Jump to content

User talk:Ronk01/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ronk01! I am Madhero88 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MaenK.A.Talk 18:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources

Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)

Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess

Have a look at some related WikiProjects

Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or please feel free to ask for help on my talk page.

Again, welcome!

--MaenK.A.Talk 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

 Thank you for joining Cardiology task force, a collaborative effort to make the project more comprehensive and allot of improvment needed for many articles. Below are some ongoing tasks for you to take part in, or you can add a task to do. Another great place to check out is Category:Cardiovascular system stubs. Personal message (optional) MaenK.A.Talk 18:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Vocabulary of ancient Roman religion

Thank you for offer to mediate on our article.

I do not know whether it will be possible for me to continue to contribute to this article which I started.

It has sparked controversies since the beginninig (please refer to the discussion page for details). I must acknowledge user Haploidavey has supported my project at the start.

This article has been started by myself to offer English speaking readers a direct, first hand contact with the vocabulary and concepts of ancient Roman religion, a well defined cultural topic which is highly specific and related to the cultures of ancient Italy. I wished to offer an account of its specificities proper to the Roman-Italic cultural milieu. Originality and difference as offered by religion and the strictly related area of Roman law. This in consideration that wiki.en contained very fussy presentations of this semantic field: eg sacer, sanctus, templum, lex, omen...

Now as I said in the request of mediation I found that my article has been renamed glossary under the initiative of user Cynwolf and all the entries I had originally edited have been completely altered,sometimes even introducing oversimplified and arbitrary definitons. Please just read the discussion page for my points and point of view. I said I welcomed other editors to contribute, but this of course means mutual respect.I acknowledge that: 1) my English is not perfect 2) the original posts were sometimes too longwinded 3) they contained too long quotations of primary sources. So I do not object to other editors help to improve the language of the text, provide more concise exposition of the matter on some entries and add English bibliography. However I do not believe it is in the interest of readers if the view expressed in some English language works, never mind how much revered in the Anglophone academic milieu, are held up as auctority when they are wrong.

Moreover (last but not least) the scope of the article has been extended to discuss use of some terms in other contexts, ie Christianity, which is of course of no interest or consequence to the topic. Even if use is not religious but simply they turn up in the writings of a Christian author sometimes too.


Finally I stand by the accurateness and scientific value of what I contributed that was all based on published works of specialists that had done a great deal of academic background research.

User Cynwolf is particularly difficult to talk to as she tends to throw her weight about and to be patronising / personally aggressive. Please refer to the discussion page. Thank you.

Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Today I learnt that the case has been closed. I tried and find the casefile with your recommendations but I did not succeed: could you please tell me where/how I can find it?

Moreover the questions I posed have not been adressed in the answers of other editors. I think dialogue is going to be difficult at least with the two people I listed, since our positions on what the article should be are quite different. It is too easy tell me: "You can edit!" when what I have contributed has been substituted with other, totally different material...!Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Epinephrine, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Regarding you acting as a mediator

Hi Ronk01, It seems that this account was created only a short few months ago, do you have other accounts that you use? I think that to avoid misapprehensions it would be best that you not take on tasks of acting as a mediator just yet.

Best Regards, Unomi (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have responded on my talk page. Unomi (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Rorke's Drift

Hi, I responded to this on the mediation case page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-23/Battle of Rorke's Drift as well as the article talk page.Tttom1 (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andres SCV

I have blanked the SPI case [1] for the time being per your request to continue the mediation. You may undo the blanking once the mediation has concluded, and you feel there is still an issue of sock puppetry present. If you have any questions, please let me know. Regards, –MuZemike 00:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!

Ronk01 - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the Apartheid Analogy

The dispute still exists, and was summarized in opening statements by Randy Paddy. The crime of apartheid is not defined as an analogy to South Africa. Many of the sources cited in the article discuss the crime of apartheid, but do not mention any analogy. harlan (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat clarification

I took your decision to be in two parts - one, the sentence is not suitable for the lead and should be removed from the lede, and two, if properly cleaned up it should be placed in the "Teaching" section. I moved it to the "Talk" page to be discussed and cleaned up but it is now back in the Lead. Could you please clarify on the PR talk page otherwise the sentence will remain in the lead forever.Momento (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Already? :)

"No offense intended, just a bit frustrated."..., try dealing with 3-5 such individuals daily for over a year... you arrived at frustration-ville pretty quick, but welcome to our day-to-day world over there! Thanks for the efforts btw. -- Maelefique (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

FOIL method

Sorry: cross posted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, not a problem.

WW Casualties

The issue has been resolved, the Rwanda famine deaths are now on WW2 Casualties page--Woogie10w (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Epinephrine mediation

Hi Ronk01, we are ready to begin mediation here. Sunray (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes

Hey mate! Regarding this mediation case, of which I am the nominator, mediation is still required. It's this tiny thing (the proposed text), but it raises nationalistic issues with some editors. All has been said, I just need somebody to go over the discussions linked and provide an objective opinion, and then help reach a consensus. Night w (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Do you mind if I ask where you're at with this? I'm not trying to be pushy; I can see that you're also engaged on a couple of other medcab cases. Just curious ... Night w (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ronk01. You have new messages at 1234r00t's talk page.
Message added 17:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's still open... Mr. R00t Talk 17:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy mediation

because of a talk page request on the MedCab page, I've offered to take over this mediation. I just want to make sure that you actually don't want to continue as mediator (don't want to step on your toes). also, what was the legal concern you were worried about? I haven't had a chance to go over the mediation page yet. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would reccomend that you do not take this case until it has been sent over for requests for formal mediation, since I believe that this is where this belongs. Once this has been done, feel free to take it. The legal issue was regarding the rather heated tone, I was concerned tha tlagal threats could break out, or could result from the article. Ronk01 (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

eh, I'm not so worried about the formal mediation thing - if it starts to go that route it won't matter what's happening in MedCab. might as well see if I can get it under control first. I'll go swap our names on the mediation page now. --Ludwigs2 08:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Ronk01. You have new messages at Soman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Soman (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ronk01. You have new messages at Soman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--09:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to say, but I've not attacked any fellow editors, except their vandalist edits. So far as NPOV is considered, then I am not forcing in any Point of View on wikipedia. I try to make articles more balanced by covering both the sides of the coin. Moreover you can see that majority of editors on wikipedia pages has support my edits. Just like on this one CPIM.. Warm Regards. -Viplovecomm (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, acording to a mediator whom you are currently working with, yuo have made several attacks, even attacks regarding supposed "vandalism" are not acceptable, especially when the edits are not blatant vandalism. Remember, revert, warn, block. Regarding NPOV, you show clear and often strong bias, especially on socialist topics. Thanks much. Ronk01 talk, 03:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

- The mediator which you are talikng about i.e. "Mr. Root" has no or little knowledge of Politics of India. I've been an editor of that article for past 4 years. This user Deshbhakta in my personal opinion has an agenda to push(I am not attacking anyone here, just telling my doubts, anyone please dont take in other way), He continously push forward the vandalist agenda regarding "Harmath" from past 4 months, when more editors try to went against him and reverted his edits, he didnt accept the edit done by them. The credibility of Harmath is still in doubt. I hope you will send such kind of Messages to him too.
The so called mediator Mr. Root, unfortunately, is giving an open hand support to deshbhakta. Having an EDITORIAL DIFFERANCE OF OPINION is not vandalism, but to continously disobey the voice of EDITORIAL MAJORITY is somehow treated as vandalism.
I want to develop that article, there is so much left of decades during 1970's-90's and 2000.
There is little much written on "International Stand" of CPIM.
Please this mediator is also not free from Bias, you can read here what the "Soman"(the very first editor of this article) has to say on the issue. It is also quite visible how Mr. Root is protecting Deshbhakta so openly.[Mediation].

