User talk:Biosthmors/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Majid Rafizadeh

Hi Biosthmors (talk), Thank you so much for your recent edits. Very helpful. I am trying to be constructive contributor on Wiki and learning! I did some rewriting of texts and deleting biased information in order to neutralize it. Do you recommend something else? Thank you! I did an overhaul of the article, Can you check the changes please! Thanks! Persia135 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Biosthmors (talk). Can you please check the edits on page you edited Majid Rafizadeh? Persia135 (talk) 7:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I checked Persia135. Thanks for the edits. It still needs work, in my opinion. Following WP:RS that can be WP:V would be a fantastic start. Do you happen to have an affiliation with the subject? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 02:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Biosthmors (talk)! No, I am a female interested in both Farsi and English sites. I think there is vandalism going on on the page. The subject is being attacked and he appears to be human rights activist. It seems that some would like to damage the credibility of the subject. For example, the first sentence is left with broken dots, etc. His achievements and career deleted. This seems to be an attempt to damage the credibility of the subject and to incite/add extra templates. Can you fix the page please? Thank you!! Persia135 (talk) 11:39, 6 Aug 2015 (UTC)

The article is back to the way it was. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Biosthmors (talk)! With your efforts, now people are trying to vandalize the page and hurt the human right activist. Thank you for your work. Persia135 (talk) 11:39, 20 Aug 2015 (UTC) 11:39, 20 Aug 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E8C:D950:DF0:375A:2530:8347 (talk)

Biosthmors (talk), we hope you do not have personal grudge and grievance against the human rights activist for opposing autocrats. 20 Aug 2015 (UTC)

Hi Biosthmors (talk), Thank you for joining us. We started a campaign to oppose Majid Rafizadeh. Politicalscientist1 and talk are with us. Someone told me that you are with us too. We have been trying to discredit this person because he keeps criticizing Iran and Syria with no reason. We have been trying to make editors add templates to his page, which has worked. talk has been good at this; We began by adding stuff to make editors add templates. Thank you again for joining us. Can we add another template to make him look worse? How can we add another bad template? We also tried to delete his page last time, but it did not work. Can you help us with that or adding another bad template?

Hello all. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We're not here to WP:Right great wrongs. We're just here to write a neutral encyclopedia. I happen to be disappointed with the quality of the article, but that doesn't mean I am trying to make the individual look "bad". Wikipedia just has certain quality standards it tries to meet. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Biosthmors (talk), we totally understand that you have to mention this on the surface. But we want to again thank you for joining our campaign of opposing Rafizadeh. Since you have high profile, can you make sure that (unlike for Rafizadeh) no one put templates or discredit these people on Wiki (they have similar pages like Rafizadeh): Karim Sadjadpour, Alireza Nader, Reza Aslan, Afshin Molavi, Valin Nasr.  We support these people since they are in favor of the Iranian government.  

Finally, can you remove these third party links from Rafizadeh's sources ..so we can make sure that his page will be further discredited or removed to hurt him?

http://www.france24.com/en/20120831-syria-majid-rafizadeh-kidnap-family-targetted-civil-war-shabiha-opposition-bashar-assad http://scholar.harvard.edu/majidrafizadeh/biocv https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_Scott_Lucas,_Eyal_Zisser,_Majid_Rafizadeh_about_risks_of_US_military_intervention_in_Syria http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/08/world/meast/syria-shiites http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/how-bashar-al-assad-became-so-hated/275058/ http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/07/jobs-key-to-middle-easts-revolutionary-wave/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEx245Tjgxc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vboe_KSUwrs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YdkZtFSq3o http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/profile/majid-rafizadeh.html http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/07/opinion/la-oe-rafizadeh-no-intervention-in-syria-20130507 http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/new-softer-nuclear-rhetoric-hides-irans-unchanged-policy http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/2012/07/viewpoint-lets-finally-acknowledge-that-war-is-raging-in-syria-13090/ http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/majid-rafizadeh http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/16/opinion/iran-rouhani-syria-rafizadeh/index.html http://english.cntv.cn/program/bizasiaamerica/20130206/103089.shtml http://archive.is/et7bf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCcRP8LjjFg http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/01/04/irans-economic-stake-in-syria/ http://iranian.com/main/blog/darius-kadivar/niac-ambassador-majid-rafizadeh-appeasement-iran-sanctions-intervention-syria.html

Republic, Lost and So Damn Much Money

Might it be sensible to add a "see also" for something like the following:

So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government (2009) by Robert G. Kaiser

I have not read Kaiser's book, but the title and Kaiser's bio suggest that this could be an appropriate "see also" for Republic, Lost ... ???

I asked, because you deleted a broken link to a nonexistent article on So Damn Much Money, and adding a "see also" like this could direct the interested reader to a book that sounds relevant while also acknowledging the contribution of the person who added "So Damn Much Money" to "see also".

