User talk:Biosthmors/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Contents

No, thank you

re: "Would you like to chat sometime about your class?" Thank you for asking but no. I've left that unpleasantness behind. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sorry for the bother, and thank you for your contributions. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ideas for project page

Hi Biosthmors, I was looking again at User:Biosthmors/TestProjectPage and I have a few more ideas, but I lack the know-how to make them come into reality.

  • you mentioned before about the progress bars. These are great, I will try and get them on the project page goals if I can.
  • Generally there should be more color, and there should be an overall professional feel to the page. It should not look like another dull, boring wikipedia article but it should be vibrant and grab visitor's attention. The light browns of the military history page could be a different color imo, maybe a bright blue.
  • Navigation between major parts of the project page should be made much easier with tabs, and give everything a more cohesive and organized look. E.g. the same tabs: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation Task Force should be standardized across more project pages maybe.
  • The current project page is good in that it is packed with info, but it is also too busy perhaps. The main project page should be relatively simple and act mainly as a hub for navigation to sub pages imo. Lesion (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
These could go in now, but I assume you were thinking of making it self updating. This currently would become out of date as soon as the number of GA changed... As far as I can see from the wikiproject military history, theirs is self updating since it contains a transcluded template which counts articles placed in a sub page. Lesion (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Goal 2: 300 Good Articles49% complete
Nice. Self updating would be nice, of course. Feel free to implement. =) I'll be travelling soon. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to make any changes. I was getting stuck trying to make them self-updating, and wrote it off as a bad job. Self-updating goals will have to be a goal for our goals. The next easy target would be the navigation template: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Navigation
If you have no objections I will make the style similar to the box I just put in, and make it look more minimalist... here is a preview (more links to be added). Lesion (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Also tweaked the header as an illustrative mock up. I think it is tidier to have all that stuff in the same box. Lesion (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Education copyvio

Hey! Are you familiar with this course, re this copyvio? With all the silly, incomprehensible changes to the education course pages, I no longer know how to find a course page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sandy, I'm traveling at the moment, and I just updated my page to say as much. Sorry about that. I don't know anything about the course, but I'm curious. WP:ENB? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Bios ... methinks the only helpful people at ENB are those I am in touch with via user talk ... no one else there cares. But I imagine I'll be seeing more troublesome edits from that course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Biosthmors. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by LukeSurl t c 10:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2013

You're invited! Please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 7. To unsubscribe from these alerts, please remove your name from this page. Ganeshk (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Joining online courses

There are several student editors who I've run into via WikiProject postings and am advising individually. I'd like to help with their courses but I've noticed that they already have two ambassadors signed up on each, though I'm not sure about their involvement. What's the advised next step? Leaving a note for the prof asking if they could use another ambassador while noting that I'm already working with them? Finding a new class and leaving it alone? What do you recommend? I am watching this page for the near future—no need to whisperback czar  01:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Czar, I'm traveling at the moment, and I just updated my page to say as much. Sorry about that. Help is always welcome. The question is this: will the students listen? If they're not getting graded to listen, it might not help to "help" them, until the course evolves to adapt to community input. Could you link the course page? I personally just try to build a relationshp with the professor then go from there. Perhaps you could start with an email and ask for a Skype meeting? You could ask at the WP:ENB about who the Regional Ambassador is and see if either they or Jami already has a relationship with the professor, because it's probably not a smart idea to have multiple Wikipedia related people asking for attention. My opinion is that having one's name down as an online volunteer is meaningless, in and of itself. I just use it as a negotiation chip with professors sometimes. (I'll sign up for your course if you do X.) I guess it depends how much time you might want to invest. I tend to invest large amounts of time in content areas I care about, so perhaps you'd get more satisfaction working in another content area? I'm not sure. Thanks for asking! Let me know how it goes, if you don't mind. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It's more that I'm working with students already across several articles, but I'm not "assigned" as "an ambassador" to the class. So I'm not sure it matters, but I was curious about the etiquette with respect to signing up as an online ambassador when you're already doing the work. czar  02:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Yes, sometimes I just end up signing up because I'm helping. But it's your choice. Thanks for your assistance. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Do I need to ask permission or can I just go for it? Like, did the other two online volunteers on Education Program:Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2013) just sign their names or is there more of a process? czar  12:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Czar, I typically try to establish contact with the instructor so that they don't perceive it is random. It could be as simple as emailing them or leaving a talk page message that says "I have been helping a few students in your class so I thought I'd sign up" and maybe a "I hope you don't mind" to be considerate. The email is more likely to be read, though, in my opinion. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar  12:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Mnemonics

