User talk:Quercus solaris

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

Depression rating template[edit]

Hey, I like your new template, {{Depression scoring tools}}. Are you really going to write articles for all the items on there? --Eastlaw (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My idea was that I would do this much for now, and people could turn the black list items into bluelinks over time as articles are created. I realize that it would be ideal if I would create them all, but it is more than I have time to pursue. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Derive[edit]

(from Webster's 7th Collegiate): derive vt 4. to trace the derivation of. Elphion (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All that close attention I was paying to both Collegiate and Third at Unabridged.Merriam-Webster.com, and I didn't check that! Thanks for dropping some knowledge! Quercus solaris (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for taking the initiative on the Etymology section -- I've been eying it for a while now. Elphion (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

This not appropriate "For example, cursory Google Ngram Viewer searches find attestations of this sense of "stroke" from the 1700s, and earlier ones can probably be found with more search term design and effort." as a reference as it is original research. See WP:NOR.

A guideline on referencing medical content can be seen here WP:MEDRS. Have moved the content in question to the history section were it fits much better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Point taken—already understand (and don't disagree) re refs and OR as general principles—was just trying to fix a trivially falsifiable flaw in the coverage, but I was rushing through it slightly too much. I am satisfied with the end result that you helped to shape. Thanks, Quercus solaris (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

About the edits on Penile cancer[edit]

You are correct in stating that I was unable to add the N or M information. I was looking at it and thinking "At what point does copying this chart become plagarism?" So, I was trying to copy it all on there, but started thinking about the possible plagarism issue. I do agree that the chart in the reference is very detailed. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I understand both viewpoint angles. I am with you on the desire to have WP be as complete as possible, and for the reader to find everything they need right here without leaving. However, there may be some kinds of information, especially on health and medicine topics, where we can give them the full big picture, but we may as well point them to a (good, noncommercial) reference for certain details, because we may not even be able to put all the details here without committing copyvio (as you mentioned). I think full cancer staging info may be one of those types of details. But it's OK, because WP still has the potential to be the single most valuable place to go first for info, even if readers eventually click out into the cited refs to learn more. Take care, Quercus solaris (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Wow! Drug pollution is a great idea for an article! Thanks for getting it started. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Quercus solaris (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Halide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''hal-'' syllable in ''halide'' and ''[[halite]]'' reflects [[Halogen#Etymology|this correlation]]). All [[Group 1 element|Group 1]] metals form halides that are white solids at room temperature.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Life Technologies (India)[edit]

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.

A tag has been placed on Life Technologies (India) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jargon[edit]

Please do not remove sources, as you did at Jargon. You have been around long enough to know all the policies I would usually point out to newcommers about verifiability, original research, and reliable sources. Yet this edit removed a source in order to add your own suggestion that jargon can shift from shibboleth to widespread usage. While that may be true, it is not license to remove and replace verified information. Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't replace anything, and I didn't remove a source in the way that is bad/provocative. The statement was that the words bit, byte, and hexadecimal are now (fairly) widely known although they once were not. That statement doesn't actually need a ref. Normally I would never have removed a ref since it was there already, but I removed it to take care of the concern that you pointed out (which was that it was no longer clear, after the further development of the content, which specific portion of the sentence the ref was supporting). The concern was fair, so I edited to avoid the problem. In terms of Wikipedia content development, the ways that argot, jargon, and shibboleths are sometimes connected to each other conceptually needs to be concisely mentioned and linked in their respective articles. This isn't my own suggestion, it's part of the ways language is used. That sentence does it concisely the way I edited it, without needing that particular ref. I can go see about doing it another concise way that preserves that ref, but it's not worth circumlocuting just to hold onto that particular ref for that particular clause (which doesn't need it). I'll see what can be done with it. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

SPSS[edit]

I thought we had resolved the issue but in this edit you are simply replaying the material that was discussed in February with no attempt to discuss it or provide any more support than you did before. Please either find verification from reliable sources for the assertion or stop trying to impose it in this way — this is becoming disruptive. Deltahedron (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No—before the discussion was about what the expansion officially was or wasn't. That has been established now. What I was doing in the recent edit was simply pointing out that it's not emphasized in the branding. But, speaking of being disruptive, since you are so incredibly worried about not stating that even though it is obviously objectively true, I won't bother to add it again. I wouldn't have added it today (it's not a big deal) except that I didn't happen to think about the possibility that you might confuse the former for the latter (what it is vs whether it's emphasized) and have a fit about it. No worries—your version can stet, it's good enough. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not be offensive. However, I am glad to hear that you are willing to abide by Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability. Deltahedron (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
And I'm glad to try to resist distortions of it, as well (per Wikipedia:Common knowledge > Acceptable examples of common knowledge at "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property"). Quercus solaris (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If you seriously believe that requiring verification for the statement in question is a distortion of policy, then raise the question at an appropriate venue such as the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Deltahedron (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Which I see you have now done. I have responded there. It would have been courteous to mention to me the fact that you had done so, particularly since you choose to complain of my conduct there as well. Deltahedron (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject![edit]

