User talk:Cool Nerd

I am not a doctor.

And I think it's fine for people in general to dive in, use a variety of good sources, and do our best. We all have bodies and we're all somewhat familiar with being sick and/or enjoying good health. Cool Nerd (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What I do is take a good source, excerpt it, and then summarize it.

For example . . .

Report Finds Swine Flu Has Killed 36 Children, New York Times, Denise Grady, September 3, 2009:
“ . . . In children without chronic health problems, it is a warning sign if they seem to recover from the flu but then relapse with a high fever, Dr. Frieden said. The relapse may be bacterial pneumonia, which must be treated with antibiotics. . . . ”

Okay, Dr. Thomas Frieden was New York City Health Commissioner and then appointed by President Obama to head CDC in 2009.

And plus, this is useful information. This is information which has some texture to it. In poker terms, this is a playable hand!

And these topics are too important to do anything less than our best work. Cool Nerd (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Having Diarrhea, and Drinking Plenty of Fluids to Prevent Dehydration

THE TREATMENT OF DIARRHOEA, A manual for physicians and other senior health workers, World Health Organization, 2005
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2005/9241593180.pdf
(page 3)
" . . . Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS) are dissolved in water to form ORS solution . . . "
(page 10)
" . . . By giving zinc as soon as diarrhoea starts . . . "
(page 10)
" . . . The infant usual diet should be continued during diarrhoea and increased afterwards. Food should never be withheld and the child's usual foods should not be diluted. Breastfeeding should always be continued. . . "

There is also the issue of the 'old' vs. 'new' recipe for ORS.

My first idea was, since I'm not a doctor, and you probably aren't either, is to just present the excerpt 'transparently,' that is, just as it is. But this ran into so much opposition, okay, fine, in the interest of moving forward, we will summarize. Cool Nerd (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

in malnourished child, often hard to distinguish between dehydration and septic shock

THE TREATMENT OF DIARRHOEA, A manual for physicians and other senior health workers, chapter 8: “MANAGEMENT OF DIARRHOEA WITH SEVERE MALNUTRITION," pages 22-23 (26-27 in PDF file).

" . . . In children with severe malnutrition it is often impossible to distinguish reliably between some dehydration and severe dehydration.

"Of equal importance, it is also difficult to distinguish severe dehydration from septic shock, as both conditions reflect hypovolaemia and reduced blood flow to vital organs. An important distinguishing feature is that severe dehydration requires a history of watery diarrhoea. A severely malnourished child with signs suggesting severe dehydration but without a history of watery diarrhoea should be treated for septic shock."

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

re-hydrate a malnourished child slowly to avoid flooding the circulation and overwhelming the heart

THE TREATMENT OF DIARRHOEA, A manual for physicians and other senior health workers, chapter 8: “MANAGEMENT OF DIARRHOEA WITH SEVERE MALNUTRITION," page 23 (27 in PDF file).

" . . . Rehydration should usually be by mouth; an NG tube may be used for children who drink poorly. IV infusion easily causes over-hydration and heart failure; it should be used only for the treatment of shock.

"Oral rehydration should be done slowly, giving 70-100 ml/kg over 12 hours. Start by giving about 10 ml/kg/hour during the first two hours. Continue at this rate or a lower rate based on the child's thirst and ongoing stool losses. Increasing oedema is evidence of over-hydration. . . "

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

a child who is both malnourished and dehydrated needs ORS with less salt, more sugar, and more potassium

THE TREATMENT OF DIARRHOEA, A manual for physicians and other senior health workers, chapter 8: “MANAGEMENT OF DIARRHOEA WITH SEVERE MALNUTRITION," page 23 (27 in PDF file).

"When using the new ORS solution containing 75 mEq/l of sodium:
• dissolve one ORS packet into two litres of clean water (to make two litres instead of one litre);
• add 45 ml of potassium chloride solution (from stock solution containing 100g KCl/l); and
• add and dissolve 50g sucrose.

"These modified solutions provide less sodium (37.5 mmol/l), more potassium (40 mmol/l) and added sugar (25g/l), each of which is appropriate for severely malnourished children with diarrhoea."

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

to prevent/treat dehydration, more fluid than usual, both salted and unsalted fluids

THE TREATMENT OF DIARRHOEA, A manual for physicians and other senior health workers, World Health Organization, 2005, page 8-9 (12-13 in PDF).

"4.2 Treatment Plan A: home therapy to prevent dehydration and malnutrition

"" . . . Mothers should be taught how to prevent dehydration at home by giving the child more fluid than usual, how to prevent malnutrition by continuing to feed the child, and why these actions are important. . . "

"4.2.1 Rule 1: Give the child more fluids than usual, to prevent dehydration

"" . . . Wherever possible, these should include at least one fluid that normally contains salt (see below). Plain clean water should also be given. . .

"Fluids that normally contain salt, such as: • ORS solution • salted drinks (e.g. salted rice water or a salted yoghurt drink) • vegetable or chicken soup with salt. . .

"Fluids that do not contain salt, such as: • plain water • water in which a cereal has been cooked (e.g. unsalted rice water) • unsalted soup • yoghurt drinks without salt • green coconut water • weak tea (unsweetened) • unsweetened fresh fruit juice. . . "

So, WHO is recommending a mix of both salted and unsalted fluids. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible photos:

http://rehydrate.org/solutions/homemade.htm line drawing showing 6 teaspoons sugar, 1/2 teaspoon salt being added to one liter water. (about 2/3's way down)

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Swanson-Vegetarian-100-Fat-Free-Vegetable-Broth-14-oz/15556206 picture of a can of common soup, not so bad

http://www.euroasiafoods.com/Chaosuan_VegetableBroth_pg.html

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20569920_6,00.html

go easy on sugared fruit drinks (if at all)

THE TREATMENT OF DIARRHOEA, A manual for physicians and other senior health workers, World Health Organization, 2005, page 9 (13 in PDF):

"Unsuitable fluids

"A few fluids are potentially dangerous and should be avoided during diarrhoea. Especially important are drinks sweetened with sugar, which can cause osmotic diarrhoea and hypernatraemia. Some examples are: • commercial carbonated beverages • commercial fruit juices • sweetened tea."

avoid other fluids with stimulant, diuretic, or purgative effects

THE TREATMENT OF DIARRHOEA, A manual for physicians and other senior health workers, World Health Organization, 2005, page 9 (13 in PDF):

"Unsuitable fluids . . . "Other fluids to avoid are those with stimulant, diuretic or purgative effects, for example: • coffee • some medicinal teas or infusions."