FYI, a list of medical mnemonics has been started at your suggestion. Warden (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Warden. I hope it one day becomes featured. It would be a great benefit to the readership, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll even tell my friend who just started medical school to see if they might edit it. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

Because you have an opinion which you hold strongly you do not have the right to trample upon a legitimate effort to build consensus. The first time may have been a bold edit. The second is vandalism. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you point that serious allegation out to me in policy User:Timtrent? There's a lot I don't know about this website. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I see you marked the edit as minor[1], is that in line with labeling it vandalism, User:Timtrent? I await an explanation. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism reversion, something I explained to you I would consider it as, is a minor edit. I have no intention of wikilawyering with you over this. WP:BRD applies. Wikipedia is based upon consensus. You and I each have to submit to it. We may seek to create it over any matter at any time, but we are then bound to it. You have no rights to trample over a consensus building exercise. You may seek to influence it, but you may not pervert its course. Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Timtrent, I'd like to know why you consider my edit here vandalism: [2]. I have no idea why you consider it vandalism. Please explain. As far as I am concerned, it is currently an unsubstantiated negative allegation (just like a BLP violation), which is why I'm rewording the title of the section. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I perceive this a legitimate questioning, so I will answer you. The first time you remove something as important as a banner designed to drive people to a consensus building operation it is viewed as a bold edit that is then reverted and discussed under WP:BRD, though some other editors might have considered that first banner removal to be vandalism. We each make a subjective judgment about what does and does not constitute vandalism based upon many factors, including the experience of the editor making the removal. You will note my polite edit summary "Please do not simply remove banners while there is a discussion underway. Consensus needs to be reached first. on the first reversion.
You almost immediately reverted to remove the banner a second time. To me this had all the appearance of being vandalsim. I reverted this and marked it appropriately as a minor edit. I reverted it because my subjective judgment showed it to me to be vandalism, despite your many good edits elsewhere. I have told you this on you page here, but I took great care not to use a template series such as {{uw-tdel1}} (etc) because I felt it would be an inappropriate marker for your talk page. It is the template series I would have selected for a less experienced editor.
Most, all, experienced editors are capable of errors. I am, you are. I perceive you to be in error because of your behaviour, you perceive me to be in error because of mine. And that is perfectly fine. Neither of us is perfect. If you can show me how I am in error in my belief that consensus must be made on matters and that this instance needs to run to its conclusion then I will accept it with good grace. IN return, of you understand why I see you as being in error I will edit my comments above, or suggest that we, together, remove this section from your talk page (though you are at perfect liberty to do so anyway).
The principle of consensus is the rock, such as it is, that Wikipedia is built upon, and we go to great lengths to seek it, build it and be bound by it.
Have I explained the matter in sufficient detail, whether you agree with my explanation or not? Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks User:Timtrent. I see why it wasn't wise of me to revert the second time. I guess I let my dislike for tags I happen to perceive as pointless get the better of me. Thanks for the explanation. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Please remember, the only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. All else is just background noise. Feel free, should you so desire, to remove this section from your talk page. Tags, by the way, serve a purpose, though they do disfigure articles. Fiddle Faddle 13:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As I am sure you have seen, the consensus has developed against the merge. I've placed a suggested time limit before closure on the talk page there, 'just in case' there is a late rush. Frankly I doubt it. In part that is down to the substantial work you have performed in the Wiki-PR article. The suggested time limit is by no means 'official', and people are free to argue for it being shorter or longer.

