User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Lyme disease controversy and Lyme wars

Thank you so much.

Your support and thanks on the Lyme wars talk page meant the world to me. It is a fascinating and horrible experience to be putting yourself out there in an aggressive corner of the internet.

I have been trying very hard to be a good Wikipedia editor, and have put a lot of effort into researching. I am not so good at editing yet, and so really appreciate the help that I have been getting from more experienced people. I really appreciated you noting the effort I was making to respect MEDRS but still expand the encyclopedia.

My odd medical journey has left me aware of missing information in Wikipedia. But I am not fully skilled in knowing the rules and tone. I live in Mercer Island, BTW, and would love some UW Med contacts. I had major surgery at UW in late October that left me psychotic for a few weeks and disabled for a time after that. No MEDRS I could find on post-surgical psychosis, although Sandra D'Auriol jumped off a roof in January from the same issue, so there are lots of holes in our medical knowledge.Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi. I think I could write an excellent set of MEDRS and med history articles I have the skills to learn the tone and I write well.

The challenge I am having is being a thin skinned newcomer who feels bitten a lot. Of course most errors have been by own.

Two items of back ground. I write on the internet sometimes, and I wrote this about my experience with Wikipedia, and my sandbox holds a subset of my research:

• medicine capture of Wikipedia

• My sandbox of lyme controversy research. Much of this could not go into an article

After I wrote this I was contacted by editors who encouraged me to try again. I thought I would learn by working with experienced editors. I may still have their help, I may not. I am not sure.

It may simply be a matter of learning the rules, but if I am honest, I tried to shadow different MedRS editors, and there seems to more aggression than guidelines, and aggression is not my strength. I totally agree with the central premise of MEDRS: That we should be very clear on a single voice in representing medical consensus. When controversy is expressed, it is expressed in a way that is not confusing to a potential patient. I get this. I agree with this. I am not a fan of using an encyclopedia to promote alternative perspectives.

I like the controversy title. It makes for a richer article that I think I could build consensus around. However I know from watching the MEDRS editors, that stamping out fringe views is a central tenant. I went into this research ignorant, and found an immense amount of source material, and it paints a very different picture than what is in Wikipedia. It is not my job to fix wrongs. In my blog article (that I linked before) I had made the judgment that Wikipedia had made the right choice to be an organ of mainstream medicine. This is not criticism.

But mainstream medicine makes mistakes, and the Lyme wars tell that story. The Lyme wars story also is about patient advocates who did immense harm, and about professional feuding that ground research to a halt. I predicted that Wikipedia would see this article as an assault on mainstream medicine. I don't see it that way, I see the story as being more similar to Denham: A few bad actors, a few imperfect organizations, a lot of good intent. I probably have the skills to work within a consensus environment to create encyclopedia articles.

What I have found, however, is that most MEDRS editors see all minority views as fringe until they become consensus views. Again I am comfortable with this fact when it comes to MEDRS: there can only be one consensus, and there can be only one medical body that gets to declare consensus. But the anti-fringe mentality spreads into RS as well. Outside of MEDRS the standard for Significant Minority opinion is well understood: And the Lyme debate clearly contains a significant minority by the non MEDRS definition. I believe the MEDRS editors will argue that significant minorities cannot exist in medicine without the permission of the consensus makers. Writing an article about the homeopathy controversy is about mainstream good science vs. fringe bad science. Writing an article about the Lyme Controversy is about majority bad faith vs. minority bad faith. Regardless of my skills and intentions, it is hard to see why MedRS editors would not view that as giving a voice to a fringe.

I was advised to try a different topic (outside of areas related to my experience as a patient). I took the advice and walked away, but was encouraged back. Should I be bold? Should I tell a properly balanced truth while learning from the community? Or should I recognize I am on the losing side of an unimportant debate? Or should I just continue to work with more experienced editors (like Chemist and Carrie) and watch how they thread the needle?

Thanks for your help and advice. Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing with me, Bob. I have had a lot of bad experiences on Wikipedia myself and what is happening to you unfortunately happens a lot. It is unfair, it is a problem, and no one really knows how to stop this. There is something fundamental in Wikipedia's infrastructure that makes these negative exchanges happen. If you like, perhaps it would be useful for us to have a voice or video chat and in conversation, perhaps I can share with you ideas which have worked for others and you can also tell me what more you need to be able to accomplish what you like. Email me to exchange contact information. I live in New York.