Flu

Good work. I think there needs to be a mention that most of the current cases are in Kansai, but i don`t have a reference yet...best wishes andycjp (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And as you find a good reference, please add it. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't me. I've undid the IP edit that removed the table. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that it's back.

In the Swine Flu articles I see a great decline in interest. One aspect of this was maps of which counties in a state had confirmed cases, such as Illinois or others. Someone with the ability to create and edit the maps got all interested and shaded in the inected counties, then lost interest and left an outdated map attached to the article, creating the false impression that only a few counties were affected. In 1918 the first pass of the flu was similar to what we have seen so far, then it came back and killed someone dear to someone who was dear to me. The articles are lacking in state by state updates and in graphics. Much of the information is stale and misleading, thus unencyclopedic. Edison (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are no longer constructive

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to 2009 swine flu outbreak. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

You are ignoring WP Guidelines and consensus for news compilations and synthesis, and continue to do major structural changes and damage to the article. This is not your personal blog and you must discontinue acting as a self-appointed newscaster. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to 2009 swine flu outbreak. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wish I could claim original research! Oh, just a little bit of work on safe manufacture of vaccine and cut the lead time from four months to three. No such luck!

What I have done is to create 'Current Situation' and add to it, Southern Hemisphere:Australia, Chile, Argentina . . . Northern Hemisphere: Mexico, United States (the largest number of confirmed cases), Canada (short shift so far), Britain, Japan. Other people, including this guy above, have repeated deleted my work. Oh, My God, it's so much more important that we stay formal than we actually get out helpful information to people.

The charges are ridiculous in that I have done the opposite. I have directly quoted short and moderate paragraphs from news sources and included the citation. How would you do it? yeah, you could rewrite it in your own words, but that is adding a layer. And it takes extra time finding other information.

An encyclopedia is defined by breadth, not formality. A public health crisis, even a potential public health crisis, is emphatically a time to relax wiki rules. So we have running news stories on top (after very small intro) and more constant information below. Again, how would you do it? Not include the up-to-date because it's . . messy (not near as messy as the baseline of 35,000 people who die each year in the United States from flu and the 500,000, and this thing may not get any worse than the baseline. But as I understand it, every person who gets the currently mild version is a lottery, if it hits negative, you get the mutation where it's more fatal. Even the awful Spanish Flu of 1918 had a mortality rate of "only" 2%, but so many people got it)

So, yeah, we should write a real article, not a formalistic article. This one counts. This is not merely a school project to buff and polish. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the thing with consensus. I would take that more seriously. But it's not the end of a conversation. More like the middle of a conversation. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? Just use common sense. If an article has a dozen footnote references, it's considered pretty well cited. This one has 187, most of them over the last month. Imagine, an article with 187 different news sources and all of them nicely used as part of an ongoing, evolving, and growing article, with a table of contents, and clear organized structure, so readers can go to a subject directly. The "average" reader doesn't want to read that a 10-year-old girl in Tonga has a suspected case of swine flu. The average reader goes to Wikipedia for the "big picture," with detailed sources for more depth, not the minute minute-by-minute news from the web. They can get that stuff on their own. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the harm of us also doing our best work? What is the harm of our article being an alternate source of current information? Cool Nerd (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The harm is trying to turn an article into a news bulletin board. There are 83,000 recent news articles about the swine flu anyone can read on Google News. The problem is that 82,999 of those posts are put there by companies selling advertising, and know that the typical TV watcher, radio listener, and web news scanner, gets attracted to "Breaking News" bulletins, and needs those instantaneous sensationalism fixes to keep feeding their habit. The kind of news candy you're trying to add will create a lot of brain cavities since people will get too wrapped up trying to make sense of factual jelly beans. (Can't help it, I'm a metaphor nut ;-) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To Wikiwatcher1: Absent any difs to show editing behavior which violates guidelines or policies, I do not understand why there was a "final warning." Difs, please? Edison (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

thankssss.... Yess!!!... with SOURCES, I want to tell the world what's happening with the flu here in Argentina, what She and He don't want to tell. :D BUT ALWAYS WITH SOURCES --190.50.114.22 (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, xD... you're from Argentina too?... ey ... Argentina on this map [1] should be with another color ... +50 --190.50.114.22 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

At 2009 swine flu outbreak, per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cool Nerd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have stayed polite throughout. The article has to stay easily updatable on a chronological basis, or else it's not useful. And most of all, Swine Flu 2009 is a potential public health crisis, so far merely potentially.

Decline reason:

Doesn't cover what's typically expected in a well thought out request (there's a guide linked to in the block template). But regardless this is a short block, so take the time to gather your thoughts and ensure you have a grasp on the policy. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment by blocking admin

Cool Nerd has been trying to change the article to adopt a more news-like format. In the thread where this was clearly discussed on the Talk page, a majority were against this change. Hmwith, Wikiwatcher1, Tim Vickers, Leevanjackson and LeadSongDog were against the change, and only you spoke in favor of it. I have no objection to another admin lifting the block early early if you agree to stop trying to change the page format without getting consensus on the Talk page first. I won't be available for a few hours so can't address the matter till then. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we adopt to changing circumstances?

Discussion pages are typically cul-de-sacs. It's where people discuss things, sometimes very thoughtfully, and then no one ever responds to them. Usually.

So, I skimmed the comments, made a brief comment and that was that. People seemed to be making the argument

including news item --> problem
including news item --> imperfection

Well, what about the problem of not including it? Namely, that we are going to fail to communicate with our readers--when we easily could. My method is transparent. The chart and the map are not. Those take a heroic effort to keep up. And even then, it is not obvious what is up-to-date and what isn't. My method is also easy. It invites new readers to participate.

