This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sorry for the delay! I took a look and made some changes, it looks good. I was a little confused about the sentence "Scanavacca scored the whole amount for his team," does this mean that Scanavacca scored all 7 of the points the team made that game? I think we don't link dates any more, I started unlinking them, will you take out any I missed? Also, the paragraph beginning "Having scored 3,266 points in his whole club career" needs references, as does the one after it about his current position. with that latter paragraph, I'd do "as of 2010" (or whenever the source is from) instead of "currently" per WP:DATED. Good work! It was well written as usual. delldot∇. 23:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes - indeed Andrea Scanavacca retired on June 2008, so the 3,266 points are not subject to change (of course his record will last until someone will break it, but as for now it's the record); and yes, against England Scanavacca scored 7 points for Italy - - thanks for spending your time for me. Sergio (aka The Blackcat) 12:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat (talk • contribs)
Errata corrige: Scanavacca scored 3,368 points, have published a reference in the article, though I don't know whether the reference must be placed (in Italian are placed before punctuation, it seems that in English come after instead...). Sergio (aka The Blackcat) 12:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat (talk • contribs)
Nice work! I don't think it matters whether you place the ref before or after the period but I think the convention around here is to place it after. But so long as it's consistent within the article it's probably fine. delldot∇. 04:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Phineas Gage
I haven't talked to you in a long time! I'm wondering if you can take a look at Phineas Gage which has changed a lot in the last year. I'd appreciate comments or criticisms. (I've asked Garrondo and some others as well.) Thanks! EEng (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, sorry for the delay! I've just taken a look. My first concern is that there appears to be commentary, which may be a NPOV problem. For example, this part reads like an opinion piece or an essay, not an encyclopedia article: "the body of known fact about the case is remarkably small, which has allowed it to be cited, over the years, in support of various theories of the brain and mind wholly contradictory to one another. A survey of published accounts of Gage has found that even modern scientific presentations are usually greatly distorted—exaggerating and even directly contradicting the established facts." Statements like these would be better attributed to some credible source, e.g. "this expert says...". Other pieces that read like commentary include "Beyond the obvious importance..." and "a striking if relatively unimportant illustration of the difficulty of establishing even basic fact about the case". The bulleted list after the sentence starting "Yet it is unknown on what Harlow based this description" needs a reference. On a much more minor note, what is with the brackets in quotes like this one: "the taper being [twelve] inches..." That's all I've got for now! Good luck with the article, thanks for your hard work on it. delldot∇. 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I do see that some adjustments should be made according to your concerns (it's helpful to have an outside eye -- I've been fooling with this article so long I'm going a bit crazy). That will take some days or a week or so. Re the brackets e.g. "[twelve]" in the newspaper quote and quote describing iron -- see the footnotes to each, which explain. EEng (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Take your time, it looks good! I can definitely relate to that feeling of losing touch with reality after working so much on an article! (I got that way with the lead poisoning article, it was bad, let me tell you!). Sorry I missed the footnote thing about the brackets. delldot∇. 04:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
As you may have noticed (Phineas Gage) there have been some sudden developments, so other things will have to wait a bit. EEng (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Copwatch
Hey, I have been meaning to respond to you on the Copwatch page for many months, actually it made me feel quite stupid because I thought I was lecturing a newcomer on the mission & pillars but really I was just nitpicking to a veteran.
