User talk:Djma12

Archived Discussions

 * Sept 06 - Feb 07
 * Feb 07 - Aug 07
 * Aug 07 - Feb 08

Invitation


Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies. If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when fact is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:
 * Timefact displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click  here for more information

At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.  Dao  ken  10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Martial arts of East Asia (origins)
If neither Jennylen nor yourself have any objection, I'm going to change the title of this article to "Asian martial arts (origins)" or "Origins of Asian martial arts". JFD (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I received my copy of The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar yesterday. Shahar is a professor of East Asian studies at Tel Aviv University and holds a PhD in East Asian Languages and Civilizations from Harvard; and his book is published by the University of Hawai'i Press. Moreover his articles on martial arts have been published in peer-reviewed journals including the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies and Asia Major.


 * Verifiability and No original research—two of Wikipedia's three core content policies—both state that "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" and go on to say that "material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable".


 * If this article must include material largely attributed to self-published sources online—and frankly I don't think that it does—don't we have an obligation to Wikipedia's readers to draw a distinction between reliable and unreliable sources?


 * JFD (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi JFD. I've been a little busy lately, so my wiki activities have been seriously cut back.  I wholeheartedly support the Wiki policies that you have addressed above.  The statement lacks a bit of context though, is there a dispute currently ongoing that needs to be addressed? Djma12 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

TBI
Hey - I've been trying to improve our article on total body irradiation from a stub to something useful, and thought I'd ask for your input if you have time to look at it. Take care. MastCell Talk 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It also occurs to me that we should have articles on radiation pneumonitis and fractionation (radiotherapy), don't you think? Just in case you're not busy enough. :) MastCell Talk 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds great! I am nursing a tendon injury that inhibits my typing, but will get on it after I recover. Djma12 (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of the Beanfield
I understand and agree with your sentiments however, when you remove citations, and insert sentences, referencing them (incorrrectly) to events that took place 14 years later! You must forgive people for assuming (i) these were either simple mistakes and (ii) questionning your N(?)POV. You can hear Sabido speak the words for himself if you watch the documentary. From memory I referenced the time at which he says these words exactly. Stephenjh (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a citation to what you are referring to? The citations provided are from random herbalism websites and personal essays. Djma12 (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks for the Barnstar. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda
I appreciate your vigilance. It seems that my edits have been misunderstood as a 'wholesale replace' and 'removal of all that existed before'. I want to explain what happened: 1) 'a wholesale replace' (done by me) 2) 'a revert' (done by the regulars) 3) 'discussion' (with me asking what should be done and receiving suggestion 'that keep every source from the previous article in and add your sources: integrate') 4) I edit again (much after the 'JSR's new article replacing the existing one' thread started) and 'keep every source from the previous article in and add my sources'. 5) I receive suggestion to add sages and other material with sources if I can, these existed in the previous version but without sources. 6) I get a message on my talk page and a vigilant editor has assumed that I have reverted 'all of the previous version thereby undoing the work done by the community' and 'JSR's new article replacing the existing one' (written on Sep 14) holds true on Sep 15 when 'I incorporated sourced material from the previous versions into the current one' on Sep 14 itself.

I am in the process of preparing a draft for expansion with sources. I assume that I have explained myself adequately (I have tried to). Allow me keep all of the sources which existed in the article throughout Sep 15 and before without exception.

Regards,

JSR (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * May I replace the version now? I have a draft for asked expansion ready and I reverted after I explained myself on the talk page but undid myself since I want your vote of confidence and not your disapproval of any of my methods. I emphasize that all previous sources stand and so should the new ones (especially when the bibliography section is as selective as this, now completely undone). Please let me continue (the article was to be completed by tomorrow).


 * Awaiting response. I have responded in detail on the talk page :), JSR (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the version which had sources from all the versions prior to September 15 (date of reversion) and am in the middle of a major expansion. I see that you may be busy in real life. I have found the recommended material and I could not keep away so please don't have any misgiving as I have retained citations from the previous version and corrected them where required. When the final version is completed (should take two days now that I have my sources) then I will notify you on your talk page and other people on the article talk page.


 * Regards, JSR (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No Problem,


 * For Mitra & Rangesh look in the Reference section for: Mitra, K.S. & Rangesh, P.R. (2003) in "Irritable Colon (Grahni)", Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies edited by Mishra, L.C. CRC Press: ISBN 084931366X. Mitra & Rangesh can be found in chapter 20 of the book Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies edited by Mishra, L.C. 72. CRC Press: ISBN 084931366X.


 * Mungantiwar is chapter 5 in the book Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies edited by Mishra, L.C. 72. CRC Press: ISBN 084931366X.


 * Since the book itself is a compilation of studies done variously I cite directly from different chapters, covering different studies, each authored by different scholars. In other words, I have already cited directly from the specific study within the main compilation.


 * Thanks and regards, JSR (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank Dux
The problems are fourfold;


 * It's all very poorly written. You have to read everything three times to work out what it's actually trying to say.
 * The contributing editors don't seem to appreciate the difference between Dux' claims and verifiable facts. Removing a claim is not the same as saying it's not true.
 * Nor do they understand the limitations of primary sources and the need for a neutral voice.
 * everything is coated in a thick impenetrable layer of publicity copy.

But since there are some facts and valid points in there, somewhere, and I believe they have the right intentions, I'm reluctant to mass revert everything. It just makes for a tedious job sorting out the horrible mess it's become.


