This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

On 11 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Preoperative care, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Preoperative care. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You said that clinical research is a human subject research which is health related. I think the term clinical research is more popular for drug research. I think there is other kind of research as well like epidemiological research which is not drug / chemical research which is also a part of human subject research. But in a book of clinical research by Gupta, they have included epidemiological research in clinical research. Is epidemiological research a part of clinical research? --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Abhijeet Safai "Clinical research" is popular for drug research but as drug research is the most funded field of science, most scientists in the world have jobs in drug research. You are right, epidemiological research is not drug research, is human subject research, and is health research. It is not clinical research. Clinical research is more than drug research, though. HIV prevention research in which people are sent to classes to learn how to prevent HIV, even if the classes involve no treatment from a doctor, are usually called clinical research because they test a health intervention. I think the testing of a health intervention is what defines clinical research, and without an experimental intervention tested in individuals, it is not clinical research. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Great! --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I love the article you started at User:Bluerasberry/Motivational deficiency disorder. Can you get a few hundred more characters into that, and send it to DYK? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I do typically send new articles to DYK and the lack of content is why I did not make this one live. I did want to share it but I think I pulled all of the best content here already. Related, in September 2015, the team which made this advertisement is hosting a conference in Washington DC. Most of the organizations attending this conference already have a lot of their content on Wikipedia, plus as I understand Wikimedia DC wishes to support a health conference at this time also. When I have more time I will check again to see if I can make this ready for a DYK, but since you asked and since I am not ready to say more now, I wanted to mention to you that this conference is an primed place to have a Wikipedia medicine meetup in the US. I will be floating that idea to some others but you are hearing it now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Have mentioned on talk page, but fear this is based on on misconception - "elective" means planned, and does not in any way imply non-medical grounds. Have not put the merge up for review as yet, as I can still see the logic in the merge, but wanted to bring this your attention. Elder pegasus (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Preoperative care at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is in reference to my course Currently, if I want to know what contributions my students are making, I have to go to their user page and click on contributions. Is there a way to see all my students' recent contributions in one location? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1980na (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

1980na Yes. Go to the top of the course page and click the "watch this course" button on the left side. After you do that, at the top of any page and click the courses tab which is at the very top of the page on the right. In this tab, you should be able to see all the edits made by anyone who is enrolled in that course page, ordered from the most recent contributions.

Another way to do this is to go to the course page and click the "view activity" button which is close to the top of the page. If you are expecting something more then please say more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

bluerasberry Thank You--1980na (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lane, Do you know if there's anything that's been worked out for establishing a WiR at the UN? There's been some discussion in the past (damned if I can recall where, though). I'm thinking particularly of coordination with UNESCO, UNHCR, UNPRO and the WHO. In many cases, the UN has copyright to materials that would be useful on WP, and use on WP would broadly fit the UN's criteria for licensing (educational purpose, etc.), but WP lacks a point of contact for processing clearances. I'm particularly concerned at the moment by our use of ICD-10. It's pretty much indispensible for integrating meta:Wiki Project Medicine articles across languages, but we don't seem to have clear license. In our coverage of conflict areas, sometimes only UN sources can reasonably be treated as objective, making materials sourced to UN organs key to wp:NPOV and wp:V. Someone really ought to be building some bridges if it hasn't already been tackled. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a really big problem. I emailed you a note and would talk to you more, if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

to User:Kashi Labh Mukti Bhawan/Nandanupadhyay. You can do that, too. You can detag and move if the author requests (but it's not advised with spam, copyvio, attack or hoax as those CSD categories still apply in user space...). I'd advise the author to lose that long section that can probably be found elsewhere, as it's not really relevant to an article about a hospice (perhaps a very brief summary at most making id concentrated and as relevant as possible). Good luck... Peridon (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I contacted the author, and you on your talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

[Cute hamster, you should submit him/her to Cute Overload!] Ooops. I've certainly told plenty of people to get off my WikiLawn, so it's all good. Hopefully TechBear learned something about archiving (and edit summaries?!). Thanks for the vote of confidence re: archiving and I hope you are enjoying your Consumer Reports gig but you should get back to Cascadia one of these days. Cheers! Valfontis (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

health
Thank you, Lane, for quality contributions to articles on health with "the particular responsibility of health educators", for improving articles on a daily basis, including Rasberry crazy ant, for outreach as Wikipedian in residence and campus ambassador, for offering healthy welcome and coffee generously, "Let's work together", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lane, This is Jessica Leon. I know you are our Wikipedia Ambassador. And one of our tasks is to introduce ourselves with you. It was great meeting you last week. Thank you for the help!! (1993jl (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC))

1993jl Thanks for stopping in! Message me anytime! For anyone else who wants to make an introduction, you could say hello to me, or you could go to any of these places:

• WP:TEAHOUSE, a place where Wikipedia hosts will receive any new Wikipedians and answer any question
• WikiProjects about fields of study, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights, or country specific WikiProjects like those in the Africa, Americas, or Asia listings.
• Say hello at a functionary forum, like the Guild of Copy Editors if you think you might request their service later, or at a discussion forum for identifying reliable sources to cite or maintaining a neutral point of view in your writing. After you write something, you could ask these boards for a general check on your work.

