User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 15

Talk:German acupuncture trials
First thank you for the cup of joe! Second and most importantly, thank you for mediating on the article, German acupuncture trials. I am just placing a note on participants of the talk page to let them know I have changed several header titles. They previously consisted of a UserName and I felt that was not really in keeping with WP policy/guidelines and not likely to increase collegiality and help build consensus. I really appreciate your input, it has helped me develop my concept of encyclopedic paraphrasing. Nice looking hamster BTW. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Compliment
Just wanted to say: Good editing today at Fredrik Stanton and the book article! Pleasure working with a conscientious editor &mdash; even with a half-year lag time! : )  Best wishes for a happy holiday season. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Anthony Holland (composer)
Please see my comment on the talk page -- tagging without participating in an ongoing discussion is pointless. On the other hand, your participation in the discussion would be valuable. Thanks. --JBL (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That one ground the administrative gears... I understand that after deletion it went through deletion review and someone was blocked. You were a bit brusk here but nicer at the article - thanks for that. I came to this article through a request on the WikiProject Medicine talk page and do not normally visit these kinds of articles, so I appreciate your joining me there because sometimes there are not enough conversation participants to manage these things.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   02:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Grady Hall
Concerning your comments at Articles for deletion/Grady Hall, would you look at the references I found and have added to the article, and tell me if you still believe it should be deleted? He has been interviewed for his work, and his work has won notable awards.  D r e a m Focus  19:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I commented that the article should remain because of recent work.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   02:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays
Made a few changes to the text you added here. Typically I fill in the refs so formatted them to fit with the rest of the article. Also simplified it and reworded terms like "patient" per WP:MEDMOS. Hope all is well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I will complete references as you do from now on, because it does seem useful.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   00:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

German acupuncture trials
Happy New Year to you! Are you going to keep on mediating at the GERAC article? I had a short break over the holidays, but it seems like QG is getting a little frustrated... Maybe you can take a glance at this []. I'd appreciate it if you could return to the article. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

cup
Many thanks, friend! I hope to see you in London! :)  Pundit | utter  16:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Link for you
Hi Lane,

I just wanted to make sure that you knew about meta:Category:Best practices in public outreach in case any of it is useful for your outreach work. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I did know about that and have contributed to some of it. I have talked with others about cleaning it and reorganizing it. What do you know about this collection? Perhaps we could chat sometime and trade notes.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   21:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about it except what a 60-second scan of the category shows. I just happened to run across it while looking for something else and thought that it would be interesting to you.  I'm glad that you've already been working on it.  It did seem like it was a bit out of date.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Virtual meeting invite
Would you like to participate in the January 2014 Seattle meetup virtually? We will meet on Saturday, January 11 at 6pm. If you can participate please sign on the talk page and install Skype. Hope to see you at the meeting. --Pine✉ 02:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Nerve pain
I notice that you redirected Nerve pain to Neuralgia the other day. Do you have any other thoughts about that page? It seems odd to me to have that search term redirect to a rare disease page that doesn't mention other forms of nerve pain, like Sciatica or carpal tunnel syndrome. What are you thoughts? , do you have any suggestions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have no idea what neuralgia is. I now see in the article where it is called a rare disease, but other information in the article made me think and makes me think that it is scientific term for general "nerve pain". I am not sure what nerve pain is. I supposed that something could be faulty with a pain nerve, and that the nerve could signal pain without any stimulus, and that this could be called "nerve pain", and that "neuralgia" was the article for this. "Pain" in contrast would be when a nerve signals damage correctly, such as when the body needs to feel pain to alert a person to damage. I did not want to link to a specific type of nerve pain, like sciatica or carpal tunnel. What is the general term for nerve pain? Is nerve pain a thing which exists?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that nerve pain is a "thing", but the fact is that I don't know much about either pain or nerves. Anthony does, which is why I pinged him.  Perhaps he'll be able to tell us.  And, for that matter, it may turn out that the Neuralgia article is completely wrong.  I just don't know.  (I definitely agree with your decision against redirecting Nerve pain to something about a specific body part.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Neuralgia" (Latin: nerve pain) is mostly used to denote pain in the distribution of a named nerve or nerves, as in intercostal neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, glossopharyngeal neuralgia - though it is also commonly used alone to refer to postherpetic neuralgia. (It's a subclass of neuropathic pain.) So I'm fine with the redirect. I'm no expert but Neuralgia looks seriously wrong. I'll add it to my list. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

