user talk:Bluerasberry

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #21

Minor question about Choosing Wisely

Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allecher (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 March 2013

E-mailed response back re: publishing press releases and n:Wikinews:GLAM

Hello, Bluerasberry. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Merry Christmas BR

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing BR Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians's 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please come, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Medical sources

I am reading up on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), because I am working on an article on Invisalign in my COI capacity, which will probably have 1-2 sub-sections on efficacy that would fall under medical claims. I was wondering if it would be ok if I asked for your input now and then on the policy as I am not experienced in that area. CorporateM (Talk) 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy to help here or at the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've got a stupid question. The studies themselves are considered Primary sources and not admissable. I have to find secondary sources that provide a summary of available literature, like this book which summarizes some the most prominent clinical studies on page 227. It seems to me that most of the sources currently on the page are therefore primary sources. However, I am also suppose to avoid teritary sources that just cite information like this one. This seems contradictory to me, because any source that summarizes the results of clinical studies will probably have citations to the studies themselves. CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks CorporateM. No question is stupid, but you did neglect to ask one.

The secondary source that you cited is cool because it provides supporting evidence that the primary sources are worth mentioning in a history of this aspect of orthodontics. The level of information depth in this source can be a guide to the level of information which is significant in each primary source, and as you can see, this editor only saw fit to keep 1-3 sentences per primary source. The tertiary source that you are presenting, that textbook-like work, is worth citing because it is a layman-readable presentation of the content and it seems trustworthy in that it itself provides citations. If I cited information from this source, then I would not both it and the work it cites when possible. Also, this work is a blur between a secondary/tertiary source on this niche topic because it cites both primary and secondary sources. Textbooks often do this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, one more question. I've got "Reception" stuff like clinical studies that show Invisalign causes less pain and less root damage than traditional braces. And then I have "Reception" like a reliable source (newspaper) saying that many patients in an online forum complained of pain, surprise mid-treatment complications, and so on. What is the accepted way of handling this? Do we create one section called "Clinical studies" for the academic/professional stuff and one called "Reception" for the feedback of patients? In business/software articles we typically use professional reviews in a Reception section, but that seems like an awkward header for clinical studies. Right now there's advatanges/disadvantages section and "Scientific studies" which seems like an awful way to do it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, The usual way would be to either avoid newspapers or to cite newspaper claims in a muted way which presents their reports in the most general terms. If some claim in a newspaper is not better covered in other sources, say something like "Popular news sources reported user opinions about the procedure" then cite the paper but do not repeat what they said, and make no medical claims. This acknowledges broader media coverage but unless the discussion seems similarly reported in multiple sources, it probably should not be summarized on Wikipedia. Any reporting of pain or complications would be a medical claim, and newspapers are suspect for these things.

See Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Drugs.2C_medications_and_devices for an outline of the sections and ordering for creating health device articles, or choose the surgery guide if you think that is better. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So would something like this be a good source? It is a new study, but it presents an overview of the available literature. I just want to use the overview. Double-checking before I dive hours and hours into these types of sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, yes, as you have perceived, the overview of other literature is secondary sourcing. If you use this source in this way, make a note about this on the talk page so that the next person will be able to see it as you are. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, last question (I think). Do you have any tips on how to access some of these sources? Some of the books/studies cost hundreds of dollars to access. One hundred consecutive Invisalign cases analysed is cited about 4-5 times in the current article, but I can't find a way to get access to the full-text. I could easily pay over one-thousand dollars if I paid the price for the sources I need. CorporateM (Talk) 20:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, I do not personally have good access to sources, although as you may know, I volunteer a lot in the open access movement. It is a shame that this research, all of which is at least partially funded by taxpayers, has the reporting of its results sold to public libraries and is otherwise unavailable to the taxpayers who funded it. In the United States, most universities permit some amount of public access to their resources, and in many cases, if you put your physical body inside a library building designated for public access, then you may use their system to read or download the papers to which they are subscribed. City libraries rarely have this access; probably you should go to a university, and you could call, online chat, or email them first to confirm. On Wikipedia you can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and request these documents. Finally, you could go to Twitter and use the hashtag #icanhazpdf along with the doi of your paper and someone there would help you if you confirm that you have a legal right to access the paper. I have no access to the paper you want. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, last question (I think). Would you normally make the medical claims section of a medical product concise like "Studies have found that it is X, Y, and Z." That's really concise because it covers three studies in a single sentence. Or would you cover each study in more depth like "In 2005 a study in publication X with 100 patients found that Y". CorporateM (Talk) 14:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM Perhaps it depends on the content, or perhaps it is an arbitrary choice. For the case you mentioned, "2005, one study, 100 patients", that sounds like a primary source and not compliant with WP:MEDRS, so tread lightly about presenting any medical claim. Contrariwise, those may be the only extent sources, so it would be remiss not to include them somehow. Your bundling strategy works if your "X, Y, and Z" are in place to acknowledge the scope of research and not to report the results of the result. As you step closer to reporting individual research results, then you should have information in its own sentence. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lists of scientists known for opposing a mainstream scientific assessment