If you are looking for anything in particular, just ask me and I will direct you. Thanks for visiting! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lane!

This is Kai Ju Chan and I am in Professor Adhia's Economics of Developing Countries class, we are assigned a project on the Wikipedia and this is my first time working on editing Wikipedia, thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1993kc (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lane,

My name is Karina Edouard and I am a student in the Economics of Developing Countries course. It is a pleasure to have you as our Wikipedia Ambassador. Thank you for all of your help!

1993ke (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

1993ke 1993kc Hey guys, thank you for coming to my page. You can talk to anyone else you meet in the same way you contacted me. This is a friendly place so speak up if you need something and remember to have fun! Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Aloha again Blue!! It's been a while! I was rummageing through wikipedia when I realized their wasn't a page on Concert Photography. So I made one. Its just a starter, I plan to add more to it. Any thoughts or suggestions? My concern was the opening phrase not having a citation. Does it need one? Mahalo for sticking with me since the beginning. I think I've come a long way. I also took your advice and updated my user page in order to show others that I submit my own content. If you have a moment, a little feed back would be great. Lastly, I was thinking of changing my user name to Photocyclone. Would that be a bad thing? Photocyclone (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Bluerasberry. I am visiting your talk page about the following matter: Talk:Vagina#RfC: Should both three and four layers be mentioned as composing the vaginal walls?. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. This a "sources state differently" issue. And I'm coming to you about it because, beside the fact that you are a medical editor, you commented on a "sources state differently" matter at the Domestic violence article talk page and were very helpful. I am also asking you because others watching the Vagina article talk page (except for one editor so far) are not weighing in on this "three or four layers" disagreement I am having with an editor there, or other disagreements involving the two of us, which is frustrating and makes me want to quit the article (similar to what happened earlier this year at the Cervix article with editors no longer wanting to work on it). Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really any kind of wiki editor but there is a page that I think is terribly misinformed and biased that I would like to discuss with a moderator present/watching. You posted on my page but when I tried to reply there you did not reply, I probbaly did it wrong as I don't really know what I'm doing on wikipedia so I thought I'd come here and leave a message. The problem I'm having is the page in dispute is 'owned' by a single editor, he simply deletes any edits he doesn't like. He does discuss the points, but without giving any sense of neutrality or willingness to listen, he simply undoes everything he doesn't like and posts barrages of spurious logic and the odd threat of banning until people give up and leave his page to his sole control. Even going so far as to delete posts from the talk page and posting warnings and threatening banning on peoples individual talk pages. A number of editors have disagreed with him but he always treats everyone with the same hostility and dismissive attitude. It's pretty aggressive. I know we're meant to discuss and assume good faith, but if you try that and he doesn't show the least sign of engaging in genuine debate nor of being willing to even consider opposite points of view and always insists on his own point of view being maintained on the page then surely there is a point where a moderator should get involved? I have plenty of academic papers to quote to support the (numerous) edits I want to make, but no faith that there is any point in doing so unless a third party is overseeing the fairness of what happens. You seem pretty up the ranking in the wiki heirarchy and he noticably settles down and backs off when someone high and mighty makes a post. Can you help? NickPriceNZ (talk) 08:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The way that I can help is to give insight into how situations like yours have ended in other cases. There is not really a hierarchy here other than the guidelines, but yes, sometimes people ask me questions because I do often discuss the guidelines with others.

It looks like your dispute is at Talk:Lion. It looks like you added a comment at Talk:Lion#Edit_request_on_9_May_2012, and this seems like a misunderstanding on your part because it seems like you are talking to people who last posted in that forum two years ago in 2012.

Another confusion is that you are speaking as an academic, whereas the Wikipedia community does most of its business from the perspective of librarians. People here typically do not debate the subject of articles without first establishing what sources say. You added a lot of authoritative text, but did not share any citation that could be parsed except by going back to the main page and trying to track the sources you present from the bibliography.

The quick path to resolution for your concern is to match the format each of your citations to the usual Wikipedia format - that is, replicating them on the talk page. Instead of quoting sources, try to summarize what you want to say as one point. If you wish to make multiple points, present these as separate issues, so that your reviewers can evaluate one discrete point at a time. I recommend that you do this in a new comment thread rather than trying to connect this to any debate which happened more than a year ago, although you could refer to old discussions if you think they are relevant.

The conflict only came because in your presentation, it was not possible for anyone to evaluate that what you are saying came from a published reliable source with the reviewer doing additional work. Also, you did not contribute content in your proposal which could immediately be integrated into Wikipedia, as quotations would need to be adapted to avoid plagiarism.