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, DavidMCEddy. I put it in further reading, as wp:see also says we're not to put red links there. We're a "nation of laws" here. ;-) Thanks for asking. Kind regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the history, but the link could have been blue when created and changed to red, after some ranking editor speedily deleted an article on So Damn Much Money. Wikipedia has articles on books, but if a book is not "noteworthy", an article about it will likely be speedily deleted. That has happened to articles I've written, and I was discouraged from making other contributions to Wikimedia projects. We can't sacrifice the quality of Wikipedia for excessive sensitivity for the feelings of our contributors. In this case, the Wikipedia bio of Robert G. Kaiser suggests that his So Damn Much Money is probably carefully researched and documented. If so, it deserves to be cited, e.g., via a "see also" link to his bio mentioning that book, as I suggested. How can we get an evaluation from someone who has read the book? I haven't. Can you identify the person who added that red link? DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi DavidMCEddy. It was created as red because it was created when the page was created[1] (that's the initial article) and if you click on So Damn Much Money there's no mention of it ever being deleted. (I'm pretty sure there's always a record left of a link has been deleted, if it has been.) If you look at Iran\xE2\x80\x93United States relations, for example, it has been deleted and you see a record of it. To write a new article about a book, I would recommend citing a few book reviews to show it's received attention and press. That way the article demonstrates wp:notability. Then I'd also state the bare minimum summary as to what the book is. This is what I've done with the article 13 Bankers, an article that has now remained for years after I started it.

I don't doubt that So Much Damn Money is carefully researched and documented. I don't doubt it's notable and that it deserves an article. But no, to answer your question, I don't know how to track someone down who has read it. (For what it's worth, I don't see how that would be useful for us to build an encyclopedia here either. =) ) And I also don't see why we need something in the see also section now that the book is in the further reading section. Did you see this edit I made:[2]? I'm sorry you've been discouraged in the past by having contributions deleted, but I can still help with the learning curve. I have had some content deleted as well, for what it's worth! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thx. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy, your user page is interesting. And I appreciate you being here. I have created Government by the People Act and I have also contributed to Move to Amend. It appears we have similar interests. I receive emails from rootstrikers. Let me know if you have any questions, or feel free to shoot me an email through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Biosthmors Kind regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ping

Replied :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal

Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Neutrality cabal during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Wouldn't this be better if it was moved to one's user space? I have zero idea why it is needed?! Cheers! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Link

Thanks again for joining us at Emory today for the Art + Feminism Wikipedia Editathon! Here is a link to the course that we are supporting on Black Power in Film and History: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Emory_University/Black_Power_in_Film_and_History_(Spring_2016)/overview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alangpike (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the link. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Invite

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Neuroacanthocytosis

Thanks for your support, buoyed by which I've overhauled the whole article. I'd appreciate your feedback if you feel so inclined. Have a good one! Dubbin^{u | t | c} 11:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wanted to say thanks

…for your hard work at Prothrombin G20210A, and ask you not to be alarmed or offended by recent edits. I am simply calling attention to need for more updated sourcing, as there has been much done since the preponderance of references appearing, especially in understanding variations in frequency in different populations. As well, I have noted (as one trained in this) that stating frequencies without stating whether source population is healthy vs an otherwise selected population, without stating the geography/ethnicity of the population studied, and without reference to homozygous versus heterozygous leads to inaccuracy of content presented. (For instance, almost all statistics given in the article—and I have called for an expert to check this—appear to be for the frequency of occurrence of heterozygous individuals among those diagnosed with DVT.) For instance, Aleman et al (2013), while not the best source for us because it is a primary source, makes clear the degree of detail necessary to be accurate, in stating:

"Individuals with elevated prothrombin (hyperprothrombinemia), including those with the G20210A mutation in the prothrombin 3′-untranslated region… [note how this captures the fact that G20210A is not the only prothrombin mutation responsible for hyperprothrombinemia] have ≈3-fold increased risk for venous thrombosis. In particular, the [heterozygous] G20210A mutation is associated with ≈115% to 170% of normal prothrombin activity levels. This [heterozygous] mutation is present in 1% to 4% of the general European population, making it the second most common genetic risk factor for venous thrombosis in the white population."

In short, when statistics are given, the population on which they is based must be clearly stated (the 2-3-fold that was in the lead was without such details, and so was removed), and simple heterozygous must be somewhere specified (vs compound/double, homozygous, etc.).

Note that while the Mannucci & Franchini review added to Further reading supports a 2-3% frequency of the heterozygous state in the general population, it cites only one study, from 1998, and so I believe additional reviews need to be consulted before deriving a single, authoritative number. Because haematology is not my area, and because I do not have time to do the article justice (updating it, and checking the stats against the most recent reviews, clarifying populations), I have called for an expert from Wikiproject Medicine. I have also noted that some editorial contributions appear to be from non-native English speakers, because some copyediting appears to be needed, to make word choices and subject-verb agreements more standard.

Please, do not be offended by this attention to the article; we both have the same goal for the article, that it become a GA here at wikipedia. Cheers, User:Le Prof_7272 50.129.227.141 (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Template

Hi Biosthmors, You removed this, but the article never got updated with the content in the mentioned PMID. Is there perhaps another template with text which would be better suited to this job, i.e. "Content in this section is outdated, please update with information from [source]"? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahhhh... Thanks for the message LeadSongDog. Now I understand what the intended meaning was. I thought the template was saying the article too heavily cited an old source, instead of it neglecting a more updated source. When I just quickly looked at the template again, it looks ambiguous, and I am not sure if a more appropriate template is at WP:TC or not. One could also just create one's own announcement at the top of the page. I see Doc James has made some edits, perhaps the specific issue is now resolved. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Developing a Collaboration between ISBT and Wikipedia

I would like to develop a collaboration between ISBT and Wikipedia to improve the standard of transfusion knowledge on Wikipedia. I would like to become the Wikipedian who helps with this relationship and to become a Wikipedian in residence for ISBT. I believe that there is training for editors to improve their ability to edit and write new wikipedia article. Can you please point me in the right direction

Thank you so much TransfusionDoctor (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Right heart strain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronic lung disease (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) 09:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Good to see you around again :) Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tom (LT)! =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)