As far as being in a minority, it doesn't particularly bother me. Okay, Ed, you have to work quickly and make a decision on the base numbers. That's fine as far as it goes. And yeah, it's only 24 hours. But I am hoping that at a certain point you, if you have an real interest in Swine Flu 2009, or other people will look at the actual content of the arguments.

So, far, the conversation has been a largely disconnected.
I say, 'Hey, our current rules don't really helpfully apply to this current situation . . .'
Someone else says, 'The current rules are . . . '
Maybe that's the beginning of a conversation. Or maybe not even that.

I would rather have goals than rules. 'We attempt to give the complete story with references.' What is wrong with that?

And we are going to not give people complete and up-to-date information because it's somehow messy or disorderly?

The real rules of wikipedia seem to be "formality," "stilted," and "we're practicing for school (and/or the corporate world)"

Rules that are useful are distillations from experience. And even then, we have to adopt to changes in circumstances, changes in technology, etc.

So, what I'm going to do is to attempt to find some teammates. I'm guess I'm going to attempt to find some fellow radicals. Although I think of myself squarely as a middle-of-the-roader, maybe things are so formal . . . that perhaps I am a radical.

And where people really talk are in the short comments in the history section. This is a pretty good current practice. I think we should roll with this. Perhaps try to augment it with other avenue, but keep it as one good option.

Swine Flu is a rapidly evolving story that could break bad at any time. Hopefully, it won't. But it could. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not without its irony!

About the Space Shuttle Challenger and the Space Shuttle Columbia, as talked about in the System Accident article and discussion page, why did the engineers not push their point harder? All of the above! Cool Nerd (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Neuraminidase inhibitors

Yes, that is right, tamiflu is a transition state analogue of sialic acid so inhibits cleavage of these sugars and prevents viral release from infected cells. However, that is nothing to do with the human immune response to influenza since, although neutralising antibodies are produced to both neuraminidase (N) and haemaglutanin (H), amino acid substitutions that confer resistance to the drug would be in the active site of neuraminidase, not on the surface of the protein, and would be unlikely to change the antigenicity of the protein. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Long section title

The section title in Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak#Victoria, Australia has stopped widespread testing. And this part deleted, but our article depends so heavily on numbers is very long. It can cause the title to appear distorted on low resolutions and makes the TOC really wide. It makes it easier and neater to just use short titles, then just elaborate in the text of the section. hmwithτ 20:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to say three things all at once, and yeah, it probably got too long. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Good article

I was about to go to bed about 1 1/2 hours ago. Mind you, it is 3:30 here and I have to work tomorrow morning. But let's make a good article soon! Will be back on Monday or Tuesday. FHessel (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My main thing, I want us to really talk with people, and not just layers of formality. Cool Nerd (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection

Sure, let's give it a go and see what happens. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Here are some good links:

Hello, Cool Nerd! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Airplaneman talk 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

H1N1

The only thing I really had issue with was the statement that not taking it "right" somehow causes resistance. Even though this is a persistent belief there does not seem to be evidence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey CN there is Wikinews. I am however not sure exactly what you are proposing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerned about the source. Anything better to reference it too?

Also this sort of stuff belongs on Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. Do not like the extensive use of quotes either.

I can give you a one month access to uptodate if you send me an email. This is a much better source for finding information.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a better resource IMO [2] that lets people know when to go to the ER. We can attribute this advice to the CDC and thus will not be giving medical advice. New papers are not sufficiently accurate / reliable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another concern is that since you have not reworded it it may count as a copyright violation. Also the format is unorganized. Moved to a section on society and culture at the end.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The last thing you added regarding the vaccine is already in the vaccine section therefore removed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey CN I have a few concerns about your additions. We do not give medical advise per say. We might be able to create a page along the line of when to seek medical help. This issue does not apply just to influenza by the common cold, ear aches, eye infections, and many others. Not at all happy however having a section in the front about recent news.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Would support the creating of a section called public health recommendations around the prevention section that could contain the CDCs / WHOs other places recommendations wrt when to go to the ER, when to stay home, etc. We must keep this referenced to major national and international health organizations not to new papers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) the info on when to go to the hospital is on the treatment sub page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

flu pandemic

I do very much endorse including good info from the WHO in the article, but could you please summarize rather than adding long direct quotes? Also, the WHO doesn't necessarily need dedicated sections just for its comments on stuff. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

NC the info you have added is already summarized in the article...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Swine Flu, Current Situation

The article Swine Flu, Current Situation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There already is a Swine Flu article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Swine Flu, Current Situation

A tag has been placed on Swine Flu, Current Situation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MuffledThud (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Swine Flu H1N1, WHO Recommendations

A tag has been placed on Swine Flu H1N1, WHO Recommendations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  fetchcomms☛ 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Swine Flu H1N1, and the best most relevant information we can find?

Fetchcomms,

Unlike SARS or West Nile which struck me as mainly hype, H1N1 strikes me as potentially very serious indeed , and I have worked on this issue for the last six months. I have been frequently stymied by the overly formal style of wiki . . . I don't think we're giving parents our best work at all, and parents would be our most demanding readers. "Students writing papers" are likely to be among our least demanding readers, anything written in formal style's going to be acceptable whether it has glaring omissions or not.

I would ask you to consider this commitment: if I can demonstrate to a reasonable degree, civil standard, more likely than not, 51%, that quoting excerpts from WHO, in fact quoting rather long excerpts from WHO is allowable under fair use, can I count on you to welcome experiments in less formal style and less standing between the reader and the information?

I also want to look at news articles, for example:

Report Finds Swine Flu Has Killed 36 Children, New York Times, DENISE GRADY, September 3, 2009:

“ . . . In children without chronic health problems, it is a warning sign if they seem to recover from the flu but then relapse with a high fever, Dr. Frieden said. The relapse may be bacterial pneumonia, which must be treated with antibiotics. . . . ”

That's written in lively style. The only thing I would be doing is sanding it down. I would not be doing parents, or anyone else, a favor.