By allowing this to involve many editors we may all be confident that we are obeying the community's current wishes. I'm entirely content to have suggested something which the community is judging to be not something it wishes to be done. Fiddle Faddle 17:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I sometimes also get impatient when I feel like I see an unnecessary discussion. Thanks for the note. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
When I first started here I was impatient, too. As time passed I learned that I would be more relaxed more of the time if I took a pragmatic attitude and approach to the place, something I do not always achieve :). By developing consensus we strengthen the whole edifice. We can also be certain that what we are doing is considered fruitful. Yeah, preachy! Face-wink.svg Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

I'd just like to apologize for my classmates' behaviour. I had just read on the email account I had added to this account that one of them had said some unsavory things in regards to having their work edited. I do hope you accept my apology and continue doing good work by ensuring the utmost quality on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5e ext2013 (talkcontribs) 22:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much User:5e ext2013. By the way, WP:Clean start is available after your semester ends, if you'd like to stick around. =) I aim to be indifferent to both praise and blame, but I don't always accomplish that goal. I've helped several professors and maybe one day I'll end up helping yours. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome.

Read deep vein thrombosis - comprehensive, understandable & well-written!Youtalkfunny (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome and I'm glad you enjoyed it Youtalkfunny. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the wisdom of crowds

I see you are learning about the alleged wisdom of crowds. I like the way you are keeping calm about it. Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

=) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have long held the view that WIkipedia is, first and foremost, an experiment, and one that runs along Lord of the Flies lines, albeit in a very civil manner! It has created a more convoluted bureaucracy than anyone would ever have designed, and created odd areas where power is, of course, not concentrated. As a by-product it seems to have produced a fairly worthwhile encyclopaedia, and keeps us geeks off the streets. Face-wink.svg Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Lol. Well sometimes I wonder what would happen if some of those geeks took to the streets to promote Wikipedia in creative ways. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Monthly update of WPMED goals?

Hi, I had 2 thoughts on our goals:

  • A monthly report posted on WTMED might raise the profile of these goals, and encourage people to work towards them
  • Since one of the goals is now a monthly decrease in the number of article issues, it makes sense to update the goals at the beginning of each month.

What do you think? I will update the goals now, but would appreciate it if someone looked over it to check it is correct. If you agree, then we could make a habit of posting a monthly goal update to WTMED. The first of each month seems like a good time to do this? Lesion (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Notes:
  • I did not include Medical literature in the calculation for Goal 1 since the consensus for this is evolving
  • The bar chart for Goal 4 might get out of hand after several months. Thoughts?
  • I also think it would be a good opportunity to advertise the collaboration of the month and any other projects which might get people interested.
  • Please feel free to alter as you see fit, I will wait before posting this to WTMED. Lesion (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me be radically simple, User:Lesion, if you don't mind. How about we just summarize the main point, which is that we had a reduction in the issue count and report those numbers? =) This could be done in a couple sentences. Considering that the historical trend has been increasing issue counts, perhaps we've turned the tide! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. Wouterstomp updated the goals soon before I did, so it appeared that we made less progress in the update below (although not a huge difference). The reason I suggest this is because, I do not think many members know of these goals, they may never visit the project page. A monthly update might raise this awareness. To clarify, the section below would appear as a normal post on WTMED, and then disappear after 5 days as normal. Still not keen for this? Lesion (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
No worries Lesion. Nah. From my reading, personalized human messages are much more effective than something that is templated like this. =) That's my impression. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

1/11/13 update for WPMED

  • 0% progress was made towards goal 1
  • 1% progress was made towards goal 2
  • 1% progress was made towards goal 3
  • Slight progress was made in goal 4
  • Only 16 top importance articles left which are not B class or above, click here for a list: [3]
  • Want to get an article to GA? Click here: WP:MED2013GA
  • Want to get involved in the collaboration for the month? Click here: WP:MCOTM
  • Thank you to everyone who improved WPMED articles last month, from the smallest typo correction to the largest article improvement.