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 13:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

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

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Synesis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ') and "The same is true for ''the total'' and ''a total of''"<ref name="AMA_10_7.8.11"/> (thus ''the total was growing'' but ''a total of 28 volunteers have submitted applications'' (not *''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Monomer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''monomer''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɒ|n|ə|m|ə|r}} {{respell|MON|ə-mər}},<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dictionary.reference.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Adenocarcinoma[edit]

Hi, I hesitate to raise this, but when I looked at this article its lead immediately struck me as an extreme example of the common problem with Wikipedia medical articles of being written purely in technical medical terminology. This is something that WP:MEDMOS very explicitly deprecates. I was surprised to find, on examining the page history, that the article had in fact been better until your edits of last October [1]. The page had previously had the non-technical word "cancer" right at the start - "Adenocarcinoma is a cancer of ...." and then later in the (very overlong) paragraph. Your edits removed both mentions, leaving for someone without a bit of medical training really no indication in the lead at all that the subject was anything to do with cancer. This article receives over 500,000 page views per year, btw; they won't all be medical students revising.

I am Wikipedian in Residence at Cancer Research UK and part of my role (funded by Wellcome Trust) is to improve our content on cancer-related topics. When the experts at CRUK look at Wikipedia medical content they are struck at least as much by the over-technical language, in something aimed at a general audience, as issues with accuracy. The problem is especially acute because, as here, the technical language is concentrated in the lead, and often in the opening sentences with the definition of the subject. Those who write and user-test web material professionally know that the great majority of web users simply will not continue with a page that starts this way - they'll go back to their browser search and find one of the other pages in the first page of results.

No doubt most of your edit was useful, though I doubt the very detailed stuff on the scope of the term belongs in a first paragraph, but as I am working, by myself and with other editors, to make our articles, and especially the leads, more suitable for the intended audience, it is concerning to find relatively recent edits by a regular medical editor that are going in the opposite direction.

I share your irritation with old unexplained clean-up tags, which you also removed in these edits, but sometimes they have a reason to be there. Here the 2nd section "Signs and symptoms" only describes those for one or two cancers, does it not? Actually, it doesn't seem to match very closely any set of cancer symptoms I can find on a quick look in a standard text. It should probably be removed entirely. Further down the lists of other sites were linked to eg esophagus not esophageal cancer, and so on.