I have been thinking for a long time that that article needs a lot of attention, but I don't have the time or energy. Just suggesting/wondering if you might take it on as a project for yourself, maybe a complete re-write. Anyway, cheers. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Aw, thanks, but no reason to feel stupid. I haven't had a lot of time to be around lately so I'm afraid I can't work on the copwatch article for now--although I agree it needs a lot of work. To be honest, the idea of struggling against someone over every sentence is just exhausting to me (thus I don't have a lot of experience editing contentious articles, hence the apparent newcomerness in that area). But props on your willingness to work with and invest time in showing newcomers around, that's a really good quality that's seriously lacking around here. Peace, delldot∇. 04:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for your reply. I can completely sympathize as I have no time for such a project, but at the same time I don't think I am the right person for the job because I am not sympathetic to the topic (e.g. I nominated the article for deletion at one point). I get the sense that you weren't specifically thinking about me when you made one particular comment, but I can assure you that I would not be there challenging your efforts. Anyway, I think perhaps the task would be best undertaken by a dedicated editor who is very experienced and has a good sense of perspective and project goals and is also sympathetic to the topic. Just a thought if you know anyone that fits that description. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Factchecker, no, I wasn't talking about you with the thing about having to struggle against someone with every sentence, I was referring to the guy who reverted almost everything I added to the article. I hear you about being biased, I'm probably biased from the opposite direction. Although I don't think that having a strong opinion about a topic should necessarily disqualify either of us from writing about a topic if we're able to keep ourselves objective--a lot of articles are written by people that have strong opinions on the subjects. I think the main problem this article faces is that so little is published in reliable sources about copwatch per se--when it is written about, it's just a chapter of copwatch. So let's just both keep an eye out for material that can be used in the article. delldot∇. 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for the reply. I agree with a lot of what you say and just want to clarify a couple things. First, I guess my intuition is that many editors undertaking a total re-write (which I still think is what is needed) would achieve the nominal aims of balance perfectly well, but I just feel that only an editor who is sympathetic to the subject will end up writing an article that does the subject organizations justice while also maintaining those balance goals. This sounds slightly contrary to WP aims but I think that is how things work out in practice and I'm not sure it could be any other way.
The underlying reason I think a re-write is needed is that currently the article is sort of a mishmash of competing, skewed viewpoints. This is partly because of typical editor tug-of-war and partly due to lack of significant sourcing, but I think it could perhaps be done better with what is available.
Examples of what I am talking about: on the one hand, some editor undertook to pull a still-frame from the Cardenas video. It's obvious of poor quality and I'm not sure the article benefits from images in the first place, but the editor obviously felt that the article would not be getting its message across without photographic confirmation that these cops punched this guy in the face while struggling to get him into handcuffs. [My feeling is that this video is hardly illustrative of actual police brutality, the man depicted was so obviously deserving of use of force against him, and really the only relevance of the video is that it was shot or submitted by a Copwatch chapter. It's the worst possible publicity I can imagine for an organization dedicated to exposing police brutality.]
On the flip side, one of the central critical sources, the Tim Dees article, is at best on the borderline of WP:RS. I think that the overall lack of notability/RS treatment justifies a conclusion that the article meets the RS bar relative to the rest of the article, but I do wonder if it would survive a RS noticeboard inquiry. I don't wish to pursue the matter, and probably because of my bias, but also because I don't see another way to achieve balance, I guess I hope it will remain swept under the rug. Perhaps, overall, my comments have just confirmed your observation that the real problem is sourcing, but I just have a sense that there is something more that needs to be fixed.
Finally, on a historical note, when you talk about an editor that reverted all your edits, I think you are speaking of DivaNTrainin. That editor has been a real mixed bag. While (s)he has done a serviceable job of monitoring vandalism and blatant POV edits (for which this article seems to be a target) and has been subjected to some absurdly profane and racist PA's by people who seem manifestly uninterested in serious conduct, (s)he has also demonstrated a strong, clear bias against the article subject and is not especially balanced or thoughtful when it comes to policy/content disputes. While I think I share the same bias and watch the article for many of the same reasons as she does, I have often found myself thinking that I need to be keeping tags on her editing just as much as the trolls and vandals who are dissatisfied with the lack of a uniformly positive presentation of the subject.