Might add some additional progress: since this weekend, for the first time in many many years, we have less than 10,000 stubs (down from >12,000 just a few months ago). In a few days we will have more start class articles than stubs for the first time ever. Also, I think goal number 2 is completely unrealistic: the number of featured articles has hoovered around 60 for years now already. Even 100 would be almost impossible, suggest setting it to 80. --WS (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Awesome WS! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, how about setting the goals to something like: "increase the number of feature articles from 60 (0%) to 80 (100%)"? So the progress would actually be measurable/visible and mean something. --WS (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I fully endorse this idea WS. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Would it be more clear to word the goal as "Increase the number of featured articles to 80" whilst still setting 60 as the baseline? Lesion (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that as long as we make it transparent (by explaining somewhere that 60 is zero percent) then it should be fine. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Biosthmors. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui  15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Biosthmors. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 15:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Also going offline now, so won't see any reply till later. Yunshui  16:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Biosthmors. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 08:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui  08:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Biosthmors. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement.
Message added 13:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000(talk) 13:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board#As_we_are_going_to_keep_this.2C_do_we_need_to_tighten_the_criteria_a_bit.3F

Given we've kept it, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Might I offer a suggestion, please?

As with all suggestions, there is no need to take notice. I just saw your edit summary here and felt you might be, by accident, confusing a BLP concept of defaming living people with the potential defamation of editors. I am not saying that the two are any less serious than each other, but we seem to hold ourselves to a different standard form the standard to which we hold others.

If a BLP violation is spotted in an article we revert it. If it is a serious, perhaps libellous violation, we ask a specific team to look at it and to consider suppressing that element that none can see it. Thus the libel is neither uttered in the article nor in the article history. And that is as it should be.

WIth other editors, unless a direct personal attack, we treat the banners at the head of articles as the normal cut and thrust of reaching consensus. Perhaps the most challenging such banner is the Conflict of Interest banner, because it is directed at one or more particular, probably named or namable, editors. If you have deployed one yourself you will know it requires active thought.

Other banners, including the Coatrack one, should, if imperfectly placed, be removed, usually with a talk page comment. If they are placed and the placing editor gives a reason, they need to either have the issue resolved and then be removed, or remain in place until the incident is resolved. But they are not treated as an allegation against living people.

I am not going to revert your removal. There is sufficient discussion on the article talk page for you to determine whether it is or is not a valid removal. My purpose in this message is to correct what I believe may be a misconception on your part. Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes if I could edit my edit summary I would. I'd make it say "unsubstantiated allegation against the article". But to your point, we apply the BLP policy to subjects but not each other? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
My firm belief is that we do, yes. We consider WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to be pretty much gospel, backed by WP:NPA. However, if taken to extremes, and I identified you by name and, say, employer, and called aspects of your life into question that were both embarrassing and untrue, that would be a different matter.
Even though we are genuinely living people, we have chosen to enter into the cut and thrust that is WIkipedia, and, by doing so, are considered to be a part of the regular hurly burly of debate and discussion. In a way you can compare it to the etiquette(!) observed in the UK House of Commons, where we are both some sort of privileged class and must take our knocks, and also have some arcane rights not to be insulted. Fiddle Faddle 13:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post

I have mentioned you in an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Biosthmors. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC). 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.

  Sohambanerjee1998   12:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

ASH report on e-cigs

Yes, I'm sure it wasn't OR. Some people are expressing "concerns" that young non-smokers are using e-cigs. The cited reference shows that they are not.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks FergusM1970, I look forward to analyzing the source (trust but verify). Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No worries.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So FergusM1970, who is action on smoking and health and why should we cite them over the peer reviewed literature? Why can't they publish in traditional reliable sources? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
They're a multinational tobacco control group. As for why we should cite them, it's because they have data and the peer-reviewed literature doesn't. CDC have "concerns" that young never smokers will start using e-cigs. ASH have data showing that this is not the case. Do unsupported opinions outweigh evidence?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
FergusM1970, how do well do the reliable sources receive this multinational? That's a better question for WP:RSN, in my opinion, because we're getting into the reliability of the organization now. That's the mindless and bureaucratic Wikipedia answer. I'll have to analyze your argument, but I have no idea what the position of the CDC is, so maybe you could link them for me. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
ASH seem to have been well received by everyone until they said that e-cigs are probably harmless. As for the CDC they have vague and unspecified "concerns" that young non-smokers will start using e-cigs and become addicted to nicotine, even though their own study doesn't mention any such effect and ASH found that 0% of e-cig users were not current or former smokers.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
FergusM1970, is nicotine an addictive chemical compound? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, although how addictive it actually is in humans isn't clear. It's hard to get addicted to nicotine through e-cig use if you're not using one though.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll cross post this on the e-cig page, but these are quotes from 2 comprehensive research databases that are listed in virtually every drugbox/chembox on wikipedia and which I've extensively cited in articles:
Talk-Quotes

