User talk:DrMicro

Welcome!

Hello DrMicro! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

User talk:DrMicro/Archive #1

Plasmodium

Good work!!! Zargulon 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium GA review

Hello. Thank you for your message regarding my taking up the article Plasmodium for review. I have decided to fail the article. My reasons are expressed on that article's talk page. I did not feel that putting it on hold would be a good idea as there really is quite a bit to fix for it to be considered for GA status. Good luck. will381796 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glad to have provided at least a little bit of feed back. Bear in mind, I really only reviewed the article to see whether or not it qualifies for Good Article status. You may also want to try getting the article peer reviewed to get reviews by a more broad audience of editors. Good luck. will381796 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to look it over today. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've also asked User:Hempelmann‎ to look it over, he's an expert in the field and the main author of the History of malaria article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcocystis: Host-parasite relations

Please concentrate more: Sarcocystis: Host-parasite relations. Mammalian orders infected was better!! --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: User talk:DrMicro I do my best, I don't have to much time, probably like you!! --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know this feeling. You just write, and the others not pay any attention, but probably that is a good article. Just we have to work on it.! --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you added some good information to a couple of articles I monitor. Thank you. If you feel like getting all smallpoxy, you might be interested in creating an new home for Variola virus related information (this currently redirects to smallpox, but could certainly be its own page)

Cheers :) --DO11.10 (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Kisspeptin

In your kisspeptin entry you indicated that the Kiss1 gene is transcribed in the vascular endothelium. Could you please provide a reference for that statement?

DocDonk (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)DrDonk[reply]

The paragraph on Pathological importance badly needs a reference, too. Could you please provide it? Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

I am creating specialized stub templates for some of the genera you are working on. If you let me know what you are up to, I can try to create them earlier on to make your article creations easier. Or, I can go back and edit them. Either way. --Kleopatra (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the taxonomy of article is a great way to go. I'll try to keep up with what you're doing and edit and subcat as I can. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sensenbrenner syndrome

In this article which you began you state "Impairment of the Sonic hedgehog pathway was apparent in both neural tube patterning...". The sonic name looks like vandalism to me. Can you show me a reference for that? LilHelpa (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops.. nevermind. You provided one in the article. Sorry. LilHelpa (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your work on virus articles Graham Colm (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A cup of tea for you!

Despite our disagreements above, I hope you understand that your microbiology-related contributions to Wikipedia are much appreciated. JFW | T@lk 08:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello DrMicro! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Please write in prose

Wonder if you could write more in prose rather than list form. Also high quality sources per WP:MEDRS ARE required. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good point. Here is an example of a page I worked on Shortness of breath where I tried to put the differential diagnosis of each main cause into context. The list was than moved to Differential diagnosis of shortness of breath. Might have been better under the title of List of causes of shortness of breath. IMO we should do the same here. Maybe discuss groups of causes together (like infectious, medication, etc like is done on the page on anaphylaxis) Doc James (talk· contribs · email) 20:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis

A lot of your additions to hepatitis are sourced with high-quality sources, such as the very good reviews in Clin Microbiol Rev. It would be great if you could format the references using the {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} templates. Readers can access sources a lot better if you provide ISBN codes for books and PMID and DOI codes for journal articles. Thanks for looking into this. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of these additions on hepatitis - with the exception of the section on pathology - were present when you deleted them previously. DrMicro (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of viruses

Hi, thanks for your interest in the article, which I wrote last year. I am concerned that you have used a primary study to support the statement, that measles virus emerged "most probably in the 11th and 12th centuries", and for "The current epidemic strain evolved at the beginning of the 20th century – most probably between 1908 and 1943". I have taken great care to adhere to WP:Primary and have mainly used books as sources. I know the article is not fully compliant yet, but to use primary studies to support such strong statements goes against our guidelines. I don't like reverting, so are there secondary or better still a tertiary sources available? Wikipedia is not like our academic work where we are trained to use primary studies. It is a conservative encyclopedia. The use of "most probably" in these contexts contravenes WP:NPOV so at least rephrasing is in order. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ExGaussian distribution

