User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 26

Request on 18:18:05, 6 April 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by LittleGold
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohammad_Zahoor Hello again, thanks so much for your advice. I have made the changes and now all the references have the article subject as the heading, with the exception of number 4, which is about the subject as a CEO but doesn't mention him in the heading. I believe this is a relevant reference, but should I delete it? Please let me know. Many thanks.

LittleGold (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That reference seems fine to me. Now with the other references gone, I deleted everything which does not have a reference and made the article live. I also added a reference for you about this person's marriage.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

LittleGold (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

09:56:49, 10 April 2015 review of submission by Isaiah.onyango
Kindly advise on the article.

It wasn't meant to be an advertisement as the review suggests...it is just information on who and how the business was started and where it operates. There is no mention of its products nor how it operates...i dont believe it thus qualifies as an advertisement. Kindly review or advise on what i should remove/edit for it to comply.

Regards,

Isaiah.

Isaiah.onyango (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the article to be accepted there must be citations to media sources discussing the topic. See Everything_you_need_to_know. Add citations or links to sources discussing this topic.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

? (science information not governed by MEDRS)
am surprised by this claim that most of psych falls outside of MEDRS? how is mental health not about health? something to discuss (or that has been discussed) at Project Med? am so curious! Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to your question, mental health is about health. Psychology, though, is not the same as mental health. See Template:Psychology - I would be comfortable saying that half of those topics do not cover health issues, and among the articles which are health related, still most of the content in those articles is not health related.
 * In the same way that health is only a subtopic in biology, I feel that mental mental health is only a subtopic of psychology. Whenever health is not being discussed then MEDRS does not apply. I think the same is so for most science, because in most science, systematic reviews do not exist.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * interesting perspective on psychology. am surprised by the last statement tho - in basic biology reviews are published all the time, about everything. what field of science doesn't use reviews to keep track of where its basic research is going, in your view? Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All fields use reviews, and all fields respect reviews. In some fields, though, any given research paper is less likely to be cited in a review, or perhaps even cited at all.
 * You say "in my view" and yes, I speculate on this. There is Web of Science, a subscription service which makes it easy for a user to see the relationships between papers, as for any given paper, it notes all the sources that paper cites and what cites that paper. I have wished that Wikipedia/Wikidata could host the same sort of thing, and perhaps even note why one paper cites another to flag if a paper is cited in support, in opposition, for doubt, or merely for methods or a definition. In medicine there is funding to do the same experiments repeatedly for years with few changes, so review articles are a necessary institution. For basic chemistry, for example, a solid paper in a good journal covering a methodology hardly needs to be replicated by someone else publishing the same thing. Other fields have so much variation that no one would cover the same thing twice - surveys of animals or plants in a region are often like this.
 * Check out the science subreddit for another perspective on things. It is not explicitly written into their submission guidelines that review articles are not allowed, but they do say that "Articles that obtain their information from other articles are not acceptable for submission" and this has often been used to remove newly published review articles from consideration. They run a nice operation there and publish an interview with a scientist almost every day, perhaps only with primary sources.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * hm thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 29: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

NuScale Power
You may have seen it already, but in case you haven't, I shared a draft on Talk last Friday(ish), complete with the images you were looking for. I posted a quick FYI notification at COIN as well. CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Cardio First Angel - dilemma
Hi Bluerasberry, I am sorry I didn't reply to you immediately. Last month you have asked me to try to find out some medical reference for Cardio First Angel. Most of any references are in German. The known fact is that this medical device to help laymen perform CPR - Cardio First Angel - was developed in cooperation with the cardiologist Prof. Dr. Christian Hagl, who is the head of heart surgery and polyclinic of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Medical Centre. There is not any detail how it was developed, only what it does and how it helps perform CPR. There are certificates like: ARTG No: 231874 Cardio First Angel is a Class 1 Medical Device Registered with TGA, 93/42/EWG The Medical Devices DIN EN ISO 15223-1, Medical Devices – Symbols for labels, labeling and information to be provided with medical devices,  DIN EN ISO 10993-10 Biological evaluation of medical devices, DIN EN 62366  Medical Devices – Application of usability assessment for medical devices. CE The Cardio First Angel is CE-Certified, Hourglass Can be used by (use by date) Cardio First Angel is a Class 1 Medical Device DIMDI DE/CA64/128442/01, GMDN 60841. There is a test on a official website:. On the same page is a product description: Cardio First Angel© a mechanical reanimation device for inceasing effectivity in lay reamination Product description/Results by Dr. med. Thomas Pöttinger,, Malte Schirren, Professor Dr. Anne Laure Boulesteix and Professor Dr. med. Christian Hag. This description has about 4-5 pages including images and views of these doctors.

