User talk:DrKC MD
Welcome
|
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.
The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.
BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Medical Translation Newsletter
Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce
This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.
note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject MedicineSpotlight - Simplified article translation
Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.
Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
- WHO's list of Essential Medicines[1]
- Neglected tropical diseases[2]
- Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.
We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.
What's happening?
- IEG grant
I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
- Wikimania 2014
For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
- Integration progress
There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
- Swedish
Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May. - Dutch
Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie. - Polish
Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
(This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration - Arabic
The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
- Integration guides
Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [3]
News in short
- To come
- Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
- Proofreading drives
- Further reading
- Translators Without Borders
- Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign
 |
Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High anion gap metabolic acidosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical care. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lipschitz domain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Normal.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comparison of XML editors, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Homebrew and Snap.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of political punk songs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Decline.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Original research and synthesis
Stop adding your own analysis to Wikipedia as you have done at List of political punk songs and Punk subculture. Such edits are a violation of WP:No original research or WP:SYNTH.
At List of political punk songs, the whole page lacked good sourcing, so it was already a dumpster fire. You added your own section about the band NOFX, asserting characteristics of the band's music that were not supported by WP:SECONDARY sourcing. And you listed a bunch of songs that you selected yourself, citing only YouTube videos. This edit was a violation of both NOR and SYNTH. At Punk subculture, you added[4] some text about NOFX again, this time adding some poor sources such as getsongbpm.com and a blog. After that, you determined yourself that Bad Religion and NOFX were relevant to the topic, listing a lengthy song conducted by Baz. It was your own thinking that you published, telling the readers about how punk songs can be short or long. Another violation of NOR. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I don't have the time to do all of the major citation work you require at the time that I edit something, esp. when it is certainly not nearly as important as you think it is. Perhaps you might consider using the talk page of the actual article as is the norm, rather than just pick apart one person's work.
- If you read what I wrote, you would have seen they were offered as examples, not as a definitive treatment of the source. Please take your petty harassment someplace else. I don't know what is wrong with your life, but this is not the cause and I am certain that there are things more important for you to do than try to figure out how to harass me.
- I suggest you review Wikipedia:Civility and consider how and what you say as well as taking advantage of "talk" pages to do so in a proper fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrKC MD (talk • contribs)
- Please don't insert stuff into the middle of my talk page messages. Your entire reply can follow it.
- I always use the article talk page to discuss matters having to do with article content. In this case, I came to your user talk page because I saw a personal problem in your edits: the tendency to do your own analysis.
- Don't list examples that you thought of yourself. Let the WP:SECONDARY source authors do all the original research. Otherwise, you can write your own magazine articles or books, and perform all the original research you wish.
- I'm not here to "harrass" you; I'm here to protect Wikipedia's policies which you have been violating. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
No personal attacks
Hi, DrKC_MD. You seem to be aware of the civility policy, since you advise Binksternet to read it. Binksternet has spoken civilly to you, whereas you address him mainly via personal attacks ("Please take your petty harassment someplace else", "I don't know what is wrong with your life", "I have much better things to do with my time than to deal with your personality issues"). Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks; if you make another one, you are likely to be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 22:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC).
- It seems that the focus of this individual, in spite of being asked to stop doing so, was the specific removal of my contributions--after I had asked that he use the talk page to address editorial concerns my edits of multiple articles were removed. He has never used a civil tone, the best he could do was "After that, you determined yourself that Bad Religion and NOFX were relevant to the topic, listing a lengthy song conducted by Baz. It was your own thinking that you published, telling the readers about how punk songs can be short or long. Another violation of NOR." I don't know why he has taken such offense at an example in an article, and as someone with 20+ years experience doing independent post-graduate research I am quite certain I know what independent research is and what an example of something is. To make an issue out of a simple example like this, and to berate me for it, and then to have the unmitigated gal to complain about me asking him to stop his personal attacks is the height of hypocrisy. I think offering examples are useful, and if he knows of a better one, he could have chosen to be constructive and contributed to the quality of the article, rather than removing what I added.