Please take all the considerations in mind, please listen to other users like me, soman, nithinj, ravi vajpayee and others. Then make a final view of the dispute.

Warm Regards, -Viplovecomm (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I have to say here is that you should have mentioned the dsipute on AN/I instead of using warning templates typically reserved for IP and blatant vandals. (Though one of your 3RR warnongs waas qusestionable) Additionally, I would reccomend a Request for Comment on the Harmath matter, in order to guage outside opinions and knowledge. Ronk01 talk, 14:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

At no point in this process did I attempt to claim that I knew anything about politics of India. I only was trying to help get you guys to an agreement so that you would stop edit-warring. Mr. R00t Talk 19:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Hep C Image

FYI Re: your comment, I've nominated the image for deletion, here. BruceSwanson (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD Fontana Amorosa

Hi! If you nominate an article for deletion, you should not !vote again as you did in this edit. I have struck out the comment for this reason, otherwise the consensus assessment could be biased. Another unrelated notice: Check your signature, your "talk" link doesn't bring to this talk page -there is a typo. Thank you! --Cyclopiatalk 14:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

That's right Ronk01, I hadn't forgotten about being blocked. But don't you see how bizarre it is that PatW claims the "the article basically appears to be hiding any information from the public that followers think is bad publicity" when the "followers" who he says are responsible have had nothing to do with the article for a year. It seems that it isn't really the article that is the problem, it is that PatW doesn't like the "followers" and the fact that I am editing again. Even though, if you take a careful look at my proposals and edits to the lead, every single one is proper and needed to be done.Momento (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most of your proposals were proper, the element of need could be contested. Ronk01 talk, 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Should I go through them individually for you to confirm my statement that "every single one is proper and needed to be done".Momento (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I did not say that I contested those changes, I would be interesting to hear your justification. Ronk01 talk, 03:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you asked, here are the diffs [2].

And starting from the top - 1) Meaningless statement - what does "established" mean. 2) Insert reference to major portion of article (Charisma) 3) Correct date.(1974) 4) Removed unsourced and incorrect "emancipation". 5) Removed redundant "woman" from "western".(Western woman) 6) Changed "universally" to less absolute "widely". 7) Relocated material not present in the article.(Aldridge)

It is extraordinary that such obvious and trivial corrections should have received so much opposition and I received so much criticism.Momento (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, all of the edite were good, most were needed. But the criticism is a result of your close association with Jossi, who is, well, less than loved here on Wikipedia. Ronk01 talk, 04:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ronk01. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
Message added 00:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:RFPP

Hello, Ronk01. You have new messages at WP:RFPP.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(In short: I've applied pending changes protection instead of semi-protection). TFOWR 15:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland mediation

I think that some of the confusion about your post on all our talk pages is that most of us are interpreting the mediation as applying to more than just East Africa. We are looking for a result that will be workable throughout Wikipedia wherever Somaliland might appear, for example, at Yemeni Arabic. --Taivo (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but the page that I have influence over is East Africa, so this is the only page that I can request not to be edited, if you would like to add other pages to the mediation, feel free to. Ronk01 talk, 03:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Paradox Lockdown

Use db-attack (G-10) instead. Marcus Qwertyus 01:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, wasn't sure if I should use one, or both, because the page fit both CSD's Ronk01 talk, 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There's talk of configuring twinkle for db-multiples. Marcus Qwertyus 01:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Ronk01 talk, 01:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interim we may just get rid of the hair-trigger. Some of twinkle will be rewritten entirely but no one seems to want take that on and my script writing ability is minimal. Marcus Qwertyus 20:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitively proven

Howdy, Ronk01. Can you explain this? Your edit summary got truncated. --David Iberri (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically I was trying to say that epinephrine has not been shown to work makes it sound like it is ineffective, when we, as physicians who handle codes know that it does do something, but not always and not always to the extent we want it to. Ronk01 talk, 06:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ronk01. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 02:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Presenting the compromise

Right, so the proposal is now in the public domain. I had thought you were going to wait and present it when other participants were also there to discuss it as well. No matter. But it does potentially put you in the position of defending it on your own. I think that if you take it slow and avoid becoming reactive it will be more likely to be accepted. It is important to listen to concerns raised, IMO. I will help out as needed. Sunray (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Eritrean Football Players

I have declined all your speedy-deletions of Eritrean National Football Team players. They convey individual notablility, and expand their careers beyond a simple listing of their names on the main ENFT article. If you feel they must be deleted, take them to AfD. Thanks, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been away on holidays for a few days and I am pleased to see that your PRODs and Speedy Delete attempts on my articles for individual Eritrean international football players were declined by administrators. These players played full international matches for a FIFA member national side and were awarded full caps, and thus meet the WP:GNG guidelines Steve-Ho (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediation closed

I've closed the mediation as successful. Thank you very much for your participation. I very much appreciated your thoughtful proposal that made resolution possible. I'm looking forward to seeing the three of you proceed with the development of the new article. Best Wishes. Sunray (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Phersu User Page

Ronk01, I just cleared out my user page only for you to revert it and warn me about my editing... Can you tell me why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phersu (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, on Huggle, you showed up as an IP for some reason, and since I saw no edit summary I assumed that it was some IP vandal and reverted, again apologies. Ronk01 talk 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Maybe I had forgotten to log in (it has been known..!)

I do the same thing. Ronk01 talk 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wdefcon

When you update the defcon, please put your signature in the |sign= parameter... The info goes in the |info= param. —fetch·comms 12:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: User Warnings

Re your message: Is there a particular reason that you left me this message? You do realize that I'm an admin, no? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I you issued a Level four without following sequence. The rest is my standardized message to users who I have noticed making similar mistakes in user warnings. And as for your sysop status, remember, Sysop is merely a set of extra tools, not a superior standing in the community. Ronk01 talk 00:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am quite well aware of the sequence of warnings. I've been dealing with vandals for over four years now. While most of the time, warnings should be issued in the proper sequence, that is not always done depending upon the vandal and the severity of the vandal. Sometimes jumping levels of warnings is acceptable. Sometimes vandals are blocked without any warnings at all. As for my question about you being aware that I am a sysop, the reason I asked is that the note you left me on my talk page has a template like tone to it. If there is a particular vandal that you would like to discuss where I left a level 4 warning without earlier warnings, I would be happy to discuss it with you. If you are referring to LeftyLarry7687 (talk · contribs), if you check the user talk page history then you will see that he was issued two level 1 warnings and then I switched to a final warning since it obvious that he is not here to be constructive with his racist and vulgar edits. I blocked him and my block was reviewed by two other admins and sustained. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, I should have checked the diffs, though I do tend to stick to sequence myself (I use 4im for particularly bad vandals). The reason the notice sounded template like is because it is a template, well more like a standard message I send to users who issure warnings out of sequence. Ronk01 talk 01:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I probably would have issued a 4im warning, but he was already issued warnings before, so the wording of 4im doesn't make much sense there (nor does it help that DASHBot isn't aware that a vandal has blanked a warning and resets its warning level counter back to 1). Sometimes warnings are issued in non-sequential order. For example, I just ran across Lzcrusher (talk · contribs) who got issued 2-2-4-block by three different admins (the advertisements in question were deleted, so you won't be able to see the edits). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside view on talkpage messages

I think messages like this work best when they sound personal and don't assume too much, when they leave room for prior miscommunication or an alternative approach. In short, AGF.

