User talk:DrMicro/Archive

DrMicro - I fixed the email, please try again. Cheers, Zmartine

==

Just wanted to comment on the intro paragraph in the Plasmodium article:

Thanks for the clarification. My objection with the paragraph has less to do with the content as with the wording. I don't think that sentences of the form: "X is likely to happen in the future." should be in an encyclopedia article, especially not in the introductory paragraph. I think the WP:NOTCRYSTAL policy is clear on this point. I'm not conversant with the literature, or else I would change it myself, but perhaps this paragraph could be reworded in the form: "Recent taxonomic research shows some Haemoproteus species lie within the taxon currently known as Plasmodium. X,Y, Z taxonomy authorities have suggested that the phylogenetic trees should be reorganized so that species such as Haemoproteus meleagridis are included in this genus." Then quote the paper. What do you think? Wawot1 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon classification

Alveolata is the correct "kingdom", which is in and of itself an obsolete taxonomical classification (Adl et al.). Protozoa is out of date and paraphyletic and I have no idea why Cavalier-Smith continues to use it, as well as calling Bacteria a kindgom, especially since he's the one proving that these taxa are paraphyletic. Alveolata is correct.

The NCBI taxonomy page is a useful reference for me on these questions. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Aopheles: Taxonomy

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. DefenseSupportParty (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this while sorting for bad speedies. Just in case you meant that you were going to work on this article in the future ('place holder'), simply just re-create the article. If that's your intent. Ceran^→//forge 21:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium

I have answered on my talk page. Kusma (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

specious

What is your intent for the meaning of the word "specious" in this section (from this edit)? --Rich Janis (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that's what I thought. Is that an established technical definition and, if so, can you refer me to a source for it? --Rich Janis (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it is a neologism; the word already has a rather different meaning in English. "Speciose" is a variant spelling, also originally used in the standard English sense. A better term would be "species-rich".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

The taxobox isn't for long species lists, and it isn't the primary place for taxonomy information. It's just a small box in an article that users can access quickly to gather a brief amount of information.

I think, by your comments on talk pages, you might be thinking it is the place for taxonomy information in an article? This is not the case. When the information is too long or too dense or too complex for the brief view the taxobox is designed to give, the information goes in the article.

Please, do not put long lists of species in taxoboxes, which then destroy the utility of the taxobox. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

No information was removed from the article.[1] It's just in a different location. Please take your discussion to the article talk page and stop reverting the article. Here it is in the article!

If you continue to revert, you will simply wind up getting blocked for edit warring, consider this a Level 1 warning that you should stop reverting.

WP:3RR. --Kleopatra (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is advice from an uninvolved administrator. Concerning the taxobox issue, if you cannot get any of the other editors to accept your position, you must give way. If you continue to try to force the issue by reverting back to your preferred form, I am going to find it necessary to take administrative action to resolve the problem. Since it's clear that you are making valuable contributions, I would be reluctant to do that, but I don't see that there is any other viable choice. Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Looie496. Might I suggest that you review the facts before deciding to take any action. This dispute initiated over the attempt by Kleopatra to removel difficult to source information from Wikipedia. I believe that this is in violation of the wikipedia policy on vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not in violation of wikipedia policy. Rather than bring this to the administrators I reverted the change and left a note on Kleopata's page requesting that this practice cease.

To be honest I am rather disappointed in this matter. My previous dealings with Kleopata were nothing if not cordial. It is not my pratice here on Wikipedia or anywhere else to deliberately seek conflict. I would much rathe have spent the time I have spent on this matter working on other matters. DrMicro (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this were simply a dispute between you and Kleopatra I would not have been so assertive. The talk page discussion shows that several other editors disagree with you and I can't see that any others agree with you. If I had been involved with this article I would also agree with them: that taxobox is way too long; there must be a better solution. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Check the first line of WP:VANDAL - if an edit is made in good faith, it cannot be vandalism. I imagine that Kleopatra has only added a note to ANI because there are possible problems with your contributions, rather than it being anything personal, no one has said you've deliberately sought conflict, it's just that you haven't listened to the opinions of others and realised that the consensus is not to have the list in the taxobox. SmartSE (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It saddens me to have to repeat myself again. The species in the taxobox were removed. This were replaced by a much shorter and incomplete listing. The edit was reverted. The reasons for the reversion were explained on the editors page. The editor then with full knowledge that s/he was removing information again deleted the entry. It is difficult to argue good faith when it has been pointed out that this edit would result in removal of difficult to locate but veryfiable information. DrMicro (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the species in the article, put them in the proper place, the article, or they will be removed by reversion simply because you put them in the wrong place.

