User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 18

/* Open Course Library (OCL) */
I'll put it under See Also -- ok?Researcherguy (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "See also" works; perhaps "See main" is not right. I am not sure in this case. In any case Wikipedia only needs one discussion of the arguments about free textbooks; that may be ancillary to what you are doing or may be exactly what is discussed in that section.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your invaluable input re Hirajas! Quite apart from the article and the news blurb, I now consider myself better-educated on the topic than I was this morning!

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 

Thanks
Thanks for writing on my talk page. The idea of Abhishek is actually my idea! (I am sure that he will also accept it.) It came to existence when we were discussing about it once some time back. He has supported the idea, but the idea is mine :P. It is actually not that important whose idea because making it work is more important. I also have to accept that I am not able to give much time for it and I am expecting others to respond to it. Let see what happens. The texts are there on other websites now but they are .com websites.

The content is copyright free as per my knowledge so there shall be no issue to upload them on the servers of Wikisource which are more reliable in my opinion. May I request you to send your mail id? My mail id is abhijeet.safai@gmail.com. Thanking you, Yours sincerely --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-a-thon
Hi Lane,

I saw you left regrets on the Meetup/University of Delaware/April 2014 Colored Conventions page. We're sorry you won't be able to make it! I was wondering, though, do you have any idea how we could get an exemption from the 6-editor-max-sign-up rule for the event? We might have a bunch of people signing up for accounts.

AH UDelLib (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. Have all of your event organizers (hopefully at least two people) request the Account creator userright. People who have this userright can make accounts for other users one at a time through Special:CreateAccount. Historically this has worked for groups of up to about 30 people if two people process the accounts at about 2 per minute. It always helps to ask people to make their account before the event. Ask if you have other questions.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

BMJ editorial
Congrats again, & yes please a copy. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Account Creator page
Hi there Bluerasberry; rather than talk to you in edit summaries I thought I'd let you know why I undid your edit. Near the top of the page the words "create accounts" is linked to Special:UserLogin on which there is a 'Create another account' button - arguably this should be changed to link to the actual account creation page that you linked to be fair. My main issue is that the section you added reads like instructions on how to use the Account Creator rights; which aren't actually for creating accounts, they're for creating multiple accounts or bypassing certain restrictions. The line you added makes it sound like it's for creating any account and that non-account creators can't create new accounts. I do, though, agree that there should be a link to the actual creation page, so I'm going to change the aforementioned link to be to the one you added. I hope this is a good compromise. Sam Walton (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. I posted a reply on that article's talk page. Perhaps we should talk there.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Filmographies
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Filmographies. 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) 00:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiConference
Hi! I saw you responded to me in Education_Noticeboard - you said you emailed me, but don't think I got it.

I'll surely be going to WikiConference! See you there?

Best way to get at me is on twitter: @shawncarrie

or by email, you can reach me at shawn.carrie [at] gmx -dot- com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn.carrie (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

peace
BR, I'm sorry that my comments in your comment thread made you feel bad. In truth, they were directed more at the whole of the editors arguing against inclusion; not against you in particular. I should have made that clear. I do not in fact hold ill-will to you, or think badly of you! I did want to call attention to the problems with the application of the notability standard here, because I am quite frustrated by it. (But that's for the discussion on that page.) As for you and me -- I hope you will accept my apology for using my response to you to respond to all, and doing so in an unclear and hurtful way. And I hope we can be in peace together. --Lquilter (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology and it feels good to get it, even though you did nothing wrong for which you ought to apologize. I am sorry too. I just wanted to be understood. Yes, I want peace with you always. I still am not able to think clearly and I feel unsafe with Adrianne and Cindy (user:cindamuse) dying. Thank you.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about Cindy. It is definitely distressing when folks we know (virtually or in real life) or even know of die. I will try to be more understanding and gentle around people's emotions. Glad we're okay. --Lquilter (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Education Program technical update, April 2014
Since the last update, development of the editor campaigns project has been continuing, and it's almost at the point that it will be useful to users running edit-a-thons and other non-course outreach events. (If you are planning such an event soon and would like to beta test it for tracking the contributions of newcomers, get it touch.) In the meantime, we've made a few small improvements and bug fixes to the Education Program extension:

