User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2009/December

Help with dermatology-related content
I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Way outside my area of interest, but thanks for asking. I see these stubs are being created without reference to ICD-9 or ICD-10. Was that a deliberate choice, or just omission?LeadSongDog come howl  18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. The stubs are being created initially without the ICD-9 code, but others may certainly come along and add an info box with that information. ---kilbad (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I only asked because it struck me that there was a high probability that some of the new stubs would inadvertently duplicate existing articles (with different names). By codifying them, it would be much more likely that the synonyms would be found before a great deal of effort went into them. Good luck with your effort.LeadSongDog come howl  20:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment! That has been a constant problem in the past, which is why editors should check the list of cutaneous conditions first, before adding a new stub/redirect, to check if a condition is already present, only under a different name. ---kilbad (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Replacing
Why are you replacing with inline references like this and this? That makes maintainability harder and don't let tracking back which articles are using those same references, like this.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was converting references to one consistent format in that article. Fear not, it is still simple enough to search for uses, eg: google finds three uses as of now. That said, I regard cite pmid and cite doi as temporary measures at best, to be replaced with full citations as articles mature. They are conceptually broken, as I've previously [noted] on 11 October. LeadSongDog  come howl  14:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion, I see both as definitive, since I prefer to rely on Wikipedia tools rather than those of third parties (like google), it's easier to maintain shared references and the actual article text becomes much easier to edit. I understand you may not think the same way but just be aware I'll revert those changes when I see them.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the October note?LeadSongDog come howl  16:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, it was about the bot not the template. It was a discussion on the bot talk page not in WP:MOS. You can still freely edit the template to make formatting changes and I see no conflict between the "reference formatting of all the articles they were used in" since the template was in the article before you decided to make those formatting changes.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that using cite pmid effectively forces, for instance, the equivalent of lastJones firstJ.P. producing "Jones, J.P." which is entirely unsatisfactory for medical articles that expect "Jones JP" for a listed author. Stylistic choices that are appropriate in a history article are rarely the same as in a medical article, yet cite doi gives no way to adapt to all the different articles where a specific reference's instance of cite doi are transcluded. Only in the specific case where all articles transcluding an instance adopt the same style is it safe to edit the format of that instance. Otherwise, we would break the article review process.
 * Ease of editing is a significant issue for a low-visibility or for a start-class article, but as we move them to more mature state we need to think more of the reader and less of the editor. LeadSongDog come howl  16:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So far as wanting to use wikimedia tools for searching, you can still do that.LeadSongDog come howl  16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You still can edit the template and the different formatting issue between articles was not the case for those citations. Most editors are more concerned with actual content editing than with the formatting of references, so the article should be easier to edit by them not the other which can just review the references section which contains all the content they are concerned, and in the case cite pmid and cite doi the direct link to edit that specific reference as well all the articles it was used.
 * The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus. The various citation templates below may be freely mixed, since they all produce a similar format.
 * Searching is not Linkback, and that is the specific Wikipedia tool for the purpose.-Nutriveg (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That article did not have "a consistent format" until my edits, that was, to some extent, the point. It had a mish-mash of different ones, but the predominant template at that time was cite journal, mixed with a number of hand-formated citations. There were only two instances of cite pmid. You may also note that cite doi and its proxy cite pmid do not appear at MEDMOS. Should you wish to convert all of the template instances to the non-templated form, you are certainly free to do so, although that would not be my recommendation. I was more concerned with getting more complete and correct information in the citations, so went through them all with diberri's tool and direct searches of pubmed to find a pmid where missing. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl  18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There were three instances of cite doi or cite pmid, you changed them for inline citations creating the problems I pointed. cite doi and cite pmid use the template for formatting, WP:MOS don't impose such restriction, you're just ignoring that. Beyond that this article isn't even in the Medicine project.
 * As I said several times each cite pmid can be individually edited and there was no justification to transform those references in inline citations since there's no conflicting formatting between the articles they were used. The problem is this: transforming cite pmid and cite doi in inline citations without justification (the articles they were used having different formatting). I won't continue this discussion since it's going anywhere but next time I see this same kind of problem with I'll revert them as well.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent)It seems you may not be grasping the meaning of "instance" above. When two or more different articles (lets call them Topic A and Topic B) use cite doi or cite pmid to refer to the same source document, they transclude a single version of the source. For instance transcludes template:cite pmid/12345 to render  If the editors at Topic A manually edit that template to suit their stylistic choices, they change it also at Topic B. That is the fundamental problem with these two templates. Still, if you wish to use them, consistently, fill your boots. You've been advised of the problem.LeadSongDog  come howl  19:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your uninvolved comment
What is your thought on refactoring talkpage comments after they where replied to and removing comments w/o providing any edit summary A? Don't want to ride a dead horse but since you commented you should keep track of edits and maybe advise the editor and see if s/he's listening to you? That would be a good step forward for all of us. I know it's hard to follow this page and no hard feelings intended. Cheers The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted it, but the temperature seems to be dropping in the past few hours.