How about:

Hi, [Patroller] I noticed you didn't follow the typical 4 warning sequence on [Vandal's] [User_Talk]. It's not always required, but it helps the Administrators to have a full progression of warnings because it lets them issue blocks quickly and without controversy. If there was a reason for stepping up the sequence, great, but if not, it's generally best to stick to using the four clear warnings leading up to an AIV report. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks and happy patrolling! [Ronk].

If you want to compare it to something, this is basically a level-1 warning, but perhaps even more personal. This kind of message is less confrontational or bureaucratic. Even though you delivered your advice clearly and with an explanation, it still assumed you were right, the editor was wrong, and there was pretty much no other way to do it. As you saw, this approach can rub some editors wrongly, particularly experienced editors, because it implicitly puts the burden of proof on them to justify their actions. Those are my thoughts on it, maybe they'll be useful. Ocaasi 01:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ronk01. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
Message added 21:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I was wondering what happened. Blue Rasberry 21:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And again on my page! Blue Rasberry 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Vandalism information

Hi, just letting you know I have removed your Huggle RPM gauge on that template. If you check on the talk page and it's archives, many discussions before have turned it down. Since there can be many forms of vandalism, like attack pages, and since the Huggle RPM changes VERY frequently, consensus looks like it is against a gauge of that sort. If you have a discussion to go with it, I'd would be happy to undo that. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Really the gauge (which, if you noticed included percentages, which are much more stable) was meant to act a a guide to first time users dealing with plain old vandalism. Percentages of RPM/EPM have some support on the talk page. So perhaps only restoring the percentages? Ronk01 talk 22:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's get more of a discussion going at the talk page before putting something in. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Stethoscope

I just got a littmann 3200 electronic stethoscope with which I am slowly adding sounds to Wikipedia as you can find hereWheeze. More help would be nice thus I recommend the electronic one :-) The mastercardiology was sufficient though.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, good work with the uploads. Secondly, I think I have a collection of some fairly interesting sound bytes that might help you out, if only I could find them. Thanks for the input. (Still undecided) Ronk01 talk 15:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes if you have sounds you could release into the creative commons that would be great. I am not very good with heart murmurs in particular :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I will look around in my library and see if I can find the right flash drive. Ronk01 talk 18:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic mediation

You are right romp, that is the solution, and someone with a PhD in MEDICAL sciences from HARVARD and who runs a research centre has done so [Critique of Ernst's review]. The only reason it is in chiroaccess is because they are the target audience for this critique. The website it is in is irrelevant given the author's status. Quack guru refuses to use this, for unknown reasons. And you can see how quickly he goes against your suggestion. Please comment on your thoughts on the mediation cabal page.

Javsav (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

-Hmm for some reason the direct link from Wikipedia wasn't working for me, only would work when I copied it in to the address bar.. weird. If you have the same problem here's a google search link, it's the first one that comes up (Death by Chiropractic etc...) [Google search for critique of systematic review]Javsav (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Book

Yes the book looks like a great overview. Do not have any experience creating books though.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful

I'm not sure, but repeatedly reverting a Admin is like playing with fire.--intelati(Call) 05:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I will not go beyond one revert because I hate edit warring, but I believe that Admins are no better than any other editor (they just have some extra buttons). Ronk01 talk 05:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here, but one extra button is the infamous "block" button.--intelati(Call) 05:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but that would be Admin abuse, which would lead to ArbCom, and prompt desysoping. Ronk01 talk 05:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
After 3rr, Then its nearly acceptable for a Admin to block--intelati(Call) 05:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
yes, but I never go beyond 1-2 reverts. Ronk01 talk 05:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
There's really no need to revert administrators or experienced editors - unless they're clearly violating a policy or guideline. It'll be better to discuss the issue on the talk page. Also, there's no need to interpret things so strictly. We all know what the choices are, and we all know that option three doesn't count. Netalarmtalk 05:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I normally never revert without consensus (I actually have made only fifteen or so reverts of other experienced editors, I think that kind of thing it a bit like admins wheel warring), but it just bothered me that people would want to waste their vote. I was going to reopen it, but someone beat me to it. Ronk01 talk 05:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

They're voicing their opinions, just like you and the other editors, thus I don't see a real problem. Yes, that option doesn't do much, but it's still an opinion, right? I guess what I'm saying is that we need to trust other editors that they know what they're doing. If no one has removed that, it would be safe to assume that no one has a problem with it - thus there's no need to remove it. Anyway, I'm off to bed now. Netalarmtalk 05:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)

You've got quite one hell of an edit notice :):) I dropped in here, quite late I should say, to thank you for your support vote in my RfA. Was going around personally thanking everybody, so took time. Thanks again Ron. Sincerely... Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I got (read stole) most of the notice from User:Mlpearc Ronk01 talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks cool :) Take care Ron and thanks again. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ronk01. You have new messages at Begoon's talk page.
Message added 05:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I added a comment to my response that might solve the issue  Begoon•talk 05:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, with your permission, I'd like to move the discussion from my talk page to the Poll talk page, since it would, I believe, benefit from a wider input than just mine and yours. I won't move it unless you agree with that, though.  Begoon•talk 08:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Image

Looks like a case of hyperlipidmia. I have heard of cases such as this. Was probably not fasting ( ie the person was not telling the truth ). I have seen pregnant people who claim they have never had sex.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the image malfunction, apparently my size configs didn't register. Anyway, I had a case just like that walk into the ER here at the hospital (we kept him fasting before we drew) the numbers were a bit lower though. But as for the lying, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised, since I had a woman with African trypansomiasis tell me that she had never been to Africa when I could clearly see the photos of her posing in front of a herd of Zebras (I had to appreciate the irony) on her iPhone. It reminds me of a certain TV doctor who once said "everybody lies" Ronk01 talk 02:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Somaliland Mediation

Hello Ronk, I am looking to see whether you are ready to give a possible update, or a reason why you would prefer to not make such a statement on the mediation talk page. I have been checking for quite awhile, so I thought some direct communication would remind you of the discussion there. Regards, Outback the koala (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought you wanted PhilKnight to give a statement, not me. I can have something prepared within a week. Ronk01 talk 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Really it was directed at all those involved in the mediating, so I will pass this along to the others including Phil. Outback the koala (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

PPI Assessment Wants You!

hi Ronk01, you signed up to help assess medical policy related articles on the project. But are you interested in assessing other articles? Because this project is a little bit different than other Wikiprojects especially in assessment. There is more information about it on the talk page but basically you would assess about 8-10 specific articles approximately once a month. Other people would assess the same articles and I will be doing some analysis of the assessments to learn things about article assessment in Wikipedia. Like do subject matter experts rate differently than Wikipedians? What is the best way to measure article quality? How does this article quality assessment compare with the results from the new article feedback tool? If you would like to be involved, your participation would be very appreciated. Please let me know on the assessment page or on my talk page. Thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Assessment with Wikiproject: U.S. public policy

Thank you for assessing with the PPI, assessing with this project will probably be different than assessing with other projects in Wikipedia. It's different because the many of the articles are stub, start, or C class, and we are not working to assess long lists of articles, but will have multiple reviewers assessing the same set of articles. We are looking for Wikipedians who want to take a more in depth look at assessment and help define what is article quality. Please go to the WP:USPP Assessment page to find more details and your assessment page with the first group of articles for you to evaluate. Thanks and happy editing, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronk01, thank you for assessing articles in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. I have learned a lot from many of the assessors comments and am really excited about the insight from this group of Wikipedians. I hope you are finding some benefits to involvement in this project. 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so if interested, those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, and 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating.
To give you an update on assessment, about half of the assessments are complete for the first part of this first assessment. I had some trouble finding public policy experts to join us in assessing, but finally managed to recruit a group last week, hopefully some of them will join the discussion on the assessment talk page. Next week, I should have some preliminary results to share with you, I will also post the second assessment request very soon. The discussion on the talk page is very exciting, and I hope if you are interested, you will provide input on the Article Feedback Tool which is being piloted on articles in WP:USPP. Please let me know if there is anything I and the project team can do to make working on this project a more positive experience. Thanks again, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor review transcluded

