This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Quarter Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Dementia with Lewy bodies (estimated annual readership: 392,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg ( talk) 14:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
Reidgreg, thanks very much. -- Colin° Talk 14:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Ketogenic diet (estimated annual readership: 2,400,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg ( talk) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
Here's this one as well, and added to the Million Award Hall of Fame. – Reidgreg ( talk) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Armbrust
The Homunculus
01:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
|
What to do with a mess like List of figures in psychiatry ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
You have done a overwhelming lot of work on the article Ketogenic diet. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy and as the Editor in Chief of the ILAE Wikipedia Project I welcome you to join the project. I also welcome you to co-publish this Wikipedia article in some open access academic journal. This would automatically acknowledge your contributions by providing you with author credits. If you are interested, do not hesitate to reach out to me and we can get working on it. Diptanshu 💬 09:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Colin/PriceMistakes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- TheImaCow ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Colin,
This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 18, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-09-18. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Mount Stuart House is a country house built in the Gothic Revival style situated on the east coast of the Isle of Bute, Scotland. It is the ancestral home of the Marquesses of Bute. The original house was constructed by Alexander McGill in 1719, but was redesigned by Sir Robert Rowand Anderson and rebuilt for the 3rd Marquess following a fire on 3 December 1877. It is built from reddish-brown stone; major features include the colonnaded Marble Hall at the centre of the main block, and the Marble Chapel with its elaborate spired tower. It was the first home in Scotland to be lit by electricity and claims to have been the first to have an indoor heated pool. Photograph credit: Colin
Recently featured:
|
Greetings. This month marks the return of the project's long-dormant
collaboration of the month! With some luck and effort, perhaps we can keep it going. I hope you're all finding ways to remain sane during another tumultuous month. Ready or not, here is what's happening around the project:
Seminal vesicles nom.
Tom (LT), reviewed by
Berchanhimez |
Parkinson's disease now a
featured article removal candidate. Discussion
here |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see
Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I hope this newsletter finds you well. For those struggling to focus on writing articles during these tumultuous times, you are not alone. For those stuck at home with more time and energy to dedicate to the encyclopedia, all the more power to you. There is – as always – lots to do. Here is what's happening around the project:
Intramuscular injection nom.
Berchanhimez, reviewed by
Bibeyjj |
Buruli ulcer nom.
Ajpolino |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see
Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
Backlog of the month
This month I'm trying out a new element of the newsletter – a backlog of the month. The WikiProject Medicine template is on the talk page of 44,944 articles, of which 18,111 have some kind of maintenance tag on them, indicating problems large or small. Each month, I'll highlight some small task to get you out of your normal editing focus and chip away at the project's massive maintenance backlogs. I'll aim for tasks that can be worked on in small chunks, perhaps on days when you can't focus on big problems, or have 15 minutes to burn at your computer.
The first backlog of the month will be the 410 medicine articles that cite no sources. These tend to be lower-traffic topics. Some just need verification that the topic actually exists, along with a quick reference. Others are best redirected to more substantial pages, or even brought to AfD. Feel free to scroll through the list for topics that interest you, or just start at the top. This feature will last as long as folks are interested enough to engage with it. If you see backlogs that would be a good fit, post them here. Thanks all, and happy referencing!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays | ||
Dear Colin, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy".
|
This edit was not helpful. Before you start criticising my actions in enforcing discretionary sanctions again, you need to get a grip on the history of the behavioural problems. You are not the judge of what sanctions are warranted and your interference will simply result in encouraging RoY to make biomedical claims without sufficient sourcing again. If you want to see them topic banned from medical articles, you're going the right way about it. They have already crossed a line far enough to attract discretionary sanctions, and your encouragement of their behaviour is equally reprehensible. Until you butted in, I was reasonably hopeful that RoY would take the time to read and understand MEDRS. If you really want to improve COVID-19 vaccine, rather than pursuing personal vendettas by sniping from the peanut gallery, then you should be spending your time cleaning up the article. There's enough cleanup required. --: RexxS ( talk) 00:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, due to your balanced and neutral approach I was able to clearly make sense of the different requirements for bio-medical articles. However, the other chap just came across as angry and hostile leading me to believe his revert was for emotional reasons. Having read up on editing bio-medical articles I can now see his point, I just wish he’d come across less hostile, best regards. Roland Of Yew ( talk) 09:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Would be great if you found the "culprit" and asked them to please cite properly. There are hundreds of such paragraphs on WP. I'm busy today. Thanks.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 18:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I just ran it on the material you recently removed from Nabumetone. Wonder of wonders, it was User:Doc James who added that sentence. It would be nice if there were something like a Wikidata for drug prices that would, at least, tell users how various drugs' prices compare (as in low-mid-high-priced). In fact, it would be more than "nice"; it would be kind of vital.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 16:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
2020 is behind us at last. Off Wikipedia, the year has been trying. On Wikipedia, I hope you've found the time you spent here fulfilling and diverting. I've taken the opportunity to place a few end-of-year statistics for reflection below. If you think of any data that would be useful to find (or begin gathering) to gauge the project's success, please let me know. With that, here is what's happening around the project:
Buruli ulcer nom.
Ajpolino, my first successful FAC |
Louise Boursier nom.
Doug Coldwell |
Year in Review
With 2020 now in the rear view mirror, a few numbers to give a sense of where our project is at: In 2020 we added a record number of medicine articles (i.e. articles with the WP:MED tag on their talk pages), starting the year with 41,243 and ending with 45,247. The ~4,000 new articles is
well above the norm, presumably due to new covid-related articles. In terms of reviewed content, we added three featured articles (
Dementia with Lewy bodies,
Complete blood count, and
Buruli ulcer), and lost three to the ravages of time, leaving our total at 66. We also added 42 newly reviewed good articles from 23 different nominators, bringing our total to 296. See a full list of reviewed content from 2020
here. Outside of reviewed content our contributions are more challenging to measure. I'm sure much our time was spent making small improvements, guiding new editors, removing junk from articles, and dealing with the raging global pandemic (on and off the site). I am interested in ways we can quantify and assess our project's progress going forward, so if anyone has ideas for other data we could find or collect, do let me know.
Other notes
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you ever make Griddle scones, or know anyone who does? We don't seem to have any pictures. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, perhaps you will remember me...We met a few months ago, per some "MEDMOS issues". Perhaps you can help me. While reading Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, under the Cold chain section, first paragraph, [1] I found the following:
"The Moderna vaccine vials require storage above −40 °C (−40 °F) and between −25 and −15 °C (−13 and 5 °F).[88] Once refrigerated, the Moderna vaccine can be kept between 2 and 8 °C (36 and 46 °F) for up to 30 days.[88]"
However, the reference is from 28 May 2014, and does not mention the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, although it does discuss the cold chain for vaccines in general. Is this a problem? I am accustomed to reading refs that specifically support the article text, but I do not have the education/ability to evaluate this situation. I could be wrong...Thanks for your time. Good to see you editing once again! Best, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You forgot one, [2] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it.Since none of that seems to be in the slightest concerned with writing an encyclopaedia, I suggest archiving and unwatching whatever other pages irritate you. -- Colin° Talk 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy February everyone. I hope the new year is starting to look better than the last one did. As always, if you have any ideas to improve the newsletter, please post them at
the talkpage. Otherwise, here is what's happening around the project:
Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom.
