User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 9

I explained everything to sphilbrick but not to you
i had explained to sphilbrick everything very elaborately.

I was contributing to a biography in christianity projects and other projects.check the article talk page of Rani Maria Vattalil sphilbrick is unrelated to the topic i have contributed.HE is just deleting whatever i am contributing.

your first point you put on my user page common circumstances is what the thing here :Biography..

i cant put another persons story another persons picture another persons life history 2nd my picture went for deletion i dont know the reason. wikipedia will be a story making website rather than a reliable source if i put another persons picture. it is just users trying some kind of phishing and trying immature vandalism,it is usual in all website sorry for bothering you,...--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * People are putting good advice on your userpage and you are deleting every comment you get without responding. Sphilbrick does not know anything about you; there are 40,000 people on this site and he was just patrolling. I do not know him or her. You cannot illegally copy material which is under copyright and you cannot use photographs which are not yours. People are paid to write in newspapers and to take professional photographs and material on the Internet is not free to copy. This is the problem. Sphilbrick told you to go to the WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about how Wikipedia works and I think that is good advice. Also, you do not need to explain everything to everyone. Explain things one time to one person then link everyone else to the discussion.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

for your information there is phishing suspected in my account as my user tools doesnot load and lot of slowing i can see hackers ip address trying to hack my pc.. i deleted them messages on my user talkpages to easily view new messages as i feel it difficult to locate them between increasing number of messages.--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC).
 * Okay, thanks. Good luck with your projects.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Consumer reports
Hi there. I notice that on quite a few medical articles you have used Consumer Reports publications as references. I am not entirely convinced that these are ideal sources, and I'm wondering whether it might be better to use WP:MEDRS-compatible sources in most circumstances. On metformin I have temporarily removed the addition because I could not see a particular advantage over the previous version, but please let me know what you think. I am always happy to assist in the identification of high-quality sources through Pubmed or other databases. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed that this follows from your role as Wikipedian in residence at CR (Consumer Reports). JFW &#124; T@lk  19:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the edit in question. Could you please again review the source which I cited? If you look on the last page you will see that this paper is derived from sources which meet MEDRS, and I assert that this paper also meets MEDRS. Could I make an appointment to talk with you by phone or Skype?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * For whatever it is worth, I was disappointed to see the reference removed. It has a consumer viewpoint that most other references omit. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying something. It is worth a lot to me to hear you say that.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   00:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also see my idea above? It may be a better fit, in general, to get across the exact ideas, without creating complications. Biosthmors (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The report in question is comprehensive and very detailed, but I cannot see how on metformin it materially changed the content. In general, I am unsure whether publications by CR are in themselves good references for medical articles as they duplicate the work of Wikipedia articles to a large extent and are thus more tertiary than secondary sources.
 * I have no problem discussing particular matters off wiki, please drop me an email in the first instance. But I would like to have a wider discussion on wiki too. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is your discussion on wiki - Wikipedia talk:Consumer Reports. I am emailing you also.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're Invited! Wikipedia Takes Portland 2012
Hi Lane, just FYI re: Portland community! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hindu terrorism
Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassination_of_Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=prev&oldid=493331962#Conspirators

I have pretty much given up on believing I can find good sources for anything, so this may sound a little lazy. It seems to me that the murder of a political figure by a Hindu nationalist would by definition be Hindu terrorism. I suspect this would be a very easy source to find (for someone who is not me. Here's the lazy part.  Also I have no idea how to source a cat.)  So I would appreciate it if you find the time sometime to take a look, or ask someone who has the right magical powers to take a look. Thanks, - BalthCat (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did more than a little research on the issue of Hindu terrorism about two years ago. It surprised me, but I could find almost no actions which were called "Hindu terrorism" in any English-language publication, whether that was newspaper, book, academic journal, or online. I am not sure why this is; I thought that every culture has been accused of terrorism at least by that culture's critics and enemies but I did a search at the University of Washington and found nothing. This has come up before - see Hindu terrorism for previous deletions and Articles for deletion/Saffron Terror for examples of how these discussions go.
 * One point on which most people agree after discussion is that if something is called "Hindu terrorism" in a reliable source or perhaps any kind of source then maybe that act is Hindu terrorism. It seems to be the case that no one ever in any context as published an assertion that, for example, Gandhi's assassination was Hindu terrorism, Hindutva terrorism, saffron terrorism, or anything else of the sort. I think the book on what may or may not constitute Hindu terrorism has never been written.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks in... retrospect? :) - BalthCat (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And now I look at your nice big informative reply and my tiny thank you, and it seems insulting. My satisfaction was complete! (at least beyond the curiosity I have that no one has ever labelled murder by a Hindu nationalist as Hindu terrorism...) - BalthCat (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do research in India. If you ever want to collaborate on developing Wikipedia articles on rights, or just want to explore options, feel free to contact me again. We could also phone or Skype. Terrorism is not really my interest, but I need to know about perceptions of terrorism in India because it relates to other human rights issues.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lists of monuments in India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed this.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