 * Thanks. I received this notice for procedural work I did related to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I wish to remain uninvolved.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Article feedback
I'm doing it by hitting the "enable feedback" button on the left side of the articles. It helps me know what readers think of !my articles.—indopug (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now I understand better how article feedback works.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Breakfast research

 * Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi :-)
Nice to meet you; I do the weekly Top 25 report for Wikipedia articles, and its cousin, the Traffic Report at the Signpost. One of the things I have to do is determine which articles are genuinely popular and which are due to botnets, and one of the ways to determine this (we think) is that bots tend to surge for one day and then disappear, whereas people tend to leave a taper on the view stats.  Serendi pod ous  15:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes,, that is where I have seen your name. Thanks for making something which could potentially have been executed as very repetitive as something which remains interesting week after week.
 * I am trying to come to terms with the significance of the popularity of Wikipedia articles. A fundamental question that I try to answer is the extent to which, or if at all, Wikipedia matters as a publication. An argument that I would like to be able to make is that any given publication becomes more important as it becomes read by more of the right people. My intuition is that Wikipedia's articles are read by enough people such that it is reasonable to compare Wikipedia's viewership with the audience of other publications, and that the "right" people are reading Wikipedia in the sense that whereas, for example, the readers of newspapers do not read the entirety of a given newspaper, the people going to particular Wikipedia articles are people who wanted to read the article which they requested.
 * The conclusion that I would like to be able to persuade others to believe is that Wikipedia's traffic justifies investment in developing Wikipedia articles among those people who want to provide encyclopedic information on a given issue. I would be curious to learn, for example, when a particular Google Doodle is driving traffic to someplace on the Internet in greater numbers than it is driving people to Wikipedia. How often do you think the Google Doodle program results primarily in a serge of visitors to a Wikipedia article, and how often does it send people elsewhere?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't really know if that's an answerable question, without access to the entire internet. Given the overwhelming use of Google, and the pro-Wikipedia bias inherent in Google searches, I think most people, in the English-speaking world at least, are drawn to Wikipedia. But that's just a hunch.  Serendi pod ous  16:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , it probably is not an answerable question. I have some data, and there are some commercial research organizations (like Nielsen Holdings) which have very interesting snooping datasets of traffic to the entire Internet, but I do not have the skills to interpret the data beyond being able to recognize that Wikipedia is very popular. I contribute to health information, and although I cannot solidly prove it, by just looking at some data I think that it would not be absurd to speculate that Wikipedia could be the world's most popular source of health information for almost all topics. If it is not the world's most popular, then it seems extremely popular. If you come to meet any statistician who might be willing to write a position paper then perhaps I could collect some data... I am not sure. I wonder if that traffic report you compile about Wikipedia might be indicative of something more general and profound that just Wikipedia readership, and if it could be used to think about the public's demands for information in new ways. The topics on your list do not match the topics which most often appear on television, in newspapers, in magazines, in movies, or on other websites, and I wonder if that is because Wikipedia readers have different tastes or if other communication channels are not serving public demand. Thanks for saying hello. I like what you do and I feel that it has some significance but I am not sure how to express that.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Open access navbox
Hi Lane, someone has twice changed the text in Template:Open access navbox which explains the concept 'libre'. I'm not sure why but I don't want to get into an edit war over something like that, so if you were to leave a comment on the talk page about it that might be useful. Hope you're well - Lawsonstu (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Lists of scientists known for opposing a mainstream scientific assessment
Category:Lists of scientists known for opposing a mainstream scientific assessment, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Jinkinson  talk to me  04:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Devyani Khobragade incident". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 05:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Miss World India
Funny, there's no mention of racism against Miss world(who was indian) either, talking about the page Racism in the United States, even though it gets over [30k views per month]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladesmulti (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be there, or at least somewhere. When there is a place to put this kind of information so that it is not forgotten then it helps build understanding between the cultures and improves behavior in the future.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Medical sources
I am reading up on Identifying reliable sources (medicine), because I am working on an article on Invisalign in my COI capacity, which will probably have 1-2 sub-sections on efficacy that would fall under medical claims. I was wondering if it would be ok if I asked for your input now and then on the policy as I am not experienced in that area. CorporateM (Talk) 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am happy to help here or at the article.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   02:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've got a stupid question. The studies themselves are considered Primary sources and not admissable. I have to find secondary sources that provide a summary of available literature, like this book which summarizes some the most prominent clinical studies on page 227. It seems to me that most of the sources currently on the page are therefore primary sources. However, I am also suppose to avoid teritary sources that just cite information like this one. This seems contradictory to me, because any source that summarizes the results of clinical studies will probably have citations to the studies themselves. CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . No question is stupid, but you did neglect to ask one.