The hard part of it is that this is only 30% of it. The other 70% of severe cases is direct viral pneumonia. And that pattern is not as obvious, but we still need to talk about it, with the best information we can find. The topic is hard enough as it is.

Would you in fact be willing to take a good long look at fair use with me?

And copyright for the above NYTimes article? Well, we're doing it for education purposes. It's 41 words out of 609. And "nature of copyrighted work," another part of the four-part balancing test, it's from the New York Times, which does sell subscriptions, but it's way back from the beginning of September. We have not scooped them. If anything, if anything it seems to me that we have promoted their writer Denise Grady.

But there would be longer excerpts, shorter time horizons. And health articles probably do have a longer shelf life than pop culture articles.

Cool Nerd (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (reposted on my talk page)

fair use

From our article Fair Use:

" . . . Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. . . . "

Now, the interesting part, even with a seemingly clear cut four-part test, it has still been been rewritten, rewritten, rewritten, and it might be quite a bit removed from the original source! Cool Nerd (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted text

I have deleted the article you created, Swine Flu, Current Situation, because the article was created by copypasting text from copyrighted articles. Wikipedia allows the use of brief quotations of copyrighted text when properly attributed. However, entire articles or substantial portions of them created by copypasting text, even when attributed and placed in quotations, is not permitted -- and will not meet any "fair use" rationale. If you wish to include new information in Wikipedia, I would suggest that you add it to one of the Swine flu articles, using your own words, with references to the appropriate sources. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CactusWriter,

I ask that you work with me if at all possible. The baseline of people dying from influenza is 500,000 persons a year. In pandemic years like '57 and '68 that can double to the a million, and these are merely 'average' pandemic years. Now, that doesn't settle the copyright question, but it does lend some weight to the education side! In addition, I don't think WHO has a profit motive in holding press conferences, so we're not interfering with their ability to make a profit.

So, if we can make the case, say the civil standard of preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, 51%, I ask you to be open to the experiment, in fact welcome the experiment precisely because we are trying something new.

You mention substantial portion. The last time I looked at fair use, I was surprised at how much lattitude it gave, it was either 250 or 500 words. But it's not absolute, which makes the whole thing slippery, yeah, it does. I think there's a famous case in which one of news magazines like Atlantic or New Yorker had interviewed President Ford. Someone else republished the excerpt where he was explaining why he pardoned Nixon, and even though the excerpt was under the normal size threshold, a court ruled that it substantially enough interfered with the profit of the magazine. Again, WHO doesn't have a profit motive. It may even be public domain. I'm not going to base it on that. I'm going to look at fair use. And I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility to take excerpts from newspapers (probably shorter excerpts). It is dicey, the newspapers, I'll acknowledge that, but I still want to take a look at it.

Cool Nerd (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (also to be posted on my talk page)

PS We can't help everyone likely to be affected by this year's H1N1, but if we do our best intellectual work, we might be able to save several dozen lives. And that possibility should be taken very seriously.

Although I can appreciate your desire to provide accurate timely information, you must understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it is not a news service. Additionally, we must adhere to strict legal guidelines for copyrighted material. The text that you are copying from the WHO website is definitely not Public Domain. Please notice the copyright notice found on the bottom of their website and as explicitly stated here. Our WP:FAIRUSE criteria permits only brief excerpts, properly attributed. Editors cannot create entire articles by copying other people's copyrighted words. It is illegal -- and allowing it can jeopardize the entire Wikipedia project. Therefore, we take copyright violations very seriously -- deleting copyright violations when found and blocking any editor who persists in infringing on copyrights.

Several editors have already explained all of this to you on your talk page. If you wish to add updated text to Wikipedia articles, please write the information in your own words and cite the sources. It is as simple as that. In the time you have taken to write large comments to several editors, you could have written the information into the articles. If you are concerned about adding timely information, I would suggest that you consider contributing to Wikinews, which functions as our online news source. If you have further questions about whether text will pass copyright criteria, please feel free to ask. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice

I know your heart is in the right place, but copyright violations don't help anyone. We want people to respect Wikipedia's license, therefore we in turn should obey other people's copyright. Contrary to what you say, it doesn't necessarily take expertise to summarize what experts say; just look at the new Diagnostic section I added to 2009 flu pandemic, it just takes careful reading and some application of the simple "school skills" you mentioned. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use, especially WHO press conference is not a copyright violation. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is when the article is just one or more lengthy quote(s). Really, it's better all around just to write something based on a source than to just copy a source verbatim. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with cybercobra. We meed to paraphrase stuff in our own words than reference it to the original source. Information needs to be organized in a proper format as per WP:MEDMOS to give consistency and make stuff findable. Many issues with the above including what is recent.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

New approach

Hey NC you seem to agree strongly on this new approach. I think your idea of creating a subpage to displace this approach and garner feedback from the group is a good one. I assume you will use a sub page of your user page?

WRT copyright: Well the US gov releases much of what they create into the public domain most of the rest of the world ( governments, WHO, etc ) do not. Therefore using large amounts of these materials may tread on some toes. It is also easy enough to reword it.

Having a list of guidelines with the date they came out could be a subpage of public health. This is not really an encylopedic format though.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Took the liberty of creating a subpage were this can be worked on and discussed.User:Cool_Nerd/Sandbox Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, Thank you for being in there swinging trying something. I'm more interested in taking a lot of fair use than in public domain. Cool Nerd (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu

Hi, and thanks for notifying me. Even under fair use, Wikipedia has a policy against direct copy-pasting information. The article needs sources, but should not be completely copy-pasted, regardless of copyrights or anything. An article that consists solely of a quote isn't really permissible either way. I personally don't find Wikipedia's tone formal, though it is an encyclopedia and should be written as such. See, what you need to do is find the articles, as you have been doing, and put them in your own words. That's the point of Wikipedia, to present such information from reliable external sources but not in complete, unchanged quotes. Therefore, I applaud your efforts to help, but you should realize that regardless of fair use or anything related, you simply cannot create articles consisting of mainly or only copy/pasted text from other articles. I would be more than happy to help with any articles you wish to create though, granted that they do not violate our guidelines and policies, of course. Thanks again,  fetchcomms☛ 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if wikipedia has a policy, that completely ends all rational discussion. I mean, the original founders of wiki were like Moses coming down from the mountain with stone tablets . . .

