:that's very kind of you, however we should collectively thank Doc James for ''leading by example'' for all of us, thank you again, Ozzie--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa#top|talk]]) 11:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
:that's very kind of you, however we should collectively thank Doc James for ''leading by example'' for all of us, thank you again, Ozzie--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa#top|talk]]) 11:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
<br>
:: I definitely agree {{Ping|Doc James}}. Have a nice day! [[User:JenOttawa|JenOttawa]] ([[User talk:JenOttawa|talk]]) 14:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
:: I definitely agree {{Ping|Doc James}}. Have a nice day! [[User:JenOttawa|JenOttawa]] ([[User talk:JenOttawa|talk]]) 14:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your use of Doubled and quadrupled commas, a notation which I have never seen before. If you invented this notation, I am interested in its genesis. It reminds me of Jacqueline Kennedy's letter-writing style (she tended to avoid periods). Perhaps you might illuminate its meaning for me? What I thought of when reading the edit, was that you were thinking multiple phrases that you were intending to fill in later, but then you cut your edit short, leaving the commas. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)16:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
V.Ebola pathogenesisvia infection of endothelial cells causes cytopathic effect which with cytokine effect, can compromise vascular integrity.[1]
Ozzie, if you've the time, go around to the other articles and let them know about the ivote on the title. Drop a note on the talk pages with a link so they will easily get to it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes
ebola article 2, Navarro College ,Texas/(cover)
Might that not be better placed, due to the low relevance of a singe college in Texas in relation to the wider epidemic, in the U.S. sub article instead section "Call for suspension of visas"? As an example of how (not) to quarantine the virus?
Also it doesn't fit with the timeline since the letter was dated to 2 October per Slate.--Alcea setosa (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic HERE. <!-
Template:ANI-notice-->
Thank you.
III.Ebola Virus Protein-Cross-section of the Ebola virus particle[2][3]IV.Ebola Virus from Mali blood sample November 2014 during West Africa Ebola virus epidemic 2014-2016[4]I.Genome of Ebola virus-contains the coding regions, a genome contains genetic information, it consists of RNA.EBOV is about 19,000 nucleotides in length (7 genes, including VP40) single stranded ribonucleic acid.[5][6]II.Ebola virus glycoprotein structure (which includes virion hexamer and transport dimer from VP40 ).[7][8]video/Nature PMC2700032
^Diehl, William E.; Lin, Aaron E.; Grubaugh, Nathan D.; Carvalho, Luiz Max; Kim, Kyusik; Kyawe, Pyae Phyo; McCauley, Sean M.; Donnard, Elisa; Kucukural, Alper; McDonel, Patrick; Schaffner, Stephen F.; Garber, Manuel; Rambaut, Andrew; Andersen, Kristian G.; Sabeti, Pardis C.; Luban, Jeremy (November 2016). "Ebola Virus Glycoprotein with Increased Infectivity Dominated the 2013–2016 Epidemic". Cell. 167 (4): 1088–1098.e6. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.10.014. {{cite journal}}: no-break space character in |first11= at position 8 (help); no-break space character in |first14= at position 9 (help); no-break space character in |first15= at position 7 (help); no-break space character in |first1= at position 8 (help); no-break space character in |first2= at position 6 (help); no-break space character in |first3= at position 7 (help); no-break space character in |first4= at position 5 (help); no-break space character in |first6= at position 5 (help); no-break space character in |first7= at position 5 (help)Primary source per MEDRS however valid source per "Molecular and Cell Biology"
^Hoenen, T.; Safronetz, D.; Groseth, A.; Wollenberg, K. R.; Koita, O. A.; Diarra, B.; Fall, I. S.; Haidara, F. C.; Diallo, F.; Sanogo, M.; Sarro, Y. S.; Kone, A.; Togo, A. C. G.; Traore, A.; Kodio, M.; Dosseh, A.; Rosenke, K.; Wit, E. de; Feldmann, F.; Ebihara, H.; Munster, V. J.; Zoon, K. C.; Feldmann, H.; Sow, S. (3 April 2015). "Mutation rate and genotype variation of Ebola virus from Mali case sequences". Science. 348 (6230): 117–119. doi:10.1126/science.aaa5646. ISSN0036-8075.
Ozzie, I have noticed how willing you are to always help the Ebola article by offering feedback on the talk page. It has made my editing easier and a much more joyful experience. Your sincere efforts to maintain a friendly atmosphere have been very much appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to make sure there weren't any hard feelings about the Ebola article. You're clearly a WP:Good-faith editor, and I don't want to upset or wrong you. The new information about the Liberian infection rate was important and useful, and I hope you don't mind my revising it. I was trying to improve it according to WP:TONE and WP:MOS, as I have needed other editors to fix my own edits.
As to allegations of sockpuppetry, I recognize that I've been unusually active for a new-ish user (evidently I need more of a life). I can totally see where you're coming from, and going to an admin seems like a great response. You're welcome to go through my past and future edits, and follow instructions on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations to report me if you find evidence of misbehavior. Thanks for your efforts!
CONAKRY Hi Ozzie The BBC lead says "Clinical trials to try to find an effective treatment for Ebola patients are to start in West Africa next month." The serum trial hasn't started yet.Bob Robertpedley (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ANI(decision)That's a content dispute. ANI isn't for content disputes.