I have replaced ExGaussian distribution by a redirect to Exponentially modified Gaussian distribution. It may be worth saving some of the references you had and adding them into that existing article. Melcombe (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skewness and kurtosis

Stating the assumption of normality is important for the variance results, as otherwise what is said would be untrue. These sections were not specifically in the context of testing for normality. And estimates of skewness and kurtosis are not used only for normality testing ... one important example is the moment-ratio plot used for selecting a family of distributions where historically this was developed in the context of the Pearson family of distributions (although that is not a good article for this use). Melcombe (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

Thanks for your additions to the page, but please bear in mind that the "See also" section of an article should not link to non-existent articles (see WP:SEEALSO). Guettarda (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

The Modest Barnstar
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.126 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Famial leiomyomas

Hi, after your recent enhancements to this section of uterine fibroids I am wondering if it should not be moved to a separate article? It is somewhat hidden in this article; pathogenesis, management and everything else is different than regular uterine fibroids, does not fit article categories, some info is also spread across the other mentioned articles. It does not belong into the epidemiology section anyway. Richiez (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, did you consider some of the standard citation techniques? I have just created User:Richiez/Medical references quick and easy as a very quick intro, let me know what you think. Richiez (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you Doc! It's been a pleasure working on your interesting article, which I feel is a valuable contribution on a rare disease (btw, I would like to see articles on rare diseases graded by importance within a 'rare disease' subgrouping, rather than being categorized as low-importance simply because they're individually rare). I've come over to the Medicine Project to try to help out a bit, because I know there is a shortage of editors. Being completely new to the project I'm very much feeling my way around, and so I'm especially glad you appreciated my copyediting (I realize there's still stuff there to do, and intend to come back). Hope to see you around again, —MistyMorn (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have been a while in replying -- I wanted to respond by email. But the answer is yes, definitely. Best, —MistyMorn (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonic Mean - Relationship with Other Means

I just deleted an inequality you stated that cannot be correct:

"If all the real variables in the set are > 0 then H ≥ M2 / m where m is the minimum in the set."[1]

As this would imply (if M is indeed the maximum as defined in the article above), then H would be greater than the maximum, meaning it wasn't even a mean. I assume this was just a lack of explanation when quoting from the paper. Feel free to re-add the correct statement.

Thanks, and apologies.

JPBrod (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multivariate Exponential

I noticed you did a good bit of cleanup on the ExGaussian page. I currently need a multivariate exponential distribution, and I'm researching and pulling papers. Do you think it of general interest to record this distribution in the statistics pages?

Shawn@garbett.org (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxoboxes

I don't know what you think edits like this achieve, but please stop making them. See WP:TX for the proper use of taxoboxes. For an article about a genus, the genus should be given in the genus field, and the subdivision, if given, should be into infra-generic taxa (typically species). --Stemonitis (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is dishonest, and it's by no means the only one. It is not undoing my edit in any way, and should not be labelled as such. Note that the subject of the article should be in boldface in the taxobox, which you have been undoing. Please read WP:TX before making further changes to taxoboxes. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing: the subdivision parameter should really only be used for comprehensive lists of the daughter taxa, rather than to pick out selected species. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrMicro! I am happy to give you more info. Please follow this link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain . If interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk Any questions, just e-mail me! Thank you! Nush 90.210.83.229 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Try this link https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/s?s=18871 Hope it works! Nush Hydra Rain (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the note about reverting the press release. I watchlisted the page because I've been helping out with Talk:Malaria/GA2, so if you want to check to make sure we don't get anything wrong on the Malaria article, now is a great time to leave comments. Thanks for your contributions in this area. Biosthmors (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chebyshev's inequality

I appreciate the improvements you're making to Chebyshev's inequality. But, can you please not put spaces inside your parenthesis marks ( like this )? It is very nonstandard and looks wrong. I don't think it's specifically addressed there, but you might find Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics to be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beta (Statistical) Distribution

Dear Dr. Micro,

Thanks for your kind words. It is very satisfying to get feedback (particularly positive feedback :-) ) as it makes one feel that the time and effort spent on Wikipedia are worthwhile.

Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. Micro,

Receiving the "Original Barnstar" is great! - Thanks for the positive feedback! I'll have to get a small barn to hang it on :-) Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beta distribution article -Length

Hi DrMicro,

I would appreciate your feedback regarding the recent banner "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. ...(October 2012)" recently placed at the top of the beta distribution article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_distribution and the discussion on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beta_distribution#Length_of_article as to whether there is a limitation on the lengths of articles in Wikipedia and/or whether it would be better to "prune" the article and create new Wikipedia articles as suggested by User:Iae in the talk page Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Micro for your very fast, thoughtful and informational response. Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. Micro for your further discussion, which I do find very helpful. I very much appreciate that you took valuable time to thoroughly explain this. Your example is also very useful. Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need your help regarding "... I think your suggestion of separating off the 2 and 4 parameter cases is a good idea. I suspect it is easier to concentrate on the peculiarities if of each in a separate article.DrMicro (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)" Question: what Wikipedia webpage is best to use as a "work in progress" webpage for the "Beta distribution with four parameters" article until I get it looking good enough for "general release"? Should I use my UserPage? Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A thought. I presume... " Yes, you presumed correctly :-). Thanks very much for your very helpful response, you completely addressed my question. Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mosteller and Tukey on Robustness of Mean vs. Median

Am I correct that the following (unsigned) comment is from you?

"I may perhaps have missed this factoid in the beta distribution article but in case it isnt present it may be worth including somewhere in it. Bimodal distributions (including the beta distribution) have the peculiar property that the mean is a more robust sample estimator than the median. Reference: Mosteller F, Tukey JW (1977) Data analysis and regression: a second course in statistics. Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley Pub Co"

It makes sense to me for bimodal beta distributions (Beta(α,β) with α<1 and β<1) because most of the mass is at the ends, and hence the mean will be a better sample estimate than the median because the mean considers all the data while the median drops sample data from the ends from consideration. I agree that it would be a good fact to include this fact in the beta distribution article (although at the risk of inviting more comments about the length of the article :-) ). Do you have the page in Mosteller and Tukey where they make this statement? I looked for it in the index but I could only find pages 9,10 for "beta densities" where they do not seem to discuss this fact. Thanks (Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the page in Mosteller and Tukey dealing with this point and I added the following to the Mean section on the Beta distribution article: "While for typical unimodal distributions (with centrally located modes, inflexion points at both sides of the mode, and longer tails) (with Beta(alpha,beta) such that α > 2 β > 2) it is known that the mean (as an estimate of location) is not as robust as the median, the opposite is the case for uniform or bimodal distributions (with Beta(alpha,beta) such that α ≤ 1 β ≤ 1), with the modes located at the ends of the distribution. As Mosteller and Tukey remark ([19] p. 207) "the average of the two extreme observations uses all the sample information. This illustrates how, for short-tailed distributions, the extreme observations should get more weight." By contrast, it follows that the median of bimodal distributions with modes at the edge of the distribution (with Beta(alpha,beta) such that α ≤ 1 β ≤ 1) is not robust, as the median drops the extreme sample observations from consideration." I acknowledged your contribution in the edit page. Thank you for bringing this up ! Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It cannot apply to any and all bimodal distributions. It certainly applies to bimodal distributions with NO tails, that look like a "U". It will not apply to bimodal distributions that look like the humps of a camel with the two modes centrally located and the distribution having long tails away from the centrally located humps. It has to do with the distribution of the probability mass. If the probability mass is centrally located (whether unimodal, or multimodal, as long as the mass is centrally located) with long tails, the median may do better, as the mass in the tails may be irrelevant, and it may be better to ignore the data at the very ends. If the distribution looks like a "U" on the other hand the mass at the extremes is most important and like the "great" Tukey said, it's all that matters and the mass at the center of the "U" sample should be weighted less. Thanks again for bringing this most interesting case. It is with exchanges like this with you, that I most benefit from Wikipedia! (where we discuss issues like this!)Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comment regarding: "Another point I did come across that might be of interest: the kurtosis of a distribution is a measure of the probability mass around the two points: the mean +/- the standard deviation. Given the flexbility of the beta distribution this may be worth exploring further." Excellent point! I wrote something about this concerning the kurtosis of the bimodal degenerate case Beta(0,0) where essentially you have a 2-point distribution with Dirac Delta Functions at each end. This is the minimum kurtosis that ANY distribution can possibly have. It shows that the interpretation of kurtosis as "measuring the fatness of the tails" is completely and utterly WRONG (as Beta(0,0) has NO tails). Even Beta(1/2,1/2), has lower kurtosis than most distributions with "fat tails". (The article on Wikipedia on kurtosis needs much editing, as it not correctly worded). I saw that some people already brought this up in the talk page of the Kurtosis article, and other people came back citing (erronous and badly written references). I have not had the time and energy to correct the kurtosis article (since there are many places I would like to edit). I am impressed by the fact that you brought up the text by Mosteller and Tukey since both authors are excellent. Concerning the sum of beta distributions, I would have to give that subject some thought :-) (Thanks for discussing these topics!)Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Mixture of Beta Distributions