Actually, very ordinary individuals, just like you and I. As I understand it, wikipedia started with only two articles because the busy people the founder (Jimbo?) tried to assign articles to were not getting around to it. So, he opened it up. I'm sure he/we didn't anticipate the onslaught of pop culture articles, but we adapted. And we might need to adapt to an ongoing serious health situation. And I'm sure ol' Jimbo puts on his pants one leg at a time just like you and I.

Okay, so they is a wiki article on Janet Wood informing us that she's from Speedway, Indiana,etc, etc. Not the actress Joyce DeWitt, but the character Janet Wood. A whole article. (and for a really good laugh, check out the discussion page of 2009 flu pandemic.) Point is, all this, and your going to begrudge me a good healthy, roboust, substantial discussion of pneumonia ? ?

Clinical features of severe cases of pandemic influenza, WHO, Oct. 16, 2009: " . . . In severe cases, patients generally begin to deteriorate around 3 to 5 days after symptom onset. Deterioration is rapid, with many patients progressing to respiratory failure within 24 hours, requiring immediate admission to an intensive care unit. Upon admission, most patients need immediate respiratory support with mechanical ventilation. However, some patients do not respond well to conventional ventilatory support, further complicating the treatment. . . . "

And I'm going to improve it by rewriting it? For starters, I am not a doctor. Besides, this was the public statement of a big Oct. 14-16 conference WHO held at the headquarters of the American Health Organization in Washington, DC. "Findings and experiences were presented by around 100 clinicians, scientists, and public health professionals from the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Oceania." Pretty big proceedings, and I'm going to rewrite it. I suspect it's a careful, measured statement. I'm likely to just louse it up.

So we can't cut and paste. We have to rewrite . . . so that we can practice our school skills of buffing and polishing? What if we just skip all this. Hey, you want to give me a good grade, you can give me a good grade and I'll graciously accept it.

There's a time to really take your time, maybe a traditional encyclopedic article on Voltaire, and really get it right and really pay attention to the writing (and the good news is that all writing develops transferrable skills, even if one is stuck in the most corporate of environments). And then there's a time to go fast.

If we really do our best intellectual work and play our best game, we can maybe save several dozen lives. We should take that possibility very seriously. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push policies on you. But some things:

• Others will help you rewrite the article. It's not you and yourself having to do this.
• The point of Wikipedia is to present information, not help save lives". I'm not sure anyone who trusts Wikipedia as a medical source is going to have a happy, heathful life. That just can't happen right now.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can't just copy publicly-accessible material into an encyclopedia, there's no point.
• Have you tried rewording the article? It's not overly hard, and, as I said, you can always ask for help.

Do you understand where I'm going with this? I know that this is an important article--but it's not for Wikipedia as-is. (Also, you don't need to post your messages on both mine and your talk pages, one is fine. But if you reply here, be sure to tell me on my page, thanks)-- fetchcomms☛ 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Try focusing more on the text. Make comments on the talkpage such as "I think we should say statement A in wording A rather than statement B in wording B." I'm afraid your comments are often hard for me to follow, since you discuss the subject broadly and at length as if we were sitting about having coffee! :) While this is friendly and I'm sure well-intentioned, it does make things rather unfocused and hinders discussions about specific parts of the text. Anyway, that's my advice - feel free to take it or leave it. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, I will try to be briefer. Now, as I was saying . . . .

(no just kidding!) point well taken Cool Nerd (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Only poor typing saves me from verbosity myself. I'm reminded of the old joke about two academics walking past a guy and scaring him as he overheard some of their conversation, once of them was just beginning a sentence by saying "And tenthly..."! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem with warning signs section

I have written about our editing problem on Tim's page. I look forward to speaking with you on his page, and once again having a good relationship. Gandydancer (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And I also look forward to our once again having a good relationship. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The joke was on Tim's page in his reply to your ask for help. BTW, I just read your above exchange about pasteing something from the WHO (CDC?), and I agree totally with your position. In one sense, we own those words! How silly to switch a few words around to pretend that they are not being copied (as must be done with a news report, for instance). Well, rock on Wikipedia, and you too Cool Nerd! Gandydancer (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gandydancer, on this one, you might be outpacing me. Which is fine, which actually feels kind of good! And I'm kind of glad someone else is taking the lead. So, thank you. And I think I get your point, that CDC and WHO rely on tax dollars or dues (and thus indirect tax dollars) and therefore should be open with what they do, right? . . . however, I can also see the side that specialists in a field would want to maintain some control over what they publish, so on this one I'll list myself as currently undecided.

Now, I think we might agree about fair use, that it's okay to quote a moderate amount as long as it's cited. And the rules, legal standards, and so forth, as I understand them, all part of the evolving process of defining what a "moderate" amount is. Okay, so far, so good. And one of the points I was trying to make above, and which I now feel I can say more confidently: We do not need to be purer than Caesar's wife! We do not need to be more Catholic than the Pope! That is, yes, follow the rules, but we don't need to make a big production out of it. This is not something to excel at and be better than average. On this one, just play it straight down the middle. (You're of course free to agree or disagree with any of that!)

And thank you very much for jumping in and helping with Haiti. I took a look at the article but couldn't really see where I could contribute. Maybe will later if I come across information not included. Cool Nerd (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WHO, Nov. 2009, about H1N1: Pregnant women, kiddos under 2, people w/asthma-->antivirals right away. If trouble breathing-->antivirals. If pneumonia-->BOTH antivirals AND antibiotics.

Transcript of virtual press conference with Gregory Hartl, Spokesperson for H1N1, and Dr Nikki Shindo, Medical Officer, Global Influenza Programme, World Health Organization, 12 November 2009:

‘ . . . In a country where the virus is circulating, we have 3 updated recommendations.

