User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 12

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

WikiProject template on Talk:Homeopathy

Hi Blueraspberry, I noticed your addition to the subject talkpage. I'm not sure there's any reason to consider homeopathic "remedies" as nutritional supplement. Usually they contain just water, alcohol, sugar, or an inert binder. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

When I put the notice there I thought that homeopathy was not regulated by most countries' pharmaceutical laws, and was more likely regulated by food safety laws. Had homeopathic remedies been regulated by food safety laws, I would have suggested that they were a type of dietary supplement, but in fact, I can find no instance of this being done. In the United States homeopathy has special regulation only for its field, and in other countries it seems that it is often treated as a branch of medicine. I am removing it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


Few minor changes

Hey Blue made these few changes here [1]. Per WP:MEDMOS we do not typically state patient but say person. One can also typically state this stuff as fact rather than prefacing with "Medical societies recommend" IMO anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we talked about this before. Somehow I picked up the bad habit of doing it that way. The way you suggested sounds much better. I only do it that way now but have not updated what I did before. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Filmmaker friend

I would love for you to put me, as someone out of work with a film degree, in touch with her. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Indian cabinet ministers

Ideally each ministry would put up a list of their cabinet ministers on their website; sadly this isn't so. And AFAIK there is no reliable source that lists all historical cabinet ministers.

However I have pieced together lists of ministers for a few major cabinet offices—namely, Home, Finance, Defence, Foreign and Railways. The last two are complete and cited (you can find a reasonably reliable source at the bottom of the articles), but I cannot vouch for the comprehensiveness of the first three.—indopug (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help!

Can you please help me adding reliable sources to my article? I have no idea how to start. I would appreciate your help. Thanks Anna Karolina Heinrich (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I replied at User_talk:Anna_Karolina_Heinrich#Sources_for_Waldemar_Olszewski. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

embryonic germ disc = germ layer?

Thanks for your offer! I have one pressing question is a germ disc the same as a germ layer? One of my students got ahead of me and started an article in the appointed sandbox here User:Thelmadatter/Sandboxes_Group_2/Embryogenic_germ_disc However, I cannot understand it. I poked around on the web for other explanations of what a germ disc is and eventually got to the various articles on embryo growth in Wikipedia. If he has to start with whole new topic, I need to know ASAP.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked for an answer to your question and was unable to find one. I can help with the Wikipedia end of things and would like to do so, and even I will help with a bit of searching for sources, but I regret that I am unable to help with technical questions although I will always try to help if something comes up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Metro Star for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metro Star is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metro Star until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbm1058 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I replied to this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice to meet you at GLAM bootcamp!

Let's talk some more! Klortho (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

iPrEx article

Hi Bluerasberry, hope you and your hamster are doing good. My name pis Pedro Goicochea (pgoicochea@gladstone.ucsf.edu) and in charge of iPrEx communications and community relations. I have been following your article on iPrEx once every year since the announcement of study results on November 23rd, 2010. In 2011 we re-engineered iPrEx communications looking forward to the open label extension phase "iPrEx OLE" (www.iprexole.com). There has been a lot of developments in the study since then, there has been updates of study analyses, on top of Time magazine, Science has considered iPrEx one of the 10 most important trials in 2010. My intention yesterday was to update the article with more accurate information. The www.globaliprex.com does not exist, ti links to the www.iprexole.com, the study results sub page does not exist any more so that the references to the fact sheets you have posted are not linking appropriately, and we in iPrEx want to highlight that PrEP is effective if taken. A recent analysis done with iPrEx data and the STRAND study data and published in Science Translational Medicine (Anderson, Peter, Glidden, David et al) confirms that PrEP could be more than 99% effective if taken daily and 96% when taken 4 days a week. I have not updated that because I feel that I am not very savvy when it comes to edit in Wikipedia. So, please let's work together in updating this article in a more accurate and comprehensive way.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgoicoch (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted your content is because it plagiarized the copyrighted material at iprexole.com. I will email you now - it would be easier to have a copyright talk with you by voice through phone or Skype than send you to read things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Your friend