The best advice that I could give is to continually check yourself to make sure that Wikipedia is satisfying to you, and if possible, fun also. As long as you are happy here then any other problem you have here will only be a game. To the extent that I am able, I would like to help you resolve whatever is happening that is not fun so that you can only have fun here.

In the meantime - it is difficult for me to look into this and understand what is happening. There is a huge churn of content here and multiple people involved. Sometimes with Wikipedia it is difficult for me to understand what is happening. I see that what you have written is on the talk page and parts of it are in the article, but seemingly not from your version. Perhaps let us talk, and you tell me what you see, and then we decide what to do next. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also your sandbox has great content. I expect that most of this could be posted into the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of well sourced content written by experienced editors.

Hi Blue,

I think I missing some unwritten rules of Wikipedia. I must be, because I am feeling bitten again, and the people on the project are very good. I noticed that you put a comment on Jytdogs talk page (I REALLY respect that guy).

"Thanks for joining me in conversation in several places. I am traveling from this "Wednesday and on for a week, and do not expect to be on-wiki so much. I will rejoin the conversation when I return. If anything seems out of place feel free to delete anything in any article which is making Wikipedia worse; everything can be sorted later. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)"

I also see that a consensus to rename an article because a de-facto decision to delete the content. I only decided to participate at the urging of experienced editor(s) who did the actual editing. And yet even with this great care, the article is gone. Unless this was an honest mistake (and I certainly make a lot of them!!!) I really do not understand. Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to your concerns on the talk page. That's where this discussion should happen, and not through any canvassing. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It's cool. All new users are welcome on my page for any reason. His content was really good, right? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules

Thanks for the help, sorry if I'm sometimes stubborn. Any additional help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are awesome for thinking outside of everyone elses' context. I always like your ideas. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chair of the Unique Identification Authority of India

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Chair of the Unique Identification Authority of India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. Ahumantorch (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I resolved this by redirecting the article about the cabinet position into the article for the office. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox legislature

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox legislature. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Education Program technical update, February 2014

We've started working on "editor campaigns", a system that we expect will eventually be able to replace our current Education Program extension (and be useful for many other purposes as well). The early work with that project will focus on a system for signup up new editors for editing campaigns (such as courses, but also edit-a-thons, Wiki Loves Monuments, etc.). Because of that, progress will be slow on the current course page system. However, we have several improvements that should be available within the next few weeks.

Anyone can edit the main text of course pages

As part of the effort to make course pages behave more like regular wiki pages, we've enabled editing of course pages by anyone. Users who currently have the right to edit courses will have access to all the fields (so that they can change the start/end dates, and change the enrollment token). Users who currently cannot edit courses will be able to edit only the "page text" portion. This change should take effect on 2014-02-27.

Simplified course editing interface

We've considerably simplified the interface for editing course pages, removing the options to rename courses. Changing the title of a course would also move the course page, creating confusion and leading to a number of bugs. Several other parts of the course editing interface were not very useful, so we've removed them to make it easier on newcomers. This change should take effect on 2014-02-27.

Additional Notifications

Two students participating in the Facebook Open Academy mentorship program are currently working on additional Notifications for course pages. For the first of these, users will be notified whenever someone else adds them to a course.

Once again, if you have feedback about these new features, or other questions or ideas related to course pages, please let me know!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Subscribe or unsubscribe from future Wikipedia Education Program technical updates.

re: Should Michael Moore's Relevant Comments Be Mentioned?

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Message added 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thanks for your recent comments - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Excellent user profile...plan on using to beef up my own! DeWriterMD (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

ADAM

Hey Lane. Would not consider ADAM to be a reliable source. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. I will follow up with whatever else I can find tomorrow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, You are famous in India.

Dear Blue Rasberry, I am a member of the Programme Committee for 2014 Wikimania and was review submissions for the 2014 program. An Indian editor submitted two program requests and I was digging into the editor's background when I found his fashion blog. You (or a picture of you) are part of the fashion blog. The editor is Sou boy. Geraldshields11 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Geraldshields11 Oh, it is nice to be recognized! I know this person very well. I have lived in India for more than a year and would like better relations between US chapters and Indian chapters, if possible.