‘1. Firstly, people in at-risk groups need to be treated with antivirals as soon as possible when they have flu symptoms. This includes pregnant women, children under 2 years old, and people with “underlying conditions” such as respiratory problems.

‘2. Secondly, people who are not from the at-risk group but who have persistent or rapidly worsening symptoms should also be treated with antivirals. These symptoms include difficulty breathing and a high fever that lasts beyond 3 days.

‘3. Thirdly, people who have already developed pneumonia should be given both antivirals and antibiotics, as we have seen that, in many severe cases of H1N1-caused illness, bacterial infection develops. These medicines, antivirals and antibiotics, if used in a timely manner, can help save lives.

‘I want to stress that people who are not from the at-risk group and who have only typical cold need not take antivirals. . . ’ (page 1)

' . . . The pandemic virus can cause severe pneumonia even in healthy young people, though rather minor in proportion, and the virus can take life within a week. The window of opportunity is very narrow to reverse the progression of the disease. The medicine needs to be administered before the virus destroys the lungs. . . ' (page 2, second paragraph)

Posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC). Added to Cool Nerd (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Patients with flu symptoms and chest X-ray showing possible pneumonia: New Eng J Med (Nov. 12, '09) recommends BOTH antivirals AND antibiotics.

Hospitalized Patients with 2009 H1N1 Influenza in the United States, April–June 2009, New England Journal of Medicine, Jain, Kamimoto, et al., Nov. 12, 2009:

“ . . . the only variable that was significantly associated with a positive outcome was the receipt of antiviral drugs within 2 days after the onset of illness.” (Outcomes, second paragraph)

" . . . In our study, only 73% of patients with radiographic evidence of pneumonia received antiviral drugs, whereas 97% received antibiotics. In the absence of accurate diagnostic methods, patients who are hospitalized with suspected influenza and lung infiltrates on chest radiography should be considered for treatment with both antibiotics and antiviral drugs. . . " (Discussion, 8th paragraph)

“ . . . The benefits of treatment are probably greatest when such therapy is started early, but antiviral drugs should not be withheld if patients present more than 48 hours after the onset of symptoms. . . ” (Discussion, last paragraph)

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC), revised and added to Cool Nerd (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

if a child seems to be recovering and then relapses with high fever

Report Finds Swine Flu Has Killed 36 Children, New York Times, DENISE GRADY, September 3, 2009:

“ . . . In children without chronic health problems, it is a warning sign if they seem to recover from the flu but then relapse with a high fever, Dr. Frieden said. The relapse may be bacterial pneumonia, which must be treated with antibiotics. . . . ”

This is specific, usable, doable information. We are doing parents a tremendous favor by including this information.

And the hard part, the thing we've got to point out to parents, not everything is this specific. Cool Nerd (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

parents, you know when your child is regular sick vs. maybe something more

When to take a sick child to the ER Children and youths are especially hard-hit by swine flu. It is important to watch for danger signs, as the onset of respiratory failure can be swift, Los Angeles Times, Rong-Gong Lin II, November 21, 2009:

‘ . . . "Is there something really different about your child that's different from the seven or eight viral infections your kid gets every year? Those are the changes to look out for," said Dr. Mark Morocco, associate residency director for emergency medicine at UCLA.

‘Warning signs include significant difficulty breathing; inability to drink fluids or urinate for more than six hours; change in the color of the mouth or lips; or unusual behavioral changes, such as a crying child who cannot be consoled, or a child who doesn't wake up or walk or talk normally. . . . ’

I read this as Dr. Mark saying, trust your gut instincts. But, do you really want me summarizing this, or wouldn't you rather see for yourself?

And copyright issues? It's 101 words out of 817. It's two days old, which is an enternity in the news business, on pop culture that is, maybe not so much on health items which stay current longer. So, how many people are we going to direct to the site vs. how many people are we going to turn off, is that the question? (And this is by no means the only good part of this article. It is a solid article, and I did quote a longer part earlier.) Cool Nerd (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Chilean Earthquake Feb. 27, 2010, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center overestimated size of resulting tsunami waves

Warning center learns from miscalculation, Honolulu Advertiser, Gordon Y.K. Pang, Advertiser Staff Writer, Feb. 28, 2010:

‘ . . . DART gauges spread across the sea floor to detect the size of tsunami waves are a fairly new technology, Fryer said. The initial wave reading from the DART gauge showed 25 centimeters, huge for the deep water, he said.

‘"At that point, we went to full Pacific-wide warning," he said. "Part of the reason we had to do that was because although it was huge, we didn't quite know what it meant because we haven't much experience with those. As we get more under our belts, we'll get better."

‘He added: "Fifty percent error, that's OK. That's about the level of accuracy in this game. It will get better."

‘Nonetheless, "with every event the system improves," Fryer said. . . ’

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And sometimes the first tsunami wave is not the biggest

'The last wave almost wiped the village off the map', The Irish Times, MARIO NARANJO in Dichato, Tuesday, March 2, 2010:

‘ . . . The first two surges startled the town’s 7,000 residents, who had already been violently awakened by the earthquake that wrought destruction across a swathe of central Chile. But it was the third surge, a huge wall of water, that tore up and smashed houses, swept cars out to sea, and sucked people’s possessions into the sea, destroying more than three-quarters of the town’s buildings.

‘“The last one almost wiped the village off the map,” said David Merino, surrounded by a scene of water-logged destruction in the village, which was among the closest settlements to the 8.8-magnitude quake.