Maxim Masiutin, reviewed by
Vaticidalprophet |
Louise Boursier nom.
Doug Coldwell |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Colin:, you were very helpful when I had issues editing the COVID-19 vaccine [ [3]] using my Roland Of Yew ( talk · contribs) username and wondered if you might have any advice regarding resetting Wikipedia passwords? Somehow, my saved passwords list lost my Wikipedia password and I’ve tried and tried to reset my password; however, the reset links aren’t arriving via email even though I’ve checked the trash/junk bin and requested admin help. Best regards, : Inadvertent Consequences Inadvertent Consequences]] ( talk) 12:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Crossroads -talk- 17:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theuyhjasji. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is what's happening around the project:
17q12 microdeletion syndrome nom.
Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by
Bibeyjj |
Friedreich's ataxia nom.
Akrasia25 |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm contemplating MEDMOS and WP:MTAA, and I think that it might be helpful to have a separate essay on Readability tests. IMO the ideal content contains both why you shouldn't rely on them and also some advice about how to get some value out of them (e.g., checking that the sections or paragraphs you deliberately wrote at a simpler level don't score at a higher level). Do you think that you could write such a page? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I would appreciate any advice you might have on this issue [4]. It's this "80%" claim (again). I have posted a paper there, which might help. Would it be for the best not to quote a percentage at all and just say "most"? Best regards. Graham Beards ( talk) 09:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for providing comments on the proposed decision for the RexxS case. In reading your comments you mention about the suitability of other users to be administrators. While it's not a personal attack, I suggest that you alter your comment so that it doesn't mention specific editors. My reasoning is that the committee in the RexxS case is not examining the conduct of the editors you named, and as such detailing specific users isn't necessary when commenting on the proposed decision. Let me know if you have any questions, and in case you were not aware I am one of the case clerks for the RexxS case. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is what's happening around the project:
Influenza removed from the
featured article review list thanks largely to
Velayinosu's work.
|
Mihran Kassabian nom.
Larry Hockett |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the William Lyon Mackenzie article in March, specifically for your comments at the second PR. I have nominated the article for featured article status and I hope you will comment on the nomination here. Thanks again for your help preparing this article. Z1720 ( talk) 17:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a note. I found your comments on the person-first discussion quite helpful; they certainly changed how I viewed the topic. Sorry you were upset by the discussion; nobody there seems to have been their best. Maybe one day the topic can be revisited when there's more evidence and all of us have kinder hearts. Wishing you well. Urve ( talk) 03:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
On 23 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vaccine ingredients, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an immunologic adjuvant is a vaccine ingredient that makes the immune response stronger and longer-lasting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaccine ingredients. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Vaccine ingredients), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
... follow up on <--this--> -- Skews Peas ( talk) 16:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
You seem bound and determined to win. The source is not WP:FRINGE, it is a legitimate by a scholar the you admit is "an expert in the field". By removing all weight for one expert who disagrees with a position you are engaging in a BATTLE rather than trying to improve the encyclopedia. Abductive ( reasoning) 15:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
No newsletter last month means a double issue this month. Enjoy:
Menstrual cycle saved at
FAR thanks to the efforts of
Graham Beards and others. |
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet, under review by
Epicgenius |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:Plasma globe 60th.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
|
This is to let you know that the Dementia with Lewy bodies article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 21, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Check it out! Looks like you got a mention and they quoted you saying something smart. jp× g 20:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@
WhatamIdoing: and @
Colin:, just wanted to clarify what you meant by "stop trying to write pandemic-related articles by RFC
[5]
[6]". Do you mean "like the
BMI RFC, with overall RFCs that try to have implications for all pandemic articles" or "RFCs period" AKA "using narrow RFCs to try and resolve individual disputes on pandemic pages" is also not productive?
Because, as far as I can determine, using RFCs is the only way to get anything to stick on particularly frustrating pages like Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misinformation. Otherwise it's like a revert-revert party and BRD breaks down. I admit I only have 6ish years of experience on this site, and I'm still learning how certain things work, but that was my assessment of the situation. There's lots of WP:FRINGE users and also quasi-SPAs, and activist editors, who push one POV or another. It's easy to get drawn into the brawl, and I have on several occasions.
I really see narrowly-worded narrowly-applied RFCs as the only way out of that cave. My understanding is that WhatamIdoing, you would say that RFCs can be useful in some contexts, but that Colin, you think RFCs are the problem here and are actively against consensus-building in these situations. Is that a fair characterization?
If so, Colin, I empathize with your point greatly. I also wish it were easier. I wish that such consensus-building without RFCs were possible in these articles, but this reminds me quite a bit of WP:RANDY. You cannot play chess with someone who will just flip the board when they lose, and likewise, you cannot build consensus with people who are WP:NOTHERE. It is the nature of battlegrounding to get drawn in yourself. That's why it's so insidious.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
And please, take me quite seriously when I say:I am looking for any and all advice on how to deal with these contentious articles better. I really am all ears, and am interested in all perspectives. I would bet good money you have seen similarly contentious topics emerge before my time, and I would appreciate the wiki-expertise.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm taking a wikibreak. Please avoid posting here unless it is vital. Try WT:MED instead. -- Colin° Talk 09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by
Epicgenius |
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this well-considered statement at WP:AE. Your point about the BBC at one time "thinking 'balance' on topics like global warming or MMR meant that for every expert you interviewed, you had to have some weirdo too" made me laugh. Bishonen | tålk 10:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
"should be more proactive in searching out information than at present and other areas should more fully reflect the scientific literature. I recommend that the BBC takes a less rigid view of “due impartiality” as it applies to science (in practice and not just in its guidelines) and takes into account the non‐contentious nature of some material and the need to avoid giving undue attention to marginal opinion."There really was a belief by some then that "impartiality" meant they had to consider both sides as equal valid and reasonable as though one was trying to be neutral wrt Labour vs Conservative politics. This report required they also consider "due weight", which is more like our policy. -- Colin° Talk 11:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, wow, that is very troubling, indeed. Colin, I also wanted to say, your comments on that AE were insightful, and are much appreciated, as is your level headed voice in many of those disputes! :)
But I did also want to say, this is not the first time I've seen news organizations fail at this, and not just the BBC! "The view from nowhere" is an old foundational principle of news reporting, that comes from a simpler time (Pepperidge Farm remembers). I think it belongs in the trash bin of history. One of my favorite NPR programs, On The Media (from WNYC), has reported on this a lot. A few of the best segments if you haven't heard them:
This reminds me of how some scientists try so hard to be "dispassionate" and "objective", instead of acknowledging their biases
|
---|
As an aside, this reminds me of how some scientists remove themselves from public discourse, to remain "dispassionate" & "objective," which is of course a farce, and only leads to more problems. We would be better off if more experts spent time weighing in, and less time in ivory tower labs, away from the riff raff. We should all (scholars, journalists, lay people) acknowledge our biases and operate with them in mind, instead of pretending they don't exist! That allows us to actually make real progress on areas where society as a whole is biased and out of touch. Writing scholarly papers is not enough, especially when nobody reads them! If scholars don't participate and only publish dispassionate non-societally-relevant articles, then that in and of itself, screws up how WP:DUE and WP:RSUW work. We need experts to write reviews and tell Wikipedia the scholarly view on these things. Peer review and editorial oversight will keep extremism in check. Similarly, all Wikipedians are biased, but it is our PAGs and RSes that keep us on our best behavior. Not the battling out of "equal parts" of POV editors, as some have suggested. I actually think extremist viewpoints make us all more extreme, in a similar fashion to the shifting of the Overton window! There was an excellent essay published in Nature last year about how scientists are bad at this [9], that really fired me up about these issues, and led me to write these now-infamous Reddit posts [10] [11]. I still think it's important for experts to weigh in on public issues, and Wikipedia is probably one of the best ways to do that, hence why I'm here :). Of course this idea of scholarly participation in the public discourse also wasn't new to me, it was basically the sole subject of a graduation speech I gave at my PhD commencement in 2019, lol [12]. Time is a flat circle, and we keep comin' round the bend! |
Sorry, I know that was a lil bit of soapboxing... Maybe I'll write a userspace essay about this instead of a screed plastered on Colin's talk page :)-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Nothing this month |
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
My intent wasn't to insult any British editor, but merely to point out that every time such a RFC or general discussion on such topics concerning the UK, are held. The result is always going to be the same. Just too many who oppose the usage of "British" in the intros & UK in the infoboxes. Vaze50, is only starting to realise that. GoodDay ( talk) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Charles Lester Leonard nom.