[6] reviewing this diff though you are correct that his stance is not logical. The material in question was the USA answer and precautions to the Epidemic in west Africa. So it is related and belongs in the article. But that is only my opinion. I think they are suggesting you should put it Ebola virus cases in the United States. This isn't unreasonable. You really just to get with them and talk. Take it to the talk page. If that don't work open an RFC or take it to the appropriate noticeboard. There are plenty of ways to get a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ozzie i did not see your netherlands edit... I have updated it a bit and moved in Alphabetical order.. You may slap my hand, permission granted BrianGroen (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Due to my own dyslexic issues my copy editing skills are next to zero, but i can help provide links to supporting citations and and worldcat IDs for books. I found out about my poor copy editing abilities when i tried ot edit the dyslexia article back in 2009 - 2010. There was a Dyslexia prject set of pages with a few suggested future updates. Not sure if it si still accessable. best wishes dolfrog (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly dated but some of the ideas may be useful Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia and my most recent set of dyslexia links including some research papers can be found on my new Useful Dyslexia links web page which represents more my personal perpsective. Currently I am busy elsewhere but i will try to keep up with your progress with the article dolfrog (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true when it comes to dyslexia the diagnosis is clinical and scientific, the treatment is educational.
That's why my hope is to find a home for the NICHD definition of dyslexia. In 1994 and again in 2002 the IDA lead the Definition Consensus Project in partnership with the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The resulting definition helped align the professional community and laid the groundwork for important public policy initiatives going forward.
Todayl, this definition is the cornerstone for important legislation in the U.S. that is leading to early screening, evaluation and help. It took an extraordinary commitment from a large dedicated team to reach this important milestone and it would be great to find a place on Wikipedia for this important information.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dyslexia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bluerasberry -- Bluerasberry (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 April 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dyslexia, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that dyslexia is the most common learning disability, affecting about 3% to 7% of people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dyslexia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
P-123 dyslexics go by different routes of learning they need "sounds" to ascertain what it is they are saying or being said...in this case it simply means an emphasis on the word..example -the train is coming,,,a dyslexic would say - t-h-e t-r-a-I-n I-s c-o-m-I-n-g to get a full appreciation of the sentence, it isn't easy , thanks for asking--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "sounding out words" in the second sentence is clear enough for the general reader, but I cannot think of a better way to say it the moment. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie.. I think that Perhaps these 3 do need a little rearranging.. Guinea with the lowest cases, but the index case has to stay first, Sierra Leone second sounds good, with Liberia last Mostly because of the total case counts. The daily Case counts must be viewed cautiously, how many times has it happened that case counts slow, just before it resurfaces in a new region. Also i'm concerned about the 'Suspected case' counts that are still increasing, as well as the slowness of reports coming out of Liberia. Then again it wont move to "Contained" until WHO confirms... So I see no real problem with a little reshuffle.. GremlinSA13:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cite MEDDATE in a lot of discussions, so I wanted to take a moment to clarify that "rule". It's meant to be a rule of thumb, rather than an absolute requirement. It doesn't say just "five years"; it says "five years or so", and those last two words matter. It also says that the rule was written for subjects that receive the most attention, like Hypertension, and not for rare diseases or other subjects that don't see much research attention.
What you really want is to consider the last few high-quality secondary sources, which (depending on the subject) might be professional-level books or review articles. We want to take advantage of what MEDDATE calls the "full review cycle": Alice published a review, Bob published a primary study, and Chris read both Alice's and Bob's papers and wrote a new review. If it took ten years to get through a full review cycle, then MEDDATE actually wants ten years, not five. Conversely, if you get three good review articles every month, then MEDDATE would rather than you used this year's or last year's best publications, instead of going back to anything that was no more than four years and 364 days old. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie10aaaa. A notification came up that you asked me a question[14], but I then saw you reverted it so assumed you changed your mind. I only just now noticed that you asked it in another format. I know Jytdog gave an answer at WT:MED#Safety of genetically modified foods, but since that thread is getting quite long and relatively stale I though I would give my 2 cents here. Feel free to move it back there if you think that appropriate.
The interactions between GMOs and the environment then the environment and humans are complicated so a straight answer may be difficult. Some of the main environmental concerns covered at the controversies page are; insects developing resistance, horizontal gene transfer to other plants, death of non-target organisms, loss of biodiversity and secondary pests becoming more prominent. The effect of these on the environment are hard to accurately predict, let alone whether they will have any indirect effect on human health. Glyphosphate-resistant weeds resulting from gene flow are unlikely to develop outside of crops as they do not provide any selective advantage in the wild, but insect resistant ones might. Loss of biodiversity is a problem with all agriculture and so is the death of non-target organisms. Everything is interconnected in some way so I can't honestly say something occurring to environment through genetic engineering will never effect human health at some point. I feel that would be true for any technology though. Most people when thinking about human health and GM food are more concerned with the direct relationship. If I eat this will it be harmful to me. I think the article is better off distinguishing between the environment and human health the way it does.