DVT
Hey there, thanks for pointing out some sources on DVT. I'm aiming for a FAC soon, and I was thinking about the sentence you added that says "Imaging studies are used to diagnose DVT after other tests, such as confirmation by a D-dimer test, show that the imaging is likely to result in a positive diagnosis." Could you help me out with it? In elderly/ill hospitalized patients, D-dimers are of little use, but the sentence you wrote implies imaging is only used in probable scenarios. I'm not sure that's true. Which one of the three sources supports which part of the sentence, exactly? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am learning this as I go so I could be wrong about a lot of things. I am imagining a patient who is otherwise healthy but has DVT. This patient has options. The first source is from a list of overused medical procedures; the American College of Physicians said that imaging for suspected DVT is one of the most overused medical procedures they could identify, and their wish was that more people would do D-dimer tests first. So in that context, they are not making an all-encompassing rule, but rather talking about the most typical situation in which imaging is used and ought not be used. Rather than elaborating, they cite the other sources.
 * I am not sure how to word this because obviously imaging works but I wanted to convey a preferred way to do things. I am actually having this problem when I think about talking about preferences so I appreciate you bringing this up. The Fesmire source (second one) in section 4 says to use D-dimer if possible and if not then use imaging. That article is easy to navigate so let me know if that direction satisfies you. The third source says this in another way. If you want to talk much more about this, can we move this to the article talk page? I am going to reword this right now.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   00:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at section 4 of Fesmire tomorrow and I'll ponder this further. Thanks. When I get around to rewriting pulmonary embolism, I'm thinking of adding a section specifically dedicated to "Commentary". I imagine it could be a great resource and section for things like the ACP saying whatever. Or Professor X from University Y saying Z (that way we could cite a editorial/primary material from journals, if they had encyclopedic value for a Commentary section). Or the New York Times editorial page says whatever. Kind of a catch all section to see what experts in the field, or reputable analysts, are thinking. Maybe there's enough commentary on DVT to justify a section there, but I think most of the commentary involves pulmonary embolism. It should make for rich and valuable reading material, in the same vein as what professor Brendan Luyt thinks (NPOV and history) is lacking in that field's coverage. Biosthmors (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I was thinking that if people liked a commentary section at PE, then that section could be incorporated into MEDMOS. Biosthmors (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean, I started an economics section at DVT, and it's not an explicitly designated section header at MEDMOS. So I don't think it would be a problem. Biosthmors (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also would like to see more economics sections. I made Cost of HIV treatment some months ago, and would make more articles on cost structures if I knew were to get sources and knew what was relevant.
 * You brought up making a commentary section for statements like "ACP said X". I believe that your thought was that this was akin to a position or view, but from my perspective, a statement by a medical specialty professional society in the United States is a superior source to the standard in WP:MEDRS, which is any review article. I might like to talk to you more about this, perhaps by phone or Skype, since this may be a undeveloped perspective to assert and since it is not covered in MEDRS. My rationale for this is that when a reputable professional organization publishes a statement, then this is not just "commentary", but rather a "review of review articles" and therefore a tertiary source. It my perspective that the kind of meta-analysis they are doing does not constitute original thought - they are just make a statement summarizing what most secondary sources in a field say. I would characterize medical societies in the United States as cripplingly conservative and only likely to back statements with the broadest consensus, and they maintain safe positions at the expense of being current.
 * I do like the idea of a commentary section, particularly to discuss international variations and cultural differences on what constitutes good medicine and especially when reputable organizations recommend something against the world consensus. However, I do not feel that I have anything in particular to contribute to that, and do not know who would.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't mind giving you the courtesy of talking off-wiki before I discuss these ideas further, whether here or whereever else the discussion may pop up. I'll email you. Biosthmors (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So I went back to the ACCP guidelines to try and get this diagnosis section sorted out, and I noticed a caveat (which is good, you got me to check my source again and I learned or re-learned something). So, it'll take a bit longer than I hoped for get this in order. Monday is the goal. Biosthmors (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am interested to see the wording you propose - what you said by voice sounded good but after you said it I forgot how you phrased it.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   20:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Fesmire should be cited, unless it explicitly says somewhere something covers DVT. It seems to be based on PE only. Also, in general, I don't think it is a good idea to cite three sources for one sentence if it can be avoided. If it can not be avoided, please bundle to ease verification? Biosthmors (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * After pondering it I just removed all the sources, because it appears anything worth saying the ACCP already published in their 2012 clinical practice guidelines. Earlier you said "a statement by a medical specialty professional society in the United States is a superior source to the standard in WP:MEDRS, which is any review article". But published clinical practice guildelines are also standard MEDRS. I'd say a statement could just be an opinion. It depends how it is published. Biosthmors (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on how a statement is published, as you said. Thanks for helping me to think more about this. There is talk in WikiProject Medicine about the implications of getting a large amount of information from the WHO and I think that will raise similar issues. I ping'ed you to a page to give a comment on the practice of using multiple sources repeatedly. To me it seems strange both to do this and to not do it. I am not sure how I feel at this point. With regard to the DVT article - if I have more to say I will post it to that article's talk page. I am still thinking about it.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Central nervous system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syncope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed this.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Neurological examination
I was wondering what you thought about moving your new addition to neuroimaging, as the article on neurological examination is essentially about the process of physically checking limb power, sensation, reflexes, etc, rather than investigations such as scans, neurophysiology etc. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did that, and I added information which clarifies neurological examination and neuroimaging to have the distinction as you described. I did not provide sourcing for the distinction, but the content of each article corroborates what you are saying.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should be clearer with the fact that this refers to physical examination rather than anything more fancy. Neurologists take pride in predicting the location of the problem using their five senses, and then getting the scan/electrics to confirm their suspicions. It usually works. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neuroimaging, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syncope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Unprompted denial...
Yeah, that was a particularly good one... "I'm not an IP-hopping sock-puppet - look I'll prove it by IP-hopping to a new location to sock-puppet at your sock-puppet investigation". LOL. Almost as good as this contribution at AFD yesterday. Almost fell of my chair laughing. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. 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. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ping
Hi. Can I point you to this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And another. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a hamster at all
Hey, I got your message and I'll reply properly when I've booted my computer with all the email on it. Currently I'm hiding from the bag it's in on account of how heavy and scary and full of screwdrivers it is. (Although the answer is yes, assuming there was a yes or no question in it. I'd be happy to make some stuffs. I just don't really recall any specifics at the moment.) -— Isarra ༆ 19:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I understand this message entirely. I look forward to talking further.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Nbauman
Last night I suggested contacting User:Nbauman in connection with medical consumer outreach. Afterwards User:Mitchazenia and I took the 1 train and tramped around Spuyten Duyvil and Marble Hill, mainly to photograph the two Metro-North stations. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Research participant rights
Template:Research participant rights has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