Are you coming to the NYC Wikiconference this summer? I am not sure if you ever got leverage to start an economics project like we discussed but even if you have not started anything, just talking about it with others may get more momentum. I care about this stuff. Thanks for the notice and thanks for doing review for Wikimania. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and I am trying to attend WikiConference and Wikimania. I am seeking a scholarship to attend both. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Buggie111 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you! Netherzone (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For keeping up with rights requests on the Education Noticeboard, I award Bluerasberry this Barnstar of Diligence! Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arabic wiki

Thank you for your edits in Arabic page of tuberculosis. If you need a help in future there, I will be happy to do so. --Ffraih (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

They are very helpful, thanks for posting them and I will keep looking at the new ones.--Ffraih (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Another question

Back at Wikimania Consumer Reports mentioned having a resource for looking up any financial connections doctors publishing reliable sources may have with pharmaceutical companies. A lot of the sources I've found for Invisalign have an explicit disclosure saying they have no conflicts of interest, but I'd like to double-check the sources against the database they mentioned just to be sure. Do you know the thing I'm talking about and where I can find it? CorporateM (Talk) 23:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM No, this was not done by Consumer Reports, but by friendly ProPublica. The project is Dollars for Docs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You're the best!! CorporateM (Talk) 12:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Video summary of article

Hey Lane,

Not sure if you remember talking to me the other month but here goes. We touched briefly about the use of summary videos on Wikipedia. In short, I was doing some work with a project for a national journal and came to the conclusion that short (2min) videos were our most utilized communication channel (about 10% would read entire articles and 1% leave comments). My suspicision is it's analgous to the ratio of readers that go beyond the lead section. I recently added an article on Wikipedia and thought it might be a good place to try a summary video like I'd used in the other project. The article was created, I got a world class researcher involved to review everything (he didn't want to edit wikipedia but was comfortable going back and forth by email in Word format) then summarized the key points in a video taking care to make it easily overdubbed to another language. If you have time, can you take a look and offer some feedback. I don't see anything similiar on other articles and worry that it violates Wikipedia protocols or it just doesn't work for an encyclopedia. Useful? Useless? Thanks Ian Furst (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian Furst Yes this is a good idea.

No there is no precedent for this on Wikipedia.

Some years ago I worked on a similar project which sought to summarize and translate information about HIV. This work is at AIDSvideos. I have thought about this for a long time and it is intriguing to see you raise the idea again, as despite my belief that this has an audience I have not seen much other support for making videos of these sort.

If this goes on I would want to explore crowdsourcing parts of the creation of these. I started a protocol at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Health Videos to describe how this could be done. Please look at that and comment and if we seem to be of like mind then perhaps I will show your video to others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done 20-30 of these videos in various projects and I like the idea of the protocol. Nothing makes them more unwatchable than bad script or production. Two minutes of someone reading a powerpoint into their webcam adds little to user engagement. A couple of comments:

• I think a goal of the project should be stated. Imo, it's to improve user engagement through multi-media presentations but I'm not sure others would find that a laudable goal, given the existing engagement with Wikipedia. They watch the video and a drawn into reading the details (some or all) of the article.
• The 1st step is usually creating broad categories of content to cover (e.g. plot of the video).
• Script changes with images. It's better to create a template for "story boarding" the videos. Eg. a series of pictures with an area to enter script below/beside it. Storyboarding and scripting is a great place to have crowdsourcing but it requires certain MOS protocols to limit the length of the video (e.g. if the time limit is 180 sec, 12 segments of 15 sec. Each segment 60-100 words, etc....)
• In Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Health Videos would be worthwhile to add stats or references about video vs written word use. My experience is it's far easier to engage users with video than written word but I don't have the stats to prove it. Maybe someone in marketing at CR could provide some references?

1. The mellinial consumer
2. Tackling new digital realities

• If this goes, I would suggest a discussion about production standards. A bad microphone, background noise, etc... all kill the video. As an example, in the video I loaded it's a proper mic, background noise edited out, always motion in the video and video elements have a hard ceiling for time on screen. Good production may be tougher to crowd source.
• The strength of wikipedia is it's ability to be changed by anyone, how do we accomidate for that limitation in video's?