You have disregarded other articles including one in Spiegel online: as not credible. Then there is a youtube video: "Cardio First Angel - Demonstration & Statement by Prof. Dr. Christian Hagl" which is in German, but has English subtitles. Wikipedia doesn't low me to put a link on this video, but if you put the title into the search, you will find it. I am not sure if you will regard this a credible or as commercial. Finally I have came today across a clinical trial at Baqiyatallah Medical Sciences University. This is only independent medical information I could find. My question is which of these sources I could use as a basic for a Wikipedia article, so it would be acceptable? Thank you in advance for your help. Animall


 * We talked about User:Animall/Cardio First Angel in these places:
 * User_talk:Bluerasberry/Archive_24
 * User_talk:Bluerasberry/Archive_25
 * We could talk more, but I think it might be most useful if I gave you instructions on how to make the simplest Wikipedia article. If you start with something simple, then maybe later you can make it more detailed. Here are the instructions:
 * Choose three sources in any language which have Cardio First Angel as the subject of the article.
 * Write one sentence which summarizes some information from each source, then cite the source.
 * If you have three sentences and three sources, then almost always, that is enough to start a Wikipedia article.
 * After the article is started, someone will review it to see if it meets minimal criteria. I could review this, if you like.
 * After the article passes review, whenever anyone else adds a sentence, they should also add a citation to a source as good as the first ones.
 * I overlooked the Spiegel article when you first mentioned it but I looked at it now, and it meets Wikipedia's WP:RS to establish WP:N. I also said that some of the other sources you have do the same.
 * Please start with what you have to meet minimal standards to get something live, then think about making it better after the minimum is met. Otherwise, if you want to do something more complicated in the beginning, say so and let's develop another plan.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

smiley/wink
Hiya: Very pleased to meet you; I followed a link back from the help section on Commons after reading your totally accurate and marvelously phrased post about video copyrights. Spot on and with humor!! 3 stars!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC) PS: Unlike yourself I do most of my work at Commons. For fast replies, write there - but you can write me anywhere and I'll notice eventually

That vandal
The joke that the vandal Jim the Small was making was going to an article that contained the word "vandalism" in the text or a quotation or citation title, and deleting it with the edit summary "removed vandalism". If an article contained the phrase "distortion of the truth" he deleted it and wrote "i removed distortion of the truth". Super funny. I have no idea how bored a person has to be to spend their time this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently this person has been doing this for years as described at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive861.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine WikiLove

