User talk:Looie496

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

If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Inositol Trisphosphate-3 Kinase[edit]

Found in User:Lrdrake/sandbox; would it be something you had an opinion on? Best, -- Sam Sing! 13:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's quite a nice article, but it looks like an educational assignment at the University of Michigan. If so, it shouldn't really be going through AFC. Anyway, I've asked a couple of questions in the AFC section. Looie496 (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Sam Sing! 15:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Another[edit]

Not related, but what would you do with User:Harald Blautand/sandbox? -- Sam Sing! 14:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't have the form of a Wikipedia article and the title isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article. This editor needs to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, could it be incorporated in article you know? -- Sam Sing! 15:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any reasonable way of using it. That's a throwaway that was creating by somebody blasting out text for five minutes -- you shouldn't feel guilty for rejecting it. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Momentary editing exercise[edit]

Hi Looie496, thanks for the advice. Do you know how often sandboxes get automatically cleared by the system? Neuralia (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bioelectronic Medicine[edit]

Hi Looie496, Thank you for taking the time to review my proposed article on Bioelectronic Medicine. I will confess a great level of naïveté when it comes to creating content for wikipedia. That is particularly why I chose to submit the article rather than just posting it directly. I can see now, why you made the comment about the possibility of trying to promote the journal Bioelectronic Medicine, and am more than willing to remove that reference if it makes the article more credible. I am having challenges meeting your suggestions to correct any misused statements which are cited by legitimate sources. I feel as though my cited content is reflective of the message/intent of what the source is conveying - but clearly I've missed the mark. Could I trouble you for specific examples so that I can correct them? Otherwise, please advise the best way to correct the article as I want to make sure that it is stellar.

Thank you.

MedResearchSF (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)MedResearchSF

3-22-15 Hi again Looie,496. I'm trying to get this article cleaned up so that it can be posted. My challenge is that I don't know specifically what you want changed/updated. I've had several scientists review for accuracy and they have not suggested any changes (some are even authors of the referenced works.) Could you please let me know the best way to proceed?

Thanks, MedResearchSF (talk)MedResearchSF — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is so far from usable that I don't see a clear path to fixing it. The problems include (1) the article is not written in encyclopedic style; (2) many statements are loose or incorrect; (3) many of the sources are primary research articles, and therefore not compatible with WP:MEDRS; (4) the article functions as a covert advertisement for an unproven treatment, namely vagus nerve stimulation. If you would like a "second opinion", feel free to post a request at WT:MED for other editors to look at the draft. Looie496 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Looie496,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletterTranslate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

DSM-5 codes[edit]

Hello, Looie496. I'm tremendously sorry, but I was asked to review the article DSM-5 codes for copyright concerns, and I believe that it is a problem given the precedence of protecting diagnostic codes. I've blanked the article for evaluation at the copyright problems board, specifically listing it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 24. I've explained the reasons why I agreed that it was a concern at Talk:DSM-5 codes. I hope it goes without saying that I do not believe there's any fault in this situation, which is one of the reasons why I'm not dropping the (generally mandatory) template.

If you think I'm mistaken, please explain why at the talk page. Whichever administrator processes this will consider the question there; I've directed to it in the template itself.

Again, tremendously sorry. I generally look away from list articles unless they show up at WP:CP all by themselves, but given that we've received official complaints from the APA before and I really think this one is a pretty clear problem, I felt like processing it was necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That article represents less than an hour's work on my part. I created it by cutting out a bunch of material that didn't belong from the DSM-5 article -- rather than consign it to the bitbucket I used it to create a new article. I really don't feel like I have any stake here. The editor who added the material to the DSM-5 article might care more than I do. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so I see. I didn't look at the edit summary. I'll go look and see who added the content to DSM-5 and see if I can track from there. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Blocked sock. So that's that, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)