You gave an example that increased pesticides used on GM crops may lead to increased risk of cancers.[15] The theory being that GMO crops have increased pesticide use and high levels of pesticide are a risk factor for some cancers. Currently there are two main groups of GM crops on the market (Bt crops and glyphosphate resistant crops). Bt crops actually use less pesticide since they are modified to be insect resistant (so need less synthetic pesticide). The Bt toxin itself has been shown through multiple studies to be harmless to humans and even non-target insects[16][17][18]. Glyphosphate is relatively safe to humans (see Glyphosate#Human toxicity) compared to other herbicides. Any chemical application is going to be regulated under various governmental acts designed to keep toxicity levels below a certain level and this will apply to all crops including GMO ones. You also have to take into account that most toxicity studies are done using straight round-up or a similar product, whereas in practice the final food product will at most have only residue of the chemical and in most cases virtually none of the pesticide will remain. Again all this is all regulated (with-holding periods and the like) and not unique to GMO.
Anyway, I am not trying to convince you to become a supporter GM. I don't even really know where you stand on the issue. I personally see huge potential and most of the risks as being speculative, especially those related to human health. I knew a group of researchers that were trying to put vaccines in bananas. One idea being that they could be used to vaccinate kids in regions with unreliable or no power. I think this factor and many other similar ones get overlooked and the discussion is dominated by Monsanto's involvement and much of the opposition is because of them. AIRcorn(talk)05:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on GM food
Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being around on the WP:MED board. I feel like your presence and short comments have encouraged other people to be more forward in sharing their ideas, even brief ones. Also the direct impact of your contributions are a benefit to everyone. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk)14:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate the way you tell people that you've commented on a discussion and encourage them to do the same. Please keep it up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although we have not directly communicated with each other I have followed your diligent, fair and outstanding work towards making Wikipedia work in an otherwise unintelligible labyrinth. WikiProject Medicine is working at its best , better than formerly because of the team work you have promoted. I quit editing last year disappointed but you have tackled the same issue with more success and fairness. Stay vigilant for scholarship and justice! In the meantime have a cherry coke and a cheeseburger from me! Thank your for the vindication of my previous editing work! LeBassRobespierre (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
|}[reply]
Ozzie, I've had your page on my watch list because we work on the Ebola article together. I noticed that you deleted Waid's note. Was it by accident? I've known Waid for years and can hardly say how many times I've gone to her for advise. IMO, she's one of our best editors and I've never seen her to display the arrogance and lack of good intent that is not uncommon for this project. If she tried to help me I'd consider it an honor that she was willing to spend the time on me, a less experienced editor. Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
actually it was to place inline cites on articles that need it, which I will,(some individuals simply have a different way, though she is professional), ,,BTW now that I have your attention I wanted you to know its always been a pleasure to work with you (and I spoke with Brian he added some info to the article...he's OK), --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your work on the Cerebral amyloid angiopathy article is excellent and has made the encyclopedia a better place for medical content. Thank you for your hard work - it is noticed and appreciated. Best Regards, Bfpage |leave a message21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"On the same day, the tree were the outbreak began, was identified.[20]" That reference is about Liberia, so should I move it out of the Guinea section? Art LaPella (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can I barrow your thoughts? Comment /Collaboration of the Month/(wikiproject med)^
I have been working on Stab wound for a little bit and I am working to get it up to GA status hopefully but I really am sort of limited in what else I can add. It is a very niche subject and I have juiced all my sources dry. If you have a moment would you mind taking a look at it and giving your input? Anything is valued. Peter.C • talk • contribs14:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to thank you for all fo the hard work you put into MG over the past week, we have made a lot of progress. What else do you think we need to tackle before trying for GA? Peter.C • talk • contribs20:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, before I do that though I want to try to find a proper source for the physical exam, probably need to find a review article from Up-To-Date or some other source. Will also try to expand the lead a slight bit and remove the refs to conform to MEDMOS. Will try to nom by the end of day. Also - know any good CE who could do a quick run through of it? Peter.C • talk • contribs14:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You recently edited the article on Heyde's syndrome and added a lot of 'medical reference needed' tags with no explanation or anything else. Could you please check the talk page for that article and let me know what I need to change? There are a lot of old references in the text, but I think they are valuable. Thanks for your help. Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page looks so good compared to this morning, great job! If you need any more help(on anything), just let me know, I am glad to help you out! XxX ellen
Hi, I've uploaded an image to commons for this article, but being new to this stuff I wasn't able to provide necessary information on the copyrights status. The image actually is all around the internet and I'm fairly sure it's free. An admin on the commons told me that my only chance is to contact the original creator and ask for permission. I traced the image to here.(NYtimes article attributes it to them) But I was unable to find the image on that site, nor could I find the creator of the image.(though I found who the eye belonged to) I'm overwhelmed by the amount of work this needed and I feel like it's a newbie mistake. Is there an easy way to do this? The image obviously not essential, but I think it would be nice to have it. Hope you have time, thanks in advance. Darwinian Ape talk21:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time to reach out to me regarding my article. I do have a question regarding the Clinical studies section. I happen to have the clinical study documentation on hand, but I'm not sure these have actually been published online. How do I cite this properly? Can I just include the study title, ref number date and company that conducted the study? Thanks for your help. James Schultz (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article about Medical Citations and it stated that studies where animal test subjects are used do not qualify as a "Clinical Study" and should be referred to as "Pre-Clinical Studies". Each of these studies were conducted on laboratory animals. Should I list them as "Pre-Clinical" rather than "Clinical"? Thanks James Schultz (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James Schultz (in response to both posts) ...yes you may list them consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles but first it needs to be PubMed indexed, (it needs to not be a primary study only with exceptions, are they included per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)), any article (journal) needs to be a review or meta-analysis thus a secondary source (I should point out that it is important that you not have a conflict of interest with the article either as primary, secondary or corresponding author)....you may also use a source such as a position statement from CDC,WHO,HHS,NIH and so forth or a medical textbook, please feel free to ask should there be any questions, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ozzie10aaaa. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the initial studies referred to were primary studies conducted for a particular manufacturer. In any event, I have removed them and found some on ClinicalTrials.gov. I only used completed studies with documented results. Thanks again for your help. If you have further suggestions to improve the article, I'd really appreciate it. James Schultz (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on my WikiProject Medicine Announcement. Is this something you would be interested in participating in? Not sure of your location- or would the project or the Wikipedia Foundation support or sponsor someone involved to attend and present? Feel free to contact me or pass along this request to others who might be interested/available on-wiki or by email (richardjam *at* gmail *dot* com) Richardjames444 (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richardjames444 ...while I do live in Florida, I would probably have little problem attending (Spring 2016)...in regards to Wikipedia Foundation and funding probably DocJames would be most knowledgeable, in the meantime I will in fact pass this along to a couple of editors which should be interested...thank you for this very kind gesture--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are to be commended for your tireless work on the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article. You are one of the few that have been willing to not only work on the article when the epidemic first broke out but to keep the article up-to-date with your timely addition of new information. Thanks Ozzie! Gandydancer (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very much for the very kind holiday wishes. You always so kind and courteous toward me - your positive attitude has a lot to do with my continued editing. Best Regards,
Thank you for the xmas greetings. Dont take this the wrong way, but the bright red is so bright, and fugly, that I'm going to remove it as it hurts my eyes. It was nice of you though, thanks. -Roxy the dog™woof17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for your recent edits to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. I see that a broken reference has appeared in the intro to the article. I had a quick try at fixing it, but just made things worse, so I reverted my change. Could you please take a look to see if you can make a better fix? -- The Anome (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hearing from the elves that you've been a little worried about how Santa's list is looking for you. They say he's almost done with his second check, and so far it looks like you've hardly been naughty at all! Thanks for the work you do and the help and nice words that you have shared with me. You have brought joy into my work here.
I want to thank you for all your constructive edits to my editing in the past. The article I created, Neonatal infection is scheduled to appear on Main page sometime in the "Did you know..." section in about a week. If you would like to help make it even better, please feel free to polish it up with me. Thanks again and Best Regards,
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.
I was about to respond to the RFC re: Deepak Chopra under your comment, but I wanted to make sure I'm doing it right first... Am I supposed to reply directly on Talk:Deepak Chopra or is there a separate page like for AFDs? Also, is that the right place to go into detail about anything in the lead that I have an issue with or do you think it's only for discussing POV issues? Sorry this is a dumb question. I guess I never participated in in an AFC before. Permstrump (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you think over your position concerning the pertinence of the image on bipolar disorder. It is present in numerous sources and strongly associated with the topic. CFCF 💌📧11:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. /(wikiproject med)^
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey/(wikiproject med)^
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you so much for taking the initiative to tidy up the article on medullary cystic kidney disease. I did not expect such a rapid response from anyone. Though I've been on Wikipedia for quite a long time, I still consider myself a newbie, and so I'm still learning proper etiquette. Thanks man! NJ (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie10aaaa, I just had to remove the transclusion of a non-existent nomination template for this article from the DYK nominations page. You'll want to consult the DYK instructions for nominators and follow the steps there. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. You have seven days to complete the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind: I've restored it—I just saw your post on the DYK talk page, and fixed the nomination template. I'm still not sure how you managed to get one name for the template page and another inside that very same template, but it's all set now. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and would like to ask for advice from a top medical contributor. The page I've been editing is Dan Riskin. I think the page is ready to move out of draft space. Would you be willing to help me by reviewing it, providing feedback as needed, and moving it out of draft space if you think it's ready? I've been seeing a lot of bad information on people involved in value-based healthcare and would like to put up real, fact-based content. If I'm successful in this one, I want to move on to other key figures in the field. Thank you so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NimbleToad (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your comments! I'm only related in that I also work in value-based healthcare and am frustrated by how many people are claiming credit for hard work from a relatively small group of people. I'd like to put up pages for key people. I'll work on adjusting the article so it reflects why the figure is notable and only lists fact-based commentary. If those changes are made, is it a reasonable next step to move it out of draft space?NimbleToad (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Your revisions are great and make the page much more readable. I updated formatting and added citations where missing. I don't see any objection on the talk page. Could I ask you to please help in moving this out of draft space? NimbleToad (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've asked colleagues and they feel the information is balanced and represents important history as we go through rapid changes in health policy and clinical data use. Unfortunately, I don't know other Wikipedia editors to leave comments. I haven't seen any objections to move the page out of draft space. Once this is done, I'd like to go on to work on John Halamka, another influential individual in the field. Thanks for helping me to learn the process! NimbleToad (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I don't have permission to move this out of draft space. You offered to move it out of draft space as long as there is consensus on the talk page. You've made the article much stronger and there have been no objections in talk. Could you please help with the move out of draft space? Thanks! NimbleToad (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[32]posted at wikiproject med(if no answer, then ill have to move article, there should be more comments) in the future please comment at talk/article THX--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ozzie10aaaa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I just taught an online Wikipedia class at Wikipedia:Cochrane online classes October 2016. I told the participants to check in at WP:MED for support. It happened that you responded to many of the participants. Thank you so much for that.