Anyway, sorry to keep blathering at you at length on this subject. I have just had nagging thoughts about this article for quite some time and I guess I just thought you seemed like the perfect person to figure out a solution. Regardless, cheers. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I dunno, I think it should be rewritten too, but that would involve getting rid of all the marginal refs including the Dees thing (actually I argue that it's marginal for notability reasons), as well as all unsourced info. It's a big job. But I don't think a single person would have to do it. But I doubt any progress will be made until crusaders from both sides are blocked from editing it. delldot∇. 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Delldot, sorry if I disturb you, have de-stubed another article on en.wiki and I'd like for you to check for its English if you can. To make your task easier I have already added references ;-) Thanks in advance -- Sergio (aka The Blackcat) 22:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat (talk • contribs)
Looks good! I made a few edits (I think we're not linking dates any more). You might want to explain what a "top try scorer" is. The refs you have look good, but you need refs for the first, last, and second-to-last paragraphs. Peace, delldot∇. 23:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, simply said the seasonal top try scorer (I'll try to make it simplier as I can, I don't know how deep you are into rugby union: this is a try) is the player that has scored the highest number of tries in a single edition of the Championship; the alltime top try scorer is the player that has the highest overall number of tries scored. -- Sergio (aka The Blackcat) 13:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat (talk • contribs)
Heh, yeah, I didn't know what a try was. You can probably just link to the relevant articles by way of explanation. Peace, delldot∇. 17:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
sodium channels
do u have a diagram u cud send with an early concept of the sodium channel?
(----). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.24.180 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope, sorry. delldot∇. 23:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Hello Delldot, I don't know who else to say to, so I'll tell to you hoping you'll report the thing in the right place: I've "intercepted" this "interwiki-vandal" (is an Italian contributor) who goes on through the several wiki chapters writing on the pages of Graham Mourie that he has Italian ancestors from Lombardy called Mauri (the Italian surname Mauri sounds as "Mourie" in English). The fact is such event is sourced nowhere (and the thing says all, being we Italians champions in finding an ancestor to anyone who's a celebrity :-) ). Thanks -- Sergio (aka The Blackcat) 22:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, good job catching that. I think all you can do for now is warn the IP, and watch the page and make sure s/he doesn't add it again. If they keep doing it, then it will be time for a block. I left them a {{uw-unsourced1}}, you can give 2 and 3 if they repeat, then a {{uw-generic4}}. If that continues they'll have to be reported for blocking. Let me know if you want help. Peace, delldot∇. 03:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Delldot, you're always helpful as usual -- Sergio (aka The Blackcat) 11:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Decorticate/decerebrate
Hey! just saw some of the amazing additions you make around here; was reading and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Decorticate.PNG - any chance you could do a decerebrate to round it out and complete the feng-shui?--Cpt ricard (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I could do that without too much trouble, but I'm looking around and I cant figure out whether the fists are clenched or if the hands are just bent back with fingers extended. About half the diagrams I can find are one way and half the other. Do you know? Peace, delldot∇. 02:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, looking at books it looks like they all agree on fists clenched. delldot∇. 15:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Closure of TfD Cite manual
Hi Delldot, apologies if I've made a mistake, but I think you missed a bit when you closed the TfD discussion on Template:Cite manual. I've added the word "top" and the "|" to separate the parameter, so it looks right now. Hope I've not messed up something intentional. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, thanks for catching and fixing that. I must have been distracted! Peace, delldot∇. 04:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Delldot...why didn't you subst: the template on the page it was used prior to deleting it? Now the page has about a hundred redlinks. Could you please undelete then subst: the template on the page? After that it can stay deleted, though the page will still be a mess without it (but not a good enough reason to keep it). LAIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry,I don't usually go into people's userspace but I should have asked you about it. Can do. Peace, delldot∇. 05:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Horsburgh / Horsbrugh Castle
Hi Delldot, just FYI I recreated a redirect you deleted, at Horsbrugh Castle, the reason being its listed by RCAHMS as an "alternative name" to the common spelling of Horsburgh [1], so I don't think it qualifies as an implausible typo under CSD R3. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok, that's fine. I didn't know that was an alternate spelling, and I'm sure the person who tagged it didn't either. Peace, delldot∇. 13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
History of Hot Tubs, Water Filters, and SPA Filters
Hi Delldot, I am indeed the author the three articles - so the consent statement goes at the end of the articles at the spasnstuff.com site? No worries, but when I do that - do you reinstate the articles or do I resubmit...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwricker (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I'm finally getting started on that task to move the categories from talk pages to article pages. Details/discussion on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
AfD
Hi Delldot,
Last December you proposed the Greg Caton article for deletion. It didn't go through that time, but I've re-proposed it. (It's probably changed considerably since then.) Finemrespice (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the heads up. delldot∇. 00:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Raul Julia-Levy Photo
Hi, Delldot,
It's been a long time since you and I last communicated. I need your
assistance, if you would be so kind. I'm attempting to update Raul Julia-Levy's
image and don't know what I'm doing wrong. I've uploaded the new image, but it
is not inserting. Thank you for any help you can provide. Have a lovely
day.
