User talk:Dijcks

Comment

 * Thank you for the acknowledgement! I'm learning every day, how to be a better contributor! Dij cks |  In Out    17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden
Hi Dijcks. I think it would be sensible if you were to await a third opinion (WP:3), regarding your edits to the article on Osama bin Laden. Meph. 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Meph, I have no idea what you are talking about.  I'm not aware of any WP:3O regarding that one sentence you changed.
 * By the way, some editors might consider some of your edit summaries insulting, for example:
 * "Reintroducing spelling mistakes; possible original research (it is assumed, to the best of my knowledge, that he was at the compound the enti"
 * OR:
 * "Tweaks following some messy editing".


 * ..especially when they were not my mistakes. There were intermediate/conflicting edits that made it impossible to quickly change some of the syntax at the time you came in.
 * I'm personally developing a "thick skin" here, but others might take these comments personally. Best wishes, Dij cks  |  In Out    17:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dijcks, I intended no malice; I apologise if any was perceived. I was motivated by the sentence: 'Bin Laden spent several years in hidingat a private compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan', when something more concise and less ambiguous was needed. Best, Meph.  17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries at all! I saw that spelling mistake (from another user actually!) but could not get it corrected right away.  I think you came in right at a time when a few edits were mixing in at the same time. It simply took a few edits to get it where it is.  I have a feeling that the article in question will be much-changed over the next few weeks given the attention it's getting! Thanks for the message :)  Dij cks  |  In Out    17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits. Please read WP:OR. You can not add material that is not in the source even if it is likely to be true. In this case you cant say "taking care to avoid the possibility of any return-fire" because the source does not claim that and we can not know the intent until the Seals are interviewed personally. As the source has no personal knowledge of intent even if the source did say that, it would need to be attributed to the source not the subject ie: "according to x". If you follow what the source states you cant go wrong. Also note that when writing numbers in articles that you spell the number in full if ten (10) or less and numerically if more than ten, ie: 15. Cheers and good luck with your editing. Wayne (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also noticed you had duplicated a reference. When you want to use the same reference multiple times you replace the   in the first reference with  . For each additional use you only need to add    without the rest of the reference (but with a backslash) and it will refer the link to the original reference. This avoids cluttering the text which can make it harder to read when editing. Wayne (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are 2 separate areas of that one article that I cited to support the text that was inserted. It's not right to tell me not to include them, AND then say I'm not properly sourcing the content. There is nothing in those edits that is not substantiated or supported in these other refs in the article.  If there is, correct it, rather than wholesale removing of the original effort. Dij cks  |  In Out    17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne, the part about the SEALs is covered in other reporting. It's been surmised by several outlets that concern for safety led them to shoot-first", erring on the side of safety.  That said, my concern is that the complete set of edits were reverted.  That's not right. If a part needs to be adjusted, or in your opinion removed, do that rather than wipe everything out?  Thanks! Dij cks  |  In Out    17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On the refs, yes, there were 2 sections of the one article I wanted to cite, to make sure readers/editors would see the source material used, but I will take time to learn what you've suggested I do in the future.. Thanks.. Dij cks  |  In Out    17:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And here is an exact quote from the ref..  "The three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon, and one by one they rushed after him through the door, one official described.".  This supports the statement about taking care to protect themselves.  Best, Dij cks  |  In Out    17:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Surmised" carries no weight as officials have said they shot "immediately" and did not attempt to capture. There is no evidence, and no one has claimed, that bin Laden was thought to be a threat once the Seals entered the room. An official was asked this question and replied that retreating to the room was considered resistance. "taking care to protect themselves" is still original research because the source does not say that and even though the action can be assumed it adds nothing to the article. Wayne (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you in this case. Regardless of what was going through the minds of the raiders, we can only contribute reliable reported content.  We are required to write and source content without plagiarizing the source material.  The reliable source stated, "the three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon...". This comment is more than sufficient for an editor here to extract their actions in firing upon bin Laden as preventative and acting in the interest of their own safety.  I've contributed content that is neutral, and provided reliable sources.  It needs to stay as written, unless one can contribute in a way that adds to the quality of, or supports other more recent factual content to the article. Dij cks  |  In Out    21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikpipedia does not allow an editor to "extract their actions" as that is original research. They assumed he was going for a weapon and the article already states that, but you cant then extrapolate that they also thought that once they entered the room unless the source claims it, which it doesn't. You are in effect making two separate claims (one supported and one unsupported) based on a single reported action. In fact, officials said that the Seals knew he was not armed and they only feared that the women were. Wayne (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne, If the reference states that they assumed he was going for a weapon, ran into his room, and then hid behind two women. The SEALs, (IMO gave more than a benefit of the doubt.  It was stated that he could have given up in the hallway)  having given the courtesy of moving the women out of the way and fired in both self-defense and in anticipation of his wielding a weapon.  In any case, their actions were preemptive.  I made some changes, see what you think. Dij cks  |  In Out    17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have three problems with the text. 1: I believe my original text Believing he was going for a weapon, three Seals rushed the room not only better conveys the urgency of the situation (supporting pre-emptive self defence) but allows the reader to understand why he was shot so quickly, which I believe was the intent of your original edit that mentioned the belief twice. 2: The sources do not say he was hiding behind the women, they say the women were trying to protect him. I also don't like saying "raiders". 3: The section has two paragraphs talking about Seals and then they are refered to as "raiders" for two sentences. This looks odd and lacks consistency. Is there a reason for using raiders other than that the source called them that in the headline? Wayne (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Usually on an article that has a lot of interest, other contributors will make changes that reflect consensus.  The text seems to be persisting, and I do feel that it reads well.  But,  in answer to problems stated:
 * 1. Logic would indeed suggest he would go for weapon, yes, and certainly it justifies the actions of the raiders.  The way the text is written, at this point is semantics, but as it is written, gives a clear description of what was happening at that juncture in the raid.
 * 2. I agree with you on this change. The source used does state that they were standing in front of him, yelling, etc..  Lets' make that change then.
 * 3. In answer to the reason for using the word "raiders".  During the course of the actual raid, they were raiders. They've been referred to in that manner many times in other Examples:
 * As the raiders traversed the stairs, they found bin Laden.
 * Compared to:
 * During the intelligence sweep, the SEALs recovered several items of interest.