If you put the list of 100s of Plasmodium species in an article on Minor League baseball, your edit would be reverted because it is in the wrong place. The person who reverts you is not then responsible for putting the information in the correct location, just because you put it in the wrong place. You are responsible for putting information in the correct place if you don't want it reverted. Every time you put 100s of species in a taxobox, someone will revert you eventually. Whatever they remove, it is not their responsibility to then format it for the article because you did not put it in the proper location.

If you put the list of 100s of species of Plasmodium in the taxobox, your edit will be reverted because it is in the wrong place. You have been told this, but you refuse to follow this Manual of Style guideline for infoboxes, thus making extra work for other editors who must revert you, answer your spurious accusations, request administrators to monitor you, keep repeatedly discussing the issue with you, etc., etc.

Please stop creating taxoboxes with 100s of species requiring other editors to correct them. I am moving the list of Plasmodium species to the article, where it belongs. I am a maintainer of taxoboxes. If someone told you to put 100s of species in the taxobox, then please post an exact link to that discussion, and I will correct that erroneous instruction at that location to make it clear to you not to do continue with this. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of an infobox

This quote comes from the guidelines on infoboxes, highlighting the purpose of an infobox: "summarize." Summarization means "not all." [2]

"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

I added the bold to emphasize what I and others have been telling you: your lists destroy the utility of the taxobox. By removing your list, editors are not removing information, they are making information available, namely the rest of the taxobox. --Kleopatra (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have pruned the overlong box in Inovirus as well - much too big and full of dead links.

Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...)

08:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia manual of style and other relevant areas thereof

Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden

On Wikipedia, a navbox is a template that lists at least several and sometimes hundreds of pages that are all somehow related. The relationship between all the articles in a single navbox is such that the reader of one of these articles will likely want to read at least some of the others.

While a "see also" section cannot be practical in listing more than a handful of the most relevant articles, a navbox can list dozens of related articles

The goal is to have a navbox in every article

Some examples of possible navbox topics can be:
...
living species within a larger group in which they are contained

A taxobox (short for taxonomy infobox) is a table found on Wikipedia articles setting out the currently largely-accepted scientific classification of an organism or group of organisms.

[3]

Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields

This page in a nutshell: If rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them.

If you do "break" a rule – knowingly or unknowingly – another editor may explain to you which rule you broke. If you find the rule sensible, you will understand why the other editor suggested it should be followed. If you do not see the sense in it, however, you should explain why you disagree with it. Other editors will in turn respond, and with some luck, a sensible approach will eventually be adopted, which may involve ignoring the rule, following it, or taking an alternative approach that resolves the dispute to everyone's satisfaction.

Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions

Vandalism is any ... removal ... made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

DrMicro (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't think there'd be a link to any source that told you to put 100s of species in taxoboxes. --Kleopatra (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"On Wikipedia, a navbox is a template that lists at least several and sometimes hundreds of pages that are all somehow related."DrMicro (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, biology navboxes contain many species, like the Alveolata and Eukaryota ones on the bottom of animal pages. So, if you want a navbox to go on the bottom of the page with 100s of species, then go ahead and make one. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Kelopatra when s/he stated that it an acceptable action to delete the links to ~60% of a large genus without putting some sort of alternative in place. To me this looks like vandalism and the Manual of Style for Wikipedia quoted above concurs.

A taxobox ... is a table found on Wikipedia articles setting out the currently largely-accepted scientific classification of an organism or group of organisms.

Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields

I see no valid reason to put a list at the bottom of the page when it is common usage in textbxs of parasitlogy to list the species in a tabl at the start of the article or section.