Hm, I'm not sure why that wasn't working, but how about uploading it as a new image anyway? i.e. with a new name. That way they can use both images or whatnot. What license is your new image under? You might consider uploading it to commons if it's free. If it was taken by someone else and you do not know what the license is for it or if it's not explicitly freely licensed, we probably can't use it, but maybe we could contact the photographer and get them to release it, I have done that a bunch and can help you with that. Peace, delldot∇. 19:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting the mess in the infobox. Somebody's fucking with the main template, apparently. I gave the article a temporary fix. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, cool, thanks for dealing with that. I figured it was something with the infobox template but I couldn't get anything to work in my sandboxes either from as far back as May. delldot∇. 22:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
subst: template to del per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 16# Various user specific image templates =
Yeah, that's a good idea. I was trying to figure out what to do about that problem, I realized it wasn't so great to be deleting the template for that reason. I will keel over if I have to go back and do that to all 200 of the ones I just did, but I'll ask someone I know who runs a bot if they can do it. Peace, delldot∇. 00:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Delldot. You have new messages at Closeapple's talk page. Message added 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Globalize TFD close
Great work on the {{Globalize}} TFD close. However, I believe you forgot to sign your close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
d'oh, thanks. delldot∇. 20:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems that this is another one with work still to do. You might like to join discussion on Template talk:Globalize.--Salix (talk): 18:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK for prenatal cocaine exposure
On 27 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article prenatal cocaine exposure, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Template:Stella4D has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.. You close the previous discussion, but a consensus on what to do with this templates was a bit unclear. So I'm re-listing it to gain consensus.Salix (talk): 14:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Unternehmen Bodenplatte
Howdy. Any questions re: sources just give me a nudge. The article is better already. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, will do! I'm just now going through and finishing my first set of suggestions, they should be up in a minute. Peace, delldot∇. 18:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the level of detail could be a sticking point. This is the area I am most concerned about. Everything else I can live with. I have tried to cut down as much as I can without the need for mass deletions. I've also shifted the text in the "casualties" section to a new article I created. If we have an article dedicated to casualties, we might as well use it! I've managed to reduce the article by about 10kb. Regardless of whether I have disagreed at some points thus far, I believe we can work it out the difficulties. I'm going to go to town on those points mentioned in my reply to the first assessment tomorrow. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
No sweat. I left a bunch of replies at the GA1 talk page. delldot∇. 01:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Dealing with the detail at the moment. I've cut down some of it (infact quite a generous amount by my standards) so the article is hovering around 88kb, a redction of about 15 or 16kbs - a hefty sum. I've practically reduced each airfield battle to a brief performance evaluation. Dapi89 (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Update: I've managed to reduce it to 82kb from an original length of 104kb. The note at the top of the article (when editing) which says "it may be appropriate to split it" had disappeared. A good sign? Dapi89 (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Also, one of us should figure out how to check the readable prose size, since some of the size could be due to refs and stuff, which don't matter as far as size (so you may actually be doing better on size than it looks from the raw size). What do you say we take this discussion to the GA1 talk page? Peace, delldot∇. 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
CSI episodes
Just because the series is notable... *takes off sunglasses* ... doesn't mean the episodes are. YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAH!Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Cool userpage! Colourful and yet it look so simple and easy to read. Minimac (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Aww, thank you! delldot∇. 16:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Subdural hem.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Subdural hem.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hearts of saints article
Hello I was considering writing an article on Hearts of Saints but saw that it was previously deleted by you on terms of unimportance. I would like to grant you the knowledge that I would like to re write said article and I can provide the information to make it Wikipedia acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equd (talk • contribs) 03:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds fine. Sorry for the delayed reply. Have you looked into the notability guidelines to better understand what is going to meet Wikipedia's requirements? Remember notability and importance are not the same thing--really the important thing about notability is verifiability, i.e. has enough been written about this subject that we can independently fact check what's written in the article? I'm not around much lately but I can certainly help if you need it. You can use the "email this user" feature to get my attention faster. Peace, delldot∇. 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Allopathy and its Difference with Modern Scientific Medicine : Request to join the discussion
I came across your userpage and thought that I could try to involve you into the discussion regarding my attempts to radically modify the article on Allopathic medicine where my edit as available at this link, had been reverted. The discussion is available at the respective talk page. I had referenced my edits so that the information that might not be known to many, can be verified. I seek the improvisation of this article (along with the related ones) and would like a healthy discussion to be re-initiated in order to improve the article. I would be glad if you show your experienced intervention/involvement.