I hope this doesn't cause offence, but with so few regular medical editors it is important that we are all pulling in the same direction. Thanks for all your valuable work on cancer-related topics. I hope you will take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK, where the project is coordinated. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. I'm afraid you didn't look carefully enough at my edits and at what they did or didn't do. To see what I mean, you can step through the diffs one at a time (not in popups—they don't show the diff properly—but as whole diff pages). I used numbers below to make the organization of my reply clear. (1) It is not at all true that I remove the linked word "cancer" from the first sentence. It was still there after my edits. (2) There is only one diff that has any substantial amount of "diff-age" (this one). If you look clearly at what I did there, it is quite simple (as follows). (3) I only changed the lede, and only in certain places. I didn't change it extensively (didn't rewrite it). (4) I edited to cover the ontology of "what the subject is, what it isn't, what it's related to, and how so"—which is why I added, for example, the sentences "Adenocarcinoma is the malignant counterpart to adenoma, which is the benign form of such tumors. Sometimes adenomas transform into adenocarcinomas, but most do not." I moved the sentence containing "VIPoma" (I didn't write it or add it), and the move was part of editing for the reason mentioned ("what the subject is, what it isn't, what it's related to, and how so"). (5) I did add the pronunciations and plural forms (here), but that info is standard for WP ledes to include. That's considered basic info for the general audience (not just for experts). (6) That's it—that's all I did. (7) From there, to talk about the bigger picture: I share your desire to make WP articles useful for a general audience. If you wanted to move pronunciations and plurals to a section (move down, out of the lede), I would not object. As for ontology ("what the subject is, what it isn't, what it's related to, and how so"), that's not technical mumbo-jumbo at heart—that's fundamental info. Some of it can, again, be moved down, out of the lede, if you want, as long as the lede doesn't distort via omission. Granted that a big part of pedagogy is "bite-size pieces"—a general reader can only handle so much at once. The article should still contain all relevant info, but nonetheless should also present it in drill-down format (so each reader can decide for him/herself how far to drill before stopping). I don't rewrite whole articles for reading level adjustment or pedagogical maximization—it's not what I have time to do at WP. A look at my contribs history shows that 95% of what I do at WP is info tidbit addition and ontologic fixing, both generally in small chunks (small edits, not rewrites). To sum up, I share the desire for both good info and good readability, and an analysis of my edits disproves the idea that I'm rewriting anything into an overly technical state (because I'm almost never rewriting and because my edits seldom are any more technical than what it takes to accurately say "what the subject is, what it isn't, what it's related to, and how so"). My advice is WP:BE BOLD—if you think the info should be rearranged into a different order of presentation (for example, moving some info down, out of the lede), go for it. If I see valid info being deleted entirely, I generally push back gently, working cooperatively to find a way where it is still covered but perhaps buried deeper in an article. I lack time to thoroughly analyze everything that appears on my watchlist, but I try to skim it and at least keep an eye out. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Abject apologies - indeed I didn't read the diff correctly. It was in fact this ISP's only edit which removed "cancer". Sorry to waste your time having to reply to this. I will be redoing the lead at some point, but on checking there were some serious downright errors lower down (fortunately not that common in our major cancer articles), which it was more important to correct. I'm no enemy of precision, but we need to find ways to combine that with accessibility. Thanks for you understanding! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vancouver system may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Pathology[edit]

[Please see Talk:Pathology—thread moved there.]

Vancouver style[edit]

Hi, I left a question at Talk:Vancouver_system#Author-date_or_author-number.3F. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The SU-25 issue[edit]

I'm not sure anyone directly answered your questions, so I'll take a stab at it.

The entire theory that an SU-25 was involved in the shoot-down is based 100% on photographs of the wreckage. I believe this might be a single photograph, because that is all I ever find, this image.

Peter Haisenko claims that this picture indicates that the aircraft was hit by cannon fire, as evidenced by the holes in the fuselage. He then goes on to identify the SU-25 as that aircraft. This answers your question about the AA missile.

How he comes to this conclusion is beyond me. For instance, many of the holes in the image are much smaller than the cannon rounds on the SU-25. A missile explosion causes shrapnel of all shapes and sizes, whereas a cannon round is always going to leave a mark at least the width of the round (although it may be elongated into a eclipse or raindrop shape depending on striking angle). Further, one might convince yourself that there is a radiating pattern to the marks in the image, which suggests a single point of explosion a short distance away from the fuselage some distance in front of this fragment, as opposed to a number of objects hitting from a common point at a much greater distance.

The idea that a SU-25 was the aircraft in question appears to have been selected purely because one such aircraft was claimed to have been in the air hours before the event. Why that is important I don't know, but in any case, very simply the SU-25 could not possibly reach this airliner close enough to engage with its cannon. It doesn't make a difference if the aircraft can or cannot reach this altitude (everything I've seen says it cannot), doing so would require the aircraft to be flying at the extreme edge of its performance envelop. The fact that the aircraft is much slower than a 777 at that altitude makes the entire idea all the more ridiculous. I refer you to the desperate and failed measures that the Soviets had trying to intercept U-2's with MiG-19s, in almost identical relative terms.

For anyone even remotely aquatinted with doghouse plots the ridiculous nature of this claim is self-evident. Of course most people aren't familiar with them, and probably never heard of a SU-25 either. Haisenko has been attempting to rescue his credibility the instant someone pointed this out, and is now claiming we're at fault for his lack of basic military aircraft knowledge.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Maury. Sounds pretty flimsy—admittedly I am not knowledgeable enough about planes and weapons to independently assess, but it sounds like other conspiracy theories—fueled by a need to believe a particular story. The cannon vs missile, as you said, answers the thing I was wondering about. Thanks again. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png No dregs in this beer: it's a clear pilsner. Also, no good deed goes unpunished. :) Drmies (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheers! Quercus solaris (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Noun adjunct?[edit]