Thanks for all your help re Influenza vaccine and health care workers. I will have time to sit down and go through your suggested references tonight. I greatly appreciate the helpful and positive feedback. JenOttawa (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Season's greetings and best wishes for the coming year. (I guess that Santa felt that his reindeer needed a little rest before heading home.) Sincerely, Gandy
Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
Comprehensiveness.
(a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
(b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
(a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
(b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly
Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process
Over the last 4 years a number of us have been worked to improve all 414 medicines on this list. The leads of each item now provides a decent well referenced overview of the subject in question and an article exists for each of the medicines / combinations. The WHO just released an image under an open license for use to us. World Health Day is April 7th and 2017 also marks the 40 anniversary of the EML. Would be nice to get this ready for the main page for that date. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 4- African trypanosomiasis........ Medicines for the treatment of 1st stage African trypanosomiasis...seems to be "two" headers, would you be willing to merge or get rid of one of them?
Criterion 5- a.consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, makes good use of text layout, minimal redlinks
b.could use between 2-5 images to bring more interest in the "list" for our readers?
I came across Paratonia on the WP:MED assessment page, someone's recently rewritten it and would like some help with getting the ugly tags off. They've said they're an expert in the field - could you please say hi to them? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking the page on paratonia. I read the guidelines for references and citations, unfortunately there are no secondary sources available (maybe in the future I will publish a review!), what I wrote is the best I can doLuciomarinelli (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[53]the second link, indicates all books that are available(and more) if you go to next page[54](even if you feel the first link/book[55] I indicated was not satisfactory, thank you...have posted at article talk as well)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...the esteem with which Doc is held at WP Medicine, and I share it. But when entering a complex discussion, is it not better to fully understand the issues involved, before taking a side (even with as easy as voting and side-taking is here)? Your work on the various of your editing projects makes clear you are capable of sophisticated and subtle understanding. The issues of our allowing self-published medical imagery (and the associated matter of our seeming lack of concern for patient consent) are things that could sink the ship. Please, if engaging there, read through the arguments and examples, and them vote. Thank you. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. This is just a friendly reminder that you should try to use edit summaries more often. For instance, in theseedits you added and removed over 30,000 bytes. I see that you were just moving stuff around, but you easily could have explained that. That's all. Thanks for your contributions to that article! (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
There is no need to discuss edits before they are made, per WP:BOLD; they should be discussed after they are reverted though, per WP:BRD. This looks to be a content dispute rather than disruptive editing. GiantSnowman13:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This newsletter starts with the motto "common endeavour for 21st century content". To unpack that slogan somewhat, we are particularly interested in the new, post-Wikidata collection of techniques that are flourishing under the Wikimedia collaborative umbrella. To linked data, SPARQL queries and WikiCite, add gamified participation, text mining and new holding areas, with bots, tech and humans working harmoniously.
Scientists, librarians and Wikimedians are coming together and providing a more unified view of an emerging area. Further integration of both its community and its technical aspects can be anticipated.
While Wikipedia will remain the discursive heart of Wikimedia, data-rich and semantic content will support it. We'll aim to be both broad and selective in our coverage. This publication Facto Post (the very opposite of retroactive) and call to action are brought to you monthly by ContentMine.
Sorry, the snowball clause doesn't work like that. If ten people had turned up to agree with you and nobody had disagreed then you might be able to argue that it could be closed early under the snowball clause, but one person isn't going to lead to an early closure. The discussion will be either closed or relisted after a week as per the usual procedure. Hut 8.520:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Participate our study to help recruit editors forWPMED?/(wikiproject med)^
Hi Ozzie10aaaa,
Thank you for responding my post on WPMED about our study, and hope you are interested in it. I wonder if you'd like to participate our study to recruit editors we recommend for WPMED? Please check out my user talk page for participation, and let me know if you have any question. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the new Cochrane-Wikipedia Editors/(wikiproject med)^
Thanks for your help with those new Cochrane Editors. Cochrane ran an editing workshop and it looks like they drummed up some interest.
How did you reply to the person who did not sign their page? I have not figured out that trick :)
I will be away from my internet for a couple of days, but will be following up with these people and will support them as new editors.
Thanks again for all your friendly assistance and support in my own Wikipedia editing initiatives.
If you are removing large pieces of content in an article, in order to replace them elsewhere in the article, please remember to leave an edit summary to that effect, so it will not be mistaken for vandalism. GMGtalk12:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie: why did you remove my information about ulnar neuropathy? I’ve been treating it for many years. Can we discuss this? That was not added lightly or spur of the moment.