 * Hi, Bluerasberry. Hope the Sunshine will do as an offering. We have not enough animal templates. My catz would love your hamster.. .ツ Anyway, I am appearing here to encourage you in your attempt to get a WikiProjectMedicine on Simple English Wikipedia. I and several others good editors endured an entirely grumpy conversation with regards to even having easier access to WikiLove there in August of last year. That conversation resides in the Simple talk archive and ended in stonewalling by the admins. Over WikiLove? First thing I would suggest is establishing your user page and talk there, with a userbox that links to your user page here on English. Here I am being somewhat negative about experiences on Simple with a redirect to here. Not to worry; they actually know my relationship there is tenuous.
 * I say this because I am considering adding myself to your project on SImple. I do belong to the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and have actually edited a good number of medical articles on Simple and currently feel that I am wasting my time there updating infobox errors for celebrities. I am intelligent and write fairly well to make things simpler and do have a professional medical background doing just that. Anyway, sorry for the difficulty you are encountering on Simple. It is an enigma and quite difficult to navigate. It is quite like dropping down Alice's Rabbit hole in some respects. I sometimes have my feelings stung. I stay because I like writing articles and I am proud because some are clever and not on subjects one would think Simple English would need. (I am contrary that way). Write me here or there if you wish.  All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much, I appreciate your help at Wikipedia Food. First-time post experience was pretty bad. Doubtful I'll do another. Thanks. FMIArchive (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear oh dear oh dear. Bluerasberry, you seriously need to go read WP:GNG and WP:BIO as you have spectacularly failed to make a useful contribution to that discussion. If you are going to paraphrase another editor's comments, please at least make sure you understand the issues and their viewpoint. This discussion related solely to notability, not the reliability of sources. None of the citations that FMIArchive provided demonstrated the notability of the article subject. This was my concern, as I stated very clearly. As you yourself wrote in your comment "The sources which remain seem to be about a company and not the person who is the subject of the article"... Just... ummm... Words fail.  Pyrop e  15:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the discussion went beyond the scope of what the article creation process should review. The person made a good faith effort to write sentences and apply citations to them. The equivalent of 10 printed pages of text followed. A new article can be viable with 2-3 sentences and 2-3 sources. I did what I did to create some hope of resolution, as I saw no path to resolution in the way the discussion was going.
 * The person said that the article passed GNG and BIO. I cannot see the sources. This is someone's first article on Wikipedia. I think a best practice for this sort of case should be creating the article in AfC then proposing the article for deletion in a separate process. To do more than that seems overly burdensome for the new article review process in my opinion.
 * What do you think should happen in these cases?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They said that, but the sources they provided were, at best, impenetrable. Where they could be examined they showed no significance, and when politely asked to actually identify which references were the ones they regarded as demonstrating notability (as, frankly, all the titles indicated that the article subject was NOT the citation subject) they pointedly failed to answer yet decided to attack my motives and those of people asking the same questions. If an article's notability is challenged it is up to the editor asserting notability to demonstrate it. They failed. As for the good faith aspect, well, I am working on that but it is pretty clear that the editor in question is a sock of the article subject. I will be raising an SpI when I get time.  Pyrop e  17:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything you say is correct. What worried me was that the articles for creation process was being used to argue all these points. There is already a backlog there and I would prefer to not raise expectations of what it takes to process new articles. You are doing a rather thorough review and I did not see the conversation proceeding.
 * I did WP:AGF on the sources which could plausibly have meet WP:RS. As you say, the sources were impenetrable for being 20 years old, from minor publications, and not online, so I did not check them. I made the article live. I think that the article immediately went to WP:AfD is ideal outcome. Combining the review processes for AfC, RS, N, along with COI, sock, and the rest is a lot to have in an initial conversation. I would like the process to be more stepwise, and in fact, I thought that was how things were supposed to be.
 * I regret the personal attacks on both sides - the contributor attacked the Wikipedians and the Wikipedians attacked the contributor. Probably all of the attacks were justified, but still, attacks are not ideal and I would rather find a resolution without attacks. I am sorry for the trouble but in this case, I like the outcome of making it live and depending on AfD to sort the issue, because that relieves pressure and puts the problem in a venue where Wikipedians are safer and have more control.
 * Other thoughts? What would you like me to do differently next time?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on your book
Lane, congratulations on your new book! Just read about it in the Signpost newsroom. — Brianhe (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Amos Yee
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Campus ambassador application
Hello Bluerasberry! I noticed on your user page that you are a campus ambassador, and I was wondering how exactly the process is supposed to be carried out in order to receive the title of campus ambassador for McGill University in Montreal. I filled out the application form on the Education noticeboard; however, there is currently no action on that page... Thank you for enlightening me! --Spyder212 (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

June 10: WikiWednesday Salon / Wikimedia NYC Annual Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Thanks
Virtually everything in the series of Afghan-Mughal wars is either copied from other sources or is copied from our articles without attribution - I've left the latter alone hoping that the articles would get deleted, which seems less likely now. I couldn't identify a little bit but it is almost certainly still copied from elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merging material copied from other articles without attribution seems likely to completely lose any chance of attribution, a double copyright violation. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you
I wanted to personally thank you for your kind gesture, both articles look great!...Best--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Q
Nice hamster! Bluerasberry, I may have a few questions in the next couple of days, and here's one to start off: do students have to have an account to go through Training/For students? I'm doing it now, and I'm logged in, and it talks about "getting an account". I'm asking also because I'm trying to figure if I should tell my students to get an account first, or to just go through the slide show. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind--my question was answered. Thanks, Dr Aaij (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

16:28:19, 19 May 2015 review of submission by 1heyheymikey
Hi Bluerasbery! Thanks for your volunteer work for Wiki. You keep the world spinning.

