User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 25

Tor: talk
If you insist in keeping the talk section, please put in under your own name and delete references to my ip. I rather avoid any issues that may result from the comment posted; so if you want to keep it, post it under your name and eliminate my ip. Remove this talk section as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:1285:c600:213:20ff:fe3b:a79e (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 February 2015‎
 * I do not insist on anything. I would help but fail to understand what is happening. Your IP address is associated with posting a good question which I answered, and repeatedly deleting that question and answer, and spamming multiple Wikipedia articles with advertisements. If you do not want to draw attention to your IP address then create an WP:ACCOUNT so that your IP will be hidden from public view. I am very sympathetic to privacy needs but do not understand you at all, especially when you came to Wikipedia to criticize anyone's need for Tor privacy and at the same time you do lots of things to draw an unusual amount of attention, scrutiny, and public recordmaking to your own IP address. If you have a safety issue which requires the deletion of your IP records here then please contact the team at WP:OVERSIGHT. I have never seen behavior like yours anywhere else on Wikipedia and think you have made a mistake - Wikipedia by default records the actions of every editor, and if that does not suit you then please cease making comments. I want to help but cannot break Wikipedia rules, especially for an account that does spam vandalism here. Please contact the oversight team to remove your IP address.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm just being overly cautious with this as I don't want to be associated with tor at all. I just posted the question as I thought it should be covered by the article, but then realized that due to the controversiality surrounding it, I better just kept out of it entirely and not posted any question at all. I tried simply deleting it, but then suddenly this isn't being allowed by the moderators again, despite that it was my own question I removed. Anyway, all this to say that if you want to keep the comment, post it under your own name and remove all these texts, here, at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=648638873#Forged_signature.2C_editing_other_people.27s_comments, ... You don't need to remove my ip, i just want the texts out or placed under your name.


 * I'm no spammer btw, the reason I added the links at the camgirl page was the following: Talk:Camgirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:1285:c600:213:20ff:fe3b:a79e (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The page is now semi-protected, so our IP-hopping spammer will no longer be able to edit it.


 * 2a02...a79e, you keep breaking Wikipedia's rules against forging your signature and editing other people's talk page comments and we really don't care why you think spamming Wikipedia is OK. Bringing it up at Bluerasberry's talk page is a waste of time. I am the one who is attempting to have you blocked from editing Wikipedia, and WP:ANI is the place where I am discussing it with the admins who will do the actual blocking. Feel free to join the discussion at WP:ANI if you wish to make a case for allowing you to continue editing Wikipedia despite being unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Blueraspberry,

I discussed the issue with Guy Macon (see User_talk:Guy_Macon). I was wondering whether you could remove the following from the tor talk page:


 * What is this question? I notice that it is posted today, 20 February, but dated 20 December of last year, and that the person who posted this is not the IP who signed it. Why was this posted here now?
 * In response the question, Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM so discussion of the philosophy of Tor should not happen here. I can answer by saying that this Wikipedia article should cover regulations of the use of Tor and more about how people say Tor is used.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP user has gone wild, and has tried to delete the above comment and my response many times. In the article history here there are links to policy about why it is not okay to delete comments, especially after they become part of a conversation. On a problem board, it is also noted that users at this IP address spam and vandalize Wikipedia. All of this is very strange and stands out a lot. I have no idea why this user is so insistent on doing strange things here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this is your own text, you are allowed to remove it, and once that's done, it is probably safe enough (doesn't stand out anymore) so the rest can be left to stand. If possible, please remove this, and we can end this issue.Thanks in advance. 2A02:A03F:126D:A800:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a safety concern and you are worried about attention coming to your IP address, then I agree to delete my comments if you agree to delete yours. I already know you want yours deleted and I will delete mine too only so that you can begin to protect your IP.
 * The Wikipedia community does not have best practices for total non-disclosure, but if you create an account, then only the Wikimedia Foundation and designated trusted overseers will be able to see it. For almost everyone, that amount of protection is satisfactory.
 * I hope that you can appreciate that we are all just trying to keep peace here and that it stands out when someone does something odd. You are welcome to contribute. Please try to mind the rules - a lot of people developed them over many years to try to keep everyone safe. If you know about Tor, then you must know that a lot of people can be harassed or stalked online and we all try to be conscious of providing the right amount of protect for individuals to keep safety and order for the larger community.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you and sorry about the inconvenience.