You're out of your mind. That stupid quote? Thing is totally POV. Go ahead and revert again.Stealstrash (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • You're more than half wrong (about 80%). Here are the ways you are demonstrably wrong:
    • First, personal attack "out of mind" is incorrect.
    • Second, the quote to which you refer was already removed in my revision (it was not restored after your edit). Did you even look? Guess not, judging from your comment.
    • Third, it is demonstrably wrong that all of the section, as of my previous edit, could be called POV. The first two-thirds of it states observable facts. It is only the last third that was sharing with the reader a reasoned guideline followed by a group of professional editors. That last third could be presented in a way that is not POV (such as "group X follows guideline Y [reference citation Z])". But we do not publish our guidelines in a way that can be cited publicly. They are internal. So I will just remove that portion when restoring the facts that precede it. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome 2015![edit]

The very first edit of 2015, congrats! Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Just came here to say the same thing. Well done! Have a Happy New Year! - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ref[edit]

Can you provide refs for Dental_caries#Usage_note Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Systemic therapy[edit]

Please take a look at Talk:Systemic therapy (psychotherapy)#Redirect on 3 March 2015 for a discussion of the best way to deal with Systemic therapy, which you recently moved and redirected. Thanks for your help. Biogeographist (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-salt ionic compounds[edit]

I'm interested in this edit of yours. I'm trying to get the Ionic compound article into shape, and have been musing over the separation of definitions between Ionic compound and Salt (chemistry) for a while. Can you give a simple example of something that is clearly an ionic compound but cannot be thought of as a salt? Cheers. --99of9 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting and valid question. What is the true ontologic relationship between ionic compounds and salts? Clearly they overlap substantially on a Venn diagram. Do they overlap 100%? Are they always synonymous? Is there any ionic compound that could not be called a salt? Is there any salt that could not be called an ionic compound? I'm not a chemist, so I'm not sure. I can definitely vouch for why I made that edit. It's because of this. There's no way a WP article on ionic compounds shouldn't mention the word "salt" even once, let alone not in its lede—but that's the state I found it in. So I popped the bubble, or knocked over the information silo, by broaching the topic of their relationship, with a link. I figured I could at least say that "salts are a major class of ionic compounds". The broad overlap of the Venn diagram then seemed duly addressed. Even chem 101 students know that sodium chloride is an ionic compound and is a salt, and that the same is true of potassium chloride, calcium fluoride, and dozens of others (at the least, any alkali metal or alkaline earth metal plus any halogen). But now that this talk thread got me thinking about it, though, as I ponder two statements, namely (1) "salts are a major class of ionic compounds" and (2) "ionic compounds are a major class of salts", they both fail logic, to the extent that I as a non-chemist can tell. Based on my current understandings of the accepted definitions of what ions, acids, bases, and salts each are, I deduce that (1) "all salts are ionic compounds" and (2) "all ionic compounds are salts". Guess it's time to poll some chemists. If the 100% Venn overlap is true, then the articles would ideally be merged (the second term redirecting to the first term) and sentences would exist making the ontology clear (for example, if the article title = salt (chemistry), then a sentence in the lede might say, "all salts are ionic compounds because they are compounds with ionic bonds." It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this and edit the articles accordingly. I don't have resources to invest in doing so (for example, finding time to interview a chemist or two), but maybe the existence of this talk thread will draw some chemists here who can answer. Cheers, Quercus solaris (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it's helpful to know where you're coming from. I will certainly ensure that the articles are at least linked to one another if not merged (which I have also considered). I'm a chemist, but it's still not completely clear to me. I think it's possible that the Venn diagram is not identical, or even a subset relationship. If Salt="substance produced by interaction of equivalent quantities of acid and base" (Penguin Dictionary of Chemistry), some of these may not be ionic [even though wiki requires that as part of our current definition] as they may have significant covalent character. At the same time, there may be ionic compounds that cannot be produced via simple acid+base because the ions are not stable in water (perhaps a reaction with water). Anyway, I just wondered if you had a specific chemical exception in mind when making that edit. Cheers. --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to else to get in touch with you...[edit]

...because the e-mail contact link that came with the wiki-notification turns up a page stating that you have not supplied a valid e-mail address. But you reversed my reversal of a redirect of 'Idiomatic' and my subsequent creation of a new page with that title--in good faith, I am sure--and I am too new at Wikipedia editing to know how best to deal with the consequences.