Could you put me in touch with your filmmaker friend, since I'm struggling with a film degree? Thanks. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OER policy article

Hi Lane, User:Peteforsyth suggested I come to you to have a look at a first draft of an article I've been working on as part of the CommOER project. Many of our team members feel that an article on OER policy is needed, but no one has BEEN BOLD enough to start this so I gave it a whack myself at a mini-edit-a-thon here in Houston. It is currently at User:Snarfa/sandbox/policy and I believe it should reside at /open educational resources policy. We were wondering if you would take the step of reviewing, editing as needed and possibly moving this into article space. There are then 5 or so OER practitioners I will alert to its presence, as well as posting a general note on the OER talk page. Thanks SO MUCH for your help with our class. - Sara FB (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to me. The content is great and it seems ready to go live. My first thought is that you are being overly cautious about requesting my preliminary review or anyone else's, because obviously you understand how Wikipedia works. Everything about this is as it should be.
However, I do wonder how you came to think that this content needed its own article. Why do you want to put this at OER policy rather than insert it as a section in the Open educational resources article? That article gets about 14,000 visitors per month and if you made a new article which was as short as this one, then I would not expect it to be seen by many people. How would you feel about including this in the OER page? It is acceptable as a stand-alone article. If you like, I would either move it into live article space as you requested or integrate it into the OER article as I am proposing. If you need more information to help you make a decision, we could talk here or by email, phone or Skype, or you could post on the OER talk page, or you could post to the WikiProject Open Access talk page. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Lane, I suggested Sara reach out to you (or others) because our roles in facilitating Communicate OER is primarily as facilitators, and I thought it would be best if somebody else took a look before either of us posted it. You may be right about it being overly cautious. I think it's a good idea to have a separate article because so many people associated with our project have brought up the idea; I believe there is energy to significantly build up this article, while something more summary-like might be appropriate on the open educational resources page. Like you, I don't think either approach is "wrong," but that was our thinking. -Pete (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is up. May it be the start of many organizations adopting an OER policy. I also summarized the article on open educational resources and then linked to it from there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Most excellent -- thank you for your consideration, and making updates in both places. (As a side note, I think the article is more intended to capture government policies around OER, than organization policies -- maybe some work is needed to make that a little more clear. I'll try to work on that myself if nobody gets there first.) -Pete (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your assistance with this! Maybe Lane has a point and the article SHOULD span policies of all types. Well, we'll see where it goes I guess. Thank you again. -- Sara FB (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Generic drug bioequivalency

Just thought you might be interested in this graph and this study and this article.   — C M B J   09:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Also this and this and this. A (very) quick reading of what I've seen so far suggests conventional thinking is that most generics are thought to be satisfactorily bioequivalent, though the drug charted on right is not considered defective by the same standards and novel concern exists, particularly where large peak variation or dose-response sensitivity are factors. It's worth noting that one author raised the point of how those switched from generic-generic might be affected, which is an interesting question.   — C M B J   10:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Per your request

Per your request at enWS, I'm cross posting a link to your Wikisource welcome message. It was very nice to meet you yesterday at the GLAMWiki Boot Camp and let me know if there's anything I can do to help on Wikisource related matters or anything else. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Metrostarlogo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Metrostarlogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This should be deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I want to know more things from you. you seem to know more things than me. will you help me??? Ajaska (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Surgery simulator

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Category talk:World Digital Library related.
Message added 14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Conducting research at Wikipedia