The default end date for courses is now approximately six months in the future, instead of immediately. This will prevent the common problem where a user creates a new course page but does change the default dates, resulting in a course that is immediately considered "ended" and thus cannot be enrolled in.
 * Default course end date

Whenever a user gets added to a course by someone else, they will now receive a Notification.
 * Notifications when you get added to a course

The student profile special page (Special:Student/Username, not to be confused with Special:Students) is a page that lists the courses a student editor is enrolled in, and is also supposed to list the articles that user is working on. However, the list of articles can include incorrect data in cases where an instructor or volunteer assigned the articles to the student editor. These profiles are being removed from the extension altogether. This change should go into effect Thursday, May 1. (Logs are still available to find out which courses a user is enrolled in.)
 * Disabling individual student profiles

A nearly complete patch from Facebook Open Academy student Jeff Lloyd will add a new type of Notification: students will be alerted to edits made by others to the article(s) they are assigned (as well as the corresponding talk pages). Expect to see this feature within the next several weeks.
 * Article edit notifications for students coming soon

Bugs in the course page creation process (now fixed) led in some cases to duplicate listings for the same course at Special:Courses. This happens when the same course page had two (or more) different course ID numbers. It is possible to clean up such duplicate entries using by making calls to the API. I've documented this process and written a Python script for it.
 * Duplicate courses and API deletion

If you have feedback about these changes, or other questions or ideas related to course pages, please let Anna Koval or me know!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Subscribe or unsubscribe from future Wikipedia Education Program technical updates.

Not sure you've been formally invited?!
Valfontis (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I joined.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Valfontis (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Education Foundation
Hi Bluerasberry! I saw the list of courses here: Special:Courses which lists term as "Summer 2014" and "Winter 2014". I want to complain about this, because some users (ie those in the Southern Hemisphere) will find this quite confusing. Where ought I complain? I can't seem to find any place besides the mostly dead Education Noticeboard on wiki. I hope you are well, --LT910001 (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We try to respond soon enough at Education noticeboard (WP:WEP) and are in the process of converting it from its historical United States focus to international. I think you comments will be well received.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have posted accordingly. --LT910001 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Harvard liason
Hi Lane, I'm wondering if in your education program work you've gotten wind of anything around Harvard or Dana Farber relating to molecular pathological epidemiology, molecular epidemiology, etc. There seem to be several local editors there (mostly IPs) with a tendency to cite S. Ogino, who is also local. We really need to have some epidemiologists on the project, but this bunch needs some handholding, and isn't engaging in discussion. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I know nothing about this person. If you ever identify any professor doing health I am happy to make offers to meet them online and give them a tour of Wikipedia's health content.
 * I went to Harvard for one OBGYN class which just wrapped up their engagement. I am today writing a report about outcomes from that class, all modest but useful, and I will share that when it is finished.
 * The user you mention has done nothing for two months. It is hard to track these things. Without a communication channel identified it is difficult for me to engage otherwise. If you have further thoughts then I am at hand. I always appreciate referrals to professors doing medicine with Wikipedia.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There's a substantial overlap in edit dates and in topic choice for, ,  , , . A class project seemed the most AGF explanation. You might reach out to the cited author and see if there's interest in future class projects. LeadSongDog  come howl!  19:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two accounts are at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute - you visited User_talk:155.52.35.179 some time ago. I spot checked some edits - all of these are citing different papers with different authors, so it is not obvious that they are link spamming anything. None of these seem to have edited the article on their institute, either. Next time I am in Boston perhaps I will just write general mail at the institute and offering a presentation to their communications team, telling them that science edits come from their ip address. I expect they will hear me out. For now I will just write that guy you suggested - Shuji Ogino. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a fine idea to me. I don't see any sign of bad intent in any of these edits, just a need for some wikicoaching, which can only work if the editors engage in discussion. From what I have seen of the literature, Dr Ogino is one of the leaders in the field (a dozen reviews published in the past five years are listed on pubmed, many more primary articles), so it's quite reasonable that there would be a concentration of students around him interested in that topic area. We haven't had an epidemiologist at WPMED for a few years now, and it would be great to change that. LeadSongDog  come howl!  14:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IGM, but prefer to keep things onwiki. I'll happily leave it in your capable hands, but if that doesn't suit, just let me know either here or on my talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is quite okay. It was just a standing offer to include you to the extent that you wish to be informed.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!
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   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.
 * 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.
 * 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!  D ip ta ns hu Talk 12:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