 * The secondary source that you cited is cool because it provides supporting evidence that the primary sources are worth mentioning in a history of this aspect of orthodontics. The level of information depth in this source can be a guide to the level of information which is significant in each primary source, and as you can see, this editor only saw fit to keep 1-3 sentences per primary source. The tertiary source that you are presenting, that textbook-like work, is worth citing because it is a layman-readable presentation of the content and it seems trustworthy in that it itself provides citations. If I cited information from this source, then I would not both it and the work it cites when possible. Also, this work is a blur between a secondary/tertiary source on this niche topic because it cites both primary and secondary sources. Textbooks often do this.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, one more question. I've got "Reception" stuff like clinical studies that show Invisalign causes less pain and less root damage than traditional braces. And then I have "Reception" like a reliable source (newspaper) saying that many patients in an online forum complained of pain, surprise mid-treatment complications, and so on. What is the accepted way of handling this? Do we create one section called "Clinical studies" for the academic/professional stuff and one called "Reception" for the feedback of patients? In business/software articles we typically use professional reviews in a Reception section, but that seems like an awkward header for clinical studies. Right now there's advatanges/disadvantages section and "Scientific studies" which seems like an awful way to do it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , The usual way would be to either avoid newspapers or to cite newspaper claims in a muted way which presents their reports in the most general terms. If some claim in a newspaper is not better covered in other sources, say something like "Popular news sources reported user opinions about the procedure" then cite the paper but do not repeat what they said, and make no medical claims. This acknowledges broader media coverage but unless the discussion seems similarly reported in multiple sources, it probably should not be summarized on Wikipedia. Any reporting of pain or complications would be a medical claim, and newspapers are suspect for these things.
 * See MEDMOS for an outline of the sections and ordering for creating health device articles, or choose the surgery guide if you think that is better.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   21:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So would something like this be a good source? It is a new study, but it presents an overview of the available literature. I just want to use the overview. Double-checking before I dive hours and hours into these types of sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , yes, as you have perceived, the overview of other literature is secondary sourcing. If you use this source in this way, make a note about this on the talk page so that the next person will be able to see it as you are.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   02:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, last question (I think). Do you have any tips on how to access some of these sources? Some of the books/studies cost hundreds of dollars to access. One hundred consecutive Invisalign cases analysed is cited about 4-5 times in the current article, but I can't find a way to get access to the full-text. I could easily pay over one-thousand dollars if I paid the price for the sources I need. CorporateM (Talk) 20:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I do not personally have good access to sources, although as you may know, I volunteer a lot in the open access movement. It is a shame that this research, all of which is at least partially funded by taxpayers, has the reporting of its results sold to public libraries and is otherwise unavailable to the taxpayers who funded it. In the United States, most universities permit some amount of public access to their resources, and in many cases, if you put your physical body inside a library building designated for public access, then you may use their system to read or download the papers to which they are subscribed. City libraries rarely have this access; probably you should go to a university, and you could call, online chat, or email them first to confirm. On Wikipedia you can go to WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and request these documents. Finally, you could go to Twitter and use the hashtag #icanhazpdf along with the doi of your paper and someone there would help you if you confirm that you have a legal right to access the paper. I have no access to the paper you want.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, last question (I think). Would you normally make the medical claims section of a medical product concise like "Studies have found that it is X, Y, and Z." That's really concise because it covers three studies in a single sentence. Or would you cover each study in more depth like "In 2005 a study in publication X with 100 patients found that Y". CorporateM (Talk) 14:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it depends on the content, or perhaps it is an arbitrary choice. For the case you mentioned, "2005, one study, 100 patients", that sounds like a primary source and not compliant with WP:MEDRS, so tread lightly about presenting any medical claim. Contrariwise, those may be the only extent sources, so it would be remiss not to include them somehow. Your bundling strategy works if your "X, Y, and Z" are in place to acknowledge the scope of research and not to report the results of the result. As you step closer to reporting individual research results, then you should have information in its own sentence.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