2A02:A03F:1216:7200:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Cardio First Angel - dilemma
Hi Bluerasberry, this is in reference to my question in regards to Cardio First Angel where you have asked for more references (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluerasberry/Archive_24) I have provided more references, but my question as I have found today still remains unanswered. I may be rather slow, but to my understanding, if one writes about some product and describes its functions and benefits, which are important for the reader to understand what the whole product is about, it is rejected that it sounds like advertisement. If one writes about the product in abstract terms, so it wouldn't sound like advertisement, it is useless, because these specifics are important to understand why the product works the way it does. For example Cardio First Angel the way it is working, eliminates fears and worries prospective layman rescuer who has no knowledge how to do CPR, so he/she can take action and help to save a person who just had a heart attack. There is also a reference in Spiegel online: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/diagnose/reanimation-cardio-first-angel-fuer-bessere-wiederbelebung-a-992407.html An independent article which speaks along the same lines. So, I would be very grateful to you, if you can advice me how to sort out this dilemma, that the article about Cardio First Angel would be publishable, with the description of its functions and benefits without sounding as advertisement. Should or could it include any bullet points?

Regards

Animall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animall (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was my own oversight that I failed to reply. I delayed because I could not immediately evaluate the sources. You have lots of options, but in my opinion, the best way forward is meeting minimal standards, then after you do that, expand as you like. In my opinion, the Gizmodo, Softpedia, and Red Ferret sources count as reliable sources to meet general notability guidelines for inclusion into Wikipedia. Note that these sources do not meet medical reliable sources guidelines, so avoid making any health promises or claims about the product, but feel free to describe the nature of the product and what it is purported to do. A good way to improve the article is to add three sentences, one from each source, and cite the source at the end of each of those sentences. If you do that much and then ping me then I will help you make the article go live if you do not see the way yourself. Thanks for messaging me again. I am sorry that you had to ask twice so thanks for coming back.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Using wikipedia for a class in the Spring 2015
I hope that you don't mind me asking you here. Feel free to send me to the Teahouse if that's more appropriate. I'd like to have a large introductory research methods class in Human Physiology update a wikipedia article. The article for this topic, Meningococcal_vaccine, is of interest to our campus and seems like a good candidate. I know now that I should set up a course page for the class, and I am a registered user. I'd likely have the students work in smaller groups on sections to improve the article. Does that sound like a reasonable project? If so, would you be willing to be an ambassador or can you suggest someone else who might be able to do that? I'm putting in a talkback template for you, I hope I understood that correctly. --Eugenezed (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sounds like a reasonable project, and something that has been done many times before. Yes, I would support your class online. I live in New York these days so I am unable to visit in person. Sometime soon perhaps I could give you a tour of Wikipedia's health content by video chat with screen sharing.
 * Going forward, follow the process at Education program/Educators. That will including an online tutorial, setting up a course page, requesting community review, then if you would, contact the education program managers and I think they will assign a staffperson contact to help with your class also. They can help with technical setup, and my role is probably best as being a contact for you about quality standards for health information on Wikipedia.
 * Thanks for writing me. If anything goes wrong - write me again! I just emailed you so that you will have my email.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Course has been banned.
Hi Lane,

After looking at the talk page, someone or something thought this course promoted vandalism and killed it (spelling on comment needed work). Does Christopher Casey know about this? I am disappointed.Nkelika14 (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call on noticing the spelling - that should be a clue that this is vandalism. The person who did this is likely either one of my stalkers or someone with an agenda against Consumer Reports, or both. I have not told Christopher. The course was never banned - the person just clicked "edit" at the top of the page and disrupted the code. I restored it.
 * I am sorry that you are disappointed. This is the way Wikipedia works - anyone can do anything. To prevent this happening again, I "protected" the page meaning only people with accounts can edit the page. Also I requested a block for the IP address which was associated with this. The course goes on as normal!  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding a new page about Authorea?
Hi, Lane,

I wonder if you could help me with some advice? What's the best way to add a new page about Authorea (www.authorea.com), or at least propose it for consideration?

Authorea is an online collaborative writing tool for scientists and academics, similar to e.g. ShareLaTeX. Like figshare, Authorea is a strong proponent of Open Access with a freemium business model, hence I think it might fit into WikiProject Open Access.

Since I work for Authorea (as Community person) I can't add it myself -- it's a conflict of interest. Yet I think Authorea satisfies WP:ORG, as with a little research I've already found quite a few articles on sites like Nature and TechCrunch with in-depth coverage of Authorea and discussions of its role in Open Access.

Any advice on what would be a good first step? Would it be helpful for me to draft an article and post it in my sandbox for feedback?

I'd appreciate your advice! Thanks!