I would be grateful if Kleoptra could explain why it is acceptable to create a navbox with hundreds of species and it not acceptable to simply place these in a taxobox as I find this logically inconistent. DrMicro (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to attempt to change wikipedia policy on taxoboxes and infoboxes, to include putting 100s of species in the taxobox.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life, and Template talk:Taxobox are where maintainers of taxoboxes, meaning any interested editor, will be hanging out.

If you want to accuse editors of "removing information from wikipedia" while reverting your failures to follow policy, the place to do so is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Vandalism. While you are attempting to change policy and until you do change policy, please follow the existing policy by not putting 100s of species in taxoboxes.--Kleopatra (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the guidelines

If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia you should revert these changes

DrMicro (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is clear from the record provided on the linked pages there was NO policy on large lists of species within taxoboxes until I specifically raised the issue. The record shows that it is other editors who wished to change the established position that has been in use for several years and to do so without discussion. DrMicro (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia copyright issues

Please do not copy material from other websites without properly attributing it. Material must be written in your own words, and you must acknowledge the source.[4] All material that does not meet these requirements must be removed from wikipedia. I have simply reverted all of your editions, as I do not have time to edit them. Feel free to add information back in your own words. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for further information. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whipple's disease

Hello DrMicro, I saw your additions to Whipple's disease. I am a bit concerned that you based most of your additions on sources that were not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Even in rare diseases, case reports and laboratory studies can give a very unrepresentative picture of a disease, and when I wrote much of the article a few months ago I identified a number of excellent secondary sources, most of which are currently cited in the article but have not been mined fully for useful content. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance; unfortunately I got distracted by other work in November 2010 but I am keen for the Whipple's article to be comprehensive and up-to-date. JFW | T@lk 09:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had discussed the edits first, instead of simply reinserting the content into the article.

All medical articles on Wikipedia should be based on "secondary sources". The importance of this approach is outlined in elaborate detail in WP:MEDRS, a consensus-based guideline. Case reports and tiny case series are very poor sources of medical information, and cannot be used to source encyclopedia content.

Please discuss on Talk:Whipple's disease what kind of sources you plan to be using for upcoming edits. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quoting back the content of WP:MEDRS to me. I'm not sure if you are trying to justify the use of primary sources here. What exactly is wrong with the current sources? Again, the sources you have been using seem fairly random; secondary sources have the benefit of selecting the useful data from an often enormous amount of primary research of variable quality, relevance and methodological soundness. JFW | T@lk 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say WP:MEDRS is pretty clear about the importance of using secondary sources when available. Are there absolutely no secondary sources (review, textbook chapter) that could support this content? JFW | T@lk 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is your responsibility to find appropriate secondary sources for the content you plan to add. Perhaps you could have a look at PMID 20708091. It seems to be a secondary source, and it seems to discuss the fact that Tropheryma whipplei is an environmental pathogen. JFW | T@lk 20:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the source, so it probably makes more sense if you make any additions based on it, so as to avoid any misrepresentations. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JFD review articles are required rather than primary research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In limited situation when review articles are not available. But one is usually able to find either a review or a textbook that comments on something if it is notable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sensitive to the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The most excellent (i.e. featured) medical articles are built almost exclusively on secondary sources. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to advance the use of primary sources on the basis that other medical articles also do that. My response is that one cannot presume a precedent from other articles; in general we strive towards high-quality secondary sources. Unfortunately not all articles are up to that standard yet, but we'll get there.