DiptanshuTalk 15:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy Holidays?
Hi stranger, just dropping in to say hello and to wish you a happy, healthy holiday. I hope all is well with you. Talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
HMS Kenya
I have undertaken to compile a Web Page for the Association of HMS Kenya, and would wish to see the www address added to your site. Quite happy for someone else to enter the address, which is,
Bill Hartland
Editor www.hmsgambia.com and Hon Editor for HMS Kenya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.249.171 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to debate on the topic "can entrepreneurship be Taught " Against the topic
my mail id is mr.att1989@gmail.com hoping that u'l help me for the facts thnxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.12.208 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
HI DellDot, about the MR Neurography page
Hi - I see that you reviewed the MR Neurography page a while back, as the page developer is also the sole patent licensee for the technology. I note that the page does not contain a Point-Counterpoint discussion on the technology and its use to diagnose Piriformis Syndrome. Without inclusion of this peer-reviewed published critique, this site is weak. These articles appeared in Vol. 19, Issue 4, pages 609 - 622 and pages 623-627 of Neurosurgery Clinics of North America.
Piriformis and Related Entrapment Syndromes: Myth & Fallacy, by Dr. Robert L. Tiel, and Piriformis and Related Entrapment Syndromes: Diagnosis & Management byDr. Aaron G. Filler.
As there is great controversy about this patented, exclusive technology, including a multi-billion dollar lawsuit by Aaron Filler against both Seimens and the Regents of the University of California, it would improve the page to include these scientific agruements. Since they are held by Elsivier, I have not been able to access the full text.
Thanks for your interest in this page. In 2008 this issue was addressed in considerable detail by several editors. There is a difference between - on the one hand - the value of NPOV and conflict of interest and - on the other hand - a policy by an encyclopedia to attack, stigmatize and delete any expert writing about a subject in which that person is an expert. A professor gets paid for teaching. Writers earn money for books. This gets very challenging as we move into progressively more technical subject areas. One view of an inventor is as someone who cannot be trusted for information. Another view is that this is an intelligent and creative person with a passionate interest in helping or serving a community. An invention is an enormous commitment many years of research hundreds of hours of legal wrangling with the patent office, denial of care for patients on vague and indefinite "experimental" determinations. This can represent a commitment - as in this case - to people who have nerve related disorders that are difficult to diagnose and treat.
I don't think Wikipedia has a policy of posting all of the different health care reimbursement policies for all of the different insurers for all different plans on each clinically relevant Wikipedia page. The article made clear that there was an issue of experimental determinations for reimbursement. Aetna actually classifies all of MRI as experimental because it says that no one ever did a study where, for instance, we randomly assign 50,000 people to have brain surgery without an MRI beforehand and 50,000 to brain surgery with MRI for diagnosis before surgery and then see if the use of MRI improves the surgical outcomes when the two groups are compared. The coverage of this issue was fair and balanced, adding long quotes from one insurers "experimental use" website seems to be an overboard biased attack on the procedure and is the opposite of a neutral point of view.