Please let me know what I can do to help. Ian Furst (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor updates made to video to improve graphics and timing Ian Furst (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Being civil on Filipino-topic pages

I do try. Have you seen how these pages are written and maintained? There is terrible English grammar, deliberate untruths, no references, no citations, and nothing, but angry trolls. Filipino culture, history, religion, civics, etc. are a major hobby of mine. I would like to see these pages improved. Especially since many people know little about these topics. There needs to be some more policing on these pages. And not towards myself. Cheers. Presidentbalut (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Presidentbalut Everything you say about Wikipedia is true except "nothing but angry trolls". Yes, some contributors like to cause tension but most people want to make a good educational resource. It is really unfortunate that things get out of control for articles covering countries where English is not the native language, but I think this will get better as more people police the articles. I regret that it is difficult to encourage more people to do this.

I work with a group of people who develop other language Wikipedias also. We have shared a few medical articles in Tagalog, so even though we have few participants we are trying. If there were enough Wikipedians contributing in the Philippines I think also that in a few years the international Wikipedia conference could be held at a university there also, which would help if it could happen. Stay cool and let me know if you need anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Snow shovel

The DYK project (nominate) 16:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I just regret the sorrow of all the people who came to Wikipedia looking for this information in the past and who failed to find it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations

Just looking through the proposal and was going to add some ideas to the discussion page. Given my lack of knowledge wrt Wikipedia in general, however, is it more helpful for me to sit on the sidelines or to weigh in? Not sure if this discussion is out of my league. Ian Furst (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian Furst I do not expect this conversation to get a lot of momentum because it is complicated and at every point it depends on collaboration with coders. Coders hesitate to do anything without community support and none of this can get community support because it is high impact yet only interesting to a few people. What I want right now is mutual recognition of groups of stakeholders in this and to create obligations for everyone to consider the needs of others. While you are welcome and encouraged to comment on anything, your time and comments may not be appreciated as much in this space as they would be elsewhere. Showing off that video project is still an interesting thread more likely to get support as it is a more accessible project, and if your time is a factor then I would say show that off. I would not want you to burn yourself out as I have seen happen to lots of other new editors, so I say take it slow.

I still intend to draft something about only Wikidata, which would be specifically relevant to the discussion at WikiProject Medicine. After I write that if you commented on it, then that would get more comments and be more likely to lead to some useful resolution as people on WikiProject Medicine are already talking about this. I hope to draft this within two days and will ping you when I have it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I started with Wikipedia to have a long-term volunteer project for myself. The intensity I have right now is to orientate myself to the different facets and gain sufficient experience to be useful. Eventually, I'm hoping to join a (single) long-term group project within Wikipedia as a home base. If you see something that might be a fit please send me a ping. Ian Furst (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful contribution to Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. 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. — Legobot (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!

	Thank You!
	Thank you very much. DZTREQWS (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Francis Weld Peabody was accepted

Francis Weld Peabody, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal

Hi. I recall you wanted to get updates about developments in Wikiversity, so here I am. I've chosen today to be the official start of the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. You are welcome to participate in the opening ceremony, which consists of making a visit to its talk page and leaving a or other sign of luck. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I replied. Thanks for sharing this with me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

GA

Hi Blue, re your msg, have to give credit to Looie496 for originally proposing this on WTMED back in Feb, but many thanks. Lesion (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

BMJ editorial

Btw, congratulations on that - I've now commented on the linked paper. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

cup of coffee

thank you for the cup of coffee Halfalah (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge Universal access to all knowledge to Internet Archive

Hi, There is a discussion about merging the article:Universal access to all knowledge to article:Internet Archive at Talk:Universal access to all knowledge . I don't agree with it. I think that you are interested to the subject: "access to knowledge". I request you that help me to prevent Universal access to all knowledge from merging to another articles.DZTREQWS (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

	Thank you!
	Thanks for your talk on Talk:Universal access to all knowledge DZTREQWS (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Refs

Hey Lane. In this edit [1] you added a 1991 primary source.[2] Why is that? Also what you have added is not controversial. One or two refs should be sufficient. You do not need 6 :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649 I checked my notes and do not know how I got that reference. It is unrelated to anything I am doing, so I think I must have pulled an incorrect PMID somehow then generated a citation I did not need. Maybe I should step down the citations. I am omitting the sources which are not reviews, but still, I have not considered that a best practice would to choose only some review articles and not provide all that might be available. Because these topics are broad and noncontroversial I think more articles cover the topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I would just use the one best consumer reports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United_States#Discussion_.28cold_war.29

I proposed a picture of the Appolo-Soyuz mission for the cold war section; I'd appreciate any input you may have. /Cheers ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor question about Choosing Wisely

Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allecher (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 March 2013