Hi Bluerasberry,

I am curious about a message you left here saying:

the community requests that human subject research be registered

Since I am part of the community I would like to find out where this policy/rule/guideline is posted. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I regret writing that. There is no central page discussing this. So far as I know, anyone who is not part of the Wikipedia community is free to come here and send messages to whoever they like.
However, I personally wish that there was a registration process for human subject research because a lot of it is spam which burdens the community as a time sink and results in no published outcome. I am interested in research regulation and I thought that policies were in place but I think now the surveying issue is dropped. I would talk more if you like - email me and we can voice or video chat. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for responding, Bluerasberry.
I think I know where you are coming from – I also worry about time wasted by editors when responding to messages on their talkpages. I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time trying to decipher some of the stuff left on my own talkpage – time that may be better spent improving mainspace, but you never know until you do your homework, do you? After all, most, if not all, my contributions to Wikipedia were achieved by imitating others.
As far as spam is concerned – yes this is a serious concern as well as the security/safety of editors (with phishing in mind). XOttawahitech (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-Thon

Hi Lane,

I am about to chime in, but have yet to find any articles that are being worked on. Pointers appreciated. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

No one has done anything at User:PMHed yet and I think it may be overly optimistic to expect a lot. We have a small group here and few sources prepared, and few people here have accounts. If anyone does anything I will have them edit that project page, though. Thanks for checking in. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

NLM

WikiProject Medicine / United States National Library of Medicine Editathon - May 2013

English: Thank you for your participation in the National Library of Medicine Editathon, May 28 and 30, 2013!

We are so glad to have met you, and look forward to working with you at many more fun editathon events! Duckduckgo (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice hamster

Sorry if I seemed harsh at RSN, I see you are doing great things for Wikipedia/Consumer Reports collaboration. And nice hamster. --GRuban (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

your RfA rationale

I saw one editor disagreeing with your RfA rationale (at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mattythewhite_2, but I'd not only like to support it, I'd go further. I once wrote about this, but I cannot find the relevant edits, but in a nutshell, I'd like to see a change in the way the community approaches an RfA. I think editors ought to "sign up" to examine specified aspects of the user's contributions, so a few editors (shouldn't be just one), agree to review all AfDs, a few others look at other XfDs, a few others look at contributions to AIV and other notice boards, yet others examine blocks of content edits, other look at talk page interaction etc. I hadn't considered user page design, but I would put it on the list. Of course, anyone can review all or random selections as they choose, but if we had a more organized approach, it would be more obvious if certain areas were being reviewed, and editors could choose to concentrate on a particular area, confident that other areas have been covered.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User pages, my 2¢

I respect your feelings about the subject of user pages, and I intend to revisit one sticky bit on my own user page with those issues in mind. But your approach bothers me. This isn't a new view for you, but from what I've seen, all you've done to raise the issue is to bring it up in RfX votes. (Note the "what links here" on your essay.) That may be pragmatic in the short run, but it comes with some costs.

To me, it seems to reject as pointless any signficant form of community discussion (user talk pages, the village pump, RfC). And it puts candidates in a no-win situation: Either appear to simply submit to policy proposals that come up during their RfX, or appear to take a strong stand against said policy proposal before it has had a sensible conversation within the community. This hurts the RfA/RfB process.

Pursuing user page reform through RfA/RfB votes might, in the long run, be less effective than trying to pursue your goal more broadly. Some of the harsher criticism you're getting here may be coming from a sense that this is a form of blackmail, and people tend to react negatively to that, even though I doubt it's your intent.

I hope you'll consider these concerns.

Love the hamster! Have a great weekend, --j⚛e deckertalk 21:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Many thanks for all your help with the NIH outreach. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Userpages

Hello Bluerasberry. I've seen you !vote in some RfAs based on userpage designs, which is really an interesting idea. Do you mind taking a look at my userpage? It was re-designed 10 days ago. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you want Mohamed CJ i can align your userboxes with your to-do list so they aren't slightly off from one another :) It's just my OCD talking lol. If not no worries. — -dainomite   19:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
That would be cool, thank you :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done Mohamed CJ. The time userbox looks a little bigger width-wise but that's just because the dark purple border of the Wikipedia seniority is hard to see. If you want anything else done just lemme know, I enjoy this sort of stuff. Cheers, — -dainomite   19:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Your rationale for supporting the RfA