Hello there. Sometime in the past, you requested an editor review, but you forgot to transclude it onto the main page. Thus, you may have been wondering why no one gave you any reviews. I have now transcluded the request, so please check back in a while for reviews. During the meantime, please consider reviewing another editor. Thanks. If you have any questions, feel free to message me. Netalarmtalk 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like you already tried to archive it yourself. I've completed the archive process (your request was still showing up in the backlog). All fixed. Netalarmtalk 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

PPI Assessment Update

Thanks for contributing to WP:USPP, your assessments are a part of a deeper look at assessing article quality in Wikipedia. The quality and rationality behind the assessment scores by the Wikpedians on this project is really impressive, it is an insightful and knowledgeable group. There is some information about preliminary results of assessment data on the project assessment talk page, I hope you check it out and add your thoughts. There is also an additional article assessment request for you. This assessment set will wrap up the first experiment which analyzes the consistency of the quantitative metric and compares subject matter expert assessment to Wikipedian assessment.

The second experiment will start in November and you will be asked to assess articles and also provide feedback on the Article Feedback Tool. The results of that experiment will compare your idea of article quality to the ranking from the Article Feedback Tool and your input will help improve that tool. I hope you enjoy being a part of this research, I am pretty excited about the results so far, and am looking forward to continuing to work with you on assessment. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Heart sounds

I have started uploading heart sounds. It is a bit of a trick to get them on Wikipedia. Wondering how you would describe this? It sounds like there is a split second heart sound a little ways in. You have to play it twice to get it to play properly sometimes.

Normal heart sounds
Normal heart sounds as heard with a stethoscope
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My computer's volume control is a bit messed up, but it sounds kind of like a split S2, the patient was probably breathing in deeply. Still normal though, unless you sped up the recording. There could be an S3 in there though, the speakers on my laptop are worthless for this kind of thing. Ronk01 talk 01:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

These are my own heart sounds. I hope it is normal :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

WP:USPP thanks you!

Ronk01, thank you for contributing to article assessment for WP:USPP. Your assessments are very appreciated. There will be weekly updates about the research for this project posted here, look for the first one tomorrow. The next assessment request will come in early November. There is a lot of expertise and discussion about article quality happening in the project, so stay tuned. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Eosinophilia

Have made a few comments and suggestions. Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I could use your help

Well, as a cardiologist I think this is an important wiki issue to discuss. The human heart article is horrible. It has a lack of sources and could use a lot more. It seems like a article that could use a cardiologist's touch. I will try to improve it but it is important to note I have no medical background. Thanks! Edit: Random question: Why is their not standardized diagram of the heart? Everyone I see looks different. Is their anyway you could take a photo of the heart so I could show a graphic artist who can improve the current images on the page? Peter.C • talk 10:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I will put the article on my worklist (expect to see improvement later in the month.) With regards to a standardized image, I rather like File:Anatomy Heart English Tiesworks.jpg for surface anatomy and File:Heart diagram-en.svg for cross sectional anatomy. But certian articles require specific images and views, so total standardization would be rather difficult. Ronk01 talk 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

How's your Online Ambassador experience going so far?

Hi Ronk01/Archive 4,

We're starting to get into the busy part of the semester for Online Ambassadors, and we want to check in and see how you're doing, what your opinions about where we are now, and any feedback you may have.

Please answer these questions either on my talk page or send them to me by email.

1. How many mentees are you currently working with?

2. Have you reached out to students who don't have mentors yet? If not, would you be willing to?

3. What do you think of the content of messages on the Google Group?

4. What do you think of the volume of messages on the Google Group?

5. Do you participate on the Google Group much? If not, what would make you participate more?

6. Are there any problems you've experienced so far?

7. Is there anything else Sage or the rest of the Public Policy Initiative team could do to make your experience as an Online Ambassador better?

8. Are you okay sharing your username with your answers to our Public Policy Initiative team, or would you prefer to remain anonymous?

Thanks for your feedback! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Race

Not all anthropologists are social scientists, so you edit is clearly wrong. S.O.Y. Keita who wrote the article doesn't say what you are claiming he says by your edit change, and although he is an anthropologist, he is a biological anthropologist, not a social scientist, just as forensic anthropologists are not social scientists. And you shouldn't use the word 'hotly' unless it is in the source, and then it should probably be directly attributed to the source. Dougweller (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, an error of syntax. I never meant to make the connection between the two. I'm an MD, but my undergrad was a double major, Anthropology and Biology. (By the way, there is no such thing as a "social anthropologist" unless you are referring to cultural anthropology) I can assure you that the current state of the article does not reflect broad scientific consensus, no geneticist will tell you that race has no genetic component, neither will a forensic anthropologist tell you that morphology has nothing to do with race. My edit simply clarified the statement made in the article. I will not revert, because I have a strict self-imposed 1RR, but please, let's discuss this before taking further action. Ronk01 talk 05:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


(edit conflict)::You need to read what you wrote then, because what you say you wrote is not what you actually wrote (edit conflict), which was "Anthropologists and other social scientists". Of course forensic anthropologists talk about race, I know that to be the case. And 'anthropologists' does not have the same meaning in the UK as it does in the US, so the word is ambigouous. We have an article on Social anthropology by the way. But in any case, the statement was sourced and your wording doesn't appear to be true to the source. I'm out soon, so can't carry on this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Account Creation Interface Request Confirmation

I just requested an account on the ACC account creation interface, and this is the required talkpage confirmation. (The message indicatted the need for a descriptive edit summary, but since creating a new section does no allow and es, the section creation auto es should do) Ronk01 talk 03:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process.
You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly.
Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed" by the bot and "Flagged user needed" in the tool. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.
Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

students to mentor

Per recent discussions on the Ambassadors list, we're going to try out assigning mentors to some of the students that don't have one, beginning with Media, Politics & Power in the Digital Age. Would you be willing to mentor User:Thomap10, User:Seth Flaxman, and User:Janedubs?

If so, please introduce yourself to each of them, perhaps along these lines:

"Hi! I'm Ronk01, and I've been assigned as your mentor. (If you'd rather choose your own mentor or don't want one, just let me know; you can request a different mentor from this list of Online Ambassadors.)

I'll keep an eye on your edits as you work on Wikipedia for your class, and try to pitch in where I can. If you'd like any help or advice, please let me know."

After that, don't forget to update Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Mentors to list your mentees, and if you've reached your limit, move your entry down to the "additional ambassadors" section.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks. • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being my wiki mentor, that's reassuring! Thomap10 (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Next WP:USPP assessment

Hi Ronk01/Archive 4! Since Amy Roth's out on maternity leave, I'm pushing out the next round of assessments she needs. This time, we're comparing your assessment to readers' assessments. And instead of us assigning you articles, we're letting you pick! The full list of topics is on a subpage of the Assessment tab on our WikiProject. Please choose 10 of the articles to assess. Use the link in the section title to go to the appropriate version of the article.