 * The above examples are how I determined, in my contribs., whether to use "SEALs" vs. "raiders". In short, during the actual activity of "raiding" the compound, I've gone on to call them "raiders".  When acting in any other capacity during the mission, I've gone on to address them as "SEALs".  This is also semantics, but at least now you know why I've done it that way.  Up until our debate, I've not taken the time to possibly re-name them when in action.  I'm not steadfast on this however, but would be curious as to any objections if we continue that way.  Thanks sir, :) Dij cks  |  In Out    15:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can live with it as it is now. I tend to write for an academic audience and always try for consistency and flow which can be especially relevant for readers who have English as a second language. Raiders just sounds unnecessary and rather clunky. Wayne (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome template test

 * }

A new medical resource
I'm writing to let you know that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). Presto54 (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New medical organization
HiI'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery



This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Willie Mays
Hi: I had been thinking of asking you about your edit to the Willie Mays article, which you just repeated and I have reverted. Mays is not deceased, contrary to your edit summary, and why single him out as "natural-born", when that is the norm? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

If's okay, I have no intention to revert the edit again. IF you feel the need to be the "Police" of that page, I already went through this a long time ago and left for this exact reason, ONE person who felt the need to control everything I wrote. It was a waste of time and most of those edits remain to this day. That said, Natural Born makes TOTAL sense, based on the fact that you or another editor on the page felt the "need" to make note of him being an "American". "Natural Born" simply denotes his being born in America, a notable fact. Look up the definition of "Natural Born" on this site. That being said, I cannot take the time to "Fight" with you over a 20 second edit. Like I said, I've been down that "road" and I have better things to do. Clearly you feel the need to "police" the edits made on that page.
 * Well, there is a statement somewhere or other to the effect that all edits are subject to change by other editors ... and note that two different people have now reverted you. I thought you were owed a reason, and a response to your edit summary. Regarding "American", I think you're forgetting that Wikipedia is for people all over the world. It's good practice to say in the lead what country things are in and what nationality people are or were, because nobody is going to already know for every place and every person. ... Why did you think he was deceased? There would have been lots of news coverage if he'd died. Maybe you confused him with another baseball player? Anyway, I'm glad you came back to the project. It just seemed like an odd edit. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)