Jace Harker (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you seem to know the process already. I will summarize steps here:
 * First collect your third-party sources. Nature and TechCrunch are good starts, as is anything else not published by Authorea or their close business partners. At least 2-3 sources which feature this organization as the subject of journalism or reporting are required to meet the inclusion criteria described at Notability (organizations and companies). If you have doubts, show me the sources and I will comment before you proceed.
 * In your sandbox, start the article. Focus on writing content summarized from the sources. If you can do the sentences, other people can do technical formatting.
 * After you have a draft, ask someone to review it to move it into mainspace. You can use the general queue at Articles for Creation, or just ping me, because since I care about open access projects then I would volunteer to help this article through.
 * Thanks for finding me. I am happy to assist in this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Great advice, I'll work on a draft and let you know when I think it's ready for review.
 * I think my sources meet the criteria but would really appreciate an expert opinion. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if it's reasonable?  Here are the sources I was going to work with:, , , , , , , , , .  Thanks again! Jace Harker (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes, in my opinion, these sources establish that this platform meets Wikipedia's minimal criteria for inclusion. The TechCrunch, Nature, and HuffPo articles are especially nice. While I cannot say that the others definitely meet reliable source criteria just because I am not familiar with the publications, if they were written by people with some knowledge in the field and standing to do journalism then they seem worth citing also. Ping me again when you have a draft.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Took me a while but there's finally a decent draft here: User:Jace_Harker/sandbox A few external links have to be cited properly in the References, but other than that it's a complete first draft. Could you take a look and let me know what you think? Thanks! Jace Harker (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Education Program:Consumer Reports/Wikipedia Volunteer Corps Course (winter 2015)
Education Program:Consumer Reports/Wikipedia Volunteer Corps Course (winter 2015) is a special page that I couldn't protect even if I wanted to. There were two IPs, 72.68.239.80 who commented on the talk page. And 216.126.242.98 who made the actual edit but shows as having no edits at all. Twinkle will allow me to protect but the only thing it gives is for recreated articles. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia
hi,  Blue Rasberry  if you have time Dyslexia (its GA nominated) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reviewed it at Talk:Dyslexia/GA1.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think ive covered all of your concerns, (its all noted at the GA talk page) having said that if it needs further information, references or images, or anything else, I will not hesitate to comply, let me know and again thank you for taking your time to help on this matter I very much appreciate it, thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you, you've been very kind--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A+F banner
Hi Lane,

I've been tagging talk pages of articles created/edited at Art+Feminism edit-a-thons with a banner, Template:ArtAndFeminism2015 article, but when I came to Education Program:Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics/Conference (spring 2015) I wasn't entirely sure if it was an A+F edit-a-thon or something that happened to fall on the same day (or both). Could you add it to any applicable articles?

Thanks &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been controversy in the past about having banners permanently installed on articles (also hidden categories) when the banners seem to be for tracking or the intent of measuring program impact rather than improving the talk page of the article itself. Rarely are there published follow up plans for automated removal of these tags later, but if there were, then I might use them. I have no comment on A+F's use of these banners as I would like to stay out of these discussions. Personally, I do not use them, because I do not want to be scrutinized as being on the edge of accepted practices. Be mindful of what you do - in this case I personally will not add this tag. There are other ways to get metrics that do no include adding code to a page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can understand the objection. Though I wasn't involved in those past discussions, I don't personally have a problem with them and can see something like Template:Outreach_banner_shell if we start seeing more of them. I don't see it as strictly a program impact/metric thing, but something like Template:Educational assignment. Context for work done to an article can be helpful. It also adds them to a category which could be used, for example, to populate a list of potential articles for future events/initiatives. Anyway, I'm not trying to change your mind -- this is just the first time I've seen this objection. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Request on 14:51:02, 19 March 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Manjeetcare
Hi Bluerasberry, thanks for reviewing the article. before you i was in touch with Kikichugirl, who guided me to make the article neutral and dry and not too promotional. I made changes accordingly. As per my understanding I have given very authentic references, most of them are from top media publications. Reliability should not be the concern, since each and every reference is from reputed publication like: WSJ, Rediff, Wharton magazine, Indiawest news site etc.

Let me know what more you need to approve the article.

Look forward to hear from you.

Thanks, Manjeet

Manjeetcare (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed everything from the article which was not about Jason Kothari, then I made it live. If your intent was to get a live article then I have finished that for you. I hope that helps.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are a policeman
I am amused to read in this this review that you were described by a vandalizing student as a "Wikipedia policeman". :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was five years ago. some instructor has been thinking about this for five years and just wrote a paper. Thanks for sharing - there really is a long recruitment process for converting naysayers.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Quantum heat engines and refrigerators
Dear Bluerasberry

concerning the contribution ""Quantum heat engines and refrigerators"" I cannot see from your comment how to improve the contribution to make it publishabale. I would be happy for assistance

thans RonnieRkosloff (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
 nafSadh did say 21:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

