki article, and you marked it for deletion. Please let me know if there is anything else I should change. I am not clear why you said this was being used as social networking, as it has multiple links to sites other than those of the artist. Please let me know how to go forward. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyPortland (talkcontribs) 19:34, 5 November 2009

Further reading sections[edit]

I noticed in a few articles you've created very large "Further reading" sections. Could you trim the lists? Wikipedia:Further reading says such lists should have a "reasonable number of recommended publications", and WP:EL says "long lists of links are not acceptable". You can move them to the talk page if you want future editors to benefit from the lists. Shubinator (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The articles are stubs and the citations constitute all the sources on pubmed likely to pertain to a topic. I originally had these as citations and was adding text, someone else moved them to "further reading". Putting them on a separate page would make it more difficult for an editor to insert them into text. They are slowing being sorted and the process is quite simple with one window. If you want to move them into the article or can say with high probability based on content a citation is unhelpful, feel free to move that citation to talk page, comment out in main page, or even delete it. But, the point is to provide help to contributors who know something about the topic while providing a useful stub to the reader. These are generally quite specialized topics and anything that can encourage a knowledgeable editor while being helpful to the reader should be considered.
You'd also need to think about what "long" means. I guess we could make a new catagory for those links but removing them en masse may not get anyone to sort them based on content. So, if you make an informed edit based on content/topic rather than bureacracy that would be great, otherwise let's see if we can do something other than impede potential editors. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
If you can avoid modifiying articles based soley on some bureaucratic criteria ( those that could be applied by a bot or a clerk in some agencies) I think that would help. For example, objecting to the number of links in a stub is fine- if you can decide which ones should stay then add text and move them in or discard them based on content. But, if you read somewhere that "wiki doesn't allow long lists" and you decided gee this list looks long, you will only arbitraryily remove resources from the reader and make it harder for the few volunteers who know something about the material to make better article. Also, did you look at the pages of discussion that related to this move and where I announced by plan to do this and got no opposition? Clearly some order is helpful, and there are bots for that. Go read the discussion before moving a bunch of stuff around- if the policies were that clear someone could write a bot for this. We are trying to get rid of that article and the last decision of "merge" seemed to mean it would go away. The talk page is a resource we don't want to drop. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
A list like those you've added are not helpful to the reader. And you can provide help to contributors and volunteers by putting it on the talk page. Keep in my mind the vast majority of readers are not experts on the topic; that's why they're here. Comments that only editors that know an article's subject well should edit an article are unhelpful. All editors are also readers and can make judgments on readability.
About the page move: a merge does not result in any talk page content being removed. Moving the page to its original spot was a common sense issue, not an issue of policy. Appeal to WP:AN or WP:ANI if you feel my move was wrong. Shubinator (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually tried this? It sounds dumb but that means you need to open two edit windows to copy/paste the citations. The citations were computer generated and when I get time it is easy to move them into text or delete or save as "further reading." Knowledge levels vary, see my comments about experts on Metformin talk page as well as addiitonal lists I've added on talk pages. For stubs with obscure but notable topics, these larger-than-normal lists are probably ok for now. I'm not sure many new people even know about talk pages and if you are a casual reader with some background one of the cited titles may be what you are after. I'm certainly open to ideas here but given the desire to get knowledgable editors, anything that makes it easier should be considered. It is easier to have a literature reviewe and delete