Sorry for the delay in answering you. If you need something more then ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't realise the Lion talk page section i added to was no longer followed/relevant, and I certainly didn't know that I should be discussing the point differently. Still not sure what you mean, but it looks to me like you are saying "Directly quote a published verifiable source and include what you want to actually add to wikipedia". More to the point though, the issue I was contacting you about is nothing to do witht he lion page. There is a page called "Tiger vs Lion". Put simply it's abominable, almost entirely edited by one person with a very strong bias about the topic who undoes anything anyone does to try to balance the page. Attempts at talk page discussion, no matter how many get involved, are pointless as the always end up in him keeping the page exactly as he wants regardless of what argument is made. He goes so far as to tell people they'e not allowed to fill up the talk page arguing with him despite over half the talk page being his writing, delete the posts of others on the talk page and threaten people with banning. He even posted on my personal page to stop trying to argue with him or I'll be banned. All pretty aggressive language. I don't mind if I can't edit the page, there are plenty of other people trying to make balanced edits, but surely if he's the only one holding his point of view and dominating the page so aggressively then something is wrong there. So just wondering, if reasonable argument always fails with a certain person, what happens next? If you go to look at the talk page you might want to look at the old archived version as much of the disagreement with him he hid by archiving it and refreshing the talk page (which already has lots of new disagreement with him). NickPriceNZ (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickPriceNZ (talk • contribs) 08:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Hospitals

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Hospitals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 09:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriage of Narendra Modi and Jashodaben Chimanlal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for all the minor edits - I've been updating some transclusions of ((Wikipedia ads)) after I rewrote the Lua module that powers it, but for some reason what should have taken one edit to fix actually took four. It looked like you were using the old syntax where the first positional parameter was the total number of ads rather than an ad number, which is why I made this edit. However, if you actually want ad #11 (the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team) please add it back in. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on that includes an edit you did to the article. Thanks AlbinoFerret 07:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Please do consider the matter of unnecessary addition of an external image in Sophie Hunter's page. She's not a model whose appearance is pivotal to her profile nor is the external image notable in her body work. Other pages don't have photos in their infoboxes either and they still exist and work as a page even without an external image. The image the user keeps on inserting is also not solely of Hunter's appearance as she is with somebody else in the photo. This is not at all a very good representation or even rational to have an external image in the page. 180.191.65.201 (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this issue to me. I am not sure how I feel about this, but my first thought is that this kind of use is very uncommon and historically has been against Wikipedia's external links policy. I asked for clarification at Template_talk:External_media#Use_with_infobox_in_lead_for_biographies. I think this issue might merit an WP:RFC if enough people seem interested in commenting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I read your comments on The Signpost questionnaire. I was not aware of this project, but I will start using NIH information when writing or editing hospital articles. I always look at the Healthgrades website, but I have a feeling there is more available through the NIH. Bill Pollard (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wpollard Thanks for your comments and thanks for also contributing to that Signpost article. There is more at the NIH and I think that it is likely that WikiProject Hospitals become a highly active WikiProject someday. Healthgrades has the right idea - governments give away huge amounts of data, and any organization which can process and deliver it can add a lot of value to the market. I want to see more of that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Blue. I am meeting with the WMF on several issues tomorrow, one of which is handling of references. While searching for something else, I stumbled across your grant idea. I've only had a chance to scan it, will read it again in more detail soon.

My main area of interest is to push the WMF to support a Digital Object Identifier concept for general publications, which I think would be the equivalent of a PMID for general references. Of course, the ability to accept an identifier in VE and pull the data from Wikidata is a key aspect, and needs to be completed first. I see that you have identified a number of other related issues. Perhaps we can chat about them some time, so we can find a way I can help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick The team I know who are most interested in this are Daniel Mietchen, Maximilianklein, and Mattsenate who are doing this as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access/Signalling OA-ness. Yes, you are completely on the right track, yes, this is a billion dollar market where money is already being destroyed for no reason, and yes, if this kind of database were put into Wikipedia not only would it improve Wikimedia projects but also many outside organizations would find value in this kind of database for their own purposes. So many organizations have sought to do this but I think Wikimedia projects can succeed here where others have failed. Email me sometime for a voice and video meetup and we can review together what has been settled so far. That "grant" idea is for anyone to take, including you, and I want no part of applying for funding or managing that project. However, if you want any part of it then I would support you in whatever you want to do. This is a big and necessary idea that others are working on but there is no central organization of this. Good luck in your meeting tomorrow. Contact me anytime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bluerasberry. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using ((db-g12|url=URL of source)). If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with ((subst:copyvio|url=URL of source)).

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Lane! My name is Sofia Rocchio from Economics of Developing Countries. I'm having some trouble posting a "needs citation" indicator on a stranger's post within the webpage I'm working with. If you can just walk me through that or tell me where I could find the list of steps, I would be very appreciative. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1993sr (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 November 2014‎

I replied on your page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. Thursday December 4 NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share (RSVP). 6:30pm–8pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided). We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I will be there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)