18:44:23, 30 March 2015 review of submission by LittleGold
Hello Thank you for reviewing my entry. I have had the entry declined four times now for different reasons, would it be possible for you please to see the last feedback I had and then let me know exactly which references you are not happy with? The last time my references were picked up, I made the changes suggested and it has since been reviewed without the references being mentioned. Thank you for your time LittleGold (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Bioelectric medicine
Hi Bluerasberry, Cute hamster. Thank you for your thoughtful input on my submission for a page called bioelectronic medicine. I have since studied both the notability section and the 'writing better articles' guidelines in an effort to improve my submission and get it posted. I will work through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to attempt to make the necessary changes, but I wanted to thank you personally for your suggestions and help. MedResearchSF (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . You refer to the help page where you posted about Draft:Bioelectronic Medicine and I see that you also posted to WikiProject Medicine. You got a reply there. I hope you find the attention to be encouraging proof that Wikipedia has quality control and do not interpret it as a barrier to dissuade you. Your draft was rather complicated and difficult to evaluate and we typically start simply here then develop the idea, so that all changes can be tracked for compliance. It is a bit harder to guide the development of something so elaborate as what you did. Message at WikiProject Medicine again for more attention as you like.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Macknik/Susana Martinez-Conde
Hi Bluerasberry,

You approved my page for Stephen Macknik, and allowed me to include some essential information on "Popular Science Writing". His collaborator, Susana Martinez-Conde (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susana_Martinez-Conde ) did not have such luck, and her section on "Popular Science Writing" was deleted. I was wondering how we could make the pages synchronize a bit more, as they are married collaborators who work on many of the same projects.

Thanks!

BrooklyUniversity (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are some thoughts:
 * The bar for getting an article approved is low. Just because an article passes "articles for creation" review does not mean that it will be stable or the same after deeper review. The usual bar for getting an article created is finding 2-3 good sentences; everything beyond that is extraneous, except that obviously undue information is also often removed at this time.
 * Wikipedia presents what others have said about a person, not what a person says about themselves. In the case of the deleted information at Susana Martinex-Conde, what I see being deleted is information which Susana Martinex-Conde wrote about herself. This is considered promotional. If this same information were referenced to a source which she herself did not produce then it could be reinserted.
 * Susana Martinex-Conde is an expert in her field, but from Wikipedia perspective, is not an expert on herself due to bias. If there is something critical to say about this person's work, consider whether the person's publications or their expertise could be used to develop Wikipedia articles in their field, like neuroscience in this case. Few people Google "Susana Martinex-Conde", so few people will read that article. Many people Google neuroscience topics, so consequently, with Wikipedia having high Google rank, the content in neuroscience Wikipedia articles is disseminated to many people. The Wikimedia community is more ready to join in assisting people who contribute with intent to meet reader demand. If you look at bit toward developing general information sources then that usually is the quickest way to meet collaborators in sharing information.
 * There are models for making biographies. Just recently at NIH there was the Women's History Month Editathon, in which I and others helped staff there make biographies about women scientists. People like biographies and they have a place but for lots of reasons, editing biographies can be a confusing place to begin as compared with topics which come from a lot of literature.
 * Ping me again if you want to talk through things. Are you in Brooklyn? If you want to talk about health information on Wikipedia I might be able to meet.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Amos Yee for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amos Yee 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 Articles for deletion/Amos Yee 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. nonsense ferret  14:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

About enrolling in a class
Thanks for your message I saw the course in the list of course and I tried enrolling it was then that I found out that it was over. I will however like to be part of the next edition that is if possible. Regards.--Rberchie (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat?
Would you consider this a legal threat like the one on my talk page some time ago? If so, do you know how to act upon it? Link: 1. Thank you again.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  22:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a legal threat. Cease talking to anyone who makes a legal threat. If you feel comfortable, report the threat at WP:ANI. If you feel less comfortable then email WMF legal, any administrator, or me. I reported this person. In my opinion it is often better to turn the matter over to an uninvolved party immediately so that any response comes from someone removed from the situation.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll probably write at ANI tomorrow. Looked at the link, thank you for doing this.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  02:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

CONRAD
Hi - question - what is the difference between a hyperlink and a reference? For instance in the wiki page I'm editing for CONRAD, can I just hyperlink words to articles (that do not have copyright issues) or to relevant pages on different websites? If I hyperlink, do I also have to provide footnotes? MPTandHIV (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you are a new user. If you like, it might be most efficient to email me and then we make an appointment to talk this through. I follow health issues on Wikipedia.
 * There are several ways to answer your question. One way is to say that links to external websites should not be in the body of any Wikipedia article, and should only be in the references section or the in external links section at the bottom of the article. In the case of what you added recently, the major problem was that you cited publications by CONRAD and their financial partners in the article about that organization. By Wikipedia standards, publications which are self-authored do not meet reliable source criteria and cannot be cited at all in any way.
 * When I reverted your edits it was not because of any technicality or formatting problem - I was challenging the compliance to Wikipedia inclusion criteria of the sources you were citing and the information you were presenting. There is a codified procedure for evaluating whether sources should be included in Wikipedia, and it has high reproducibility in Wikipedia's crowdsourced review process. You can read more about it at the reliable sources guideline, if you like, or as I said, email me and we can talk it through by voice or video.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)