Toxicity and addiction are possible with the use of nicotine from any source. Sustained use of nicotine polacrilex preparations or transdermal or orally inhaled nicotine should not be encouraged because chronic consumption of nicotine may result in intoxication and dependence (addiction). In deciding whether to initiate therapy with nicotine polacrilex preparations or transdermal or orally inhaled nicotine, regardless of the presence of disease or pregnancy, the risk of nicotine replacement in a smoking-cessation program should be weighed against the hazard of continued smoking concurrent with nicotine-replacement therapy and the likelihood of achieving smoking cessation without such pharmacologic management.
— Pubchem Compound: Nicotine - Pharmacology section


Nicotine exerts two effects, a stimulant effect exerted at the locus ceruleus and a reward effect in the limbic system... Nicotine is a highly addictive substance. Nicotine also induces peripheral vasoconstriction, tachycardia and elevated blood pressure.
— Drugbank:Nicotine - Pharmacology section (Pharmacodynamics subsection)

That said, nicotine certainly has some beneficial uses and positive effects, but it is without a doubt an addictive drug.

Also, the ASH paper is complete garbage. See my critical analysis/comment at the very bottom of the e-cig talk page. Seppi333 (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
You have a better study on e-cig use among young people? No? Thought not.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. v/r - TP 03:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Templates and navigation bar

Do you think we need so much detail in this section on WPMED? I wonder if we could reduce it or move it to a linked subpage as with Awards... Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The page needs work but I'm short on time to devote to it now. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Unblock support

You support an unblock yet have you reviewed any of his edits yet? Take a look at a bunch and fix them first. He claims that efforts to fix the copy and pasting is vandalism is not reassuring IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree it wasn't reassuring, so it doesn't look like we have great odds that unblocking will fix lots of issues; but like I said, they've stated an intent to help so I'm ready to assume good faith and let them get to work. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Please review a bunch of his edits. I must now work. I personally need a much stronger statement of reassurance that he gets it before considering an unblock. Would need to see reassure that:
  1. He will only use review articles going forwards
  2. He will always paraphrase and never copy and paste again
  3. That he will find a mentor who will review his work for the next 6 months
  4. That he will not attempt to restore work which contains copyright problems
  5. That he will use the cite template always
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

completed the educators' module-- ready to go!

As per our prior discussion, I have completed the wikipedia for educators' module, and am now ready for the "course instructor rights." Thanks! AminMDMA 05:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AminMDMA (talkcontribs)

Fantastic. Granted. Thanks AminMDMA. I'm looking forward to WP:MEDUCSF. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 05:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

UCSF help

Hi B. I've volunteered to help. If you want me to one-on-one with a student or two, can you please let me know on my talk page. Have a ball. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I really appreciate all the effort you're putting into the education program and everything else you're up to here. --11:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Auditory verbal agnosia

Could you have a look at the recent edits on Auditory verbal agnosia by what appears to be a group of students. They seem to be adding confusion and unrelated content, which may belong in other related article if at all. And none seem to want to communicate with existing editors , nor use a sandbox or sandboxes dolfrog (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention, dolfrog. I see mention of a boy. Wow... So much for WP:MEDRS and writing an encyclopedia... It's been mentioned at WP:ENB and WT:ASSIGN that we need a guideline or policy to reign in the madness. You could mention this article at WP:ENB if it hasn't been mentioned already, but right now there is an excess of problems and a shortage of willing labor. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

ENB posting frequency

Hey! I just want to encourage you to avoid using ENB for minor, specific things, as the extremely high posting frequency makes it less useful for its main purposes. I pinged you on the training talk page about the stub thing because it's not relevant to most people who watch it (I think just relevant to you and me, in this case), so I wanted to avoid cluttering everyone else's watchlist.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to give you credit, but yes, I have no plans to post there again today. Thanks Sage. Do you think the wording of Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Header captures the main purposes? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It's okay, but it doesn't give a sense of priority. The main purposes are to provide a central place to discuss broad education-related issues and to post about specific class-related problems that require the attention of others.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Reworded some. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm of three different minds about Sage's posting frequency message.

