Jump to content

user talk:Bluerasberry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cowicide (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 19 December 2014 (→Thank you: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:Deletion discussions
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #44

Upjav has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upjav (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with template

Hey Lane! My name is Sofia Rocchio from Economics of Developing Countries. I'm having some trouble posting a "needs citation" indicator on a stranger's post within the webpage I'm working with. If you can just walk me through that or tell me where I could find the list of steps, I would be very appreciative. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1993sr (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on your page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

phase 111b trials

Hi i was wondering if anyone actually started a talk on phase 111 trials especially of Subcutaneous (SC) Toccilizumab (TCZ), as i'm considering taking part in trials in Ireland as i have RA... Regards jon

Hello Bluerasberry. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village.

6:30pm–8pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

I will be there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know there is a Legal status page? That the section has become a bloat and the claims should be on its page if anywhere. This isnt a case of adding to make a page, but to recreate the section that was broken out. AlbinoFerret 02:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret I see it now but did not see it then. After I saw it I deleted some content. I am still thinking of what to do. See you over there - thanks for keeping me informed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AlbinoFerret deleted the same text from the e-cigarette legal issues page. He just does not like what the MEDRS source says. If AlbinoFerret thought the text was relevant to that page he would of not deleted it from the other page. According to this diff AlbinoFerret thinks the recent review is unreliable for the claim but the review is clearly MEDRS compliant. QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your false accusations shouldnt be placed anywhere, let alone another users talk page. Secondly, a medical journal is not a reliable source for legal claims or opinions about people exercising their rights. If you want to discuss this more, do it on the articles talk page. AlbinoFerret 05:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown how a MEDRS compliant review is unreliable. Your opinion against using the review is irrelevant to whether the source is reliable for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is another WP:IDHT example from you. Content issues are to be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. AlbinoFerret 13:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for visiting. I move a lot slower than either of you. I am still thinking. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem BR, I am disabled and spend a lot of time at the computer. Take your time, while we dont agree on everything, you have shown a great willingness to work for the common good. AlbinoFerret 20:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline/Policy on healthcare professionals and editing or not editing wikipedia

Thanks for the discussion and offer to help on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-12-03/Op-ed. I thought I would respond here if that is OK rather than filling up the comments section. I am a registered nurse in the UK regulated by the code of conduct of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) - however I think my questions relate to all registered healthcare professionals around the world.

  • Some years ago Kevin Clauson presented a paper to a conference I attended, highlighting omissions/weaknesses in drug information on wikipedia as the initial results of a funded study he had participated in - I asked him whether he (or one of the research team) corrected the errors - he said that wasn't part of the project. I then asked if he (as a registered pharmacist) was aware of the problem and didn't fix it would he be liable if a patient was subsequently harmed by the incorrect information - we both agreed to go away and investigate.
  • I wrote to the NMC and Royal College of Nursing asking for guidance - one didn't respond and the other gave a wishy washy answer about individual professional responsibility.
  • I think "the regulators" worldwide (in the UK this would include Health Professional Council & General medical Council) who have responsibilities to protect the public, should advise their registrants whether they could be liable (in law or to the regulatory body):
    • If they edit wikipedia (everyone is responsible for their edits)
    • If they see an error on wikipedia and do not edit it
  • If there is any case law by anyone "injured" by information on wikipedia

Healthcare professionals should have the skills to evaluate and analyse information from a variety of sources (and help patients to do the same) - this is what I try to teach my students - however many patients will independently see information on wikipedia which may be wrong (out off date, incomplete or just plain wrong), and may take action based on that information which may be harmful or not as good as it could be.

I would suggest WikiProject Medicine would be best placed to help both the regulators and wikipedia by drafting some guidance.

(I tend not to edit health related articles & focus on history, archaeology and historic buildings in my area which are unconnected with my employment, but do have 60,000 edits over 10 years & some familiarity with wp policies and practices.)— Rod talk 18:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodw Let me think about this. At least for now, there should be a place on Wikipedia which collects all available information on this issue so that anyone can see what has been said and note the absence of what has never been said. This should be done in WikiProject Medicine. Without knowing what exists and what expected things do not exist, it is difficult to even have a conversation, and I at least can set up that much. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost, MEDRS, and agriculture