‘It was still unclear how many people died in Dichato, where distraught residents wandered the town trying to salvage possessions and gazing at their ruined homes. . . ’

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 13 as example of system accident

" . . . It was found that the accident was not the result of a chance malfunction in a statistical sense, but rather resulted from an unusual combination of mistakes, coupled with a somewhat deficient and unforgiving design. [Emphasis added] . . . "
.
.
"c. In addition, it is probable that the tank contained a loosely fitting fill tube assembly. [Emphasis added] This assembly was probably displaced during subsequent handling, which included an incident at the prime contractor's plant in which the tank was jarred. [Emphasis added]
.
.
"f. The special detanking procedures at KSC subjected the tank to an extended period of heater operation and pressure cycling. [Emphasis added] These procedures had not been used before, and the tank had not been qualified by test for the conditions experienced. However, the procedures did not violate the specifications [Emphasis added] which governed the operation of the heaters at KSC.
.
"h. A number of factors contributed to the presence of inadequate thermostatic switches in the heater assembly. The original 1962 specifications from NR to Beech Aircraft [Emphasis added] Corporation for the tank and heater assembly specified the use of 28 V [Emphasis added] dc power, which is used in the spacecraft. In 1965, NR issued a revised specification [Emphasis added] which stated that the heaters should use a 65 V [Emphasis added] dc power supply for tank pressurization; this was the power supply used at KSC to reduce pressurization time. Beech ordered switches for the Block II tanks but did not change the switch specifications to be compatible with 65 V dc.
.
.
.
"l. As shown by subsequent tests, failure of the thermostatic switches probably permitted the temperature of the heater tube assembly to reach about 1000° F in spots during the continuous 8-hour period of heater operation. Such heating has been shown by tests to severely damage the Teflon insulation on the fan motor wires in the vicinity of the heater assembly. From that time on, including pad occupancy, the oxygen tank no. 2 was in a hazardous condition [Emphasis added] when filled with oxygen and electrically powered.

"m. It was not until nearly 56 hours into the mission, however, that the fan motor wiring, possibly moved by the fan stirring, short circuited and ignited its insulation [Emphasis added] by means of an electric arc. The resulting combustion in the oxygen tank probably overheated and failed the wiring conduit where it enters the tank, and possibly a portion of the tank itself.
. . . "

REPORT OF APOLLO 13 REVIEW BOARD ("Cortright Report"), Chair Edgar M. Cortright, CHAPTER 5, FINDINGS, DETERMINATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, see pages 5-1 through 5-3. See also Apollo 13 Review Board which has the table of contents for the entire report.

Apollo 13

Can you please revert your last edit to Apollo 13? I see you've been around about as long as I have and done about as much editing--we're no experts, but have a little experience under our belts. My understanding of the way to write an article--and I can't find a page that says this--is that the lead summarizes and introduces the whole article. It doesn't replace information; that information needs to be repeated in its proper place, although it's hardly considered repeating. The lead is an introduction, while the article should be complete in itself without the lead. Thanks. --Yopienso (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion continued, in civil and perhaps even friendly manner, in the section 47. "The accident," Talk:Apollo 13/Archive 1. Cool Nerd (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Apollo 13: there was 93 and a half seconds between Swigert stirring oxygen tank # 2 and crew hearing loud bang.

"Oxygen tank #2 fans on. Stabilization control system electrical disturbance indicated a power transient. 055:53:20
.
.
. . . It was at this time that the crew heard a loud bang. 055:54:53.555"
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13h_Timeline.htm

There was a fair amount going on between these two events.

---

On 16 August 2010, I made the change in our Apollo 13 article, from "Suddenly, . . " to "Approximately 93 seconds later . . " Cool Nerd (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And how could so many different wiki editors/researchers not catch this mistake?

I think a large part of the answer is that we spend so much time and energy on the formality of the writing itself, at the expense of accuracy and breadth of coverage. Cool Nerd (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Drought

Hi Middayexpress, it's been good working with you on the drought. I think we should be both nominated for bronze stars if there's a reputable way to do so! And if we sometimes come at things from different angles, I think that's a positive.

Okay, the above is big, and I think we've got to include it. In fact, I think we should try and recruit some help if we can. For example, JimSukwutput used to be a regular contributor but perhaps got busy with other things.

I made some recent additions to our discussion page "41 Nov. 2011 Unicef press release . . . " I'm going to think about it a little and then probably add it to our main article. Please help if you have the time. And let's do see if we can recruit some other editors and researchers. Cool Nerd (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cool Nerd. I'm not sure why you felt the need to contact me with this when the talk page would've sufficed. The 4 million figure above is interesting; it was taken from this link. However, the figure is nothing new. It's actually from the same November 18 UN report (which is already mentioned in the article) indicating that the situation in Somalia had in fact improved, with the people in southern Somalia at risk of starvation dropping from 750,000 to 250,000 in just a few months. That's why the UN downgraded its so-called famine zones to only a few regions. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it could have improved that much. I think some of it is different definitions. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Cool Nerd

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Influenza. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

About H7N9

Hello Cool Nerd.

Thanks for your invitation about H7N9. But I am sad to tell you that I could not help you at the moment because I think I am still not the right person for you to have.

Thanks for your understanding.

Regards, 123sage321 (talk)

You're very welcome. And if you happen to see a good source, maybe post a link either here or on the talk page for influenza. Thanks. Cool Nerd (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You really are a cool nerd!

Hi cool nerd, You're cool! I currently have a fever and have had diarrhea all day and your contributions have been helping me learn how to take care of myself. Thank you NIRVANA2764 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And please stay hydrated. And just middle of the road, not too much sugar and salt, nor too little. And home remedies like lightly salted cereal water and lightly salted vegetable broth are fine. Or like the one guy who unofficially recommends half gatorade and half water.

And I'm not a doctor, nurse, paramedic, nor any other kind of medical professional. I just think this should be basic first aid information.

And hope you get feeling better.  :>) Cool Nerd (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

You must paraphrase the content you use. Have reverted some of your edits as it was word for word the same as this source from WHO [3] Good source but paraphrasing needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was using a different publication, one by the Bangladesh government publication on malnutrition. Maybe, yes, I made mistakes and stayed too close to the source, but perhaps also in my effort to paraphrase that one I ended up sounding too much like the WHO publication!

http://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/SAM_Guideline.pdf Starting at page 18 (19 in PDF). Cool Nerd (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, I am not a doctor.

Actually, my favorite jobs have been in retail management and sales! So, yeah, I'm a furniture sales guy diving into health topics.

I take a good source, excerpt it, and summarize it. And you, too, can help out with health topics.  :~) Cool Nerd (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Great having you involved! Have tried to break the management section down along the lines of the Bangladeshi recommended 10 steps.