As I have pointed out previously, the problem arises when you have anonymous writers (as most Wikipedia writers are) and these anonymous writers don't declare a potential conflict. I am in no way anonymous here. I sign my posts. I have a user page that clearly defines who I am and has a conflict of interest statement. In academia, we understand that academics get promoted based on publication and success in their fields. Therefore everything produced in academics incorporates a conflict of interest. Some conflicts are considered obvious - such as the publish to get promoted issues - others are not obvious and must be declared - such as financial interests that may appear to affect statements or which actually affect statements. Rather than banning all individuals with conflicts (which would ban all academics from writing or publishing) we simply don't allow anonymity and insist on the declaration of non-obvious conflicts. I don't think your review identified any significant issues with point of view in this article. However, your attention is greatly appreciated. Nonetheless, there are plenty of individuals with a motive to attack or confront the technology - are they a defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit? Do they have a billing dispute with some medical provider and a personal ax to grind. Are they affiliated with an insurance company and desire to scare patients away from well documented treatments? How do you find this out from an anonymous tipster? Why must they be anonymous - what are they hiding? MR Neurography was first published in 1993 in the Lancet. Neurography and DTI - from the same patent - are now the subject of more than 6,000 peer reviewed publications including numerous large scale outcome trials. So when an insurer - who makes money by denying treatment to their client patients - states that there is no research - do you fact check them or do you quote them as an unbiased source verbatim into a Wikipedia article?
The myth/falacy article referred to is not a review of neurography. The late Dr. Tiel and I did a number of public debates at major neurosurgery meetings about the existence of piriformis syndrome. Dr. Tiel is greatly missed and I agree that those debates were very helpf ul. However, Wikipedia is not a debating society. The Wikipedia neurography article meets high standards for Wikipedia by citing numerous peer reviewed studies by numerous different groups including a recent publication in the New England Journal of Medicine - the premier journal in medicine along with Lancet -both of which covered neurography. Although there are more than 6,000 peer reviewed articles covering DTI and neurography, there is not one single article that has ever reported any formal evaluation revealing a negative aspect or problem with the clinical validity of the technique. It is basically a higher resolution MRI that is optimized to show nerve in greatly improved detail. You would have to ask patients to knowingly volunteer to be treated with a lower quality standard MRI which is acknowlededged by the insurers to not show nerve very well or to be operated on with no imaging at all or be randomized to have a high resolution MR Neurography imaging before surgery. Dr. Tiel expressed some personal opinions - he was an old fashioned doctor who never used imaging in his surgical planning and didn't feel he should start now. That is not a reasonable counterpoint to 6,000 formal peer reviewed publications. In the Wikipedia article I did include a discussion of possible drawbacks and concerns nonetheless. Laced with Silver makes it sound as if there was one article ever written that is "in favor" of neurography and one article that is "against" instead of 6,000 articles on the field and one article pair that debate the existence of a condition - piriformis syndrome - which is one condition in which neurography can be helpful. I think the place for the debate pair is as a reference in the piriformis article and it certainly can be referenced along with the dozens of other references from Johns Hopkins, UCSF, etc about neurography (it is available online like most academic articles and is not 'secrectly held' by Elsevier). The Tiel article is not a formal peer reviewed research article it is a debate so - I'm not sure if it even meets the Wikipedia standards for a technical reference.
It all comes down to whether Wikipedia wishes to ban anyone with a patent or an academic publication from contributing to Wikipedia. The NPOV/COI attack can be leveled at all of them. You just have to look for citation from multiple sources, full disclosure of authorship and open statements of conflicts all of which I have done. For anonymous non-academic contributors we need a statement of "pure" hobby interest, or we need to know why they want to write on a particular subject. in the end and NPOV or COI assessment has to flow from the content of the article from inflammatory hints about what might be wrong with the author.
Is "Laced with Silver" someone with an axe to grind? Consider the content of the post. It is nothing about the the science of nerve imaging, it is nothing about the clinical uses, an article with a very high standard of literature references to multiple different first quality sources, LWS posts with no references at all. It is about how much Laced with Silver got reimbursed from his/her insurance company for an imaging study. Consider the statement LWS added stating that "some patients got partial reimbursement" - not only is there no way to verify this fact - but, I thought that most insurance payments involve deductibles, percentages of usual and customary, or copays. Does LWS mean to suggest that most procedures are reimbursed in full but that only MR Neurography gets "partial" reimbursement. Does LWS have references to support this? Should that be discussed on a Wikipedia page about health insurance reimbursement or is it a technical encyclopedia matter about MR Neurography that has no available literature reference. Has LWS gone through all the medical information pages on Wikipedia to assess the reimbursement status for each or is this just about frightening away suffering patients from this one medical service? This is not NPOV. This just a few iota removed from vandalism. I'm sorry to be passionate about this, but so much of the internet is turning into Yelp published online insult fest. It is a shame to see Wikipedia go that way too.