Asherah12 Asherah12 (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie: Why did you revert the placement of Mechanisms in Dysautonomia? I moved it because the section followed rather than preceded "The symptoms of Dysautonomia, which are numerous and vary widely for each individual, are due to inefficient or unbalanced efferent signals sent via both systems." The Mechanisms section explains "both systems"; it doesn't make sense to place the section after the reference. Shinju (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ozzie10aaaa. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
According to the OMIM review on GSD IXd, Burwinkel et al. (2003) is the last word from the medical research community on the genetics of GSD IXd. Yeah, I know, that is kinda unsatisfactory – but then again, as I have written here, GSD IX is quite rare. If you have more extensive reviews, or newer research, I am all ears, and more than willing to include that – in the meantime, could you be so kind and re-revert your revert? Tony Mach (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this to the infobox is misleading. It is clear from the article that it is NOT an inherited disease. Familial (or, rather, on the latest theory, commensal), but not genetic. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from one of these pages you cite that there is disagreement among the primary sources. One ".. concluded that purely environmental, mendelian dominant, and mendelian recessive hypotheses of causation could be rejected." I repeat: adding this to the infobox misrepresents what the secondary sources are saying. It is not even certain that there is a genetic component at all. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me and for leaving a Christmas message. I hope that you have a very nice holiday and I am looking forward to seeing you on WikiProject Med in 2018.
Warm regards,
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
they could be placed together, however if the reader sees that one is at least, a subsection(=== ===)of the other to better define the difference it would be good... having said that should you feel strongly about joining both w/out any 'differentiation' I would agree and understand--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ozzie10aaaa, not sure why you removed the external links from this article, as this is one place where they are deemed to be appropriate. Were they in some way flawed? Let me know, as I just replaced them in the relevant "External links" section.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I see you commented at the top of the discussion in Antibiotics Talk
I wonder if you could come back and lay eyes on the reference in question and comment on whether it's a reliable biomedical secondary source per WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. I haven't made a lot of edits, so I may be applying my professional understanding inappropriately, but it seems like all four of the references I referred to in talk are considered reliable secondary sources here as well. You've been around for a while, so if you look at the actual references and say they're not, then I know i've misunderstood. If I can get some consensus on whether those sources are appropriate, then it will be worth my time to rewrite as suggested in talk. If not, I won't bother.
Here are the additional references mentioned in talk. I'll use web links here:
Science, a news article (on the topic in general, not on the previous perspectives article)
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5935/1637.long
Please let me know if requesting a comment in this way isn't appropriate. I'm new at making edits, and I want to make sure any contributions I make to the community are done in the right way! Dbhall200:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have noticed you have a tendency to add archives to talk pages. For example here and here. May I ask why you do this? Or if there is a specific guideline I can read about this? WP:ARCHIVE notes in the lead that when a Talk page exceeds 75,000 bytes it is recommended to archive per the talk page guidelines. Linked examples above were just 14,000 and 21,000 bytes respectively. --Treetear (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so..if we look at[75] and then Help:Archiving_a_talk_page the first sentence indicates... It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers....the last discussion on that page was Aug. 2015(2.5 years ago)[76]....the aforementioned 'archive help page' further indicates ,However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. If we use the same first quote with different emphasis:
It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers.
In my opinion, it is a bit overkill to archive Talk pages with only around 15 or less sections (each with only a few comments), seeing there are no active discussions popping up recently that could re-populate the Talk page. I see no use in having an empty Talk page with an archive, compared to a small Talk page with no recent discussion. The previous discussion is useful to have visible for readers and editors and should not be 'hidden' or be archived to give the appearance that the discussions are finished. Occassionally, comments are given on older discussions, especially on pages where there are not many sections on the Talk page. Even if no comments would pop up in 2.5 years, maybe what's stopping it is that previous discussions on a topic have already commented what the editor had in mind suggesting.
I think you may have misread the Guidelines and missed the necessary point that archiving suggestedly only should be considered when a page is large or "bulky", not necessarily when nobody has commented in a while. --Treetear (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
perHelp:Archiving_a_talk_page, However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case...is clear IMO, thank you(besides if there is any particular article/talk you think needs to be reexamined , just revert)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James actually its suppose to look like a combination of both images[78]<span style="position:absolute;top:-130px;left:-185px;z-index:100;background-color:" class="noprint">[[File:WHO Rod.svg|110px|link=Main Page]]</span>...what should I change?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie - i asked for a page move earlier - Essential thrombocytosis to Essential thrombocythemia. This was because it was the name used on the page, in the infobox and in the refs. I've just looked at the page thrombocytosis which you edited recently - and thought i'd bring it to your attention - both pages ought to use the same name. Ngrams favour essential thrombocythemia but favour thrombocytosis. The page was moved - any thoughts? thanks (and a late thanks for all your past thanks) --Iztwoz (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the link to the Encephalitis Society on the Encephalitis page? Can I ask why? And can you give me some guidance as to how we can correct it?