Larry Hockett, reviewed by
Dracophyllum
|
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you might appreciate this talk (~8 minutes) from the recent m:CEE online meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNeXoSou2h4&t=6694s WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Colin, I am iPad typing, not home and having a hard time keeping up. Could you please have a look at WT:MED? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this question, I've only written N-glycosyltransferase, RVxP motif and Subgenual organ, none of which are "medicine" per se. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor,
I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.
All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.
Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.
I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).
The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.
Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from
the mailing list.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Can't blame you unwatching! :-) But as to the BBC and Guardian, media critique sites have noticed that too, see [13] for the UK and Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting have reported a few times on the same sort of thing in the US. The BBC have never mentioned Thordarson's recanting of his testimony which underlies most of the US case, and I don't think it has mentioned the CIA planning to kidnap or murder him either. The Guardian has mentioned both eventually at least. NadVolum ( talk) 18:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Finally have both the skills and a sufficiently powerful computer to do this. FPC feels a lot quieter nowadays, but.... Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 15:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:H. M. Brock - Gilbert and Sullivan - D'Oyly Carte Opera Company Ruddigore revival 1921.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Armbrust
The Homunculus
02:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Hi Colin,
This is to let you know that
File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg, a
featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's
picture of the day (POTD) for October 25, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at
Template:POTD/2022-10-25. If you have any concerns, please place a message at
Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The Old Royal Naval College is the architectural centrepiece of Maritime Greenwich, a World Heritage Site in Greenwich, London, described by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as the "finest and most dramatically sited architectural and landscape ensemble in the British Isles". The buildings were originally constructed to serve as the Royal Hospital for Seamen at Greenwich, now generally known as Greenwich Hospital, which was chartered by King William III and Queen Mary II on 25 October 1694, designed by Christopher Wren, and built between 1696 and 1712. The hospital closed in 1869. Between 1873 and 1998 it housed the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. This panoramic photograph depicts the two buildings of the Old Royal Naval College viewed from across the River Thames, with the Queen's House visible in the background in between. Photograph credit: Colin
Recently featured:
|
Back (for now) by popular demand, it's the WP:MED Newsletter! Pardon the 9-month hiatus. This month features a catch-up list of promoted GAs since the last newsletter, and some calls to action for those looking to add to their todo lists. I hope this finds you well. Enjoy.
Since last newsletter (Nov. 1, 2021) |
Thiamine nom.
David notMD |
WP:MED News
News from around the site
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 21:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
2 Tower of London ravens discuss Colin's attributes |
Colin |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning September 3, 2022 |
Reknowned for his collegial, helpful input and talk space demeanor and for having a balanced and neutral approach that is a model for all editors. Colin joined many years ago and has created 268 pages/articles, the Commons:Photo challenge and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (aka MEDRS). He won Picture of the Year 2016 and wrote the essay Wikipedia is not UTube |
Recognized for |
89 Featured Pictures on Commons |
Notable work |
Ketogenic diet |
Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7 ☎ 18:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello all. A short newsletter reflecting a quiet month in recognized content. If there's other types of content you'd like to see in the newsletter feel free to post suggestions here. Otherwise, here's your update for the month:
Sesame allergy nom.
David notMD, reviewed by
Nolabob |
Thiamine nom.
David notMD, under review by
Mertbiol |
WP:MED News
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 03:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
You have made contributions to Tuberous sclerosis in the past. You are most welcome to join and help us on the Epilepsy articles as they get edited or you may want to contribute some edits or create stub articles. NandanYardi ( talk) 18:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@colin,If needed kindly reach out for stub article topics not existing on wikipedia NandanYardi ( talk) 18:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC) NandanYardi, thanks.
Sure ..welcome NandanYardi ( talk) 16:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Feel better soon! We both had COVID in July, took paxlovid, and were well the next day. I hope you do as well! 14:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Just want to say that I appreciate you fighting the good fight. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Locke Cole accusing me of being disruptive. Thank you. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I would value your advice or comments on this discussion regarding user made images contravening WP:OR and needing WP:V User_talk:A455bcd9#Why_not_do_something_useful. I took objection to this user tagging some of my diagrams. Maybe I am in the wrong. Best regards. Graham Beards ( talk) 19:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
I looked at your userpage in the course of responding to your comment elsewhere, and wanted to say that I really like your photography! Images that stood out particularly were the ravens at the Tower, the escalators at Lloyd's, and the tourists at the National Monument. Good eye. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at [20] regarding an issue which may interest you. Best regards, — Cote d'Azur ( talk) 08:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Colin. From the sidelines, but wanted to thank you for trying to remain objective and balanced in your judgments in the recent (and ongoing) ANI discussion about gensex advocacy. As someone who has been here for less than three years, I am really encouraged to see experienced editors lead by example. Ppt91 talk 20:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey Colin. A small thing: your recent comment at WP:NORN mistakenly labeled the noticeboard as the NPOV one. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 20:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/join-our-project-copyright-campaign-crowdsourcing/2843 reminded me of that FOP image with the London landmarks removed. Maybe you're interested? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter; pardon the six-month gap. I was inspired to collect this after seeing how much activity there is in the GA space on the medicine front. Please review a GAN if you have time, and help to welcome more medicine editors into the fold:
Trinidad Arroyo nom.
Thebiguglyalien, reviewed by
Mike Christie |
Hanhart syndrome nom.