Afiller—Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC).
Standards for editing
Delldot, I agree fundamentally, with encouraging participation, but these edits are not about the science but rather about the insurance reimbursement. Where they cover the science they are wrong. For instance, T2 neurography is about selectively eliminating the non-neural signal so that a weak endoneurial fluid signal can be detected. This signal provides a distinct image of the nerve. There are hundreds of publications. This editor suggests that it is all "post-processing" which is completely incorrect - that would mean it is an ordinary image that is manipulated in some way in a computer after it is collected to generate an MR Neurogram - bizarre unsupported idea. Does this person have any one out of the 6,000 papers in this are that can be referenced to support this position, if so why not provide a citation? . Stating that it is only "potentially" useful is biased, since there are numerous large scale formal outcome trials from Johns Hopkins, UCSF, UCLA, Cedars Sinai, Mayo Clinic etc showing clinical utility and it is taught in the neurosurgery and neruoradiology textbooks as a mandatory technique. The editor writes that it is potentially useful, and used for experiments. That is just completely inaccurate. Why should grossly inaccurate and unreferenced information be inserted into a painstakingly accurate and well referenced article. The Wikipedia editors are everywhere complaining about poorly referenced or poorly researched articles. It is very discouraging to specialists who take the time to write a formal detailed article if the article can then be chopped and altered by someone who obviously has no technical knowledge. This is a person trying to make a point that many health insurance carriers still classifies the technique as experimental so will reimburse it only on appeal. That was clearly stated in the article as written before the edits. We went through all this two years ago. If the LWS brought specific well referenced technical information to the article then that would be a good thing. If you plunge into a formal technical well referenced technical article by changing major components (e.g. saying it is post-processing rather than being a biophysically based data acquisition technique) with incorrect unreferenced unverifiable comments - it is vandalism. I take your point that if I care about the accuracy of the content then I have to be banned because it is not encouraging enough for those who value participation above accuracy. It would also be reasonable if LWS had accurate or even debated aspects of Neurography to add or dispute. I'm well aware there are different opinions on substantive matters related to this an other techniques. But this is not a biography of Britney Spears, it is a technical medical article. I appreciate the interest on the part of LWS, but if LWS means to change the definition of the technique and dispense with 20 years of science behind it, then if LWS has no reference to support this change, LWS will find that like everywhere else in Wikipedia, other editors will restore correct information. Honestly Delldot, you start out by threatening to ban me. That is not appropriate either. Afiller (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afiller (talk • contribs)
Well the textbook sources certainly seem solid, thanks for pointing them out. I haven't looked at them but I'll point them out to LWS. I certainly agree with the need to insist on sources, and I think it would be excellent if we could keep the debate in that territory. I think a great way for you to approach this from here on out would be to discuss each edit you disagree with with that editor, point to your sources for your point of view, and calmly explain why the sources they provide are not sufficient if that's your view.
I'm not threatening to ban you and that's not how I meant to come off in my previous post. But the angry approach and the ad hominems are what make me think you might need to take a step back. I don't feel that it's productive to approach a new editor with things like "why do you edit anonymously?"; "does this person have an axe to grind?"; and labeling clearly well-meaning edits as "vandalism".WP:AGF is an important principle. It's wonderful that someone with your expertise is willing to volunteer your time to help this project, but you're expected to adhere to the same standards of conduct as other Wikipedians. Besides, if the references are as solid as you point out, you have nothing to worry about, because ultimately it's going to come down to what the references say. Peace, delldot∇. 17:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Delldot. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've emailed you!
T
improving your user page
I think you should improve your User page by putting only relevant information.Moreover the most of text are short to read.Hence I think you could improve your user page .
Thanks and happy editing!
Suri 100 (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I was reading the book and going through and adding plot information but I stopped part way through because of school and never picked it back up again. Did you complete the entire plot, or is it still only part done?