I would personally be quite surprised if I opened an encyclopedia, even a medical encyclopedia, and find that the article is based on primary sources (especially laboratory studies with small numbers of subjects). JFW | T@lk 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems to related to the interpretation of WP:MEDRS. This does seem to sum it up well though:

This page in a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have phrased it better, which is why I won't. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on consensus... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my reading/interpretation of the guidelines. If you are stating that primary research is better than reviews for Wikipedia we will have to agree to disagree. As you are one of the better editors here hoping we can convince you to change your mind. You can get further input if you wish at WT:MEDRS Have ~~written~~ brought a number of articles to GAs and FAs using exclusively reviews dengue fever and gout as examples. New high quality articles require this (check out the last FAR for schizophrenia where it was nearly demoted due to reliance on primary research and in which we replaced all primary research by reviews to get it to pass). There are a fair number of FAs right now that if they where reviewed would not pass. Cheers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that GAs and FAs should be almost exclusively referenced to review articles and to a lesser extent textbooks. Primary research should only occasionally be used and only large RCTs that deal with humans that are notable in and of themselves for issues for which no reviews exist. BTW sorry to misquote you. Do you feel primary sources should be viewed on par with reviews or are of lesser quality? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:SandyGeorgia also shares this opinion and it would be hard to get an article to either GA or FA without abiding by it. As I would like to see more medical articles featured on the main page I bring this to your attention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should stipulate that this only applies to health claims.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The addition "It has been isolated from an infected hip joint [5]" Will technically true is based on a single case report and thus is of questionable notability. If you wish further input please bring to WT:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a review that mentions it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Excellent questions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James position

I have spent some time trying to pick apart the conversation between you, Doc James and JFW. It is made nearly impossible by not following the usual convention of carrying on a conversation in one place. So forgive me if I've got it wrong. You say that Doc James has proposed a policy of "banning ... all primary source material as part of the process towards a featured article" As WhatamIdoing has already stated, you misinterpret Doc James position. Indeed, the "blanket ban" concept came from your post here. Both Doc James and JFW have patiently explained that secondary sources like reviews are the best and that primary sources may be used "in limited situations" and that "most excellent (i.e. featured) medical articles are built almost exclusively on secondary sources. (my bold). While I am pleased that you finally seem to be "getting it", I am disappointed that you still appear to want to score points against Doc James. I think Doc James is owed an apology. Colin°^Talk 15:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Please reply here. I've watchlisted it. Colin°^Talk 15:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Many thanks. Excellent questions. Doc James". This was what Doc James wrote when I posted this particular question. While I agree it is possible that I may have misunderstood this, Doc James appears to have read the questions and that were his thoughts at the time - at least as far as I can understand them. I would not have asserted that this were his opinion without first asking him to read it and to comment on it before hand. If he disagreed with what I had written I would have deleted what was written and re phrased it and again asked for comments. I believe that this is a sensible approach with much to recommend it. Perhaps you have additional insights that I do not have into the meaning of these words?

It may perhaps have been your experience or practice that you or others engage in routinely attributing opinions to others that they do not hold. This would seem pointless to me as WP keeps a record that anyone can access. From what you have written here it seems that you may have engaged in allegations without even read the primary documents. While I freely admit that I could be wrong on this last point - because I have no idea what you have or have not read - but then I would have to question your understanding of the matter and by implication the wisdom of your involvement in this matter in the first place. I have no specific knowledge or special insight into discussions that you have had before with other editors or into your practices here. I merely ask given what you have written here.

For the record I did not and do not wish to "score points" against anyone. I merely wish to ensure that the record - which it may (or may not) have been read by you before you commented - was clear. I for one am disappointed however that it seems necessary to repost reminders of the WP policies of civility and to assume good faith. Despite that WP promotes these policies is a well known and very public fact - one well reported in the media - that these are not enforced as often as is desirable and that this has had and is continuing to have a detrimental effect on the willingness of people to spend their time working on this site. For the record I would like to thank both Doc James and JFK for their civility. I would expect no less from a physician.

A WP discussion page is not - IMHO - a place where zealots await the words of wisdom handed down from on high but rather one where questions may be raised and where ambiguities may be clarified. Since there is an ambiguity in the policy document rather that engage in a pointless edit war, I chose to seek additional opinions. This is I believe entirely consistent with WP policy. I also believe this to be the correct approach. Your mileage may vary.