New features for course pages
Several noticeable improvements to the EducationProgram extension (in addition to some small bug fixes) will go live on or around 2014-01-23:

Notifications
 * All participants in a course (students, instructors, volunteers) will receive Notifications whenever their course talk page is edited. Thus, editors can use course talk pages to send messages they want the whole class to be aware of, and the class participants are likely to see them.

Special:Contributions student notice
 * For users enrolled as students in courses that are active, a notice will appear at the top of Special:Contributions noting which course(s) they are enrolled in. This will make it easy for users who come across the work of student editors to find out that they are part of a course and identify other class participants.

Adding articles
 * Course instructors and volunteers will be able to assign articles to student editors, instead of all articles needing to be added by the student editors themselves.

Adding students
 * Instructors and volunteers will be able to add users as students in courses, instead of all student editors needing to enroll for themselves. This makes it easier to maintain complete lists of students, and also makes the extension more suitable for tracking participation in edit-a-thons, workshops and other collaborative projects beyond the Wikipedia Education Program.

If you have feedback about these new features, or other questions or ideas related to course pages, please let me know! --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Subscribe or unsubscribe from future Wikipedia Education Program technical updates.

Proposal about bot behaviours
Following up on your suggestion at my talk page, there's now a discussion at Village pump (technical)/Archive 122. And thanks for the suggestion! (Cute hamster, almost as ferocious as a Sminthopsis.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing an animal with me. I read the conversation and it is tripping me out. The people there are able to intuitively anticipate things I would not have been able to imagine. You seem to have shied from the suggestion of making a request "a manner that can be determined quickly and unambiguously by a computer program", but do not be. If you make your request it will go into a searchable database and contribute a standing argument that will exist forever if anyone searches for it. If you are really shy, then I will post it for you and show you, but otherwise, make an account in the WP:Bugzilla system, describe your problem in one sentence, describe your proposed remedy in one sentence even if it has problems, then link to the discussion that was had. This is how the software developers get feedback, and they especially need feedback from users and not other developers. I think you have a legitimate concern and there will for a long time be talks about how to give regular users more powers and burden admins with fewer responsibilities. Either you do this, or I will do it for you, but let me know. Thanks for posting here.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again, love your user page. It's not shyness really, I'm actually from way back (20 years ago) a systems analyst, and it seems to be a systems analyst that is needed here, but in a domain that I'm not familiar with. To specify this in "a manner that can be determined quickly and unambiguously by a computer program" has me stumped. JackmcBarn's word description "as long as the page has never been anything but a redirect, regardless of target, allow moving over it" seemed right to me. He seems to think that that might lead to vandalism, I suppose of a manic sort, thrashing, moving a redirect back and forth or all over the place. Is it ever desirable to move one redirect over another, or do we just change the target and forget about moving the page history? I wonder if another component here would make sense, a warning or the inability to move one redirect over another. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the complement and the ice. I checked your userpage too - what is your interest in Bangladesh? Did you hear that meta:Wikimedia Bangladesh helped coordinate access to Wikipedia Zero last December?
 * I do not know what to propose for a solution, but even noting a problem without a solution or with a non-workable solution is useful. If there is a record of several people noting the same concern then that identifies the problem as worth addressing. If it is posted to Bugzilla then someone will sort it to go with any other related complaints which have been made, and if in time there are several concerns then it goes up the work queue to be resolved.
 * I see no little value in keeping short trivial page histories, although from a file storage perspective, no harm is done by doing so. The problem behind deleting them is balancing the need for housekeeping with the power to recall any historical information. "As long as the page has never been anything but a redirect, regardless of target, allow moving over it" seems like a reasonable proposal to me.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   21:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ( held aloft seemed appropriate ), I'll look into making a feature request at Bugzilla.
 * About Bangladesh, thanks very much, I hadn't heard that Wikipedia Zero is now accessible in Bangladesh. My interest in the place comes from having lived there briefly and feeling very helpless in the face of its terrible problems (and a major dummy for not having learned the language(s) yet). Polishing the English wikipedia coverage seemed to be a way to perhaps help journalists outside the country give the issues there better coverage, which might do something good, maybe. I hope that en.wikipedia being a bit better could be a little cheering to friends there, though, frankly, it's an embarrassment at present. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Bluerasberry - unblock request
How do i remove my blocked because it is been a long time since i opened it, as i know ,the block would only last up to two weeks, (is?) it ha been 4 months since i opened my account here , Can you give an information to removed this ? i blocked by a user:Obsidian Soul?? thank you

and Ps; Can you give me an information how to give a proper license for my Multimedia uploads so it would be delete here, as what happend in the pic of Asian peoples (which i spend weeks to create) just deleted for the single issue, there was a part which is a from stamp.

so once again thanks you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipandrew (talk • contribs) 08:19, 24 January 2014‎
 * Hello ! I will reply to you on your talk page.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   10:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)