APS Wikipedia Initiative
I'm sure this will be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Association_of_Psychological_Science_.28APS.29_Wikipedia_Initiative -- kosboot (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. This initiative was started in 2010 but as I understand never achieved a solid base. For some weeks I have been talking to people at the American Psychiatric Association because they have wanted their health information on Wikipedia, and I am aware of the historical efforts of the APS in their overlapping space. I have not contacted APS for a long time but thanks for poking me - I will renew my communication with them and keep you posted.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks!

 * I appreciate your comments on the medicine page. I'm not sure that's the forum and I think it's best to move on, which is why I'm commenting here and not there. It might be better to post it on the ANI thread I opened asking to have my talk page fully protected. I got tired of the heavy-handed, brow-beating comments, including an editor who came socking. However, I agree the editor and the professor could have availed themselves of the Wiki process and did not. Especially given Ms. Duffy claims she was communicating with a Wikipedia editor. I agree there are gender issues on Wikipedia, but in this case, it's just not true. I'm female. Most people on Wikipedia know that and even if they didn't, the big question would be, how would I discern that Dballouz was female? Based on what? I think the overreaction to this, especially on my talk page, is because I'm female. Thanks again. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a gender issue here because the complainant said it was a gender discrimination issue; your own gender does not decrease the harm of the student and professor feeling attacked by males for their being female. It is not your fault that they feel this way, and I want them to be free to express however they feel.
 * I cannot say why this provoked the reaction that it did, but part of the problem is Wikipedia's inherent nature. Please do not get so stressed out about this. I posted to the medicine page because you are a member of that community, and as such, your peers there should have an opportunity to become aware of your situation. We lose way too many health editors over situations like you are experiencing, and I do not want to risk you getting too stressed over this.
 * I posted at ANI. Thanks for being a welcoming Wikipedian. Stop by at WikiProject Medicine anytime for support. It was not apparent to me in this case that you needed support.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Food industry criticism template
Okay, I created the template here. Feel free to add anything appropriate, including any books or films I may have missed. — Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 12:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I added some more.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

vaginismus
The following was inserted under neuromodulators and is completely false: Unfortunately, women may have trouble accessing Botox or lidocaine, both financially and as controlled substances. Additionally, the necessity of an injection prior to any sexual intercourse may not necessarily provide a woman with the sexual freedom she may be looking for in treating her vaginismus. Finally, Botox is well-known to be potentially harmful to the human body.

Comment Dr. Pacik

There is no difficulty accessing Botox. Lidocaine injections do not work. Women are able to afford Botox to treat vaginismus. The treatment program is covered by some insurance policies. Women DO NOT receive these injections before intercourse. This is a ridiculous and inflammatory statement. They receive the injections during their treatment and after using dilators are able to progress to intercourse. This is a one time treatment as described in my book Ref. 11 and several papers which have been accepted for publication. Botox has been used in millions of women and is considered to be a safe and effective drug. I have treated over 250 patients using this program with a 97% cure rate as documented in several of my papers.

This statement needs to be eliminated.

I am still getting acquainted with editing Wikipedia and thought I would send you this note for guidance.