 * I had the page semi-protected indefinitely. That should cut down on the number of meatpuppets. Djma12 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is in fact the most poorly written article on Wikipedia. He needs to be described as a true martial artist, not just an actor and author and all that b.s. I am a student of his and would like to see what I know to be true posted on this page. He is a martial artist and needs to be recognized as such. Like I've said before, do you need him to show up and give you a demonstration on his abilities before he's recognized??? Avianraptor (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Your edits were not a problem. I made a mistake. A huge section with a ton of useful references was deleted six edits ago, and I had to painstakingly rewrite it by copying and pasting etc. I didn't mean to revert.Likebox (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the third party assistance
Djma12, thanks very much for being a third party to help at Radiation hormesis. PDBailey (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you too
It was necessary to break the logjam. I couldn't figure out what PDBailey's wanted. It seemed to me he wanted to make Hormesis seem like a fringe theory, which it isn't, rather than a minority opinion, which it is. As I understand it now--- he just wanted a simple disclaimer on the studies that support hormesis to warn about possible publication bias.Likebox (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. I'll continue to see if I can mediate in a productive fashion. Djma12 (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. That was my intepretation of Undue Weight too. But then, why would PDBailey keep flagging the section as POV violating? Can you remove the tag?Likebox (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

more hormesis
Thank you again for the third set of eyes at Radiation Hormesis. I can't say I appreciate the (incorrect) imputation of my motives/conclusions, but I do appreciate knowing how I come off and will try to take that into account.

But I write this because I think our central disagreement has not been mediated. My claim is that text from the National Research Council, the NCRP, UNSCEAR and the French Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Medicine define the majority view. Likebox's claim is that the primary literature (regardless of journal quality ) is central. Any further comment on this would be appreciated. PDBailey (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * IMHO, BOTH of you are correct, and I think this is the crux of your disagreement. Likebox is correct that hormesis is actually not a minority view in respect to in vivo studies, and you are correct in stating that the NRC represents the consensus view in terms of clinical application.  This is why I changed up the lead, but would also like to see the in vivo studies included. Djma12 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

another question
Is it possible you were getting confused as to who was who. I am looking at this edit and in these edits did you intend to direct those at me? PDBailey (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't know who is who... I kinda lost track of the conversation in terms of speaker. Djma12 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd of Mucoid plaque
Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- Addbot (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Celts & human sacrifice
I've taken the unusual (for me) step of reverting your revision. You no doubt in good faith changed my "this is a Christian polemic" revision, but that leaves a poem which undoubtedly is a Christian polemic (it concludes such worshipping of stones there was/until the coming of good Patrick of Macha (see Crom Cruach) cited as if it were an impartial source, which it isn't. Paul S (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps polemic was an unwise choice of words on my part: I meant it in the very narrow sense of an opposing theologian, but you are right, the more usual sense is of a confrontational piece of writing. I'll substitute tract...? Paul S (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying
I keep hoping for a reasonable discussion in the Frank Dux article. I really am. But I'm starting to lose hope. As a side note, do you feel I've been biased, non-neutral or overly aggressive on that talk page? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I found your comments to be appropriate and neutral. I wouldn't take the criticism of SPAs too seriously. Djma12 (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the SPA's that are making the complaint. Another editor from another discussion is using the Dux article as an example of what he calls my "bias" and "overly aggressive" editing in a Wikiquette complaint here: . Niteshift36 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't soliciting your input at the WQA, but I do appreciate it anyway. This latest incarnation of the Dux friendly editor is at least acting civil at this point, so I'll engage him on that basis. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He just posted a proported copy of Dux DD-214.....and it doesn't support Dux claims at all. I deconstructed it in on the talk page in detail. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WHO on depleted uranium
Thanks for your help with depleted uranium. I noticed that http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ doesn't say, "that no evidence for an increased risk for cancer has been seen as a result of exposure to depleted uranium," it says something quite different; specifically, "In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer." There is no other mention of cancer on that WHO page.

Please note that does not consider the possibility of carcenogenic chemical properties apart from radioactivity. I don't know if there's an easy way to explain all that in the intro. Maybe it could be explained in the body and summarized in the intro. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the excellent criticisms. I have posted my response on the article's discussion page.  Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Gulf War syndrome
You're welcome; it sure feels good to be appreciated. I hope you have time to look at Gulf War syndrome and its talk page. That article was recently re-written over the past month or two, and a lot of material based on peer reviewed sources was removed when it was halved in size. There is a discussion related to DU going on at its talk page, and although it's already had the benefit of one M.D. since the re-write, I'm not sure he did much more than add blank sections and expansion templates. I'm sure the community would both appreciate and benefit from the editorial guidance of another M.D. who has already taken the time to look into these issues. 99.60.1.71 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gödel's ontological proof -- advertisement?
God Proof is available for free download at the link, and it is the only book devoted to Gödel's ontological proof. A on-line bibliography on ontological proofs, calls it "useful as a non-technical, but reliable, introduction to Gödel's argument". Perhaps you'll agree this makes it the kind of resource someone looking at the Wikipedia article might want to try next.

I am the book's author and I will not claim to be unbiased in the matter. But after my discovery of the long missing Morgenstern document on Gödel's citizenship hearing, I am treated as a minor expert on him. Wikipedia has many links to books which are not available for free download, and I hope on rethinking you'll believe this is a useful enough link to deserve to be restored. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Vitamin C
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Allopathy and its Difference with Modern Scientific Medicine : Request to join the discussion
I came across your userpage and thought that I could try to involve you into the discussion regarding my attempts to radically modify the article on Allopathic medicine where my edit as available at this link, had been reverted. The discussion is available at the respective talk page. I had referenced my edits so that the information that might not be known to many, can be verified. I seek the improvisation of this article (along with the related ones) and would like a healthy discussion to be re-initiated in order to improve the article. I would be glad if you show your experienced intervention/involvement.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 14:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

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!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Technical work like template designing for the journal.
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 13:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

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!