I'd (respectfully) argue against some of those points which are relevant to us. Namely, that we are not purely web or email based: we are a dedicated society which provides accredited, evidence-based, peer-reviewed info. Indeed, some of the authors used as references are members of our Scientific Advisory Panel. We do exist in bricks and mortar (I assure you!) and provide global services. Along the same lines, we are not local, state or regional - we are an international organisation. Thanks - love to hear your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewPitt (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Doc James its your strength and leadership ability that has made this project one of the top and most viewed by our readers, so therefore thank you for your guidance--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit to Caudal regression syndrome, you removed several external links as inappropriate. While I might agree with some of your choices, might I inquire about some others? Specifically
The first is the only known organization that deals specifically with this condition, and the second is a nationally recognized organization whose resources for rare diseases and conditions are widely valued. I believe these two links fall within the policy outlined by WP:EL for links that can provide the reader with more information than can conveniently be included within the encyclopedia article. Cousendux (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you changed the organization of the unicentric castleman disease article I wrote. Sorry to re-edit this question, initially I preferred the classification section rather than the signs and symptoms, but I think that does work. I did prefer having a separate section for classification at the beginning of the article as it is critical to understanding the disease. Please let me know if you are comfortable with me moving the classification section back. I am new to wiki and did not want to overturn your changes as you are a much more experienced editor. Thanks CDK55 (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I was wondering what "geed" meant. Because you put it in italics, I inferred that it was a deliberate spelling. Best wishes, Axl¤[Talk]10:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes it was a mistake when I sit a certain distance from the monitor I cant see too well(I seem to have myopia in one eye),unfortunately its not the first time Ive had unusual typos, thank you for mentioning it, should you see anything similar in the future please correct it as it undoubtedly will happen again at some point(I'm usually very close to the monitor to see clearly)thank you Axl--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No co relation with diabetes and acute cerebrovascular disease (Stroke)
1. Total number of hospital stays in usa 32,371,800..
2. Total number of hospital stays of diabetis as principal diagnosis 512,500. And diabetis is secondary diagnosis 6,290,000.
3. Acute cerebrovascular disease (stroke) patients with diabtis as principal or secondary diagnosis 153,800. Finally Cerebro vascular disease occurred 2.4% of diabetic people .
4. In this total number of hospital stays , 892300 patients for stayed in hospital for Acute cerebrovascular disease (stroke).2.4%
5. Final conclusion is Acute cerebrovascular disease occurred in same % in diabetic and non diabetic people.
6. There is no any co relation with diabetes and cerebrovascular disease
If any one want to revert this ,please provide valuable explanation. I am medical doctor , i was submitted the same issue to world health organization and got appreciation from who. Generally stroke occurs at old age people. so old age general public and diabetic people suffer with chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension. Due to this reason a common miss concept occurs diabetes is causative factor for stroke . Please read some more information about this statistical records .If you want i can provide some more information on this concept.
I wasn't aware primary sources should be avoided. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I understand and appreciate the reasoning. However, I'd think for something like establishing a "relationship," a primary source would be acceptable. Metaquanta (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself. We could use a good medical editor like yourself on the team.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.
Hi Ozzie10aaaa. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right may be revoked by an administrator. ~ Amory(u • t • c)20:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
New technology, new rules
New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Not everything needs an infobox /(wikiproject med)^
I noticed that you've recently added a bunch of blank infoboxes to a handful of pages; if there is no content in an infobox, there is no point in adding it to an article. Would you please consider self-reverting those additions? Primefac (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
Project news
The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Community Wishlist Proposal
There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
Project updates
ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
Thanks, Ozzie for reviewing this page. I have studied your edits and agree with many. I do think the External Links section is appropriate though WP:EL, without the Google Scholar link. What do you think? Okay if I try a revert of parts? BrucePL (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the some Wikipedia articles (that have significant contributions from you) for review through Wiki.J.Med. I need to ask you whether you would like to have your name (original name) with affiliations included in the list of authors, or at least your pseudonymous username, and whether you would like act as the corresponding author of those articles. It would be appreciable if you can join in and help to upgrade the article(s) as they undergo review. I myself would be joining in and would try to help though the review process (and possibly prior to that as well). Seeking your cooperation. You can respond to this message or contact me privately. Diptanshu💬18:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ozzie10aaaa. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have taken the liberty to add some code to your page to ease the navigation. Feel free to remove it if you do not like it. I also welcome you to archive some of the earlier discussions on your talk page. Diptanshu💬04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much for the notice, Im not entirely certain how it may have occurred, I suspect the mouse pasted a prior reference(plus I don't see very well from a distance), thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie, I have not been editing on Wikipedia for some years now. Too many other editors banding together marketing various programs and outdated concepts. If only thye would base editing on international research best wishes dolfrog
You can see at the very bottom of this pdf version of the article that it was published in their September-December 2017 issue, and we have had it since August 2017. So they copied from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello Ozzie10aaaa,
Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
Hello, Ozzie10aaaa. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Not that it can be included in Wikipedia, but i have access to a neat powerpoint slide prepared for Kibali Gold Mine - that I do some consulting for - which puts into perspective the areas of both the outbreak and the military unrest. I was supposed to go there in November, but didnt, and i will wait for everything to settle down before i go there again. If i can somehow get an email address i can send it to you. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give good gifts, one to another Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother Smooth life's journey as you onward go. Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers. So shed an influence blessing to prove; Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs; Blest and be blest, is the law of love.
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001reviews), Semmendinger (8,440reviews), PRehse (8,092reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016reviews), and Elmidae (3,615reviews). Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
These words pretty much describe you, my friend: One of the nicest and most tolerant people here and a true gift for Wikipedia. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you! Gandydancer (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
those are very kind words Gandy, Ive said it before you are the best medical editor Ive worked with and I consider having done so a privilege, Merry Christmas to you and the very best New Year ...Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,
Hello Ozzie10aaaa, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, CAPTAIN RAJU(T)18:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ozzie. I don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia. Can you please tell me why you thought the Prize section wasn't relevant, and deleted it? It's the biggest achievement from the organisation. Thanks.