Pepacik (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)Dr. Pacik
 * Sorry for several days' delay in responding to you. It seems you removed the statement, so you see very well how Wikipedia works. About citing papers - Wikipedia tends to be a conservative source of health information and when health articles go through review here, unsourced information and information sourced to primary papers is almost always removed. The strong preference is for secondary sources or review articles. If there is something you wish to do here and you have a good source, then share it with me and I will look at it and the article with you. Or even better, go to WikiProject Medicine to the talk page there and post that you have done something and want review from the general community. Thanks for coming to me. Visit any time.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Provocative idea indeed!
Hello and thank you for your comments at NonFreeWiki. Seeing the title of your section was a bit of a shock. I wondered what could offended you about the proposal. :P As for the next step, I think I'd prefer to wait until at least 20 people have added their name to the supporters section. Cheers.  Green Giant  supports  NonFreeWiki  ( talk )  16:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your encouragement. :-) Deb (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry
Hi, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I replied.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Along the same lines of todays' medicine post
Hey Lane, I tripped across this discussion last night during a speedy deletion thing. thought it might be relevant to your post today at medicine. AfC Deb. Ian Furst (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I wrote to Deb and thanked her for keeping cool. The administrators on Wikipedia go through so much. At our upcoming United States WikiConference in New York City we are organizing a sensitivity training for participants, which so far as I know has not been done at one of our community events before. It is difficult to know what is best to do. Thanks for looking out for others here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Tracking views of video
Hey Lane, I put that health video on Impacted wisdom teeth but don't have a means to track if it's being viewed (because it's on commons, the local views don't seem to register). Any idea how to determine if or how much it's being used? Ian Furst (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have an idea of who and what to ask but in short, no, this would not be easy for meat this time even though I think about this a lot and am trying to learn. I also am asked to do this as part of my job at Consumer Reports but cannot do this at this time. I might advise you to wait some years for the infrastructure to be developed around this; if you really must have data there might be ways to get low-quality approximations and I could help with that.
 * It is not as easy as going to the history of a Wikipedia article and getting a pageview report, as I believe that pageviews are not counted for impressions within the Wikipedia article which is the usual case for access. I just followed up to a thread and a lot of advice which I got about this in the past. When I asked then, I wanted general metrics about all of Wikipedia's health information, and I asked about articles, but actually I want every kind of metrics including for embedded media interaction.
 * The person who knows the most about what you are asking is user Dominic (I am not pinging him here). He works at the National Archives and Records Administration as their Wikipedian in Residence and got his employment in part for developing some system by means of which he is able to put their content into Wikimedia Commons, distribute it through mostly English Wikipedia, and then report the traffic of the people accessing it. I have never been able to learn what he is doing, and in general, this kind of information reporting is developed in the GLAM programs. It is a regret of mine that there has not been good collaboration between medicine or sciences and GLAM, because I feel that the communities have a lot to share with each other.
 * This August at Wikimania in London there will be a Wikimedia Commons training session led by user Fae (I am not pinging him here). I am attending that and there I hope to learn how to better manage files there; so far as I know there must not be more than 50 people in the world who understand how to upload lots of files at once or the nuances in the metrics reporting about them.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is a loaded question, but (since I'm a rookie and allowed to be naive) I'll ask anyway. We always got this data by putting a cookie for Google analystics on our pages.  Do Wikipedia and Google interact with any of this stuff or is that not allowed? Ian Furst (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a great question. What you say is a desired outcome but not possible only because of Google. All scripts running in Wikipedia are managed by Wikimedia developers, so Google Analytics is not an option. External applications are forbidden because of Wikipedia's no advertising policy and because Wikimedia projects are committed to only using free and open source software. If, for example, Google made their code free and open for anyone to use, then it could be incorporated here so fundamentally what you say is a good idea. It just cannot happen here ideologically until there is a free way to do this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Education
Hi Blue! There is a group of evidence-based chiropractors who would like to set up a WikiProject EB Chiropractic. They're looking to work co-operatively with other health science wikiprojects and don't want to get involved in unnecessary drama. The main purpose would be for intraprofessional dialogue, collaborative editing primarily for musculoskeletal disorders. Anyways, any suggestions would be helpful and I'm here for the long haul. Cheers. DVMt (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for messaging me. Could you please email me? I will send you by email my schedule and then we can plan to talk by voice or video with any number of your colleagues. I propose to give any of you a tour of Wikipedia's health content and help you create a schedule for going forward. I recommend planning a time commitment and with short-term goals and expected outcomes that would help you decide the extent to which you wish to deepen your engagement with Wikipedia.
 * Sorry, no promises about the drama and I absolutely cannot shield anyone from it! Some people never have a problem with it and some people find that it follows them everywhere. I cannot say why that is. Thanks for writing to me.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Today is a holiday for me, but I'll PM sooner than later, and we can work something out.  Thanks for considering my proposal and I do look forward to discussing it with you further.  DVMt (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

 * please help translate this message into the local language

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