On the one hand, Bios, you post so much that people (even I) start to ignore you.

On the other hand, I did the same thing all day yesterday, hoping that if they saw the real-time destruction, they might pay attention. And because I set out to build the case of what just one term is like for an established medical editor. But I know if you continue posting at that pace, you will just be ignored. And it's clear that some staffers don't need additional excuses to ignore us.

And on the third hand, considering how much time this program has wasted for us, why should we be admonished not to waste their time (rhetorical, I know). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Test.

Test. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Introduction to Neuroscience gatech wiki project

Hello Biosthmors,

My topic of my project is "Neuronal loss in temporal lobe epilepsy".

The article is rated as C-Class quality according to "WikiProject Medicine".

I have two questions.

1. If I keep improving, will the reviewer get notified and change my quality grade?

2. Do you have any general suggestion for improvement?


Thanks=] Fu Hung SHiu(Thomas)

Fu Hung Shiu (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your email

Hi, you said you sent me an email. Could you please specify the sender, subject or topic? Yes, I can miss emails. Sorry, it's not easy to keep up with all the channels.--Qgil (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of WIkipedia

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Biosthmors, I'm 74, and had a question about one of your comments there. "This is an event article. And that COI Wikipedia article is stupid anyways." Well... okay, how exactly? They are both 'event' articles. The first is the events of 2010-thru-early-2013, when Wiki-PR was allegedly involved in wikiCrimes. The second is a more general sequence of events, from 2001-thru-the-forseeable-future, assuming you are willing to count Bomis-related edits as COI in the early days of yore.
  My question is basically... does it make any sense to have an event-article, when we don't have an article on the actors in the event? We have the Tiananmen_Square, but we also have the subsidiary articles Tiananmen_incident for 1976, as well as Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989. There is also an article on protests as a generic phenomena, and for that matter, on 1989 as a year in history.
  The situation with Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia is similar... we have the generic phenomena in Conflict of interest editing of Wikipedia... and of course the article on Wikipedia as a "place" of sorts... but we don't have an article about Wiki-PR that is not a redirect to the "event-article". It feels a lot like having an article on Fang Zheng protesting in Tiananmen Square ... and *not* having an article about Fang Zheng (protestor)... but adding all the usual BLP-decorations to the Fang Zheng protesting in Tiananmen Square article, as a form of coatrack, plus a bunch of stuff about Morning277 who is *not* Fang Zheng, and then redirecting Fang Zheng (protestor) to the "event-article". Does this make any sense? Or is the metaphor too messy? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Casey Anthony is a redirect, FWIW. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to call this in so soon, but I just invoked my Rule of Three on WP:TOP25's talk page. Any assistance you could offer would be much appreciated. Serendipodous 11:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Students editing Wikipedia

Among other things, you seem to think that professors "force" their students to do things, that these things are designed to promote the professors' fields, that all this is hostile to the spirit of Wikipedia, and even that these students are paid for the editing. Tons of people already told you that you were incorrect, but you refused to listen. Since you ask, I'll tell you what I refused to say at VPM: you're displaying either a substantial level of ignorance, or a substantial level of saying something controversial specifically to cause a dispute. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw your second message after I left this one for you — thus a separate response to it. I will not revert, precisely because of the third sentence of my first response: I do not believe that your comments were made both in good faith and in complete awareness of what's going on, and thus reverting them would not be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Nyttend, please see my user page for clarification and WP:AGF. You might also notice at WP:ENB where I have been recently nominated to the board of the WP:WEF. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I assume good faith by not calling you a troll out-and-out: I'm well aware that you may not be aware of the situation. I was unaware that you had been so nominated, as I don't remember meeting you before. Between that and your reversion at VPM, I'm becoming more and more confident that I was wrong to assume that you were ignorant. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
No revert will be coming, and continued advocacy will not be fed by me. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You Hi Biosthors, I just wanted to thank you for your advice about the new "society and culture" section of the "Cholera" article! I tried to keep the new section high-level and generalist in approach as you suggested. Thanks again! Kimmyfromtexas (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Your feedback on my contribution