Hi Dr. Micro,

1)Thanks again for bringing to my attention the issue of robustness for "U" shaped distributions. Today I added an example (random walks) on the "mean" section of the article and another paragraph on the "Mean absolute deviation" section.

2) I gave some thought to the subject of mixtures of beta distributions. Similarly to the section on "Generating beta-distributed random variates," (to which I have not contributed anything) presently I do not see myself able to write a section on these subjects without taking significant added space, which would run counter to the present emphasis on reducing the size of the beta article. I do not see how to discuss this without an introduction, formulas and the pros and cons of different approaches. They are both very important subjects, so I agree that it would be good for Wikipedia if these topics are covered.Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plasmodium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GCN2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Reciprocal distribution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Reciprocal, Degrees of freedom, Mantissa and T distribution

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life cycle of Plasmondium

If you could check to make sure Malaria#Life_cycle is factual, that would help. You can reply here I'll watch. Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure everything was factual for all 5 species that cause malaria. Much appreciated. Biosthmors (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info and link! Biosthmors (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of statistical terms

Dear Dr. Micro,

Thank you for pointing out the article: http://www.economics.soton.ac.uk/staff/aldrich/aldrich%20bootstrapping.pdf , which I had not previously seen. It indeed contains a very fascinating history of statistical terms and it is interesting to read. I agree with the author concerning the terms used by Tukey (for example, his "jacknife", a term which conveys its usefulness but does not convey what it is or what it actually does). Best regards, Dr. J. Rodal (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For improvements of List of parasites of humans Shoefly (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parasitologist

Hi DrMicro - thank you so much for your kind offer! I actually still do need a parasitologist...would you mind taking a look at Ann Bishop (biologist)? Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 19:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 12:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human respiratory syncytial virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcription (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Haemoproteus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Egg
Plasmodium falciparum biology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Motif

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multifocal stenosing ulceration of the small intestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ann Bishop (biologist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Britain, Plaque, Medical Research Council and Cook

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Resampling (statistics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Degrees of freedom and Correlation coefficient (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
for one explanation i read from you was really well spoken. Great Job! Thegabster (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really a doctor?Thegabster (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Myopathy, X-linked, with excessive autophagy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaperone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meningioma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SMO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ratio estimator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uniform distribution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bimodality coefficient

Hi there! I've just stumbled across your numerous edits of the bimodality coefficient (good job!). If I got it right, you seem to have changed the formula to

This doesn't really seem to match the definition of the bimodality coefficient in the authoritative SAS User's Guide (where this statistic originates from). Here it is given as:

I've changed the formula accordingly - but it would be good to know whether I might have overlooked something!