Also, are you going to push it towards GA? I looked for more secondary sources and didn't find a huge number after I completed the GA for Quicksilver, but I can help you get access to anything in academic databases because of my attachment to Oxford and James Madison University right now. I look forward to whatever work you end up doing, Sadads (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that you can get help from me whenever you want. I am certainly in no rush to work on the article! Happy editing, and I look forward to seeing more work from you :)Sadads (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Ping
Saw your peeps from San Francisco on an episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern the other day. They seem to be doing good work and they seem to not be getting hassled quite as much as they do in some other locales.
Anyways, hope life's treating you fairly! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Doing well, still doing FNB! Sorry to take so long to see this, thanks for stopping by. How have you been? delldot∇. 01:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Also doing well. I'm really only on here sporadically anymore so I might not have even noticed had you answered earlier. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Sandbox to public
I have finished and saved the article in my userspace, I think. It does not show up in a search. Can't figure out how it gets to the published space. It is an article on "Toxic Employees"
Svbenoit (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Suzi Benoit
Aw, thank you! :D delldot∇. 15:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Votage Clamp
Dear Sir,
My name is Phan Phi Anh. I am attending to Pharmacy faculty, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. I have some questions about ion channels that need your help.
1. Why we would need a special technique called "voltage clamp" in order to measure accurately the ionic currents through cell membrane under a certain command voltage ?
2. why does this statement true " A pure membrane lipid bilayer is considered as a series of a resistor (Rm) and a capacitor (Cm) ?
I would appreciate if you could suggest some material for understanding more about ion channel and also voltage clamp technique.
Hi. I've been thinking about collaborating on writing a specific nonexistant article as I understand that you mainly write medical articles. Since this is not my area of wiki-expertise, I'd first like some suggestions on how prior research. For example, you could search up materials relevant to the term. The article I'm thinking of writing is cranial nerve spasm. Apparently, it is often caused by hallucinigenic drugs, but may have some other causes. However, I have done no recent research on this topic. Please suggest how this article may be possible. My current worldview of this potential article focuses partly on the pathology and partly on the psychological effects of this condition, if it exists, on areas that take into account personality. I realize most in the medical fields are likely not familiar with this line of thinking, however. Please suggest. Thanks. ~AH1(discuss!) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for neglecting you for so long, I'm so busy these days I'm hardly ever on the project! I have never heard of cranial spasm but it sounds like a fascinating topic. I'm not a medical expert, my only claim to knowing what I'm talking about is that I did an undergrad thesis on head trauma, but that's several years ago now. My suggestion for getting started on the article is to go on pubmed and find some review articles about the topic. Here's a search on cranial nerve spasm, you'll probably have to weed out all the articles that aren't on your topic. If you find an article you want to read but don't have access to the journal, email me and I'll see what I can do. Another idea is to search in google books for medical textbooks on cranial nerves and brain pathologies, and see if you can find a chapter or section on cranial nerve spasm. Have you looked at WP:MEDMOS for ideas about how to lay out the article? I find that the sections suggestion they have gives you a really good scaffold to start building an article on. I'm probably easier to reach by email these days, I can't put a lot of time into WP but I'm happy to help out with specific tasks if you ask me. Good luck, thanks for working on this! Peace, delldot∇. 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Your help is apprecaited
Respected Delldot,
Hope to see you kind and caring if you could help me improving my new re-written article [[2]] since previous one was deleted. I am quite new for edits and this article is writen for a noble cause to win the prays of orphans and victims of the the area. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godissupreme (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
ELs and related issues
Please take note of a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. I'm not looking for more comments, as there have been many already, but you're welcome to add yours if you want to. Presto54 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Diffuse panbronchiolitis
Hi, you might be interested to know that Diffuse panbronchiolitis, which you brought to good article level, is currently a featured article candidate. Perhaps you can comment on the nomination? --WS (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 2636 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.
MSU Interview
Dear Delldot,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 2636 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.
We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial.
I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.
Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.
Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Template:Stella4D has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.. You close the previous discussion, but a consensus on what to do with this templates was a bit unclear. So I'm re-listing it to gain consensus.Salix (talk): 14:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