BlueRasberry: I responded to you on Templates for discussion page Niels Olson (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Birth rape
I took a look at Google Book Search and Google Scholar, and found that "birth rape" actually has been discussed in textbooks and journals, and noted same at the AFD. As a sidelight on this issue, I recall a young woman commenting after she gave birth that before giving birth at a teaching hospital, only her husband had handled her private parts, but that in the hospital every medical student put on a glove then took his turn putting on a glove and jamming his hand up her vagina. This was done more for the benefit of the students than for the health of the mother and baby. I recall when my own wife gave birth that when a painful contraction was about to occur from the pitocin that gave to induce labor, some medical student would wander in and have his feel, causing the contraction reflex to be postponed by the distraction and resulting in a bigger and more painful one. The encyclopedic topic, and the real complaint in the literature, is a lack of explanation of what the medical personnel are doing, and the lack of consultation about what the mother wants, and the tendency to treat the mother as if she were a dumb animal. Some in the medical and midwifery professions call for lessening the sometime brutality done to the mothers. I do not see this as one sockpuppet hyping a neologism. Regards. Edison (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing this with me. This is useful information and it could be incorporated somewhere, and I see further what you added to the deletion discussion. The course of action I could propose is to write this article as a section of another article, get feedback on it, then fork it into its own article after you get community support. Regardless of whether the topic is notable, the article as it stands does not currently meet Wikipedia guidelines. Something needs to change.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * T"The article as it stands" is not a valid criterion for keeping or deleting. Look instead at the availability of sources to satisfy GNG. Incorporating it in an appropriate target article would be a good way to preserve the research if the AFD results in delete. Abusive and dehumanizing treatment of the woman during labor and delivery is clearly an issue worth mentioning in Wikipedia's coverage of the birthing process as it is done today. And I did not intend to imply that our personal experience was as traumatic as the "birth rape" which led to PTSD in some reported instance. When it was over the doctor called it an "easy birth," to which my wife said, "Yes easy for you. But try stretching your lower lip up to your eyebrows, and tell me if it was easy." It does annoy me a bit when someone asserts in an AFD that some term has only been used by one person, and only in tabloids, and illustrates a vile campaign by a sock puppet, etc, when it has been written up in several textbooks and journals. They might more appropriately have argued for deletion on the grounds of not enough reliable sources and coverage that is not in depth. The latter issue is hard to judge when we are only allowed to snippets by the journal publishing conglomerates. Edison (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the judgment about notability is not for articles, but for topics. However, to remain articles at least have to be a WP:STUB. When I checked the article was two sentences and it is my opinion that both of those sentences should be deleted for not coming from reliable sources. An article with no useful content whatsoever should be deleted.
 * I have no interest whatsoever in the article's subject, and this is typical for many Wikipedians. I look at lots of articles in the health field and I do not have a particular opinion about the subject of this article - it is just one of the 30000 health articles to me. You raise a lot of points which are completely outside the scope of my consideration in making a judgment. I appreciate your concern, but the points you raise are no basis for how I made my decision. Also, I am no authority and make no decisions - post this in the deletion discussion because that is where the decision is made.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Communicate OER!
Thank you for signing up on the Communicate OER team page! There's a great group forming -- so far, we have more than 25 people, with a broad range of backgrounds and interests; we have professors, librarians, instructional designers, and more. Members also span a variety of countries and language proficiencies. As we set out to improve articles about openness in education, it looks like we will have a great team to work with. If you haven't looked through the list, I encouraged you to read through it: WP:Communicate OER Team.