than go some place like pubmed and format citations by hand. I have a computer program that does all that, editors can usually find a delete key when they know what they are doing. If you just delete everything that seems to fit a bureaucratic criterion I'm pretty sure that will help no one. So, even commenting them out on main page may obscure useful information until a topic aware editor can finish sorting them out. I will add them to text time permitting, and that was going well as originally they were ALL further reading. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question (Have you actually tried this?) is referring to. If you're talking about using multiple windows, yes, I usually have multiple Wikipedia tabs open.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Scientific review articles are supposed to have tons of "further reading"; encyclopedia articles aren't. For both readers and editors, a large list like that is discouraging and does not help. And that's exactly what a talk page is for: in-depth material that's not accessible to the reader that later editors might incorporate into the article.
Also, I've said this before, but I'll try and be a little clearer. We're all here to improve the encyclopedia. When I make comments like "the further reading lists are too long", rest assured I'm not checking for "bureaucratic criterion"; I do notice that it's unhelpful to the reader. Just because I link to Wikipedia guidelines when making suggestions does not mean I'm a robot. So please refrain from the "bureaucratic" comments. Shubinator (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then let's improve and discuss. Your comments suggest you haven't really tried to understand the topics or approach this from either the POV of a potential contributor or reader. I use wiki regularly and have tried to start several articles. I've never found extra links to be a problem if there is no one with the time to tell me what I really need- it is much harder to find or tpe than reject or delete. If the option is have nothing there or have too much, I always leave too much until an editor, not bot, finds some criteria for an edit. I'm not really sure what is discouraging here. Certainly more filtering would be better, and if you want to filter and put those in the right place, including the garbage fine, but the stub is on top for people who are content with that and the other stuff is there if they want that too. I just spent another 14 minutes waiting for fire fox to echo my keys because I opened a PDF file in another window- don't assume that extra windows are free, wiki isn't bad but many forum editors and other sources are implmented in a lazy and gluttonous manner, a little parsimony can go a long way.... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
How do my comments suggest I haven't tried to understand the issue from the point of view of an editor or a reader? To the contrary, I've explicitly said For both readers and editors, a large list like that is discouraging. There is such a thing as too much information, especially in an encyclopedia. In response to I'm not really sure what is discouraging here, have you ever gone looking for broad information about a topic, only to find very specific analysis that's indecipherable? Also, extra windows are free ... one more Wikipedia tab open will not slow down any browser. If you wish to put your search results somewhere so others can use it, why not do it on the talk page?
You haven't provided a compelling reason why the talk page is such a bad place to put the list. The arguments you've made are 1) editors won't find it (not true, that was the first place I looked my first week as an editor) and 2) another open window is a pain (it's much more of a pain to have the list in mainspace). Shubinator (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are looking at what I am doing, you will note I have been putting some classes of references onto talk pages- Vitamin-k,metfomin, some earlier ones etc. I think the articles you are are concernd about, as you stated, are one I started myself that have clearly lacked significant input from anyone. But, I'm not sure how an encyclopedia can address an audience that finds information more discouraging than ignorance- all of the information is potentially relevant and until a more complete article is written it serves as a list from which people can look for more details. These wikipedia windows aren't normally that expensive but they aren't free and personally switching between windows can be more confusing than scrolling ( although I admit having one window scrolled to a given citation and another to text can have benefits which would be the scenario you suggest). However, let's say you are new but have done a lot of work on the topic, it may not sound like a big deal but you really only need to find one tab to edit a single page as opposed to finding the talk page and beginning to edit both etc. I no, not a big deal but again in the absence of a concise article, quality bibliography is presumably more encyclopedic than ignorance and again personally sometimes scanning a list of references gives me an idea etc etc. You do seem to agree that a list like this is helpful, and indeed I'm not sure of an easy way other than the code I have to take a compreshesive search result from pubmed eutils and make a wiki biblio in 2 lines of commands.

632 eutilsnew -v -xml -out xxx 'vitamin k calcification kidney ckd'

633 wikiutil -wikifmt abstract -med2wiki xxx | unix2dos > /dev/clipboard

634 eutilsnew -v -out xxx 'parsley'

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the lists are "quality bibliography". The very fact that they're copied & pasted from a search suggests the results aren't quality. Wikipedia readers do prefer information over ignorance, but what you've presented is a false dilemma. There is a level of further reading that's appropriate, but what you've added to articles is stretching it. Have you never been overwhelmed by information? Shubinator (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Each source is likely to have been peer reviewed and you are welcome to find better. I grant there are more than a concise summary would probably require but it takes 10 seconds to scroll through them reading titles until someone knowledgeable can edit it. You can check edit histories on those stubs and see how sources are moved up as text is added. Wikipedia has lots of empty stubs, these are least provide more than a raw pubmed search, certainly more than goog scholar, and are easy to fix. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi there; when you are warning editors that their article is being speedy-nominated, it is better to avoid this[[3]] type of edit summary. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The link you provided is DOA. What was the issue? Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk)
Sorry. It's a matter of distingushing non-notable from spam.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Tx for your helpful input at the RS noticeboard. I don't know why only the third of the refs seems to be showing up, but among the first two refs is the actually speech, put out by Homeland Security.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD notifications[edit]