Thanks for all your help! Please let me know if you have any questions! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ronk01, just wanted to ping you again about this. Ideally, I'd like the assessments completed by this week. Please choose your 10 from the ones that have 2 or fewer assessments completed. Thanks! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply

Here is a breakdown of our articles [3] and there popularity [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassador selection process

Please share you views on the current version of the proposed Online Ambassador selection process, which the steering committee has recommended for adoption by the ambassadors program. Once we settle on a selection process, we can start recruiting more Online Ambassadors for next term (in which we will have more students, and the students will be more involved with mentors from early on).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Planning for next term in the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Ronk. We're trying to figure out how many students we can mentor next term and how many additional Online Ambassadors will be needed. Based on the revised plan for what participating courses will be like next term, I've sketched out what will be expected of mentors. Please look that over, and then go to the online ambassadors talk page to indicate much mentoring and other ambassador activities you'd like to do next term. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

happy holidays from PPI

Thanks Ronk01, for all your work assessing articles with WP:USPP over the past few months. I will have some results to report to the assessment team in January. I am concerned about your Wiki-stress, I hope that you feel valuable to the WP:USPP, because you are. (I am new to Wikipedia too, and want to start editing more (I made a non-WMF username), but I just haven't really gotten started yet, my personal life has had some major stuff.) A woman in a focus group conducted by PPI had a great point: if you improve the information on a Wikipedia page, then since Wikipedia is always one of the top results in a search, you just improved the knowledge of everyone who looks up that topic. Even if is doesn't always feel like you made a contribution or are appreciated, what you do in Wikipedia matters. Please hang in there, WMF is aware that the number of editors is dropping and the foundation is looking into why that is, if you have any thoughts about it, let me know and I will try to get it to the proper channel. The next semester should be pretty exciting there are over 25 university classes signed up with the project. Your input is helping to gauge how successful the project is, not just at improving the quality of public policy articles, but at incorporating Wikipedia as a teaching tool and recruiting and retaining college students as editors. we still need you in 2011, but it will mostly be assessments of student articles. Currently, there is another round of assessments to look at the improvements students made to their articles. If possible please assess by 5 January 2011; these results will be presented at an international conference later in January! Have a wonderful holiday season, all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Surgical approach to PPH

Ronk01: I am a Torrent-Guasp believer and appreciate the vision of the myocardium being rolled out in a single band eventually leading to the roots of the great vessels anchored to opposing sides. The physics implied in this belief is less well understood. I think we could agree that LV mass migrates to the RV in most types of pulmonary hypertension [PH]. Theory: Could viable RV mass be moved across the septum back to LV mass in a muscle flap transfer for end stage PH? Happy holidays, LAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeben (talk • contribs) 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, If I understand you properly, and following Torrent-Guasp theory, moving a tissue flap may be possible, but it would depend greatly on the stage of the disease. A thin (less than 1cm) flap may well be viable, but anything too thick could be problematic. So for end-stage disease, I would be very cautious in moving hypertrophic myocardium. Additionally, the nature of the cardiac vasculature would limit any attempt to demigrate tissue. Thus I would rather treat medically, and if surgery was necessary, I would preform either atrial spetostomy, Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy (if indicated), or, as a last resort, lung transplantation. Some cases may require heart-lung transplantation. I would be interested in the results of trialing your proposed technique on a human analogue though. Ronk01 talk 03:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Clarification: Posit an operation for end stage PH. Move a computationally measured and layered myocardial muscle band transfer across the septum from RV mass to LV mass to address primary or secondary Pulmonary Hypertension. Randas Batista had a unique geometric surgical approach (primarily in LV failure) but perhaps threw salvageable myocardium in the scrap bucket a little too quickly. As a non-surgeon, I can only imagine how preservation of the myocardial vascular tree would crowd the working conditions of such an endeavor. Endpoints would be mathematically straightforward and measured intraoperatively as the transfer should immediately reduce RVEF (and therefore pulmonary circuit pressure) while increasing LVEF. The underlying etiology of the PH would dictate how quickly a recurrence may occur. Trials may perhaps be addressed in an existing porcine lab with unique IT demands.--lbeben 22:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

PPI Research Update

First, thanks Ronk01, I am in awe of the work the assessment team did for this project. The results from the quantitative metric assessments were amazing, really. Check out what your work shows about Wikipedia article quality - I think it’s exciting, but you’ve probably figured out by now that I’m a bit of a nerd. A summary is posted on the Assessment page and a report will be on the Outreach wiki.
Second, I wanted to ask if you haven’t done many assessments on the Student post articles, to please do a couple; articles toward the bottom have only 1 or none assessments. I know some of the material is pretty dry, but this assessment is the most important one for the fall semester and this assessment will be the primary method of showing article quality to the project grant funder. So please do a couple if you possibly can. I see you are signed up to be an OA for the spring, I am glad you are more involved. Spring is going to be Crazy we have over 30 classes signed up. HUGE Thanks - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mentor

Hello. I am a student working this semester on the wikipedia public policy project. For this course, we are required to have a Wikipedia mentor, and I have chosen you. I look forward to working with you. Aliceembers (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Final warnings

Hi, may I ask why you gave this IP a second "final" warning? They vandalized again a few minutes alter, but could have been blocked nearly an hour earlier than they were if you'd reported them to AIV. It would be appreciated if you'd report vandals if they vandalise after a recent (within the last few days for a shared IP or the last few weeks for an account) final warning or within a few days of a block expiring. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Could have been a Huggle or Twinkle error, otherwise I report to an admin who I know is active, or AIV. (By the way, I doubt an hour earlier, considering the backlog)Ronk01 talk 20:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Ronk01. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  20:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

are you sure ?

respected...i think that wikipedia belives in clearity...i know that you can block me as an administrator but as an administrator dont you think that the article has some material which is just like an advertisement...not more than that ? i wait your answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.28.66.255 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

where can i raise my concerns...........and how much one should wait after raising concerns about such advertisemnts you mean that people should read that mess........? its probably not wkipedia's policy...may be its someone's own..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.28.66.255 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please raise your concerns on the article talk page (the "discussion", or "talk" tab near the top of the page) Ronk01 talk 20:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You bit a newcomer...

...when you made this revert. I trust that this was a good faith mistake, but I just wanted to make you aware of it. --I dream of horses @ 21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok then. On Huggle, a page blank looks rather suspicious, so I tend to default revert. Ronk01 talk 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I use igloo, so I understand. It's one of the drawbacks of automatic anti vandal software. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain this edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taringa!&diff=410632803&oldid=410632488

Looked like content removal w/o reason, if it was good faith, that's ok. Ronk01 talk 21:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
BTW, i think, the reason why i changed it is pretty obvious if you follow the "sources". There is a forum being used to accuse the vast majority of users of copyright infringement and that same forum accuses moderators of copyright infringement, but if you follow what the forum says the user it accuses is not even a moderator (not to mention this is talking about only one user). Benjamin breaking (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not an expert in that area, but I would encourage you to consult with another editor who is. Ronk01 talk 21:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011



This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program.



Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

further huggle comment

thanks for the apology and suggestion. however,

  • 1. if one doesn't "notice" what an editor is doing, perhaps one shouldn't be using HG.
  • 2. registering a wikipedia account is not an option.

regards.--108.14.100.42 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I didn't notice the useful contribution, that is, to me the contribution looked like borderline vandalism, unitl I looked up the formatting. Ronk01 talk 02:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

um. before making multiple reversals, did you by chance review my edit history and notice that i've made 100+ edits to the article? huggle is a tool to be used with care. regards. --108.14.100.42 (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the power of the Huggle tool, I've been using it for nearly a year, and have nearly 1,000 edits using it, and 3,000 total edits. I will whitelist you on my installation of Huggle. Ronk01 talk 02:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Periodic

Hi, maybe you could take another look at Periodic table (metals and non-metals). 112 is missing one or two parameters? I am not familiar with the template. -DePiep (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a vandal messing around with the periodic table templates yesterday, but I've been able to fix it. Ronk01 talk 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Patient Centered Outcomes Mentor

I am at Western Carolina University in Public Policy Analysis Class. I am interested in working on the page on Patient Centered Outcomes. I looked over the online mentors and it seems that you you would be a good fit for my mentor.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks

Anne CortesAC19 (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I could do that. The article is rather tiny isn't it? Ronk01 talk 02:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I was starting out with background and I discovered several things:

  1. The page on To Err is Human is a stub
  2. The page on Crossing the Quality Chasm is an orphan and mid-importance.I wonder if I should focus on Crossing Quality Chasm instead of PC Outcomes?
  3. The Quality Chasm page says use the Medical style manual. The medical style doesn't seem really applicable to topics like Crossing... or PC Outcomes.

Are you the right person to be asking this questions? If yes, what do you think?AC19 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The specific article that you work on is really your choice, but articles on current topics are more read, and thus should be of the highest quality. PC Outcomes is a part of the current health care reform debacle, and would be a great choice, but again, it's really up to you. With regards to MEDMOS (Medical Manual of Style), there are some cases, and you have found one of them, where one should follow the general manual of style, unless there are specific items (like drug/disease names) that are not covered by the general version. You shouldn't have any problems on any article, providing that you reliably source, use verifiable information, and maintain a neutral point of view. Feel free to ask any question you can think of, and if I can't answer it, I can refer you to someone who can. Cheers! Ronk01 talk 17:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again - I think I have officially had my brain sucked out by wikipedia today...I found a lot of the content about To Err is Human and Crossing Quality Chasm on the patient safety page. It seems like I should just edit those two pages to link to the patient safety page. Is that what you advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AC19 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, as I am doing research, I have found that there isn't really a good place to find out about quality report cards and consumer use of healthcare quality information. That seems like a major gap to me so that is where I am going to focus my efforts. That shoould keep me busy for a couple of days!!AC19 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could propose to merge the articles, but you might be better off to simply make the articles redundant, and add more information onto that. Many of our specialized medical and scientific articles start like that. Ronk01 talk 23:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I am caregiving my 42 yr old husband with inoperable frontal lobe brain tumor so I disappear periodically. So now I am back and wondering about adding content - when you say to make it redundant does that mean you just copy and paste the existing content that has been discussed and reviewed? or do I just do a summary and refer to the more comprehensive content that is already up on the patient safety page?AC19 (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I give my condolences to you regarding your husband (I'm recovering from a temporal meningioma resection I had a month or so ago myself) Secondly, I would recommend summarizing the articles, and them expanding upon that with new information, this gives the reader some background, and allows you to write the reminder on the assumption that the reader has background knowledge of the topic. (Unless of course our illustrious Supreme Court decides to strike down the law,then the matter is entirely academic) Ronk01 talk 16:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Oh my - was it in bone? I hope not!! Is this first incidence? Hope your recovery goes well. Jose has infiltrating AAIII - both lobes - treated for headaches/panic attacks/depression for 2 1/2 years as he went completely mad and lost jobs etc. Finally after he blacked out and broke his hand PA in ER ordered scan - his problems were effect of tumor and dozens of seizures daily. Doctors based their entire course of decision-making on the fact that I was in treatment for advanced breast cancer (bi-lateral multi-focal which I had to have a screaming hissy fit to get diagnosed after years of expressing concern, pointing out family history and being discounted) and his mom had died of breast cancer so that thought it was stress-related. These incidences are only a small part of our staggeringly long history of medical error that has yielded horrific consequences physically and financially - thus my interest in the medical decision-making and patient advocacy. Probably not necessary for you but... in the face of all media hype and widely held views about prevent-ability of cancer I feel compelled to add that we both work out, healthy weight, don't smoke, drink, etc. Another major diagnostic issue is being too young and too healthy to have cancer. Now that you got the dump we can get back to Wiki:

I have done a few small changes to To Err and Crossing. I will do a few more to practice editing but I won't do any major changes. I am starting to work on my article about health care quality reporting and want to focus on that. For creating the content - I am doing that in a word doc. Can I copy and past word into sandbox or do I need to do as plain text. Also, can you look at and critique my sandbox once I get content in it?

Finally, what should I know about Supreme Court? Parenting, school and caregiving keep me very ignorant of anything else in the worldAC19 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, my tumor was restricted to the dura mater and did not penetrate the bone (though it was rather large) As a physician, I knew something was wrong so i had a radiologist friend run a scan. I'm surprised both of your physicians acted in the manner that they did. But back to Wikipedia: Yes, you can work in an outside application and import. You will want to work in Wiki markup though, since bolding text etc. using the functions of the program you use won't translate into wiki markup. Once you have the article in sandbox, I would be happy to look it over. (WRT the Supreme Court, several lawsuits against the ACA have been filed, and are now working their way to the Supreme Court, Wikipedia has some information on this.) Best, Ronk01 talk 19:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011



This is the second issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


  • Userboxes and profiles - Add an ambassador userbox to your page, and make sure you've added your mentor profile!
  • Be a coordinating ambassador - Pick and class and make sure no students fall through the cracks.
  • New screencasts - Short videos on watchlists and a number of other topics may be useful to students.
  • Updates from Campus Ambassadors - Ambassadors are starting to report on classroom experiences, both on-wiki and on the Google Group.
  • Other news - There's a new on-wiki application for being an Online Ambassador, and Editing Friday #2 is today!
  • Things you can do - This is just a sample; if you're eager for something to do, there's plenty more.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Flatulence humor

Hi, I saw you removed a passage from Flatulence humor for being "clearly and demonstrably false" — can you explain this? The cited source does support the claim, which is also made in the Whoopee cushion article. If the problem is that the device was not given its modern name until later, this would be solved by simply putting "whoopee cushion" in quotes. Feezo (Talk) 05:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I could find to reference to the modern name, perhaps a more period-accurate identifier? Quotes would not be adequate. Ronk01 talk 12:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The source uses the term 'whoopee cushions'. I don't see why we can't do the same. Feezo (Talk) 12:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The term gives an air of additional farcicity to an article that is in an of itself farcical. I would also challenge the veracity of the source, especially since there is only one source to back up an extraordinary claim. Ronk01 talk 14:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I take your meaning — how does mentioning the first reported use of a "whoopee cushion" qualify as "farcical"? The reference cited meets the general critera for a reliable source, although it does contain some errors. [5] This seems to me to be the only relevant issue: does the book qualify as "reliable"? Feezo (Talk) 20:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way I feel I have to mention that I found your editnotice very offputting. In particular, the use of File:AnimatedStop.gif rather clashes with your request to "assume good faith, remain civil, stay cool, and avoid drama". Just a thought. Regards, Feezo (Talk) 20:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The term lacks historical context, which could make the reader believe that the actual device existed at the time. A more technical, professional description would be warranted. And sources that have several inaccuracies generally don't qualify as RS. (By the way, my edit notice is the product of some rather nasty encounters with vandals.) Ronk01 talk 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it does appear to be the first purported use of such a device. The book does cite its own references; if one could be found to support the claim, that would be ideal. However, it would still be accurate to include a passage like "Archeologist Warwick Ball asserts that a whoopee cushion-like device was used by Elagabalus at dinner parties." Feezo (Talk) 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
And yes, we've all had run-ins with vandals. I wouldn't expect something like this to cool them down though. Does it work? Feezo (Talk) 23:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the proposed wording is much better. A reference from another work would, of course be better. Surprisingly, the notice seems to work, which is rather amusing. Ronk01 talk 23:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad we could come to an agreement. :) I've added it back into Flatulence humor — see what you think. Feezo (Talk) 10:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Perfect. Ronk01 talk 19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

marking mentees' userpages

Hey Ronk! This is just a quick reminder: please be sure to add {{WAP student}} (for an example, see User:Sfofana) the user pages of your mentees. And once they are working on articles, be sure to tag the talk pages with {{WAP assignment}}. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Already done! :) Ronk01 talk 19:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry about that. I had forgotten that some of them were on talk pages rather than user pages (which is fine). Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