I removed the redirect and created that 'stub' because I used the term 'idiomatic' in a music biography of Francesco Barsanti, and I thought it would be important for some users to find a quick definition of that term as it is used in music. Now that you have reversed what I did, the 'blue link' to the new page won't work. What is the best way to handle this so that my original intention can be carried out?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recorder485 (talkcontribs) 01:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I fixed it. By piping the link ([[instrumental idiom|idiomatic]]), it now points to the desired target. It turned out that there was already a Wikipedia article on the topic, under a related title. So I redirected idiomatic (music) to there. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Monocyte[edit]

Hi--

I've been puzzling over your description in the first edit you made to this article on 22 January 2014, of monocyte nuclei as being "unilobar", when the image clearly shows the two cells' nuclei as being multilobar. Was "unilobar" correct there, and how so?
(I came to this from trying to figure out where the name "mononucleosis" came from, since nearly every cell in the body contains a single nucleus. The name doesn't seem to make much sense.) Milkunderwood (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm pointing this Talk thread to the other Talk thread (Talk:Monocyte#Unilobar?). Will follow up there. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for posting your explanation at the Monocyte talkpage. I've added a note pointing there, to my original query at Talk:Infectious_mononucleosis#Meaning_of_name.3F. I'm sure that like myself, many more Wikipedia users come to the Mononucleosis page looking for information than to the more technical Monocyte article. If there's a fairly simple way to explain the origin of the name of this disease within the article, I think it would be a great help. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I had thought to add a "See also" at the Mononucleosis article, pointing to Monocyte, but am not sure how to do it correctly. I think only a simple and brief explanation of the name would be needed at the disease article, with the fuller explanation at Monocyte. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I tweaked the ledes of infectious mononucleosis and monocytosis to incorporate their connection via nomenclature and excessive monocyte count. Should take care of it. Thanks again. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse here -- especially finding now that other editors have been arguing with your attempts to explain the name. I have no idea how to find how many hits the article on Mononucleosis gets (surely in any case this truncated name gets many more than the actual page name Infectious mononucleosis). But I assume that the great bulk of these hits are from lay people simply wanting to know about the disease, rather than from professionals checking to make sure the article reflects the current literature.

And maybe I'm the only one of these who wonders about an apparently nonsensical name, "mononucleosis", when any 8th-grader ought to have been taught that except in very special circumstances, every cell in the body contains a single nucleus -- that is, is "mononuclear". I must be one of the extremely few users curious enough to go to the Monocyte page hoping, in vain, to find an answer, only to find instead a new and unrelated nonsensical description of a mononuclear cell that is clearly illustrated as being multilobar but is described, nonsensically, as unilobar instead.

Can you see the dilemma? Whether or not it may be worth trying to explain in plain simple English why an obviously multilobar nucleus is called "unilobar", it still seems to me that explaining in plain simple English at the Infectious mononucleosis article how it got that apparently illogical name, would be helpful to Wikipedia users, even if it had not occurred to most of them that the name is in fact absurd.

No medical jargon: "Since nearly every cell in the body has a single nucleus--is "mononuclear"--it may seem strange that for historical reasons, the disease is called "mononucleosis". This is because ..."
Milkunderwood (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Amen—This is actually all a part of the very same problem that is being discussed in the talk thread below this one. Often when you try to explain stuff like that on Wikipedia, which (explaining) makes perfect sense from one angle (the angle of trying understand exactly what you were exploring above), you get someone else telling you "I shouldn't have to learn history (or linguistics, or whatever) here—this is a medical article, you're so silly for thinking it's got anything to do with words or history." The words we use in natural language to refer to things, the current era's medical/biological definition of what those things are and how they relate (or not) to each other—if you try to handle that on Wikipedia, you'll always find the people who come back reverting your edits (either when they are made or months or years later) because they assume that those things can always be mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other. You have to keep trying to thread the needle—explain, and don't fail to explain, but yet don't use any words that anyone may need to learn, even if you provide the link to learn them, and make your explanation short, but at the same time use circumlocutions because we don't want to use certain words that are shorter. And don't use a conversational tone (e.g., see "it may seem strange ... This is because" above), because Wikipedia isn't conversational, but also don't use any big words either, and write plainly not high-falutin'ly. Threading that needle from all directions simultaneously is not easy and trivial. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 :) Thanks--and good luck. I see what you mean there; like trying to deal with a vipers' nest. To hell with non-experts just looking for information in an encyclopedia. A few years ago I found and copied onto my user page this wonderfully ironic motto for Wikipedia: "Remember, the reader is the enemy." Milkunderwood (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha. Yeah, it's tough, although I still maintain some hope. I still like, and work on, Wikipedia; it's just quite frustrating sometimes. Fortunately I think Wikipedia still ends up being pretty good, for what it is, or for what it's worth, although maybe a layperson looking for deeper understanding has to also turn to a place like Quora in order to get answers that Wikipedia doesn't (yet) supply adequately. Of course at Quora, just as at Wikipedia, one has to hope that someone who knows the answer will bother to write it up. But it's frustrating because Wikipedia could be closer to a whole solution if people (Wikipedians) would let it do everything it needs to do. Anyhow, thanks for the chat, see you around. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Information icon I've restored a number of your edits that lack any form of sourcing. Please do not add personal theories in articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