Howdy, seeing your discussion connected to the Signpost issue and @The Banner:'s mention of agriculture pages being savaged under the banner ( :-) ) of WP:MEDRS hit a nerve with me. That is mostly because I try to defend some mentions of Traditional Chinese medicine against accusations that it is fringe, which I think is cultural hegemony and suppressing a source of important hypotheses on which science can build. I also thought there was misuse of WP:MEDRS in the removal of any mention of the Séralini affair or of Mesoamerican nephropathy from the Glyphosate page. I consider that page to be a hotbed of the worst of wikipedian behaviour, so I don't want to drag either of you in there, but for a general impression of how to proceed, could I ask your opinion on this rather old edit that is one of the clearer examples where a source has been removed in that way? (One that upsets me more than that is this edit.) Thanks, but please feel free not to respond because I think this is extremely difficult to deal with. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sminthopsis84 Hello. Thanks for recognizing the obligation associated with taking a position, as you did when you noted that I could be "dragged" into the discussion. Thanks also for reading the Signpost, and what I said.
I participate in WikiProject Medicine. I feel like most of my assessments align with community thought at that board, and I appreciate your coming here to comment. You can also comment at WikiProject Medicine and I think you would get a similar answer.
I am interested in the Séralini affair article but I tend to stay away from controversy. I might give support in the future if people only needed comments on sources. I am going to try to give you a good answer because you asked about some issues of interest to me. I could be wrong about this - I have not read into the existing discussions.
In this edit it is said "glyphosate has been shown to cause indirect harm to humans". This is definitely a claim about an agent's effect on human health, so that falls under MEDRS, and requires an appropriate MEDRS source. Here is the source cited, so let's consider if it is MEDRS:
  • Samsel, Anthony; Seneff, Stephanie (2013). "Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases". Entropy. 15 (4): 1416–1463. doi:10.3390/e15041416. ISSN 1099-4300.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Arguments for this being MEDRS
  • Authors say in conclusion "This paper presents an exhaustive review of the toxic effects of the herbicide, glyphosate"
  • An authoritative seeming health claim is made - "The pathologies to which glyphosate could plausibly contribute, through its known biosemiotic effects, include... (disease list)"
  • The paper seems sound
Arguments against this being MEDRS
  • Entropy (journal) is not a medical journal; presumably this journal is not intended for health practice or reviewed by doctors
  • Neither the article's title nor the abstract present this article as a review article; they are not speaking MEDRS slang which is typically seen, so they seem from a non-medical field
  • It is not immediately obvious to me that this paper is purporting expertise in medicine. It seems like it was written by chemists and physiologists. Those fields have authority in theoretical toxicity, but to actually make a human health claim is another issue. I have not read the entire paper but the health conclusions are not where or what I would expect to see in the intro or conclusion.
  • I have suspicions that this paper is drawing conclusions beyond what was reported in the papers reviewed, which is out of bounds for a MEDRS source
My intuition here is to expect a MEDRS source and to say that this is not a MEDRS source. This seems like a fair toxicology paper, but if it were cited, I think it would be best to match this paper with any medical journal review which says "We considered this toxicology paper, and feel that these negative effects can happen in practice to humans." My doubt mostly stems from the paper seeming to have no connection to a medical doctor in the authorship, journal review, or writing style. It is an odd paper in a controversial situation.
The other edit is easier to assess. The problem is not the sources, but the writing style and combination of multiple ideas. The content here roughly says "the chemical caused health problems, and as a way to protect the health of people, governments created laws to regulate its use". It would have been less controversial to say "A study noted health problems. In response to this and similar studies, governments created laws to regulate the use of the chemicals." The problem here is suggesting that if the chemicals are used in a certain way, then people's health will be harmed. The claim of "health harm" should not be made without a MEDRS source, and even if a MEDRS source exists to prove the harm, MEDRS sources are not usually going to talk about contemporary politics. It is better to separate the issues of health and politics when there is doubt, and just tie the politics to state motivations rather than fundamental facts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your response. I really appreciate it, though I'm going to say that I don't understand, and I'll drop the matter, which might seem resentful or unfriendly. Really, it isn't meant that way, I'm amazed by the extent of your wikipedia efforts; it just seems to me that there is a huge difference in outlook between a non-medical biologist like myself and the MEDRS contingent. Like you, I would like to stay away from controversy. I should also stay away from editing in this area because I don't understand how that latter edit said "the chemical caused health problems". I thought it said "the government was concerned that it *might* be causing health problems and that it was therefore appropriate to take action to limit its use in order to possibly prevent harm to their citizens". Anyway, best wishes to you Bluerasberry. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sminthopsis84 Hello. Do what makes you happy. Hypothetically, if one wanted to engage, here are options for how to get most of that to stick.
  • Remove this text "In late 2013, concerns over so-called Mesoamerican nephropathy, an epidemic among farm labourers" and the reference. The link between the chemicals, the disease, and the passing of legislation is not obvious. All of the remaining text about legislation is outside of MEDRS scope.
  • If that statement and reference is to be kept, there are a couple of options.
    • Find a legal source which cites that particular paper as the one used to back the legal changes. This is again outside the scope of MEDRS.
    • Find a MEDRS source which ties the chemical mentioned in the legislation to that disease, so as to verify from a medical perspective that the chemical caused the disease.