RE: Protest map

Thanks for notifying me of this. I don't take care of this particular PNG map because of the difficulty of adding countries. Perhaps notifying the uploader (or better yet, bringing it up at the talk page) will produce better results? Once the article stabilizes and the situation calms down, I might come back into the fray. I like staying out of busy current event articles precisely because of the traffic :P. Take care! --haha169 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

I would like to ask you a question. Why did you keep reverting my edits on the Backstreet Boys discography page without even knowing what you were doing? I clearly added chart positions with suitable sources and yet you reverted my edits claiming vandalism. In fact, you went far enough to revert my edit when I tried to start a discussion on User:Harout72's talk page. You have also posted on my talk page saying it was vandalism. You were the one who were indulging in vandalism, actually (knowingly or unknowingly) for the following reasons:

1) Falsely claiming that i was doing vandalism

2) Reverting my edit on another user's talk page

3) Posting on my talk page saying I indulged in vandalism when I did not

4) Also, repeatedly ignoring my explanations in the edit summary, I bet you didn't even see what I was editing in the first place

122.165.3.250 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

With regards to your edits, you failed to state your intention (your edits were not clear) and you failed to contact me immediately (I reverted you three times before you contacted me). Other editors also believed that your edits constituted vandalism, in addition you refused to discuss your changes until specifically told to do so. You failed to provide an edit summary for your first edit 1, 1/2 and your subsequent summaries were only complaints, and not explanations of purpose. 2. Whenever making changes to formatting, please provide clear, descriptive edit summaries, and be prepared to discuss if reverted. Thank you, Ronk01 talk 18:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If you were a good editor, you would have checked what I have added in the first place before deleting my edit just because i didn't leave an edit summary. Also, you still haven't explained why you deleted my post on Harout72's talk page without even seeing what iI posted in the first place. You also reverted my edit the first time when I posted on your talk page. Just because I am an IP, doesnt mean that everything I do has to be vandalism. It would be better to check what IP's have added before deleting their edits. I would also like you to remove what you put on my talk page because now you realize what I did wasn't vandalism 122.165.3.250 (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Generally, when IP editors make formatting changes without edit summaries, it's vandalism (about 60% of the time) I revert as a standard, and wiat for a reasonable talkpage message, or a good edit summary. Your post on Harout72's talkpage was reverted due to a software error, in which it appeared that you made the edit to the page. You will notice that I revert myself soon after you told me. When you posted to my talk, I deleted the edit, and posted to your talk, which is my standard practice when dealing with IP's. I would also advise you that nearly half of all IP contribs are vandalism, and 60% would best be defined as non-constructive. Ronk01 talk 17:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them

This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring

Hi Ronk01, Your work assessing article quality is really valuable and generated some excellent results from fall semester. The assessment process has been streamlined and dates are clearly posted for the upcoming assessment rounds. The Initiative has a lot more classes signed up for spring, so I would like to recruit some more Wikipedian assessors, and I was hoping you could help with that. I think community members would be more likely to participate if they are recruited by Wikipedians like yourself who have a good reputation. The strategy that worked last semester was to leave an individual message on the talk pages of non-adversarial Wikipedians. I looked for people by contributions to public policy related articles and those active on the 1.0 Editorial Team. I usually mentioned in the message what specifically about their work history made me think they would be a good assessment team participant. This is super time consuming to contact like 50 people, but only doing a few is not so bad. Also, I am looking for feedback about assessing with PPI, so please check out the discussion on the assessment tab, and let me know there if you have a chance to recruit some other assessors. I hope you are looking forward to another great semester working on this project. Drop me a line - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

MedCab to RFM

Sorry Ronk01, I thought Medcom was the next step. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

RFM is MedCom (request for mediation), the final step in content dispute resolution. Ronk01 talk 02:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain about Pete & Mies, but I'm done with the MedCab. I just wanted to say that you were very fair & neutral throughout, a great moderator. Thanks for your patience & time. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

AC summary paragraphs

Here is summary – is two paragraphs OK? First a couple of questions.

I am struggling with terminology. Do I need to find one term and stick with it: health care report cards – health quality report cards; consumers or patients or consumer-patients. Any protocal for that?

The WCU WikiAdvisor suggested a source for each line – which I have with a couple of exceptions. I think the process will be 1) get your edits of the summary text 2) Put revised text and references in sandbox 3) You check the sandbox version 4) I post the article. Is that correct?

The trickle of health quality report cards in the 1990’s has turned into a 21st century flood of healthcare information reporting. Technological advances played a key role in facilitating the data collection and number crunching needed to generate health quality report cards, but there appears to be a breakdown in creative use of technology to get the information in the hands of those interested in using it. As pointed out by Kristen Madison, Senior Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, searching the Internet for “the term ‘hospital quality’ or’ hospital report card’ does not always turn up relevant report cards, even if they do exist”. The purpose of this Wiki article is to create that missing home for information about healthcare report cards. In the last decade the EHealth world for consumers has exploded with the growth of online advocacy and support groups, the rise of bloggers like epatientDave and the opening of the mysterious vaults of medical research via sites like PubMed. Health care report cards are coming of age in a time of rising levels of consumer health literacy. Surveys consistently show that consumers rely heavily on friends and family when making healthcare decisions. With social networking and global connectivity, these conversations are no longer limited to grocery store aisles and dinner tables; friend and family referrals will increasingly rely on data retrieved from multiple sources. Health care report cards hold great promise to engage consumers and support patient centered care, yet the potential pitfalls cannot be ignored. Societal and economic forces that create barriers to care, health disparities and quality of care concerns will exert similar influence on the implementation and impact of health care report cards.

Thanks much - AnneAC19 (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it looks quite good overall, but you may consider striking or revising the items I have bolded above. Remember, always write from an encyclopedic standpoint, use consistent terminology, and sensibly cite all claims. Ronk01 talk 16:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I will get it in sandbox and referenced in the next couple of days. This popped up on Kaiser Health News in case you are interested Physicians, patient advocates differ over quality measurements http://www.ctmirror.org/story/11748/qualitymeasures.AC19 (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good. Ronk01 talk 03:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well the sandbox experience was about as much fun as a day at the infusion center - good grief what a laborious process. Could you please look at my sandbox and make sure it is good to go live.
On a different topic, is there a wiki page that has a raging discussion about the balance between engaging copy and an encyclopedic standpoint? Thanks for your patience and promptness...Having used the tilde key only about ten times in my entire life, i am closing now with my new best friendAC19 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I've posted a formatting suggestion for your sandbox. Ronk01 talk 20:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have discovered that I have two sandboxes. I have a sandbox on my user page which has old stuff. There is a sandbox on my discussion page which is where I posted my current summary paragraphs. Sorry for the confusion. Which sandbox am I supposed to be using?AC19 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, not a problem. I've made a quick edit to install a

tag in order to list your references as the end of the page. I will look into the article a bit more today. I would blank your user page sandbox, and redirect to your other sandbox. If you have any questions o n how to do this, just ask! Ronk01 talk 16:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

TOC up for Health Quality Report Cards

I put up the TOC and will start adding copy to each section. Can you check the section where I added the link for the CA report card. I want to make sure I am doing that correctly before I add more report card links. I just want to have a list of links in those sections so I did not format to show up in references - seems like it would add a lot of clutter to the reference section.