Etriusus, under review by
Dancing Dollar |
WP:MED News
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 04:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Theheezy ( talk) 07:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
Hi Colin, I know time is always in short supply, but if you can find time to read over prostate cancer and share any suggestions for improvement, I'd be grateful. Your careful commentary at lung cancer and dracunculiasis (which I will return to eventually) was fantastic and much appreciated. I'm hoping to bring prostate cancer to FAC whenever it's ready, so feel free to pick nits. But also it's not too late for large-scale changes if you find something deeply lacking. I haven't started on the images yet, but will do so this week. Any image suggestions are appreciated. I'm aesthetically challenged. Ajpolino ( talk) 14:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I do not want to elevate this to ANI, however, I'm going to ask that you remove the irrelevant paragraph laced with thinly veiled personal attacks. You are more than welcome to contribute to the discussion productively. However, by filling the thread with irrelevant, frankly nonsense, you are ensuring no resolution will come about this. I am attempting to fix this. DarmaniLink ( talk) 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
In particularly, please stop vindictively individually personalizing style disputes, especially by labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a "conservative" who is going after "woke social justice warriors". That is just not okay.
I see that you've been made aware of WP:CTOP (formerly WP:AC/DS) in this topic area at least twice before, but not within the last year, so this is a reminder. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
It is fine to come to Wikipedia with an opinion about how it might be made better. It only crosses a line when that is "at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies" and when editors fail to "cooperate, collaborate, and compromise".Sure, my entire point can be boiled down to: having your opinion is very different from trying to inject it at all costs and against all other views into our content and our policy-formation, because that is at the expense of WP's NPoV goal and core policy; and that trying to paint other editors as conservative anti-woke agitators for not 100% agreeing with you has the opposite effect from "cooperate, collaborate, and compromise". (Even if you personally didn't really do that, others do it to me all the time, most especially on other matters of langauge reform advocacy – more than in all other topics combined.)If I use "MoS and WP does/is/won't/will" kind of wording, it's based on experience, and perhaps a little on some persuasive writing advice to avoid constructions that invite doubt and opposition, like "I think that", and "In my opnion". Everyone already understands that everyone's posts here are just their opnion, since none of us are omnicient. Maybe it's a style that some people find annoying, but every argument technique is probably annoying to someone, and it would have to be annoying more people than it persuades for it to stop being an effective tool.The central problem here is that everyone with a reformationist idea, if you like that term better than activistic or advocacy-based or whatever, has reasons for it that they believe are valid and important, and which even a majority of our editorial pool might believe are in some case, but which are nonetheless, at present, reformationist PoVs to change current typical practice, on- and off-site. This is by definition PoV pushing, even when we mostly agree with the PoV. If and when the PoV becomes the objectively observable new off-site norm (across the kind of material we use as sources) then it's no longer what amounts to a fringe view; it is the new cultural gestalt and something we should adopt. We can figure that out either by observing changes in the style guides our own is based on, or if they're not catching up, by doing our own analysis across English-language writing (not just the reformationist material). But the reformationists want the change right now and will attack you for not giving them their way. That this kind of change actually happens off-site in the "real world" largely through the activities of advocacy/activism/reformationist bodies in the long run doesn't make them some kind of wrong, but they are those kinds of bodies. Their effect on our content and policy is actually real, it's just slow and moderated by the adoption of their recommendations by the kinds of sources we use in the aggregate, instead of WP directly adopting their advocacy stance willy-nilly despite its PoV nature.You seem to think any organization promulgating a language-reformationist agenda is "an expert" and we should listen to them; some of them may even be experts on various things, and maybe you only meant hose, but that doesn't make them experts on how to write in quasi-formal English for the broadest possible audience, nor mean that when they advocate a primary-source opinion that they are still being secondary sources on that primary opinion. Your new Alice & Bob example is making another analogy that doesn't track, by relying on medical-efficacy research being equatable to language-change advocacy positions, despte these being pretty much in no way comparable at all. My position is also not similar to your Bob being concerned that what Alice prescribes today affects what he prescribes later; I have no actual position against "prescribing" against committed suicide (or in favor of neopronouns for that matter) in Wikipedia's own voice, within your "ten years' time", if that is what the fact-based evidence shows has become standard usage in formal-English publications.The evidence so far suggests to me that we'll get there much sooner on suicide language, maybe this year, but maybe never on neopronouns, which people have been advocating since the 19th century with nearly no traction in mainstream publishing for a broad audience. It doesn't matter that "experts" like GLAAD and NLGJA advocate for the latter; it demonstrably is not working, and isn't even convincing to everyone deep within the LGBTQIA+ sphere who otherwise may be happy to agree with every single other thing those organizations say. A feeling that some particular voice is "expert" on something doesn't automagically make them right on English usage.
what we do, which is summarizing reliable source material in language that is based on what is recommended by academic style guides and/or reflected in the vast majority of modern RS writing.Here's the thing. That isn't what we do. Neither in practice nor in Wikipedia:About nor in any of our polices or five pillars. It is what you think we should be doing. And that belief brings you into a religious conflict with anyone who suggest we might do something that hasn't been around for a quarter century already because they think it would make Wikipedia better.
Amanda A. Brant has an undisclosed alt on the Norwegian Wikipedia, Zealing. One account edits enwiki, then the other account lobbies for parallel changes on nowiki. You can see this in action at no:Diskusjon:TERF. gnu 57 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Automatic behavior needs (at least) a copyedit. It ties into epilepsy, but I'm not sure how much. Also, I haven't even glanced at the sources. I don't know if it's a popular article, but I thought you might know more about it than I do. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Gee, lookie there, the unnecessary CT was never once used and wasn't needed; I wonder why? I'm sorry to have missed the discussion, but it's probably for the best, as I would not have been able to contain the ... well, d'oh reaction. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Colin. Thank you. Loki ( talk) 03:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I have just returned from London and a visit to The Tower. Either Jubilee or Munin (not sure which) landed on the bench nearby and seemed to wish you well. ― Buster7 ☎ 08:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Colin, you gotta take a look at this thread; I could be completely off, but it's ringing bells. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 15:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ― Buster7 ☎
I've followed that page for over a decade, but the faulty copyright understanding, and the fixation on that image, are more than I can handle right now. I lost two of my three dearest friends within hours of each other this week, am broken and planning two funerals, and the lax attitude towards copyright at the talk page discussions is not something I can cope with right now. No one there understands copyright, and yet, they continue to upload images ... rather than inquiring first of those who do know how to deal with images. I will probably unwatch anyway-- no one there except HAL333 seems interested in fixing the severe content issues anyway, so I don't know why I still care. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Here is fantastic and immediately crystallizes something stupid about that common reasoning, that was otherwise hard to put my finger on. Thank you for the example. I'm sure I'll have opportunity to reference it all too soon. Ajpolino ( talk) 20:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Colin: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 12:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Quarter Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Dementia with Lewy bodies (estimated annual readership: 392,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg ( talk) 14:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
Reidgreg, thanks very much. -- Colin° Talk 14:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring Ketogenic diet (estimated annual readership: 2,400,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg ( talk) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC) |
Here's this one as well, and added to the Million Award Hall of Fame. – Reidgreg ( talk) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Armbrust
The Homunculus
01:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
|
What to do with a mess like List of figures in psychiatry ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
You have done a overwhelming lot of work on the article Ketogenic diet. The article is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy and as the Editor in Chief of the ILAE Wikipedia Project I welcome you to join the project. I also welcome you to co-publish this Wikipedia article in some open access academic journal. This would automatically acknowledge your contributions by providing you with author credits. If you are interested, do not hesitate to reach out to me and we can get working on it. Diptanshu 💬 09:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Colin/PriceMistakes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- TheImaCow ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Colin,
This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Mount Stuart House 2018-08-25.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 18, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-09-18. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Mount Stuart House is a country house built in the Gothic Revival style situated on the east coast of the Isle of Bute, Scotland. It is the ancestral home of the Marquesses of Bute. The original house was constructed by Alexander McGill in 1719, but was redesigned by Sir Robert Rowand Anderson and rebuilt for the 3rd Marquess following a fire on 3 December 1877. It is built from reddish-brown stone; major features include the colonnaded Marble Hall at the centre of the main block, and the Marble Chapel with its elaborate spired tower. It was the first home in Scotland to be lit by electricity and claims to have been the first to have an indoor heated pool. Photograph credit: Colin
Recently featured:
|
Greetings. This month marks the return of the project's long-dormant
collaboration of the month! With some luck and effort, perhaps we can keep it going. I hope you're all finding ways to remain sane during another tumultuous month. Ready or not, here is what's happening around the project:
Seminal vesicles nom.