Hi Biosthmors! I am a student from Mrs. Prügl class, editing wikipedia as part of this assignment. I added my contribution on my sand box, would you mind to have a look? I have a hard time knowing if it is at the standard of a Good Article... Thanks! Vincentunpack (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

A discussion concerning the creation of improbable redirects, related to a page or pages you created, has started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Mass creation of very improbable redirects. Fram (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Am I selected as Online Ambassador?

Hi,

I see cluebot archived my application so I was wondering if the application was selected or not.

Thanks, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that's a yep, but I guess you figured that out already. =) Thanks for your interest, TheOriginalSoni. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement

Robin Hood and Little John, by Louis Rhead 1912.png

A 1912 illustration of Robin Hood and Little John

Hello, Biosthmors:

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection.

Posted by: Northamerica1000(talk) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Medicine:Talk

Hi Biosthmors, just a short note. I see you're advocating for some more attention to cleaning articles each month. I seem to recall that you at one point posted a list of spam-marked articles on the talk page for clean-up (I think this was you!) - I think that is quite an effective way to draw attention to a subset of articles. If you were so interested, I'd certainly support (in an active way) the cleanup of articles each month, and I believe one effective way to do this would be for you to select and post 10-15 articles once a month selected from the cleanup list here: [4]. You could select different articles each month, and I think a good place to start would probably be to select two or three of the difficult mergers, any articles tagged for copyright or plagiarism, and then two or three additional articles for cleanup.

I've read some comments from a few people on the talk page that would ask us to focus as a project on one or two goals, but I think that a health project should be able to sustain quite a few separate small drives at once. With my visual mind this reminds me of a sturdy tree that drops fruit and seeds around it; in a healthy environs, small saplings will grow around it.

I hope that you're well! Would love to start working on any selected articles. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Choosing Wisely

Hey Biosthmors, I don't know if Bluerasberry has already alerted you, but the American Society of Haematology has issued a "Choosing Wisely" list of low-impact interventions in haematology that might be worth discussing in the relevant articles. I have copied the content to Talk:Hematology for reference (diff). I will add the relevant content to thrombophilia and I imagine you might want to say something about IVC filters in the relevant articles. JFW | T@lk 16:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jfdwolff. No, I had not talked to Biosthmors about this. I appreciate your interest, JFW. There are about 50 of these recommendation sets. I set up a staging place for managing the set for the American Society of Haematology at Wikipedia:Choosing_Wisely/American_Society_of_Hematology. Jdwolff, if you would, look at what I have done both at the thrombophilia article and the Wikipedia workspace. Since ASH has suggested certain sources to back their statement, I cite both their statement and the sources they suggest when I share their information. I do my best to integrate their entire statement. After it is in the Wikipedia article, I make a note of what I have done on my Wikipedia workspace. After some time, they will get a report about how many people are viewing the articles which contain their content, because their motivating for engaging Wikipedia is that it is a platform which reaches a lot of readers who are requesting information in their field of expertise and can provide evidence of reaching a lot of people. I would like to have this model of the societies making recommendations and providing sources in exchange for integration into Wikipedia and metrics reporting back to them to be a model which could be used by any health society, or indeed, any organization. Do either of you have further thoughts on what I am doing? Suppose that I integrated all of ASH's recommendations into Wikipedia - would either of you have interest in reviewing what I do, and then perhaps contacting ASH to present this to them with me? I should do this will all the medical societies and I have done it in the past with a few, but depending on community interest, I could do some societies first or more thoroughly in an attempt to engage them more deeply. There are two big innovations with Choosing Wisely and Wikipedia - one is that the societies are providing MEDRS sources along with layman statements, and the second is that the societies have an appetite for Wikipedia metrics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about including the sources to each recommendation. Fundamentally, the fact that societies are making these recommendations makes them authoritative, and the sources are easy to find on each page.
I am not sure if particular edits should be made with the specific aim of satisfying the requirements of a particular external body, but I can see how Wikipedia metrics are a very strong driver for ongoing organisational engagement with the platform and hopefully future contributions (e.g. Wikimedians in residence). JFW | T@lk 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 Egyptian coup d'\xC3\xA9tat up for deletion

