Translation Main page | Those Involved (sign up) | Newsletter |
Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online.
ConcernHi James, I'm confused as to why you deleted the entire page for "Margaret Garrett" instead of just making edits to get rid of copyright infringement. That was a lot of work and the page met notability guidelines. Can you undo deletion so I can go in and paraphrase instead of starting from scratch again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwiki2 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The sources in question were written by the artist--it seemed okay to have her Wikipedia page in her own words. I don't want to put my email address in a public forum, but if you could just put the article back up I can take it from there. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwiki2 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thank you for email but that was only the first paragraph. I would really like the rest of the article, too--with the list of exhibitions, etc. Is there a way you can either restore that or send it to me? Preferably just restore it so I can edit from there. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwiki2 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I remain really confused as to why you *deleted* the entire page instead of editing it to fix your problems with it!!!! Is there a way to undo deletion and go from there? I feel like I've asked this like 5 times now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwiki2 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
update or omithttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMMED/Reports I would either update these pages or omit them from the WPMF meta page. Lucas559 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Building capacity[2] I'm quite serious here. I understand that you'd like a fast solution to what you perceive as a major problem. But we really are having a problem finding people who are willing to put themselves in the way of the abuse that comes with the CU and OS bits (it's not uncommon for us to be seriously harassed), and are qualified, and actually do the work; two out of three isn't good enough or they're not going to be effective in the job. And they have to be administrators; the checkuser tool is worse than useless without the ability to block. Given your previous history of getting the medical translation project off the ground, you may very well be one of the small group of people who could bring some change to the moribund RFA area. The more administrators there are, the more likely that there will be a sufficient pool of talent interested and willing to develop the skills to identify and act against conflict of interest editing. In a lot of cases it doesn't need checkuser, anyway, it just needs a block button. And keep in mind that there are a lot of people who are indeed editing in good faith but whose CU results could be misinterpreted to suggest that they're gaining some benefit. I seem to remember a bunch of medical students from New York City once who found themselves blocked for adding links to excellent patient-centered information about common diseases. Risker (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
MERS ArticleHi! Sorry to disturb. I'm not sure whether the current "listing format" of the diagnosis section on the MERS page is appropriate. Maybe, it'll be better in paragraph form? Moreover, I'm not quite sure about the function of the history section, which as I remember is (in fact the "epidemiology" section) for diseases that were eradicated (like smallpox). The one there on the MERS page looks like a news outline but is it really necessary? Thanks! In dialogue with Biomedicinal 15:32, 10 June 2015
Nuklearhi would you please block 80.42.22.237 as a sock of Nuklear. Edit warring at Loxtidine. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Vitamin D: society & culture?Doc -- your revert seems overly strict to what is only a MEDMOS suggestion; as the example shows, it's a tangent to the information under such a section title. The alternate title of "Recommended intake levels and health claims" is common parlance in regulatory guidelines and food labeling, and is likely more readily interpreted by common encyclopedia users.--Zefr (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
HeadingDear Doc James, Thank you for your advice. I'm am new to wiki and have concentrated primarily on publication of peer-reviewed journal articles during my career. I would take kind exception to your suggestion that historical and classic references lack merit. If we had to repeat studies, simply because they were older than five years, scientific advancements would grind to a rapid halt. Also accurate citations for the sake of historical primacy are important. I hope my latest additions to this section may meet with your approval. Kind regards, Dr. UVB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr UVB (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Excessive trim leaving potentially wrong statement or at least unsourced statement behindHello Doc, I'd wish to note that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anxiety_disorder&diff=660555781&oldid=660555399 is such an excessive trim that it leaves the statement completely unsourced, and potentially also wanting. I'm not a specialist when it comes to healthcare (know a bit but I'm far from a specialist), but when someone referred me to the page I noted it has some flaws due to this. Can you please take a look again at it and where applicable restore the source-link as well other text if needed?
The Signpost: 10 June 2015
BiographiesHi Doc James, Are biographies relevant to Wikiproject Med? Here's a BLP of Alan Coates I have been working on with User: Wittylama. Just launched. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
RabiesThanks for catching that bit of vandalism and restoring the last good version. I hadn't noticed! -Pax85 (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Wiki Project Med Foundation"Wiki Project Med Foundation ... is an incorporated NGO in the state of NY" Why haven't I found any information regarding this?96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The IP should take their complaints to the article talk page. Making this fuss at an editor's talk and at BLPN is not warranted for something that is verifiable, uncontentious, and known to be correct. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) page Osteoporosis, which have been revertedI've now had to correct the article TWICE :( Please leave it alone. Mike.
|