Tom (LT), reviewed by
Berchanhimez |
Parkinson's disease now a
featured article removal candidate. Discussion
here |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see
Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I hope this newsletter finds you well. For those struggling to focus on writing articles during these tumultuous times, you are not alone. For those stuck at home with more time and energy to dedicate to the encyclopedia, all the more power to you. There is – as always – lots to do. Here is what's happening around the project:
Intramuscular injection nom.
Berchanhimez, reviewed by
Bibeyjj |
Buruli ulcer nom.
Ajpolino |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see
Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!
Backlog of the month
This month I'm trying out a new element of the newsletter – a backlog of the month. The WikiProject Medicine template is on the talk page of 44,944 articles, of which 18,111 have some kind of maintenance tag on them, indicating problems large or small. Each month, I'll highlight some small task to get you out of your normal editing focus and chip away at the project's massive maintenance backlogs. I'll aim for tasks that can be worked on in small chunks, perhaps on days when you can't focus on big problems, or have 15 minutes to burn at your computer.
The first backlog of the month will be the 410 medicine articles that cite no sources. These tend to be lower-traffic topics. Some just need verification that the topic actually exists, along with a quick reference. Others are best redirected to more substantial pages, or even brought to AfD. Feel free to scroll through the list for topics that interest you, or just start at the top. This feature will last as long as folks are interested enough to engage with it. If you see backlogs that would be a good fit, post them here. Thanks all, and happy referencing!
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy holidays | ||
Dear Colin, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy".
|
This edit was not helpful. Before you start criticising my actions in enforcing discretionary sanctions again, you need to get a grip on the history of the behavioural problems. You are not the judge of what sanctions are warranted and your interference will simply result in encouraging RoY to make biomedical claims without sufficient sourcing again. If you want to see them topic banned from medical articles, you're going the right way about it. They have already crossed a line far enough to attract discretionary sanctions, and your encouragement of their behaviour is equally reprehensible. Until you butted in, I was reasonably hopeful that RoY would take the time to read and understand MEDRS. If you really want to improve COVID-19 vaccine, rather than pursuing personal vendettas by sniping from the peanut gallery, then you should be spending your time cleaning up the article. There's enough cleanup required. --: RexxS ( talk) 00:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, due to your balanced and neutral approach I was able to clearly make sense of the different requirements for bio-medical articles. However, the other chap just came across as angry and hostile leading me to believe his revert was for emotional reasons. Having read up on editing bio-medical articles I can now see his point, I just wish he’d come across less hostile, best regards. Roland Of Yew ( talk) 09:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Would be great if you found the "culprit" and asked them to please cite properly. There are hundreds of such paragraphs on WP. I'm busy today. Thanks.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 18:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I just ran it on the material you recently removed from Nabumetone. Wonder of wonders, it was User:Doc James who added that sentence. It would be nice if there were something like a Wikidata for drug prices that would, at least, tell users how various drugs' prices compare (as in low-mid-high-priced). In fact, it would be more than "nice"; it would be kind of vital.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 16:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
2020 is behind us at last. Off Wikipedia, the year has been trying. On Wikipedia, I hope you've found the time you spent here fulfilling and diverting. I've taken the opportunity to place a few end-of-year statistics for reflection below. If you think of any data that would be useful to find (or begin gathering) to gauge the project's success, please let me know. With that, here is what's happening around the project:
Buruli ulcer nom.
Ajpolino, my first successful FAC |
Louise Boursier nom.
Doug Coldwell |
Year in Review
With 2020 now in the rear view mirror, a few numbers to give a sense of where our project is at: In 2020 we added a record number of medicine articles (i.e. articles with the WP:MED tag on their talk pages), starting the year with 41,243 and ending with 45,247. The ~4,000 new articles is
well above the norm, presumably due to new covid-related articles. In terms of reviewed content, we added three featured articles (
Dementia with Lewy bodies,
Complete blood count, and
Buruli ulcer), and lost three to the ravages of time, leaving our total at 66. We also added 42 newly reviewed good articles from 23 different nominators, bringing our total to 296. See a full list of reviewed content from 2020
here. Outside of reviewed content our contributions are more challenging to measure. I'm sure much our time was spent making small improvements, guiding new editors, removing junk from articles, and dealing with the raging global pandemic (on and off the site). I am interested in ways we can quantify and assess our project's progress going forward, so if anyone has ideas for other data we could find or collect, do let me know.
Other notes
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you ever make Griddle scones, or know anyone who does? We don't seem to have any pictures. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, perhaps you will remember me...We met a few months ago, per some "MEDMOS issues". Perhaps you can help me. While reading Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, under the Cold chain section, first paragraph, [1] I found the following:
"The Moderna vaccine vials require storage above −40 °C (−40 °F) and between −25 and −15 °C (−13 and 5 °F).[88] Once refrigerated, the Moderna vaccine can be kept between 2 and 8 °C (36 and 46 °F) for up to 30 days.[88]"
However, the reference is from 28 May 2014, and does not mention the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, although it does discuss the cold chain for vaccines in general. Is this a problem? I am accustomed to reading refs that specifically support the article text, but I do not have the education/ability to evaluate this situation. I could be wrong...Thanks for your time. Good to see you editing once again! Best, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 23:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You forgot one, [2] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If you wrestle with a pig, both of you will get muddy. And the pig will enjoy it.Since none of that seems to be in the slightest concerned with writing an encyclopaedia, I suggest archiving and unwatching whatever other pages irritate you. -- Colin° Talk 18:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy February everyone. I hope the new year is starting to look better than the last one did. As always, if you have any ideas to improve the newsletter, please post them at
the talkpage. Otherwise, here is what's happening around the project:
Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia nom.