Category:Lists of scientists known for opposing a mainstream scientific assessment, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jinkinson talk to me 04:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 find a resolution. The thread is "Devyani Khobragade incident". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 05:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Miss World India

Funny, there's no mention of racism against Miss world(who was indian) either, talking about the page Racism in the United States, even though it gets over [30k views per month]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladesmulti (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be there, or at least somewhere. When there is a place to put this kind of information so that it is not forgotten then it helps build understanding between the cultures and improves behavior in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles Denham

You recently edited the Talk page for Charles Denham.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

New features for course pages

Several noticeable improvements to the EducationProgram extension (in addition to some small bug fixes) will go live on or around 2014-01-23:

Notifications

All participants in a course (students, instructors, volunteers) will receive Notifications whenever their course talk page is edited. Thus, editors can use course talk pages to send messages they want the whole class to be aware of, and the class participants are likely to see them.

Special:Contributions student notice

For users enrolled as students in courses that are active, a notice will appear at the top of Special:Contributions noting which course(s) they are enrolled in. This will make it easy for users who come across the work of student editors to find out that they are part of a course and identify other class participants.

Adding articles

Course instructors and volunteers will be able to assign articles to student editors, instead of all articles needing to be added by the student editors themselves.

Adding students

Instructors and volunteers will be able to add users as students in courses, instead of all student editors needing to enroll for themselves. This makes it easier to maintain complete lists of students, and also makes the extension more suitable for tracking participation in edit-a-thons, workshops and other collaborative projects beyond the Wikipedia Education Program.

If you have feedback about these new features, or other questions or ideas related to course pages, please let me know! --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Subscribe or unsubscribe from future Wikipedia Education Program technical updates.

Proposal about bot behaviours

Following up on your suggestion at my talk page, there's now a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 122#Streamlining page moves over redirects?. And thanks for the suggestion! (Cute hamster, almost as ferocious as a Sminthopsis.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84 Thank you for sharing an animal with me. I read the conversation and it is tripping me out. The people there are able to intuitively anticipate things I would not have been able to imagine. You seem to have shied from the suggestion of making a request "a manner that can be determined quickly and unambiguously by a computer program", but do not be. If you make your request it will go into a searchable database and contribute a standing argument that will exist forever if anyone searches for it. If you are really shy, then I will post it for you and show you, but otherwise, make an account in the WP:Bugzilla system, describe your problem in one sentence, describe your proposed remedy in one sentence even if it has problems, then link to the discussion that was had. This is how the software developers get feedback, and they especially need feedback from users and not other developers. I think you have a legitimate concern and there will for a long time be talks about how to give regular users more powers and burden admins with fewer responsibilities. Either you do this, or I will do it for you, but let me know. Thanks for posting here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A cup of Blue Raspberry Italian ice being held aloft at the Taste of Chicago Festival