 * Part of the problem on that talk page is the very rapid pace of edits. There is rarely need for haste in writing an encyclopedia. Because WP is World Wide, it is conventional to assume that other editors will take at least a full day before seeing a post, yet the problem exchange was happening on a scale of minutes, hardly time for careful reflection.
 * I'm puzzled why you found it necessary to criticize PR's comments but not R's part in the 8 December discussion, which appears to have started the ruckus and still stands unredacted despite PR's prompt request that R do so. Your choice could easily have lead PR to feel xhe was being ganged up upon, as could your user talk space exchange with R.
 * I understand the frustration of dealing with editors who do not reply to comments on their user talkpage, but so far as I'm aware nothing compels editors to do so. The editor's deletion of another's posted comment their is accepted as their acknowledgement that it has been read. One good approach is to post your comment to them on your own talkpage, then use tb to notify them that you have done so. They are free to remove the notice from their page, but not the comments on yours, in accordance with wp:TPG. You can add a diff of the removal after the comment on your talkpage to complete the record of the not-quite-one-sided discussion.
 * With regard to PR's non-use of edit comments, this is not specific to any one article. It appears from the user contributions that xhe has never done so at any article or talkpage and may simply not realize how or why to do so. LeadSongDog come howl  15:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your talkpage notice (template). I'm watching your page and will comment at some point but I'm just not feeling right today to give you a comprehensive response. Still, much apreaciated you took the time to comment. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Time is passing fast at WP and I think after Bigtimepeace's involvement any reply I could give you would be out of date so I won't reply further unless you have a specific question you think I should answer which I certainly would do if asked for. Otherwise, I would like to sincerely thank you for your input in this matter. Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your "Words regretted" post on my talk page. I did reply to you there, I hope you have already seen that. I am still rather dissatisfied that PilgrimRose has carried on a character assassination of me with apparent impunity, no adverse remarks about her doing so that I have seen anyway. I have actually posted something about this on my talk page here and I would be grateful if you could spare the time to review what I have written and I would appreciate any comments. I really don't want to be seen as some pedant who drags things on and on but I also don't see why PR should be allowed to indulge in character assassination of me with no comeback. rturus (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Sum
Thanks for that. I actually did leave a note for PilgrimRose about edit summaries which that editor promptly removed (which is fine), but at least we can assume they now know about that issue. Thanks also for your calm and helpful comment on the article talk page in one of the threads that was particularly contentious. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks and XFF
Thanks for the link; I will certainly pass that thought on to the ISP in question. Not holding my breath for them to adopt it, mind you... Smartiger (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As it's a pretty short list, one might equally draw the opposite conclusion. But is this even a viable solution for dynamic-IP ISPs?  It sounds rather more like one for organisations where there are fixed, distinct IPs, behind a single proxy.  As far as I'm aware, I'm not assigned any fixed (WAN) IP address, and I'm not using a proxy.  Smartiger (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. I've asked at the project (on Mediawiki). LeadSongDog come howl  16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Decision on blocks needed, re the SPI case you submitted
Hello LeadSongDog. At WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77, the checkuser findings are in, but only some of the block decisions have been made. Do you have an idea of some admins who may be familiar with the history at Murder of Meredith Kercher who could be asked to give advice? I closed a 3RR case but aside from that know little about the article. I expect that ongoing sockery may occur, so it would be good to get some scrutiny by an admin who knows the article. Also, what would you think of my applying semiprotection for the article, as an anti-sock measure? It is likely that Wz777 will be blocked and IPBE will be taken away from Wikid77. Do you think the abuse by Wikid77 is enough to justify a long block, or even indef? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's possible that admin may still be watching the article after earlier intervention with some of the same players. Wikid77 has been on WP for years and seems adept. My main concern was that xhe (and the IPs) together induced another editor to sock. The ongoing alternating edits by Wikid77 and Wz777 show clear intent to deceive. What remains unclear is if the IPeditors were really Wikid77 socks. I've asked the CheckUser who did it to have another look, as he didn't indicate a result on that.LeadSongDog  come howl  20:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)