Maxim Masiutin, reviewed by
Vaticidalprophet |
Louise Boursier nom.
Doug Coldwell |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Colin:, you were very helpful when I had issues editing the COVID-19 vaccine [ [3]] using my Roland Of Yew ( talk · contribs) username and wondered if you might have any advice regarding resetting Wikipedia passwords? Somehow, my saved passwords list lost my Wikipedia password and I’ve tried and tried to reset my password; however, the reset links aren’t arriving via email even though I’ve checked the trash/junk bin and requested admin help. Best regards, : Inadvertent Consequences Inadvertent Consequences]] ( talk) 12:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Crossroads -talk- 17:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theuyhjasji. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is what's happening around the project:
17q12 microdeletion syndrome nom.
Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by
Bibeyjj |
Friedreich's ataxia nom.
Akrasia25 |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm contemplating MEDMOS and WP:MTAA, and I think that it might be helpful to have a separate essay on Readability tests. IMO the ideal content contains both why you shouldn't rely on them and also some advice about how to get some value out of them (e.g., checking that the sections or paragraphs you deliberately wrote at a simpler level don't score at a higher level). Do you think that you could write such a page? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I would appreciate any advice you might have on this issue [4]. It's this "80%" claim (again). I have posted a paper there, which might help. Would it be for the best not to quote a percentage at all and just say "most"? Best regards. Graham Beards ( talk) 09:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for providing comments on the proposed decision for the RexxS case. In reading your comments you mention about the suitability of other users to be administrators. While it's not a personal attack, I suggest that you alter your comment so that it doesn't mention specific editors. My reasoning is that the committee in the RexxS case is not examining the conduct of the editors you named, and as such detailing specific users isn't necessary when commenting on the proposed decision. Let me know if you have any questions, and in case you were not aware I am one of the case clerks for the RexxS case. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Here is what's happening around the project:
Influenza removed from the
featured article review list thanks largely to
Velayinosu's work.
|
Mihran Kassabian nom.
Larry Hockett |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 02:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the William Lyon Mackenzie article in March, specifically for your comments at the second PR. I have nominated the article for featured article status and I hope you will comment on the nomination here. Thanks again for your help preparing this article. Z1720 ( talk) 17:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a note. I found your comments on the person-first discussion quite helpful; they certainly changed how I viewed the topic. Sorry you were upset by the discussion; nobody there seems to have been their best. Maybe one day the topic can be revisited when there's more evidence and all of us have kinder hearts. Wishing you well. Urve ( talk) 03:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
On 23 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vaccine ingredients, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an immunologic adjuvant is a vaccine ingredient that makes the immune response stronger and longer-lasting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vaccine ingredients. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Vaccine ingredients), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
... follow up on <--this--> -- Skews Peas ( talk) 16:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
You seem bound and determined to win. The source is not WP:FRINGE, it is a legitimate by a scholar the you admit is "an expert in the field". By removing all weight for one expert who disagrees with a position you are engaging in a BATTLE rather than trying to improve the encyclopedia. Abductive ( reasoning) 15:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
No newsletter last month means a double issue this month. Enjoy:
Menstrual cycle saved at
FAR thanks to the efforts of
Graham Beards and others. |
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet, under review by
Epicgenius |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:Plasma globe 60th.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Armbrust
The Homunculus
11:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
|
This is to let you know that the Dementia with Lewy bodies article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 21, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Check it out! Looks like you got a mention and they quoted you saying something smart. jp× g 20:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@
WhatamIdoing: and @
Colin:, just wanted to clarify what you meant by "stop trying to write pandemic-related articles by RFC
[5]
[6]". Do you mean "like the
BMI RFC, with overall RFCs that try to have implications for all pandemic articles" or "RFCs period" AKA "using narrow RFCs to try and resolve individual disputes on pandemic pages" is also not productive?
Because, as far as I can determine, using RFCs is the only way to get anything to stick on particularly frustrating pages like Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misinformation. Otherwise it's like a revert-revert party and BRD breaks down. I admit I only have 6ish years of experience on this site, and I'm still learning how certain things work, but that was my assessment of the situation. There's lots of WP:FRINGE users and also quasi-SPAs, and activist editors, who push one POV or another. It's easy to get drawn into the brawl, and I have on several occasions.
I really see narrowly-worded narrowly-applied RFCs as the only way out of that cave. My understanding is that WhatamIdoing, you would say that RFCs can be useful in some contexts, but that Colin, you think RFCs are the problem here and are actively against consensus-building in these situations. Is that a fair characterization?
If so, Colin, I empathize with your point greatly. I also wish it were easier. I wish that such consensus-building without RFCs were possible in these articles, but this reminds me quite a bit of WP:RANDY. You cannot play chess with someone who will just flip the board when they lose, and likewise, you cannot build consensus with people who are WP:NOTHERE. It is the nature of battlegrounding to get drawn in yourself. That's why it's so insidious.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
And please, take me quite seriously when I say:I am looking for any and all advice on how to deal with these contentious articles better. I really am all ears, and am interested in all perspectives. I would bet good money you have seen similarly contentious topics emerge before my time, and I would appreciate the wiki-expertise.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 00:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm taking a wikibreak. Please avoid posting here unless it is vital. Try WT:MED instead. -- Colin° Talk 09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet, reviewed by
Epicgenius |
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 19:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this well-considered statement at WP:AE. Your point about the BBC at one time "thinking 'balance' on topics like global warming or MMR meant that for every expert you interviewed, you had to have some weirdo too" made me laugh. Bishonen | tålk 10:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC).
"should be more proactive in searching out information than at present and other areas should more fully reflect the scientific literature. I recommend that the BBC takes a less rigid view of “due impartiality” as it applies to science (in practice and not just in its guidelines) and takes into account the non‐contentious nature of some material and the need to avoid giving undue attention to marginal opinion."There really was a belief by some then that "impartiality" meant they had to consider both sides as equal valid and reasonable as though one was trying to be neutral wrt Labour vs Conservative politics. This report required they also consider "due weight", which is more like our policy. -- Colin° Talk 11:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, wow, that is very troubling, indeed. Colin, I also wanted to say, your comments on that AE were insightful, and are much appreciated, as is your level headed voice in many of those disputes! :)
But I did also want to say, this is not the first time I've seen news organizations fail at this, and not just the BBC! "The view from nowhere" is an old foundational principle of news reporting, that comes from a simpler time (Pepperidge Farm remembers). I think it belongs in the trash bin of history. One of my favorite NPR programs, On The Media (from WNYC), has reported on this a lot. A few of the best segments if you haven't heard them:
This reminds me of how some scientists try so hard to be "dispassionate" and "objective", instead of acknowledging their biases
|
---|
As an aside, this reminds me of how some scientists remove themselves from public discourse, to remain "dispassionate" & "objective," which is of course a farce, and only leads to more problems. We would be better off if more experts spent time weighing in, and less time in ivory tower labs, away from the riff raff. We should all (scholars, journalists, lay people) acknowledge our biases and operate with them in mind, instead of pretending they don't exist! That allows us to actually make real progress on areas where society as a whole is biased and out of touch. Writing scholarly papers is not enough, especially when nobody reads them! If scholars don't participate and only publish dispassionate non-societally-relevant articles, then that in and of itself, screws up how WP:DUE and WP:RSUW work. We need experts to write reviews and tell Wikipedia the scholarly view on these things. Peer review and editorial oversight will keep extremism in check. Similarly, all Wikipedians are biased, but it is our PAGs and RSes that keep us on our best behavior. Not the battling out of "equal parts" of POV editors, as some have suggested. I actually think extremist viewpoints make us all more extreme, in a similar fashion to the shifting of the Overton window! There was an excellent essay published in Nature last year about how scientists are bad at this [9], that really fired me up about these issues, and led me to write these now-infamous Reddit posts [10] [11]. I still think it's important for experts to weigh in on public issues, and Wikipedia is probably one of the best ways to do that, hence why I'm here :). Of course this idea of scholarly participation in the public discourse also wasn't new to me, it was basically the sole subject of a graduation speech I gave at my PhD commencement in 2019, lol [12]. Time is a flat circle, and we keep comin' round the bend! |
Sorry, I know that was a lil bit of soapboxing... Maybe I'll write a userspace essay about this instead of a screed plastered on Colin's talk page :)-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 13:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Nothing this month |
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 02:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
My intent wasn't to insult any British editor, but merely to point out that every time such a RFC or general discussion on such topics concerning the UK, are held. The result is always going to be the same. Just too many who oppose the usage of "British" in the intros & UK in the infoboxes. Vaze50, is only starting to realise that. GoodDay ( talk) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Charles Lester Leonard nom.