Hello Nerdseeksblonde. When you nominate an article for speedy deletion, don't forget to notify also the original page creator, please. I posted relevant information at User talk:Benchevalier. The preloaded notice you can find at the bottom of the CSD tag. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bolognia push 2009[edit]

Would you consider making sure wikipedia has articles on every dermatologic condition. There are many new articles and redirects to be made, and we at WP:DERM are looking for more help! I can e-mail you the login information if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • While the list of cutaneous conditions is all blue links, there are many conditions that still need to be added. We are trying to create stubs on all missing cutaneous conditions, using Bolognia as a guide. Perhaps you could help us crawl through the online edition of Bolognia? Maybe there is some way to automate the process? ---kilbad (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I replied to you on my talk page, and also sent you an e-mail about how to login to the Bolognia source online. ---kilbad (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your user name[edit]

Hi, does your user name refer to an inside joke or something? It seems strange to limit yourself to a particular hair color. Just curious. Viriditas (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, I was doing some testing on a dating site and thought the name was funny. Why do women change their hair color if this seems odd to you? LOL. Also, it has a certain amount of implied and abnormal honesty so it is aproppos no? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans[edit]

I posted a couple photos of this condition at the medicine talk page. Perhaps we could collaborate to make this article a DYK? ---kilbad (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That list of pubmed citations was about all I have here. You can use that tool with diferent words and find your own bibliographies to get a quick overview of the most scientific literature. It is possible that skin diseases come up in other contexts, I dunno what besides medical literature to contribute. Not sure it is like leprosy or plague, but I have put the bibliography on talk page and don't have much else to add. You may be able to find US gov works in those or those that otherwise has usable images for further illustration. Certain micrographs come to mind, not sure if histology is all that interesting etc.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


If you have a moment, could I get your input regarding acronyms in the list of cutaneous conditions? Thanks again for all your help! ---kilbad (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move[edit]

Hi Nerdseeksblonde. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you do your magic?[edit]

I am looking to get the list of sections that make up Rook's Textbook of Dermatology (see [4]). Restated, if you look at the link I provided to the google book version, if you use the "content" link located on the top middle of the page, I am looking for that type of listing, only complete. I ask for this, because I would like to use the outline of Rook's as a guide for the cutaneous conditions article, which is currently a real mess. Can you help me with this? ---kilbad (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can get it into text I can reformat it pretty easily but otherwise I'm not sure what to do. Often it is easier to contact author for a prep-print or manuscript than sort through these things. If you already have a text list that just needs to be reformatted that is easy if you can pickout the pieces you have with some regular expression and similarly describe the target result as some simple rule. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: So I actually found the content outline to Rook's Textbook of dermatology (see [5]) and have used/modified it to start a working outline for the cutaneous conditions article at Talk:Cutaneous_conditions#Working_outline. I intentionally tried to create an outline that does not mirror the list of cutaneous conditions structure because I think providing a different way to organize the information could be helpful. With that being said, how does the outline look to you. What changes do you think should be made, etc. Thanks again for your feedback! ---kilbad (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks but I know nothing about this area and certainly not taxonomy. The best I could do is offer lit search tools to see if anything pops up that makes list or context look wrong. The term cutaneous of course is not precise as you do mention things like veins etc. So, I would be starting with nothing to look at prominence etc. I may be able to pick out things that would strike a casual reader as confusing and find refs at some point and will look from time to time but I'be been busy with other stuff lately and don't have as much dead time waiting for other things to finish ( which allows me

to write some short contributions). Tools of course are easier than authoring. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hemolytic anemia[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nerdseeksblonde. You have new messages at Jfdwolff's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JFW | T@lk 08:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Help importing ICD codes from another site[edit]

Could you help me with my request here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Would_you_help_me_create_four_disease_stubs.3F? ---kilbad (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this possible?[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Could_someone_help_me_get_some_e-mail_addresses.3F ---kilbad (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ pass
  2. ^ pass