Redirects of this sort are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_9#.5Cx22Weird_Al.5Cx22_Yankovic. —rybec 23:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 03:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Soham (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR edit warring

I do not know your "position" on Wiki-PR, so this is not a canvassing attempt. I would just like more eyes on the edit dispute taking place here and specifically here. I get the feeling that (as usual) Smallbones and Coretheapple are tag-teaming to keep a particular "revenge" POV in Wikipedia about paid editing, to the detriment of a wider NPOV perspective. Do your own analysis of the situation, and please weigh in on whatever side your conscience dictates. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane WIR, please apply now

Those interested in applying should complete the online application form by 'Friday January 17th. Interviews with short-listed candidates will be held via webinar in late January or early February. The successful candidate should be available to start work in February or March 2014. Cheers and thanks! Ocaasi t | c 22:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

SLU Devo Class starting soon, your help requested...

Hi Biosthmors - My Developmental Biology class starts this Tues 1/14. I have started on the course page here and have a working document from a draft of last year's class that has a link on my user page. Any help you can provide is GREATLY appreciated. The biggest modifications from last year's Signal class are (1) I plan to have the students work in groups of 2-3, (2) you suggested giving them an option of whether to go live or just work in their sandbox, and (3) I am hoping to give the students a list of pages to choose from that will be linked to a list of presentation topics, but won't have time to start on this until I've got the course page & presentation topics done. I sent you an email on 1/6, but maybe that wasn't the best way to reach you. I'm a little worried that you may not have as much time to help this semester. Let me know if you have any time to skype between now and Monday night or if there is a better way to communicate. Best, Biolprof (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with Circulating microvesicle article

I've been watching this page since it was edited in my class last year and just saw a new paragraph [[5]] that seems self promoting by a new user (among other possible problems), but I have no time to deal with it for several weeks. The same paragraph was added to 4 articles (see the user's contrib list). Since I haven't done much WP editing in the past months, I'm not feeling very BOLD at the moment. Thought you might be able to help. Biolprof (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It looked like a bad edit to me so I removed it. Feel free to wp:be bold and do the same Biolprof! Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again!

Merry Xmas, Happy New year! Just wondered if you'd be interested in having a look at WP:TOP25's talk page. There's an overload of the inexplicable this week. Serendipodous 14:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Same to you. I'm sorry I never got around to this User:Serendipodous. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ambassador?

Biosthmors, I am running my undergraduate neurobiology course again this spring and am looking for a couple of online ambassadors. I have asked Yunshui but he suggested you as well because he is already doing two other courses this semester. Would you be interested? --MMBiology (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately MMBiology, I'm a bit busier this go-round, so I won't be able to commit. Best of luck! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You've been whacked with a trout

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

For this comment. Please AGF, and please do not take this fish too seriously.

Peace, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Education Program:Gatech Question

Hello Biosthmors,

I am a new user for wikipedia, and I create a wiki page "Granule cell dispersion" on the main wikipedia and I want to put a banner to show this is a student project. I copied what template that showed in the course page for BMED 4752 in wiki, but the banner does not show up in my article.

Do you know why and what I can do?

Thanks! Thomas

IP Block Exemption

Hello from Florida State

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Biosthmors. 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.

Uploading images

I am trying to insert an image to my sandbox page, however every time I get a notification that my account needs to be confirmed, but it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvarade (talkcontribs) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I join my class? I don't know where to find the token. Also I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly either.

iamwillthinnes Iamwillthinnes (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)