Larry Hockett, reviewed by
Dracophyllum
|
Trisomy X nom.
Vaticidalprophet |
News from around the site
Discussions of interest
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Thanks, Ajpolino ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you might appreciate this talk (~8 minutes) from the recent m:CEE online meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNeXoSou2h4&t=6694s WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Colin, I am iPad typing, not home and having a hard time keeping up. Could you please have a look at WT:MED? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this question, I've only written N-glycosyltransferase, RVxP motif and Subgenual organ, none of which are "medicine" per se. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear fellow editor,
I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.
All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.
Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.
I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).
The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.
Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from
the mailing list.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Can't blame you unwatching! :-) But as to the BBC and Guardian, media critique sites have noticed that too, see [13] for the UK and Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting have reported a few times on the same sort of thing in the US. The BBC have never mentioned Thordarson's recanting of his testimony which underlies most of the US case, and I don't think it has mentioned the CIA planning to kidnap or murder him either. The Guardian has mentioned both eventually at least. NadVolum ( talk) 18:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Finally have both the skills and a sufficiently powerful computer to do this. FPC feels a lot quieter nowadays, but.... Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 15:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
An image created by you has been promoted to
featured picture status Your image,
File:H. M. Brock - Gilbert and Sullivan - D'Oyly Carte Opera Company Ruddigore revival 1921.jpg, was nominated on
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution!
Armbrust
The Homunculus
02:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Hi Colin,
This is to let you know that
File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg, a
featured picture you uploaded, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's
picture of the day (POTD) for October 25, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at
Template:POTD/2022-10-25. If you have any concerns, please place a message at
Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
18:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The Old Royal Naval College is the architectural centrepiece of Maritime Greenwich, a World Heritage Site in Greenwich, London, described by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as the "finest and most dramatically sited architectural and landscape ensemble in the British Isles". The buildings were originally constructed to serve as the Royal Hospital for Seamen at Greenwich, now generally known as Greenwich Hospital, which was chartered by King William III and Queen Mary II on 25 October 1694, designed by Christopher Wren, and built between 1696 and 1712. The hospital closed in 1869. Between 1873 and 1998 it housed the Royal Naval College, Greenwich. This panoramic photograph depicts the two buildings of the Old Royal Naval College viewed from across the River Thames, with the Queen's House visible in the background in between. Photograph credit: Colin
Recently featured:
|
Back (for now) by popular demand, it's the WP:MED Newsletter! Pardon the 9-month hiatus. This month features a catch-up list of promoted GAs since the last newsletter, and some calls to action for those looking to add to their todo lists. I hope this finds you well. Enjoy.
Since last newsletter (Nov. 1, 2021) |
Thiamine nom.
David notMD |
WP:MED News
News from around the site
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 21:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
2 Tower of London ravens discuss Colin's attributes |
Colin |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning September 3, 2022 |
Reknowned for his collegial, helpful input and talk space demeanor and for having a balanced and neutral approach that is a model for all editors. Colin joined many years ago and has created 268 pages/articles, the Commons:Photo challenge and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (aka MEDRS). He won Picture of the Year 2016 and wrote the essay Wikipedia is not UTube |
Recognized for |
89 Featured Pictures on Commons |
Notable work |
Ketogenic diet |
Submit a nomination |
Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7 ☎ 18:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello all. A short newsletter reflecting a quiet month in recognized content. If there's other types of content you'd like to see in the newsletter feel free to post suggestions here. Otherwise, here's your update for the month:
Sesame allergy nom.
David notMD, reviewed by
Nolabob |
Thiamine nom.
David notMD, under review by
Mertbiol |
WP:MED News
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 03:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
You have made contributions to Tuberous sclerosis in the past. You are most welcome to join and help us on the Epilepsy articles as they get edited or you may want to contribute some edits or create stub articles. NandanYardi ( talk) 18:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@colin,If needed kindly reach out for stub article topics not existing on wikipedia NandanYardi ( talk) 18:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC) NandanYardi, thanks.
Sure ..welcome NandanYardi ( talk) 16:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Feel better soon! We both had COVID in July, took paxlovid, and were well the next day. I hope you do as well! 14:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Just want to say that I appreciate you fighting the good fight. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 20:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Locke Cole accusing me of being disruptive. Thank you. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I would value your advice or comments on this discussion regarding user made images contravening WP:OR and needing WP:V User_talk:A455bcd9#Why_not_do_something_useful. I took objection to this user tagging some of my diagrams. Maybe I am in the wrong. Best regards. Graham Beards ( talk) 19:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
I looked at your userpage in the course of responding to your comment elsewhere, and wanted to say that I really like your photography! Images that stood out particularly were the ravens at the Tower, the escalators at Lloyd's, and the tourists at the National Monument. Good eye. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 13:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at [20] regarding an issue which may interest you. Best regards, — Cote d'Azur ( talk) 08:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @ Colin. From the sidelines, but wanted to thank you for trying to remain objective and balanced in your judgments in the recent (and ongoing) ANI discussion about gensex advocacy. As someone who has been here for less than three years, I am really encouraged to see experienced editors lead by example. Ppt91 talk 20:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey Colin. A small thing: your recent comment at WP:NORN mistakenly labeled the noticeboard as the NPOV one. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 20:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/join-our-project-copyright-campaign-crowdsourcing/2843 reminded me of that FOP image with the London landmarks removed. Maybe you're interested? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello all. Another irregular edition of the newsletter; pardon the six-month gap. I was inspired to collect this after seeing how much activity there is in the GA space on the medicine front. Please review a GAN if you have time, and help to welcome more medicine editors into the fold:
Trinidad Arroyo nom.