I'm a bit confused on "notability," mainly because it appears that "Danny Boockvar" as a subject with the accompanying references is at least as notable as Jeff Henley. Sources cited are well-respected (Crains, Bloomberg, NYCgo). What am I still missing?

If you can answer, thank you! If not, I totally understand. Thanks for all your work. Have a great week! 1heyheymikey (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg is hosting a database of self-provided information, and in that source, they reproduce this information without comment. The weight of their reputation is not behind this directory because this is not journalism. This is a lot like Linkedin, except with some automated data scraping.
 * The NYCGo source is reliable for what it is as a press release, and it can be cited, but it does not establish WP:N because this paper was created for the purpose of promoting an organization and the people listed. That makes it a WP:SPS rather than an WP:RS, and means that maybe it can be used to verify facts, but probably should not be used at all, and definitely is not part of the count to establish notability.
 * The Crains source is fine and one of the 2-3 sources which are required. I (and most other reviews) spot check a few, because the goal at this stage is meeting minimum requirements.
 * The Leaders article does not count because per WP:INTERVIEWS the author just asks questions without doing any journalism, then self-publishes the response without additional creative response. This makes the piece again close to being WP:SPS.
 * Please consider sticking around Wikipedia and contributing to any subject within your field of interest. Biographies are fine but mind the sources. Talk this through on the article review page if you dispute any of this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources
Hi Lane, I meant to ping you about this, so leaving this instead. In case you'd like to comment, I've opened a discussion about the above at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), with a view to adding something to the guideline. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

GM Food RfC
Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

user right issues
Hi Lane! Running into some issues creating new accounts from my computer, even though I have user rights. Any ideas?

Thanks! John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtsimons89 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Christina Novelli
Hi Blue, just wanted to know when it would be appropriate, or if it is appropriate to upgrade the article on Christina Novelli to C class. It seems as though it meets the criteria. Can I upgrade it myself even though I wrote it? Do I upgrade it in all 3 categories or just one? Photocyclone (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a solid C-class article. You can give it this rating yourself. Notice that the grades are associated with WikiProjects. Another option is to go to those projects and ask someone else to re-grade the article. Probably biographies and electronic music would be more keen on this than Articles for Creation. If you do this, it is nice to do anything for those projects, like either grade any other articles in their domain or respond in an existing comment thread on the talk pages of those Wikiprojects.
 * If it is helpful then sometime I could meet you by video chat and give you a tour of how this could work, but otherwise - yes, you may re-grade.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a video chat sounds awesome. I am a small user though, and concentrate on my own little universe of photography. I have lots of questions, If you have the time. How can we set this up? Photocyclone (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I emailed you my schedule. Let's meet.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Open access article sources
Hi Lane, on the Open access article someone has merged the Peter Suber book into the 'Further reading' section rather than keeping it in the standalone 'Sources' section. Was that the right thing to do or did you actually incorporate some of Suber's text into the article? Thanks. - Lawsonstu (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See the citation list to the Suber book. I cited the source in multiple places. It needs to be in the sources section to give proper attribution. Let me know if I should look at it.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC party
Morning Lane, I wonder how difficult it would be to get a small AfC party going to combat the backlog. We could gather some of the more experienced editors, meet up at Babycastles with food and drinks, give a quick overview of AFCH, and off we go! Accents 11:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm -
 * Good idea
 * Really an easy and worthwhile thing to teach because it gives long-term insight about Wikipedia
 * A little effort has a big impact
 * The backlog is worrisome
 * One problem is the upcoming Wikimania July 15-19. Some regular organizers here will be occupied through the middle of July with this.
 * If we did this, then it could happen as part of the regular 8 July meetup, or it could be part of the August meetup, or it could be a special meetup in August or later. It is a good idea - is there any reason to push for this to be before August?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey again Lane, unsure with dates. This is something people/participants should agree upon. Just giving a shout to, a good friend of mine who actually introduced me to the AfC queue. He's expressed interest in being at the party and perhaps giving a talk too. Accents 15:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

SotMUS
Hi,

Though we spoke briefly at SotMUS, and it was great to see you, we only managed a few words. I looked for you later that day, and the next, in the hope of having a longer chat. Sadly I never managed to find you again. I hope we can make up for that next time we're in the same city. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)