- This seemed to be a clear personal attack directed at me, and retribution for me doing nothing more than politely asking that he use the community norm of talk pages. His response to my revision was to delete not just what I had written but nearly all of an article with the justification that it was a "dumpster fire" per his judgement. He has chosen to selectively nit pik. To think that nobody writes without any personal insight or judgement is simply not realistic--all of use some degree of discernment when it comes time to decide what to include in an article. Rather than doing something constructive when he found a problem, such as finding a missing source or citation, when it was something I wrote, he just used it as an excuse to delete what I did. He has adopted the most immature tone and approach, and all I did to incur his vitriol was asking that he use the talk pages rather than just delete someone else's content. I have don't anything to any of his work, but he has taken it upon himself to follow up and remove anything I have posted since then.
- Before you threaten to block me, perhaps you might review my contributions, what he actually did, and his comments. You might even look at his past behavior, as I would be surprised if I was the only other person he has treated like this. It isn't his job to follow everything I write and berate my contributions with comment like "Stop adding your own analysis to Wikipedia as you have done at..." His behavior is nothing short of harassment. DrKC MD (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
April 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Women in punk rock. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop adding a band you happen to like to the article, they do NOT meet the criteria for inclusion as a featured band as has been stated in edit summaries several times. Read the criteria. The article cannot include everyone's favorite band, that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. Please use social media or fandom instead. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Second Warning - STOP edit warring on Women in punk rock. The band you keep adding does NOT meet the criteria established by consensus over the years for inclusion criteria. The Linda Lindas are not "heavy hitters with decades-long careers". They have only been active from 2018 to the present, just over five years. Just because you may happen to like the band is not a reason to continue to edit war to change the article to your own preferred version. It is strongly suggested that you self-revert, and instead follow the BRD guidance on the article talk page. Use Fandom or Social Media instead to promote your favorite band, or improve that band's WP article. The Women in punk rock article is historical, it is not the right place for promotional additions, the Linda Linda's do not fit the criteria for the article. Read the criteria. Netherzone (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Re: the Linda Lindas band - I will be removing your most recent edits on the Linda Lindas. You do not have consensus to make that bold change. Please do not continue to edit war. Per WP:BRD someone makes a Bold edit, another editor disagreed and Reverted to the status quo. If the Bold editor disagrees they have to start a Discussion on the talk page to try to gain consensus rather than reverting back to their bold edit.
- The band does NOT meet the criteria for inclusion. The criteria is clearly stated in the nowiki-text at the top of the article (when you are in edit mode):
This article is to include only female punk musicians that have articles and that are properly cited - SIGCOV in at least two or three reliable sources. The "featured" artists are those who are heavy hitters with careers several decades long or are widely known internationally and their genre is primarily punk rock, not pop punk not grunge, not alternative rock, etc. No red links, all artists must have a main article. If their career is shorter or they are lesser known, they might belong in the "Other artists" subsections. No redlinks in this subsection either. This article is NOT a list article, therefore it cannot support listing every single woman punk artist that has ever existed.
- This criteria was decided by consensus years ago, and it has been a very stable article. The Linda Lindas obviously do not meet this criteria for this specific article. They have only been around about 5 years, not for decades (and not “heavy hitters”).
- The Women in punk rock article is historic. If you want to create a new article on Women punk rock musicians of the 2020s, and I encourage you to do so, you are certainly free to do that, and it can include the Linda Lindas. Or you can add the Linda Lindas to the Punk rock article or List of all female bands or Women in music or Girl groups if the band meet s their criteria, or you can always improve the Linda Linda’s WP article.
- Sorry this is so long but it seemed that you were not hearing what I was saying. I hope this clarifies matters. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I am not in an edit war. Someone senselessly deleted something I entered without bothering to even try and edit it or mention it on the talk page. They made some comment of about notability and I reverted my entry, PLUS MULTIPLE SOURCES, that clearly indicate why they belong in a list even if someone who has been living under a rock is oblivious to major bands coming out in this decade. If someone takes exception, they can bring it up with the New York Times, Rolling Stone, Variety, and NPR who agree with me. They most certainly meet Wikipedia criteria by the standard listed on the referenced site.
- It is completely inappropriate to state I am in an Edit war when it is simply a case of reverting vandalism that someone didn't bother to even check who the band was, or they could have easily contributed to editing the content and providing the sources they were clearly obliviously about or they never would have made such a comment and just removed someone else's work. There are no other bands listed for the 2020s which isn't to mean that there are not other bands out there, I just don't have the time right now to do it justice. Perhaps you could contribute to the article in a constructive fashion. DrKC MD (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)