Many thanksAC19 (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mentee Question

Hello Mentor. I have been working on my project for the Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy, but I am sort of stuck. (My article is the Roosevelt Corollary.) I know the article still needs to be expanded, but I'm not sure which section needs to be tackled next. Suggestions? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliceembers (talk • contribs) 03:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article. I will look further into it tomorrow and give more suggestions, but for now, I would recommend copy-editing the article to conform to the style of encyclopedic prose. Ronk01 talk 04:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Thanks for looking at the outline.

How should I handle the links to quality report cards? I would like them to be organized into categories so it will be easy for users to find what they want. Can I do some kind of sidebar or how do you suggest I make those accessible and user friendly?AC19 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally we post external links at the end of the page. You may wish to order them there by type. (See also WP:EXTERNAL) Ronk01 talk 19:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I added Leapfrog to external link section and will also include them in section on reporting organizations. What to do if there is a wikipedia reference but not article dedicated to topic. Leapfrog is a section on WP page for Patient safety organization Here is link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leapfrog_group#Leapfrog. Do I reference that somehow as internal link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AC19 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
For categories I am thinking Healthcare, Health quality and Health economics. Does that seem appropriate to you?AC19 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds great. Consider adding Healthcare reform, if that is available. Ronk01 talk 16:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. Did you see my question above about leapfrog - figuring out if/how to link??AC19 (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on

Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:

  1. Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
  2. If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
  3. Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011



This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Question about snarky changes

Hi,

Can you check my article and advise about the edits. Do I edit AHRQ Advocate's edit and comment on the tone or just make changes and keep my thoughts to myself. AHRQ Advocate doesn't seem to have a user page or talk page. Is that weird? Can just anyone use initials AHRQ even if they aren't affiliated with the organization? Another round of medical stuff so I have only had time to pop in links where I can. Jose's hearing, cognitive and memory are slipping noticeably - I am dreading next scan but there is always possibility he is getting beat up from chemo and is just too fatigued to process. Anyway, will have several sections of article filled in over the weekend. Thanks ACAC19 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit, and issued a username policy violation notice to the account, which is likely a fraud. I do wish you and your husband the best. Ronk01 talk 03:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Assessment with WP:USPP is the ultimate!

hi Ronk01,
A new assessment round is posted. This round is mostly starts and stubs, so evaluation should be really quick. WP:USPP Assessment 2.1
The Public Policy Initiative is super exciting this term. The topics are really interesting this term and the student's are producing some really good quality content. Recent numbers indicate that our project is actually contributing a significant amount of content to Wikipedia. There is a group of about 20 subject matter experts who are assessing, but the Wikipedians are so consistent, that I really need your scores to measure article quality.
On another note, are you going to Wikimania? Especially since you are also an ambassador now: I am looking for people to co-present with, so let me know if you are! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

History of health reporting

I added text to my sandbox. You will see the note at the top of the page from the author - it was written for another purpose and she didn't use it. Obviously her treatment of the subject is much superior to anything I can create. Can I use and properly credit her work??

Many thanks for being a kind mentor who cares about our family. No one at school has any concept of what inoperable frontal lobe AAIII is or means to a family so I just don't talk about it much. It is nice to have one person in this part of my life that I can just add a personal note and feel heard. Jose woke up with horrible headache for 2nd day in a row so the darkness floats in and out of the fringes of my mind even as I keep busy with my school work.

Final random thought is that I have been wondering how much physicians learn about public policy as part of their medical training? Many thanks - AnneAC19 (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks great, the best thing you could do would be to maintain the original document in your sandbox for future reference, and paraphrase it as needed for the article. To cite it, simply treat it like any other work. Have you tried using steam for the headaches? It may help. As far as I know, public policy isn't on the course list at most medical colleges. (But then again, the last time I was in a medical college was in the early 90's) Ronk01 talk 11:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Make sure that you are checking in on your students work for WP:USPP/C/11/PTE

Hey, just a happy reminder to make sure that you are regularly checking in on your mentees work for JMU'S Technical editing class, Sadads (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am looking for an ambassador. I am trying to do a project for a class I am taking at Syracuse University. It has to do with NGOs and US public policy. The due date is quickly approaching and I am desperate. I have been contacting people for a while now and no one says they would be much use or they do not have time or they don't like purple. I am running outta time. While I realize you are full, but is there any chance on Earth you could take me on. Please.....

Thank so much for even reading this Hattie — Preceding unsigned comment added by HattieMichelle (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011



This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

New Assessment for article improvements with PPI

hi Ronk01,
Another assessment round is posted. This round is the follow-up to the previous assessment, so it should reflect some big improvements to the articles. WP:USPP Post Assessment 2.1
There is a group of about 25 subject matter experts who are assessing, and last week I sent them a tutorial video on how to leave comments on talk pages. So if you see any newcomers on the discussion pages, please help me welcome them.
You are doing a really amazing job, in fact, here at WMF, we are using your ratings as the “gold standard” to test the Article Feedback Tool and see how well it works. I will be presenting lots of research in the coming months. Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Thanks for assessing!!!

ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Thanks for assessing Ronk01!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

hi Ronk 01, I'm sorry to hear you won't be able to make it to the Education Summit. I hope you will join WP:USPP for the last 2 assessment rounds this spring. Thanks for all your help, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

WP:USPP Spring Assessment 3

hi Ronk01,

Thanks for helping with assessment! There is a new assessment posted here. There are 25 articles in both this assessment and the next/final assessment. There was a huge amount of content that got added this term, hopefully the randomly selected articles will show it to be high quality. You should see some results form the assessments in the coming months. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Future PC Endeavours

I did add a follow-up on the latest PC talk page, but I wanted to further comment off the page...while I like having existing reviewers reviewed, I am wondering if a combination of reviewing existing reviewers and taking new reviewers might be a best method. Some reviewers did not pull their weight - in some cases not trying it once, or only once or twice and quitting after running into "edit conflicts" - and having some fresh blood might be a good idea. But I do wholeheartedly believe if it goes only to an application process that existing good reviewers will indeed be overlooked. This will be an interesting facet of the next trial or implementation when it occurs. CycloneGU (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Last PPI assessment

hi Ronk01,

We finally made it, this is the last assessment request for the Public Policy Initiative! I was really impressed with the content the students developed this term, I hope you enjoyed it too. The last set of articles is at Student Post 2.2. I will keep you updated on results and publications. I hope you are feeling better, maybe I will see you in July. Thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You! Ronk01, your assessments made a big contribution toward quality evaluation. I will keep you posted on the research and results that come out in the coming months. All the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Ambassador email

Hi Ronk. I just sent you an email to the address that is currently subscribed to the Google Group. Please let me know if you didn't get it, or if something other than your Yahoo address should be subscribed.--ragesoss (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

PPI Assessment research gets some attention!

hi Ronk01, I hope you are well. I wanted to let you know that FactCompany.com reported on the Public Policy Initiative research. They noticed all of our hard work on article quality assessment! And, I presented some preliminary results of the Public Policy Initiative today at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit (btw, are you here?); it was very well received by academics. They were impressed with the rigor of the research and that is due in large part to your efforts. So yet again, Thank YOU! I will keep you posted as I continue to get the results out there. Also, if you would like a token of appreciation (aka Wikipedia swag) send me an email and let me know and I will get a package out to you later this month. all the best,ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronk01/Archive_4&oldid=1138292792"