Whether or not you're at the Open Education conference this week, we encourage you to engage with us -- we're expecting a flurry of activity as we launch! If you're here, come visit us in room C010 any time; or come to one of our daily 45 minute intro sessions in the Remixathon track in room C215.

Another great way to stay engaged is through the project's "talk page" (aka "discussion page"): WT:COMMOER. Please always feel free to add ideas, questions, etc. at the bottom of that page -- even if you just want to say hi, and go into a little more detail about what you're hoping to work on -- we'd love to hear from you. (I just posted a note at the bottom, exploring the open education article, and seeking input into how we can go about improving it -- take a look!)

If you're just looking to get started, we have a page for that -- WP:Communicate OER Do -- intended to collect ideas of projects we can work on. There's currently a "getting started" recipe for how to post a review of a Wikipedia article; check back for further ideas in the coming days. (And if you're game, feel free to add your own!)

Looking forward to working together, -Pete (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Part of a class
Thank you for the message. Yes, I am part of a class. Editing a Wikipedia page based on Global Health was required for an assignment. I will let my professor know that most of the content our class has posted will no longer be available for viewing. Thank you.--Evlachak (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This may interest you
Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-15/Op-ed --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted my edit on Sony Vegas
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

I've added information about the new version, some links (official forum and extensions) - is that vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altarvic (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 October 2012‎
 * Yes. Please if you see any such information on other articles delete it also. I removed part of the advertisement and someone else removed more - here is the difference. If you really want to help Wikipedia and promote your product then develop Non-linear editing system and Video editing software or other articles related to your field but not specifically to your product. Here is some information to help guide you in what you are doing. Go to WP:TEAHOUSE if you want other opinions about this - the people at Teahouse are very friendly.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright vios of Wikipedia content
With regard to your post on WP:MED on October 19th -- this has been discussed before on WP:MED. Elsevier and a law office are using my images without attribution. The details are here. Interesting is the discussion that follows -- I think Elsevier knows what it is doing here... they intentionally don't carefully check the sources just publish it and assert copyright. If you're so inclined, I'd welcome it if you wrote cease and desist letters and pursue this on my behalf. Nephron T|C 01:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am interested in doing this but let me think about it more and collect some more cases. Whatever I do in the end needs to be a standardized process. I would like to make some process for publicizing each action taken and making the entire conversation (or lack of response) public and transparent. For now, thanks for this, send me any more you ever find, and I will publicize the problem.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   02:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here the University of California San Diego is violating my copyright. The original is here on the WikiCommons. There are surely many others.  I have uploaded over 1500 micrographs to the WC and many of those cannot be found elsewhere with the same quality. Nephron  T|C 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It took me a little while to find this again -- this violation has got to be my favourite. They take my image of a teratoma and call it a struma ovarii.  The original is here.  All struma ovarii are teratomas... but not all teratomas are struma ovarii.  The irony here is that I have pictures of a struma ovarii; he could have at least ripped-off the right one! To top that off -- there is a comment below the blog entry congratulating the author on finding a great example of a struma ovarii... and another asking permission to use the struma ovarii image in a book! :-P Nephron  T|C 01:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here (User:Kbh3rd) is something else I came across -- a hall of shame. I think it might be interesting to create a big hall of shame.  If you had a large number of cases, I imagine it might attract wider attention, esp. when the big publishers again scream "[w]e need to get those evil copyright violators" and then go do it themself 'cause for them... violating copyright makes 'em more money! Nephron  T|C 02:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just emailed you and Kbh3rd to request a voice conversation by phone or Skype. Thanks a lot for sharing. I wonder how much support there would be from others for having a central place to report such things and a standardized process for responding to things like this.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)