I saw the comments above, and just wanted to chime in that I mostly agree with your rationale. It seems to me that if a user demonstrates that they are competent, trustworthy, and nice, they should be given whatever permissions they want. I'm just not sure that just a good userpage would adequately demonstrate that. For one thing -- it would be too easy to game. Klortho (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I copied this to User_talk:Bluerasberry/userpage_standards#Not_only_criteria and commented there. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

Would you mind rewording a tiny bit of your statement on addshore's RfB? Just for clarity that it's not a policy but your own essay. Just a suggestion in word-choice but "according to the policy here." compared to "according to the criteria in my essay"? Cheers Blue, — -dainomite   19:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--71.234.123.166 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You both are completely correct. I changed it there and I standardized the way I make such responses by drafting this section - User:Bluerasberry/userpage_standards#Posting_this_on_other_pages. Since I did that, I will always incorporate your suggestion when I comment in this way. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem good sir, take care. — -dainomite   12:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

!voting

Hi there. I think it was a good idea to make some adjustments here. What I came here to say was I think it would be a good idea to point out the specific part(s) of your essay that you feel the candidate's userpage violates, rather than leaving it up to them to dig through your page and try to find out what you're looking for. If you pointed out what part(s) of the candidate's userpage you found to contradict (a) specific point(s) in your userpage essay/criteria and convince them why it would benefit them and others if they changed their userpage directly in the !vote, it would save them a lot of headache and you would be more likely to get a response or even positive action from the candidate. If you just leave them a link to your criteria and tell them that they need to change their userpage based on your criteria if they want a support !vote from you, the candidate and probably the closing bureaucrat will just overlook your !vote. This is just my suggestion to you. Happy editing, Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with article related to Guide (software company)

Hi Bluerasberry, back in early March you helped me by reviewing a new article for the software company Guide - I have just finished writing a short article on the company's CEO and founder, Freddie A. Laker, and I was wondering if you would be able to review this for me. Just as with the Guide article, I've written this new article on behalf of the company and submitted it to AfC for review. Also, to avoid any potential confusion I should point out that there is already a Freddie Laker article, which is about the father of the Freddie Laker I have written about. Please take a look if you are interested. It would be great to get your feedback again! Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I am holding you to an especially high standard, but would you please make sure that every sentence has a citation? If this means posting a citation more times than you already have, then do this. I checked the sources that you used and they all seem good but I wish that the article had the additional stability of having everything cited. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look! I'll go back and make sure that each sentence has a citation - that seems to just be an issue with the first couple of paragraphs under Early career where the same citations apply to the whole graf. Once I've updated, I'll let you know so you can see if that's better. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, just updated the draft now. Want to take a look and let me know if you have any other thoughts? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I looked at it and it seems entirely appropriate for creating as a live article. The sources are good, the content is good, and this article is appropriate to make live and seek organic review. It meets minimal standards for creating an article for sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Appreciate you reviewing this for me. I'll note your comments on the AfC entry so that the reviewers there can see. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FASH

Thanks for the links, actually. Yes, I was thinking about what to say when I got your notification. Don't worry; I wouldn't have been influenced. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Gota

I left a message for a es.wiki admin, BetoCG, asking to take a look. I left a message on Doc James' page to that effect. Ive worked with BetoCG before and he has treated me fairly.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to User_talk:Jmh649#Gota. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Orthopaedic Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 11:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roni Zeiger

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Roni Zeiger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft VP post about evidence template

Is at User:Klortho/DraftVPPost. Please feel free to hack away at it. Klortho (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Trip around Geneva

Hi Lane, Here is a quick summary of the trip around Geneva:

We did not get to visit a historic building, not far from the University parc and the reformation wall: The famous RHINO (squat). How do you like my photo ?

The last invasion attempt was L'Escalade in 1602.

Talk to you soon. GastelEtzwane (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Forgot the link to the boat race: FR:Bol d'or (voile) GastelEtzwane (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluerasberry/Archive_12"