None of them are personal theories. They are all accurate. I just don't always take the time to dig up references to cite when building content that I know is accurate. I will keep in mind the idea of being stricter about that going forward. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Especially when it comes to anatomy and medicine-related articles we try to be very strict, and I don't mean to be rude in reverting you, but there is a lot of quackery, the best way to avoid it is to require proper sources. Dorlands medical dictionary doesn't really do it when it comes to WP:MEDRS. Also we try to keep linguistic terminology to a bare minimum when outside that article group. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hang on, I totally respect your effort to guard the quality on medical articles, but it's a serious problem, and one that won't stand up to follow-up discussion, to claim that Dorland's and other medical dictionaries aren't good sources. That's just inaccurate and not tenable. And there's a major, untenable problem with the second point. You can't write encyclopedia coverage without dealing with ontology (information science) in splitting coverage of the different senses of a word among appropriate articles. For example, that's why hat notes exist, in many cases. Quercus solaris (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, please be careful about assuming stuff, for your own part, that may not be accurate. The edit summary on this edit is an example. And please note that I did not create the nursing diagnosis article, I only added one (now referenced) sentence to improve its explanation. Quercus solaris (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi i reverted this edit also. THe problem with that one is that it was linked to the home page which provides no information about the topic. verifiability is a core of WIkipedia. i think if you source your content well you will have less issues. Without knowing the actual url or a page number we can not verify that something is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talkcontribs) 15:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, point taken, I will seek to narrow the parameters in the citation to point to the headword itself. But your edit summary was misleading. It is just plain incorrect that "the source does not support the statement". It most certainly does, at the headword's definitions, which include both senses, numbered, in order. Nothing in any of my edits is "made up" or OR. Part of working in good faith on Wikipedia is to work toward improving another editor's valid content contribution, not just deleting it and making it sound like it's imaginary. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The point isn't that ontology or linguistics are irrelevant, just that most readers don't recognize what a word sense is without clicking the link. And since the articles aren't on linguistics the link doesn't belong. It's not difficult to rephrase using less technical terminology, and if you can't you should leave it out of the article entirely. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. Almost agree, but with an important objection. I totally get your desire to explain everything such that people don't even need to click a link to understand it—and yes, that's the grail we are always striving for, and the content development is never truly "done" until we reach that day—but there are limitations in reaching it, and in the meantime, before that day of pedagogic perfection, we don't want large inaccuracies on basic ontologic structure only because we're afraid of the need to click a link. There's an important chunk of ice under the surface, whereas that view of "such that people don't even need to click" sees only the supposedly trivial tip—but it isn't trivial, it just speciously appears that way. The problem is that "ontology or linguistics are [not] irrelevant" does not effortlessly coexist with "should leave it out of the article entirely"—not as effortlessly as one might assume. "It's not difficult to rephrase using less technical terminology" is sometimes way easier said than (successfully) done. Sometimes articles contain inaccuracies or misleading omissions—failure to explain—and mentioning things like word senses is actually the most direct way to fix it—the least wordy, in fact truly the simplest—even despite that laypeople would prefer not to bother to click on what a word sense is. As a practical example, which just happened in recent days (see the talk thread above this one): A layperson may well want to know why, if "mononucleosis" and "infectious mononucleosis" "mean the same thing" (air quotes), then why do both names exist? And why would anyone ever use the longer one? And if there's any other kind of mononucleosis besides infectious, then how do they relate, and why on Earth don't the Wikipedia articles already effortlessly show me, guiding me around between articles, laying it all out with such perfect pedagogy that I hardly even realize I'm being taught anything? Ah, it's all so apparently easy, but this is at the very heart of ontology and why it is not trivial. Just mentioning the simple, nontechnical fact that "words sometimes mean more than one thing" is only a basic beginning. Far from being linguistics PhD mumbo-jumbo, it's the simplest way to handle resolving the confusion. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for editing arica nut 12 hours ago which helps me a lot in understanding the aricholine- a parasympathomimetic cholinergic alkaloid drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.68.67 (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)