--Mati Roy 27 December 2018
Thanks for your response. I implemented the changes you recommend. I also wonder why you removed the logo? In their footer on their website they mention that they waived the copyrights. Please let me know. Thank you.--Mati Roy 27 December 2018
Help with editing a page N-localizer/(wikiproject med)^
I’m new to Wikipedia. I see that you have previously edited the N-localizer page, so could you please help me to edit that page?
I’ve moved Figure 1 out of the info box, added a discussion that ties Figures 1-3 together, and added a discussion of the Sturm-Pastyr localizer. However, Figure 3 doesn’t line up with Figures 1 and 2 but instead is lower on the page. Can you please help me to fix this problem? Thanks! Lunqvist (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My brother has this rare syndrome, and has a very aggressive form of it as well. If there are any questions regarding Schinzel Giedion syndrome I would love to help as much as possible! Lexi mara (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ozzie, when you add an image to an infobox, like this one-Apocrine gland carcinoma, can you try to remember not to include the |thumb parameter with the image filename, please? The infobox already deals with the image position and size, and the thumb parameter just gets treated as an invalid parameter. That places the article in Category:Pages using infobox medical condition with unknown parameters, which I'm trying to reduce from its present 469 members (so that I can clean up the template). It only had 466 yesterday and it's quite frustrating trying to get the number down. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I previously read and understood the context of COI, and am fully aware of the biases I can have consciously and unconsciously. I would like to know who can possibly write an article on the topics I contributed to (basic species information) without having been educated somewhat of A) their existence, B) their use in research. I did not declare COI because I as I said, I am loosely connected, but I am not an active researcher in the field nor do I have an active relationship in the field. If this qualifies as COI, I admit I am unsure of exactly what I can write about on Wikipedia. Please advise on how I can continue writing on topics of which I am knowledgeable without being blocked by COI concerns.
p.s. reading this... as text is void of inflection, please understand I am not trying to be snarky. I am just a bit perplexed where the line is between educated and unrelated vs. educated and related. Surely the degree of COI falls on a spectrum, where above some arbitrary threshold it can be deemed inappropriate. But this also implies below said arbitrary threshold it is appropriate. - Crawdaunt
Yes, Dr. Steve Perlman. However, if you look at the number of publications relating to D. neotestacea, you will find that a research group off-shooting from John Jaenike is responsible for almost the entirety of research related to D. neotestacea. It is not a highly competitive field. As far as I am aware, labs actively doing research with D. neotestacea include: John Jaenike's lab at the University of Rochester, Kellie Dyer's lab (former post-doc of Jaenike), and Steve Perlman's lab (former post-doc of Jaenike). I am happy to provide the google scholar search return for "D. neotestacea", which you will see returns results almost entirely from John Jaenike, Kellie Dyer, or Steve Perlman. Indeed, Jaenike is an author on every publication on the first three page of results directly related to D. neotestacea (owing to his starting in this field in the 1970s), many of which are co-authored with Dr. Steve Perlman pertaining to D. neotestacea*Spiroplasma*Howardula interactions. K. Dyer's lab and S. Perlman's lab also focus on population genetics in the species group. So pretty much all references to D. neotestacea with respect to Howardula, or Spiroplasma, are attached to J. Jaenike and/or S. Perlman. Please see Google Scholar search results, and particularly note in papers where D. neotestacea is in the title, the senior author is almost always either Jaenike, Perlman, or Dyer: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=0&q=drosophila+neotestacea&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
I wrote the H. aoronymphium page after seeing it referenced in the Drosophila falleni page, but H. aoronymphium had not yet been created. I mentioned D. neotestacea on the H. aoronmyphium page, and subsequently wrote a page for D. neotestacea as one was not yet written in English (though D. neotestacea had an entry in 6 other languages). I hope this clarifies the reason why the authors attached to J. Jaenike, S. Perlman, and K. Dyer appear so frequently in the D. neotestacea page. - Crawdaunt
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Hi, you have reverted my adding a reference for the existence of "march hematuria", which I merely copied from mechanical hemolytic anemia. Your reversion edit did not give any information about why the reference is not applicable. I would be very interested to understand the basis for that reversion. Thanks, 192.118.27.253 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this is interesting. Does this mean I should edit the lead for HIV/AIDS, remove the three references, which are all older than 5 years old, which confirm that HIV causes AIDS, and add a "citation needed" instead? Somehow, I don't think that would improve that article. There are countless medical conditions which are no longer being studied because of advances in medicine or accepted medical knowledge, or other societal changes (for "march hematuria", for example, the replacement of marching with the use of better transportation methods in wartime) and there are no recent sources for them. Although MEDRS does not explicitly allow use of older references in this case, it hints at the necessity for them by saying that "History sections often cite older work". 192.118.27.253 (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help for finding better references and improving my Wikipedia skills. Based on your edit, I still would like to hear your opinion of why a troll couldn't edit HIV/AIDS in the way I proposed and cite MEDRS as justification. 192.118.27.253 (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bluerasberry -- Bluerasberry (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
; see Talk:Dyslexia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Approvedaccess grant
Approvedaccess grant
_(14586469407).jpg)
Done
The Wikipedia Library
--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
,
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(3034045389).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)