User talk:W4chris/Archive 2

Thank you
Thanks for the clean-up on aisle 4. Much appreciated Calmer   Waters  02:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! W4chris (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Babirusa
Could you please explain this? I understand why a bot can mistake it for a vandalism, but I am puzzled how a human can. To quote from the Appropriate uses section in WP:HIDDEN: "Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake". If you look at history of babirusa, people have repeatedly added wrong photos to that page despite the earlier warning. Hence my specification. 212.10.89.145 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I took another look and you are correct. I missread the sentence. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I have changed it back, Sorry, Chris W4chris (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

taarak mehta bada pagal chutya bhosdika insaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.1.139 (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PLTL
I am sorry, I am just learning details of wikipedia editing, so this is in response to your comment regarding my proposed article on Peer-led team learning. I tried to keep it factual - most of the references are publications in books or peer-reviewed journals. It is basically a short description of a project I have been working on, leading a team, for almost 20 years. I think it should be of sufficient importance to be included in wikipedia, PLTL is a well recognized model of teaching science, and addresses an important national problem of lack of interest and success in science and mathematics, and has been replicated nationwide (as our PLTL map shows).

Regarding your concerns - that is sounds like an advertisement. I think that the concern is misplaced. Yes, I do state that they model does improve students performance and attitude - but this is based on scientific educational, published research, which is cited in the article. I am sure that many of the scientific articles written in wikipedia are edited by exactly the same people who are working in the area they are writing about - is that a "conflict of interest"? Also, the comment about our website being mainly for "selling" products. While I don't think this is a fair comment (we have a open journal called "Progressions" hi-lighted on the website), I think you misconstrue the "commercial" nature of my work. The books we have published are guides to a teaching model - that is the primary venue to get the word out about this model. The amount of money involved (ie royalties) is truly miniscule, as is typically the case for academic work, and has nothing to do about why we have published the work- it is basically the accepted academic route to publish one work.

However, I understand that the philosophy of wikipedia seems to be headed toward a completely open knowledge base. I am very interested in this, as our "open journal" using google docs indicates. However, we also live in the world as it is, which includes many commercial products which are referenced freely on most any wikipedia entry, when appropriate.

Do you have any other suggestions to improve this article? (I will add references that do not include my name, as you suggested). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosserchemist (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that it is of sufficient importance to be included and I suspect that it will. I reread the article and still feel like I'm reading a brochure.

My suggestions and observations are below and are not intended to be critical nor do I have anything against PLTL. 1. You say that PLTL is well recognized model of teaching science, perhaps some of those other sources could be used as references. Each reference in the article originates with the same person or group of persons. It's kinda like "Acme Magic Diet Pills" citing research and studies by the Acme Magic Diet Pill Company. It's circular reasoning (or referencing in this case). 2. When the same person that created and/or worked on PLTL is the same person that writes the wiki article is the same person that is cited in all but one of the references it causes me to suspect a conflict of interest. If I, as a paramedic or a researcher, write an article on hypoxia, there is no conflict of interest as hypoxia is well researched and documented by many others. Also, having a conflict of interest does not only apply when there is money involved, if I had worked on a project for 20 years, you can bet that I'd be biased towards that project. 3. A promotional brochure will rarely cover the negatives (Acme will never tell you that dieting/exercising subjects on placebos gained the same results as dieting/exercising subjects on the Acme Magic Diet Pills). Any process or method that has been around for 20 years has to have had some negative or critical reviews/data/studies. 4. The external link for the web site: If I want to purchase a medical textbook or reference, there are many sources for these texts. Is pltl.org the only course or are there other books by other publishers/authors related to PLTL? I searched the web for less than 10 minutes and found numerous .edu sites that talk about or are using PLTL. A lot of those refer to in-house or other studies taht do not point back to the pltl.org. Hopefully these points will assist in the editing of the article and I encourage other editors to weigh in as well.

Thanks, Chris   W4chris (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate that you searched web for PLTL and found other links, etc. In fact, the review article that I recently wrote has 20 references for PLTL by other authors, who have published research and generally validated the model. I didn't cite all these out of desire for brevity, but in light of your comments I will try to step back and rewrite some of the article to give a different, more objective tone. Thanks for your time, Dave  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosserchemist (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've redone the article to try to be simpler and also added many independent references. Thanks again for your helpful comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosserchemist (talk • contribs) 02:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback 11 July 2011 [User talk:Alpha Quadrant|
Alpha Quadrant   talk    01:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

how to delete a page you had created
How can I delete a page I had create some time ago, especially as I feel it has not use anymore.

Thanks

Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.233.49 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The following Wiki page addresses deletion but basically if anyone has edited the page it probably will not be deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_delete_a_page Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chris W4chris (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just curious, which page were you wanting to delete? Thanks, Chris W4chris (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is wanted
Please provide your input here on the legitimacy and desirability of accepting external links in relevant Wikipedia articles to MedMerits, a new and freely accessible online resource on neurologic disorders. Presto54 (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Med
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. 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) 05:30, 20 December 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 20:32, 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)