Agree undernurtrition is not correct, what I meant to say was undernourished.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am in there trying. And with the name, if it's technically proper, a hyphen so that it's "under-nourished" might help with readability. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Have changed "flood the circulation" to "congestive heart failure" and provided and link. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

February 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Breastfeeding. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Cool We have had multiple discussions about you needing to paraphrase. You more or less copied this text into place [4]

Please read Wikipedia:Non-free_content

If you can agree to always paraphrase we can unblock you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 15 February 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) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cool Nerd. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

March 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In this edit [5]

You added "if an HIV-positive mother breastfeeds her infant for two years without medication, 14–20% of infants will become infected. However, if she takes antiretroviral medications (ARVs), that risk drops to 1 to 2% for breastfeeding over a 12 month period. In many resource-limited settings, infants who do not breastfeed are up to six times more likely to die from malnutrition, pneumonia and diarrheal disease, and families may or may not have dependable access to clean water. WHO recommends that countries choose to endorse one of two approaches: (1) breastfeeding in which either mother or infant takes ARVs, or (2) replacement feeding, along with conditions which are supportive of safe replacement feeding."

"If an HIV-infected mother breastfeeds her infants for two years without receiving any antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) then 14–20% of infants will become infected (3). However, in many resource-limited settings, infants who do not breastfeed are up to six times more likely to die from malnutrition, pneumonia and diarrhoeal disease (4, 5)."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, you jump levels. You seem to insist on reviewing me as a problem member. I am not a problem member.

The first time you accused me of copying text without cite, you were just flat-out factually mistaken. I had used a Bangladesh health publication and you thought it sounded too much like a WHO publication. Please check the above.

The second time, for which I received 24 hours, I did make a mistake.

And this time, I cited the reference. Your edit leaves off the info that babies who don't breastfeed in resource-limited settings are 6 times more likely to die from malnutrition, pneumonia, or diarrhea. Your edit is not better. It's less informative.

Yes, there is a real question: How does one paraphrase extremely straightforward information. Please work with me, don't just ban me. I guess we could simply use "poor" as a less polite way of saying "resource limited." To me that's not much of an improvement. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit says, 17% more likely to get AIDS. That is not what the source says. The source says 14-20. Your edit is of a nature of a significant digit mistake. You are claiming that the research studies are more definite than they probably are in fact. I think you would have been better off leaving it 14-20%. That is, you are sacrificing accuracy for the goal of paraphrasing. And the fact, that you added "about" in front of 17, no, I don't think that fixes it. Some readers might think various studies bounce between 16.5 and 17.5. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

And the part which you highlighted, I did add, "and families may or may not have dependable access to clean water" to it. That is, it was part of a larger paraphrased whole. Do you want me to merely change the order of "malnutrition, pneumonia, or diarrhea"? Again, how does one paraphrase extremely straightforward information. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to stop copy and pasting and paraphrase. Thus you are blocked. About 17% is the same as 14-20%. That is how one paraphrases. One reads the source. One understands what it is saying. And than one puts the underlying meaning in their OWN words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The gist of the matter seems to be the phrase "infants who do not breastfeed are up to six times more likely to die from." And yes, it is embarrassing. It was not my goal for it to end up this way. I don't think I copied it in its entirely for I usually cut and paste in the white space below my active work area phrases such as:

"370 000 infants become infected with HIV every year"

"If an HIV-infected mother breastfeeds her infants for two years without receiving any antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) then 14–20% of infants will become infected"

That is, primarily phrases which have numbers. And then in my active work area, I rewrite in my own words. At least, I usually do. I remembering wanting to include why formula feeding is often less safe. Yes, the WHO article talked about clean water. But I know that there's a whole second issue that lower-income families can't really afford to buy enough product, so they frequently water it down in an effort to stretch the product, just like you or I might do if in the same situation. But this wasn't in this particular WHO page, so I didn't include it. Yes, I might have copied and pasted that one sentence because I was focusing on other things, but I don't think I did. I think it's equally likely that I did rewrite it and then changed it back during my second rewrite for better flow! All I can promise is fewer steps in the future. I might skip the second rewrite for the sake of simplicity. I know enough about complications and system accidents to make this change. Fewer steps, not more steps. And please notice that I did add "and families may or may not have dependable access to clean water" to make a longer, compound sentence. I know that's not enough. But I was in there trying. It was not an intentional mistake.

Doc James, the other sentence you put in boldface, I in fact did rewrite.

My version is: "In 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO) states that if an HIV-positive mother breastfeeds her infant for two years without medication, 14–20% of infants will become infected." I think that's a good paraphrase. If you think it's not acceptable, I'd very much like to hear your reasoning. Cool Nerd (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thought crime, or conduct?

Yes, I think Wikipedia can be so much more than it currently is, and I've occasionally presented my case and at times probably argued my case. I realize that I don't have majority support, so I do follow the current rules.

I have more than 10 years of good edits, and I've worked on health topics since 2009. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

candidate for biggest wiki fail: minimum follow-up to recommendations by external expert for HIV article.

As part of our Primary School research project, an external HIV expert gave a good dozen specific suggestion for improving the article in Feb. 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HIV

To his or her credit, one person implement two of these recommendations: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HIV&diff=704587934&oldid=704120893 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HIV&diff=next&oldid=704587934

And more than a year later, I made this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HIV&diff=769311394&oldid=768587512

I removed the parts where the expert wrote "are, I think, nonsense" and then added back the references to our "Further reading" in my next edit

---

Potential conclusions:

1) The Talk page just does not receive that much attention, no matter how good a particular section might be.

2) We're pretty much at the limits of our abilities right now.

3) Wikipedia is often like the Telephone Game. One person whispers to another who whispers to another, etc, etc, maybe five deep, maybe more. For example, how often do you check whether a couple of sentences in an article accurately summarizes a footnote used versus rewriting for the sake of flow, clarity, or formal language?

So, yes, wiki is very much a work in progress, and we still have a fair amount of work to do. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup agree there is a lot of work needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cool Nerd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cool Nerd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cool Nerd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)