I am willing to engage further and comment on changes to the page. When sentences get longer and multiple sources are used to back multiple unrelated claims in a single edit, if anything is wrong with any part of the edit, then often the entire edit gets reverted. This might not be fair, but I hope at least that it is consistent and predictable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for this discussion, it has made me think very hard. Would you say that this conclusion is accurate? I now think that the following statements are true: scientists find WP:MEDRS irritating and incomprehensible; WP:MEDRS forbids the inclusion of medical hypotheses. It is necessary to remember that medicine is an art, and is heavily based on credentialism. Science, on the other hand, relies entirely on evidence, which can come from non-credentialed sources such as graduate students. Thus we cannot say in Wikipedia "It has been suggested that Mesoamerican nephropathy, an epidemic among farm labourers, may have increased in areas where glyphosate has been applied on certain types of soil (VanDervort, D.R.; López, D.L.; Orantes, C.M.; Rodríguez, D.S. (2014). "Spatial Distribution of Unspecified Chronic Kidney Disease in El Salvador by Crop Area Cultivated and Ambient Temperature". MEDICC Review. 16 (2): 31–38.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))." because this is a statement about human health that requires a WP:MEDRS source, and no such source can be provided for an hypothesis. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sminthopsis84 Credentialism could be one way to explain the problem in medicine, but I think the people with the credentials would like to say that their credential is an indication that they follow defined practices. In medicine there is often no good evidence available, so without evidence there is no science, and yes in that common case medicine proceeds without science. One way to explain the problem in medicine is that there is unwarranted variation in standards of care even for very common medical practices and when no variation is intended. As examples, the United States, England, Scotland, and Canada have similar cultures, but their governments all publish different practice guidelines for medicine, and so physicians practicing in those countries do different things in very common situations even when all of them are trying to rely on the evidence. An example could be that if a patient were described on paper and multiple doctors were to make a recommendation, then there are cases where consistently all the doctors in a region would do something different from doctors in another region. It is presumed there is only one best practice, so this is a problem. The reason why non-medical papers on toxicology are suspect is because similarly, there is variation in what chemicals at what level are considered environmentally safe by different countries. Wikipedia tries to avoid making health claims about this when consensus is not established.
In medicine and due to MEDRS, Wikipedia has a bias for saying definitive statements like "Mesoamerican nephropathy, an epidemic among farm labourers, increased in areas where glyphosate has been applied on certain types of soil" and a bias against saying what you said, "It has been suggested " and "may have increased". The reason why Wikipedia does not report the "It has been suggested" papers is because for many issues, there are tens or hundreds of primary research papers, and as a matter of practicality, Wikipedia has no volunteer base which can summarize all of these lower-quality papers when it is still scrambling to cover first the best quality papers.
In the case of the paper you present, it says "CKDu in El Salvador may arise from proximity to agriculture to which agrochemicals are applied", which is a lot of qualification. The statement which I would expect from a MEDRS source is "CKDu (in any country) will arise from exposure to agrochemicals", rather than just establishing the correlation between the place and the work environment. It would be fine to say "The government of El Salvador and its health department say that Mesoamerican nephropathy is caused by glyphosate exposure", because that is not a medical claim and is outside the scope of MEDRS.
I only discuss MEDRS and do not depend on it. It is continually criticized, and that strange word "MEDRS" is the only term I have seen anywhere to describe the concept behind it. A lot of doctors from outside Wikipedia dislike the concept, so it is more of a Wikipedia thing than a medical community concept. If you want to talk more, share more here, or feel free to email me and we can talk by voice or video. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting, your suggestion that it might be okay to say "the government said this is true". I suppose that could be extended to saying "the government said this might be true". I think we all get caught up in outrage that it is so hard in the real world to proceed with preventative measures before the entire population has expired so that really definitive evidence has accumulated. It worries me, for example, that something similar to a MEDRS attitude may have been used to convince the two governments to withdraw their legislation, "there is no convincing evidence that this is the cause, therefore you must not act or we will sue you" (I don't really know what happened there). This may be particularly a problem with agriculture and other environment-altering activities, somewhat outside the realm of medical professionals, I think. As demonstrated above, my understanding of why there is such cause for outrage is inadequate. Thank you for the offer to email you, I don't see a need right now, but perhaps after another sleepless night thinking about this ... (and, of course, if you want to email me, please feel free). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sminthopsis84 Yes, as you say, governments are subject to pressure, as are many other organizations which give position statements. That is an issue outside the scope of Wikipedia.
More relevant on Wikipedia, the bar is rather low to present position statements in articles when they exist. When governments take positions it usually follows consensus from other more risk-taking organizations, and the positions of smaller organizations can be put into Wikipedia. Suppose that one wanted to add statements like "community group / medical society / think tank / university / individual expert acting alone said this is true". Again, adding a statement like that is outside the scope of MEDRS. To put a statement like this in Wikipedia, one needs to find a third party source which has published "X says this is true", because the third-party publishing keeps the statement from being a self-published source and thereby inadmissible. The grey area beyond this is establishing that a statement is not WP:TRIVIA. Proof that a position is not trivia is showing good sourcing for the reporting of the entity taking the position, establishing the notability of whomever gave the position, and pairing the position with comparable positions anywhere in the spectrum of opinions. Thanks for talking with me and helping me sort my own thoughts. It is fun and a challenge to think this through. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is insight that I doubt that I ever would have reached by myself, and very interesting. Thanks again to you for discussing this with me and elsewhere. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

.

Talk:Sexually transmitted disease#Requested move (2014)

You participated in previous related discussion. There is an ongoing move discussion, and I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words on my Talk Page and I hope you and your hamster have some happy holidays! :) Cowicide (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bluerasberry&oldid=638817944"