Hi again, love your user page. It's not shyness really, I'm actually from way back (20 years ago) a systems analyst, and it seems to be a systems analyst that is needed here, but in a domain that I'm not familiar with. To specify this in "a manner that can be determined quickly and unambiguously by a computer program" has me stumped. JackmcBarn's word description "as long as the page has never been anything but a redirect, regardless of target, allow moving over it" seemed right to me. He seems to think that that might lead to vandalism, I suppose of a manic sort, thrashing, moving a redirect back and forth or all over the place. Is it ever desirable to move one redirect over another, or do we just change the target and forget about moving the page history? I wonder if another component here would make sense, a warning or the inability to move one redirect over another. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84 Thank you for the complement and the ice. I checked your userpage too - what is your interest in Bangladesh? Did you hear that meta:Wikimedia Bangladesh helped coordinate access to Wikipedia Zero last December?

I do not know what to propose for a solution, but even noting a problem without a solution or with a non-workable solution is useful. If there is a record of several people noting the same concern then that identifies the problem as worth addressing. If it is posted to Bugzilla then someone will sort it to go with any other related complaints which have been made, and if in time there are several concerns then it goes up the work queue to be resolved.

I see no little value in keeping short trivial page histories, although from a file storage perspective, no harm is done by doing so. The problem behind deleting them is balancing the need for housekeeping with the power to recall any historical information. "As long as the page has never been anything but a redirect, regardless of target, allow moving over it" seems like a reasonable proposal to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks (held aloft seemed appropriate), I'll look into making a feature request at Bugzilla.

About Bangladesh, thanks very much, I hadn't heard that Wikipedia Zero is now accessible in Bangladesh. My interest in the place comes from having lived there briefly and feeling very helpless in the face of its terrible problems (and a major dummy for not having learned the language(s) yet). Polishing the English wikipedia coverage seemed to be a way to perhaps help journalists outside the country give the issues there better coverage, which might do something good, maybe. I hope that en.wikipedia being a bit better could be a little cheering to friends there, though, frankly, it's an embarrassment at present. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles Denham Article

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

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

Filling in refs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Mr. Bluerasberry - unblock request

How do i remove my blocked because it is been a long time since i opened it , as i know ,the block would only last up to two weeks, (is?) it ha been 4 months since i opened my account here , Can you give an information to removed this ? i blocked by a user:Obsidian Soul?? thank you

and Ps; Can you give me an information how to give a proper license for my Multimedia uploads so it would be delete here, as what happend in the pic of Asian peoples (which i spend weeks to create) just deleted for the single issue, there was a part which is a from stamp.

so once again thanks you !— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipandrew (talk • contribs) 08:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Philipandrew! I will reply to you on your talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Choosing Wisely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dunning–Kruger effect

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

Illustration for down syndrome

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

DRN

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

move to close at NPOVN about church leaders

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

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

Preview my article please

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Chair of the Unique Identification Authority of India

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Chair of the Unique Identification Authority of India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Ahumantorch (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks from Netherzone

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules

Thanks for the help, sorry if I'm sometimes stubborn. Any additional help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

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

People rather than patient

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

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

Contributing to a talk page

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

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

Confirmation please?

hey can you confirm that these uploads:

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

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

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

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

From Netherzone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Wikipedia:

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

Thank you so much.

Your support and thanks meant the world to me. It is a fascinating and horrible experience to be putting yourself out there in an aggressive corner of the internet.

I have been trying very hard to be a good Wikipedia editor, and have put a lot of effort into researching. I am not so good at editing yet, and so really appreciate the help that I have been getting from more experienced people. I really appreciated you noting the effort I was making to respect MEDRS but still expand the encyclopedia.

My odd medical journey has left me aware of missing information in Wikipedia. But I am not fully skilled in knowing the rules and tone. I live in Mercer Island, BTW, and would love some UW Med contacts. I had major surgery at UW in late October that left me psychotic for a few weeks and disabled for a time after that. No MEDRS I could find on post-surgical psychosis, although Sandra D'Auriol jumped off a roof in January from the same issue, so there are lots of holes in our medical knowledge.24.16.135.152 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)