Thebiguglyalien, reviewed by
Mike Christie |
Hanhart syndrome nom.
Etriusus, under review by
Dancing Dollar |
WP:MED News
Newsletter ideas, comments, and criticisms welcome here.
You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Ajpolino ( talk) 04:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Theheezy ( talk) 07:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
Hi Colin, I know time is always in short supply, but if you can find time to read over prostate cancer and share any suggestions for improvement, I'd be grateful. Your careful commentary at lung cancer and dracunculiasis (which I will return to eventually) was fantastic and much appreciated. I'm hoping to bring prostate cancer to FAC whenever it's ready, so feel free to pick nits. But also it's not too late for large-scale changes if you find something deeply lacking. I haven't started on the images yet, but will do so this week. Any image suggestions are appreciated. I'm aesthetically challenged. Ajpolino ( talk) 14:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I do not want to elevate this to ANI, however, I'm going to ask that you remove the irrelevant paragraph laced with thinly veiled personal attacks. You are more than welcome to contribute to the discussion productively. However, by filling the thread with irrelevant, frankly nonsense, you are ensuring no resolution will come about this. I am attempting to fix this. DarmaniLink ( talk) 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
In particularly, please stop vindictively individually personalizing style disputes, especially by labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a "conservative" who is going after "woke social justice warriors". That is just not okay.
I see that you've been made aware of WP:CTOP (formerly WP:AC/DS) in this topic area at least twice before, but not within the last year, so this is a reminder. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
It is fine to come to Wikipedia with an opinion about how it might be made better. It only crosses a line when that is "at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies" and when editors fail to "cooperate, collaborate, and compromise".Sure, my entire point can be boiled down to: having your opinion is very different from trying to inject it at all costs and against all other views into our content and our policy-formation, because that is at the expense of WP's NPoV goal and core policy; and that trying to paint other editors as conservative anti-woke agitators for not 100% agreeing with you has the opposite effect from "cooperate, collaborate, and compromise". (Even if you personally didn't really do that, others do it to me all the time, most especially on other matters of langauge reform advocacy – more than in all other topics combined.)If I use "MoS and WP does/is/won't/will" kind of wording, it's based on experience, and perhaps a little on some persuasive writing advice to avoid constructions that invite doubt and opposition, like "I think that", and "In my opnion". Everyone already understands that everyone's posts here are just their opnion, since none of us are omnicient. Maybe it's a style that some people find annoying, but every argument technique is probably annoying to someone, and it would have to be annoying more people than it persuades for it to stop being an effective tool.The central problem here is that everyone with a reformationist idea, if you like that term better than activistic or advocacy-based or whatever, has reasons for it that they believe are valid and important, and which even a majority of our editorial pool might believe are in some case, but which are nonetheless, at present, reformationist PoVs to change current typical practice, on- and off-site. This is by definition PoV pushing, even when we mostly agree with the PoV. If and when the PoV becomes the objectively observable new off-site norm (across the kind of material we use as sources) then it's no longer what amounts to a fringe view; it is the new cultural gestalt and something we should adopt. We can figure that out either by observing changes in the style guides our own is based on, or if they're not catching up, by doing our own analysis across English-language writing (not just the reformationist material). But the reformationists want the change right now and will attack you for not giving them their way. That this kind of change actually happens off-site in the "real world" largely through the activities of advocacy/activism/reformationist bodies in the long run doesn't make them some kind of wrong, but they are those kinds of bodies. Their effect on our content and policy is actually real, it's just slow and moderated by the adoption of their recommendations by the kinds of sources we use in the aggregate, instead of WP directly adopting their advocacy stance willy-nilly despite its PoV nature.You seem to think any organization promulgating a language-reformationist agenda is "an expert" and we should listen to them; some of them may even be experts on various things, and maybe you only meant hose, but that doesn't make them experts on how to write in quasi-formal English for the broadest possible audience, nor mean that when they advocate a primary-source opinion that they are still being secondary sources on that primary opinion. Your new Alice & Bob example is making another analogy that doesn't track, by relying on medical-efficacy research being equatable to language-change advocacy positions, despte these being pretty much in no way comparable at all. My position is also not similar to your Bob being concerned that what Alice prescribes today affects what he prescribes later; I have no actual position against "prescribing" against committed suicide (or in favor of neopronouns for that matter) in Wikipedia's own voice, within your "ten years' time", if that is what the fact-based evidence shows has become standard usage in formal-English publications.The evidence so far suggests to me that we'll get there much sooner on suicide language, maybe this year, but maybe never on neopronouns, which people have been advocating since the 19th century with nearly no traction in mainstream publishing for a broad audience. It doesn't matter that "experts" like GLAAD and NLGJA advocate for the latter; it demonstrably is not working, and isn't even convincing to everyone deep within the LGBTQIA+ sphere who otherwise may be happy to agree with every single other thing those organizations say. A feeling that some particular voice is "expert" on something doesn't automagically make them right on English usage.
what we do, which is summarizing reliable source material in language that is based on what is recommended by academic style guides and/or reflected in the vast majority of modern RS writing.Here's the thing. That isn't what we do. Neither in practice nor in Wikipedia:About nor in any of our polices or five pillars. It is what you think we should be doing. And that belief brings you into a religious conflict with anyone who suggest we might do something that hasn't been around for a quarter century already because they think it would make Wikipedia better.
Amanda A. Brant has an undisclosed alt on the Norwegian Wikipedia, Zealing. One account edits enwiki, then the other account lobbies for parallel changes on nowiki. You can see this in action at no:Diskusjon:TERF. gnu 57 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Automatic behavior needs (at least) a copyedit. It ties into epilepsy, but I'm not sure how much. Also, I haven't even glanced at the sources. I don't know if it's a popular article, but I thought you might know more about it than I do. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Gee, lookie there, the unnecessary CT was never once used and wasn't needed; I wonder why? I'm sorry to have missed the discussion, but it's probably for the best, as I would not have been able to contain the ... well, d'oh reaction. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Colin. Thank you. Loki ( talk) 03:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I have just returned from London and a visit to The Tower. Either Jubilee or Munin (not sure which) landed on the bench nearby and seemed to wish you well. ― Buster7 ☎ 08:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Colin, you gotta take a look at this thread; I could be completely off, but it's ringing bells. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 15:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ― Buster7 ☎
I've followed that page for over a decade, but the faulty copyright understanding, and the fixation on that image, are more than I can handle right now. I lost two of my three dearest friends within hours of each other this week, am broken and planning two funerals, and the lax attitude towards copyright at the talk page discussions is not something I can cope with right now. No one there understands copyright, and yet, they continue to upload images ... rather than inquiring first of those who do know how to deal with images. I will probably unwatch anyway-- no one there except HAL333 seems interested in fixing the severe content issues anyway, so I don't know why I still care. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Here is fantastic and immediately crystallizes something stupid about that common reasoning, that was otherwise hard to put my finger on. Thank you for the example. I'm sure I'll have opportunity to reference it all too soon. Ajpolino ( talk) 20:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Colin: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dustfreeworld ( talk) 12:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)