In summary the record shows we do actually share an opinion on at least some matters as to what is and is not a sensible policy concerning the use of primary source material. The record shows that opinions to which I did no and do not subscribe to have been repeatedly attributed to me. I have had to remind you of the good faith and civility policies on more than one occasion. IMHO that if anyone is owned an apology it is I from you for the reasons listed above. I am inclined to doubt that this will ever occur - but I could be wrong. DrMicro (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DrMicro, when James wrote "Many thanks. Excellent questions. Doc James", he was responding to your original post here. That post does not state what is (or is your perception of) Doc James' opinion. So his acknowledgement of that post has no bearing on whether or not you have misunderstood his position. Five times you "attribut[ed] opinions to others that they do not hold". And in requesting we refute those opinions, you constructed a straw man, and maintained it despite others pointing out your misinterpretation. The fact that your straw man arguments repeatedly mentioned Doc James in person, rather than just a plain statement you wished to dispute, led me to conclude you were trying to win a personal battle ("score points against Doc James"). If this conclusion is wrong, I apologise, and hope you see where that interpretation arose.

An edit dispute at Whipple disease was followed by an intensive discussion among three editors on their talk pages and continued at MEDRS. When an editing dispute spills over onto guideline or policy talk pages, the disputers usually aren't focused on amending or clarifying the guideline or policy, but on wining the current dispute. As a result, the debate can be polarised with neither side willing to give an inch or acknowledge mistakes. Misunderstanding the other side's position is a common problem. Editors joining the debate may be unaware of the background to the dispute, which can be helpful but can also prolong the agony. The number one most common dispute at MEDRS by an order of magnitude is the desire to use primary sources such as experimental research papers, or case reports. Most frequently, this is from some POV pusher, because you can prove almost anything by cherry picking research papers. Less commonly, it is from experts in the field making good faith edits. Sometimes they believe they can do better than the secondary literature and want to use WP to effectively publish their own review of the primary literature. Sometimes it is just because they were trained to cite the primary literature in their own publications, and WP works differently. The second most common dispute, btw, is whether newspapers are reliable for medical facts.

When I accused you of wikilawering, I was responding to statements such as this post, where you wrongly concluded WP:WEIGHT does not apply (in fact, it is the key reason secondary sources are preferred), and this post, where you quoted a restrictive clause and interpreted it as a permissive clause (a basic logical error). I have been attempting to correct such misunderstandings of policy and guidelines for five years. It gets wearing. Wikilawering was too strong a word and the possible interpretation of implied bad faith was not one I intended. I apologise. Colin°^Talk 16:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above. While I disagree with the characterisation of the straw man argument, I am grateful for the explanation. Since this is apparently a recurrent issue - something that I was previously unaware of - does that not suggest that this issue could be resolved by a redrafting of guidance? I ask this simply because were this apparently recurrent issue clarified on the guideline considerable time could be freed up from resolving such problems - time I would consider better spent making WP a better and more useful place. That this issue has come up before suggests to me that a redrafting may have been attempted before and was abandoned for some reason. On this last I am speculating as I was not previously aware of this issue or its recurrence. If a redrafting was to be attempted again I would be more than happy to ofer any assistance I am able to provided that such assistance would be acceptable to any others involved in this project. DrMicro (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I believe these issues recur is because editors wish it were not so, not because the policy and guidelines aren't clearly drafted. Editors often have a hard time adapting to the peculiar requirements of Wikipedia, which don't apply elsewhere. Having said that, there's always room for improvement. I sometimes wonder if a FAQ would help. Wait a week or two to clear your mind of this dispute and then re-read WP:MEDRS and see what you think then. Colin°^Talk 19:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I agree the guidance is not clearly drafted. I have read the material in the link very carefully and it appears to have at least one internal contradiction which is why I made that suggestion. My suggestion still stands: the FAQ approach may indeed be a better alternative which I had not considered before now. I still think that this issue should be clarified as it seems it has wasted a lot of time better spent.DrMicro (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you can "agree [with me] the guidance is not clearly drafted". Please re-read my first sentence. These communication difficulties are a problem. In MEDRS or WEIGHT, what is the internal contradiction you find? For the avoidance of doubt, what exactly is the issue that should be clarified? Colin°^Talk 19:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inovirus

Are you currently working on this? if so add {{underconstruction}} to stop it being speedy deleted $Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...)$ 11:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove tags without addressing the message - this stub is too technical for me to understand!

Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...)

11:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Inovirus

The article Inovirus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content other than an infobox

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. $Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...)$ 11:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handy tool

If you haven't been introduced to it yet, this nifty tool fills out reference templates for you if you know a paper's PMID. Keep up the good work! — Scientizzle 16:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit

I am not sure what you where attempting to do here [6] But this is not how we format articles. Please be careful. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification (for DrMicro)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Bemisia tabaci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Pepper, Cucurbit

Alphasatellite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Dalton

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hepatitis C virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gibbsia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Merogony and Sporocyst

Defretinella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Plasmodium falciparum biology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Inhibitor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adelea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Barrouxia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Caryotropha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Colony stimulating factor 1 receptor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dalton

Dorisiella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Haemosporidiasina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Akiba

Protococcidiorida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Merogony

Wenyonella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gregarinasina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Host, Syzygy and Merogony

Cryptophagus (protozoa) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Nucleus and Spindle

Benford's law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reciprocal

Brachyspiraceae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Appendix

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Atoxoplasma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Desseria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cottus

Frenkelia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Merogony

List of Plasmodium species (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Roman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Milton Wexler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Director, Depression and James Watson

Agamococcidiorida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Diaspora (protozoa) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Nonparametric skew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uniform distribution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:DrMicro/Partetravirus has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Partetravirus, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Chagasella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sporocyst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Merocystis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Nucleus, Spindle and Sporocyst

Alveocystis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Geometric mean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Uniform distribution

Grasseella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Jews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Admixture

Ovivora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Plasmodium falciparum biology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Splicing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mantonella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sporocyst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Octosporella (protozoa) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Polysporella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ponytail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pascal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Pfeifferinella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Merogony and Sporocyst

Pseudoklossia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. When you recently edited Nephroisospora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sporocyst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nucleus and Fascicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adeleorina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Conjugation, Vector, Syzygy, Merogony and Sporocyst

Ganapatiella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Syzygy and Sporocyst

Orcheobius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fahr's syndrome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to AMP and Caudate

Haloarcula hispanica SH1 virus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ICTV

Hepatitis C virus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to America

Legerella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Rasajeyna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Epidemiology of Hepatitis C virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. When you recently edited Uterine fibroid, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nucleus, Spindle and Fascicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Pythonella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sporocyst and Python

Epidemiology of Hepatitis C virus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rhode

Klossiella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sporocyst

Membranous glomerulonephritis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phospholipase A

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. When you recently edited Taylor's law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page T distribution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Johann Friedrich Meckel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Halle

Oguchi disease (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Macular dystrophy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Haloarcula hispanica SH1 virus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Dalton

Haloarcula hispanica pleomorphic virus 1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Dalton

Ipomovirus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Dalton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cilevirus

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cilevirus, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/87/9/2721.full.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been reviewed by >50 human editors none of whom have changed a word or left a comment. This notice appears to be a false positive. This may have occurred perhaps because of the short length of the article and the number of uncommon technical words in it.DrMicro (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using medical sources

Hello, and thanks for your contributions to medical articles. I note that on a number of occasions I have found myself removing sources that you added because they do not meet the criteria as outlined in WP:MEDRS. As an encyclopedia we must be very careful with citing primary studies. Many end up being disproven or limited by further research. We have therefore disagreed quite some time ago to restrict ourselves to high-quality secondary sources (reviews or textbook chapters) to support our content. Very often, information that cannot be sourced in such a way is not actually suitable for inclusion in a general-purpose encyclopedia.

I'm just dropping a line to explain my edits, and to see if I could be of any assistance in this matter. JFW | T@lk 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrMicro. You have new messages at Jfdwolff's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JFW | T@lk 21:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes once again I am trying to figure out why you chose not to using recent review articles as references per WP:MEDRS?[7] Do you fell primary research and case reports are superior? Please advice. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Partetravirus, 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 are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DrMicro. You have new messages at WhatamIdoing's talk page.
Message added 18:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Mallexikon

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 recently edited an article on Helicobacter Pylori. 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) 13:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]