Best, Roland

ZoppoT (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Jap, you're certainly right that the appropriate formula depends on whether Pearson's kurtosis (3 for the normal dist) or excess kurtosis (0) is used. That's why I've added the little word excess to the definition (which is possibly overlooked very easily). There are actually quite a few other issues to be considered (most importantly, whether to correct skew and kurt estimates for sample bias). I'm currently preparing a short article on the bimodality coefficient in psychological experiments and will start a more thorough update of the Wiki page once this manuscript has been reviewed (unless you come in first :-).

There's also another article that I found very instructive and which is waiting to be worked into Wiki. Might be of interest to you: Knapp, T. R. (2007). Bimodality revisited. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 8-20. (p. 12 of the pdf)

ZoppoT (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Plasmodium falciparum biology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to ATP, AMP and GTP
Unimodality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Uniform distribution

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nance-Horan syndrome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Molar, Enamel, Canine and Pinna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eugregarinorida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns/Comments

Have brought up some concerns / comments here regarding the edits to migraine [1]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re migraine

I have rewritten any part that might have given you concern. I have also rewritten a sentence that was misleading as it stood. I disagree with you over the non inclusion of the known genes for 2 reasons.

The first is that while you make reference to 'the subpage', this subpage appears (to me anyway) to be non existent. I may be incorrect: if so I apologise and would be grateful for the link to the subpage.

The second and more substantial reason is that this IMHO is fairly basic material. My own feeling is that if a known gene is causative of a disease/syndrome then it belongs on the aetiology section of the page dealing with the disease/syndrome. It would be difficult to discuss (say) Down's syndrome without mentioning the extra chromosome: or Noonan's without the missing one. It is difficult to discuss haemophilia without mentioning the causative mutations. Quite a number of pages in WP (?the majority) dealing with inheritable diseases/syndromes do include a mention of the genes when they are known. For these reasons I incline to the view that the page is better with this material than without it. YMMV.

In the instant case the first of these genes was associated with migraine almost two decades ago. That is hardly 'cutting edge' material. The genes are themselves not discussed in detail on the migraine page: I do agree with you there that such material would be better placed on another page. For this reason the genes have been linked to the pages that do discuss the genes in detail.

Finally to head off any complaints about 'primary sources' I have ensured that material was referenced by a review of these genes.DrMicro (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subpage I refer to is this one Familial hemiplegic migraine. This is a rare cause of migraines thus my opinion that the details should be discussed on the subpage. I discussed these concern on the talk page here [2] which is were further discussion should occur. The other concern is that the text you have added is fairly similar to another paper. This is better now. I have not checked to make sure the ref supports the text in question yet but I have a feeling you are using the wrong ref for part of it. Doc James (talk · contribs email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for the page link. I will put this into the migraine page. Dr Micro

Articles only containing a navbox

Your edits have lead to a discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 54#Adjusting some template transclusions. Wikipedia does not make multiple mainspace pages displaying a copy of the same navbox and nothing else. If you can turn it into proper articles by adding article text above a navbox then it may be OK. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blastogregarinorina, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syzygy and Sporocyst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rademacher distribution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rademacher distribution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rademacher distribution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Series (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oculocerebrorenal syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cillium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Qualitative variation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uniform distribution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregarines

never mind, I was wrong... ANd I dont know how to remove this...


Yes it was completely wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uitbreiding (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Caulleryellidae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bouquet
Gigaductidae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Syzygy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syncystidae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syzygy and Merogony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theiler's disease, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stool and Anorexia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Your changes are getting disruptive. Your addition are not supported by the discussion on the talk page. You are using refs that are 1) not reviews 2) do not even mention hep C. What you are attempting is more or less original research and the sources you are using are not appropriate per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would be very nice if you would format your refs similar to those in the rest of the article. Articles are supposed to have a consistent references style.
Also please write in generally accessible English (ie try to use less technical terms).
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ago so I take it you are unwilling to format the same as the rest of the article :-( Have you seen the WP:RefToolbar? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also per WP:MEDMOS we typically say "person" not "patient". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry yes discussed here Wikipedia:MEDHOW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which ref supports this edit [3]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no way to convince you to use the same ref format as the rest of the article than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the GA/FA requirements is a consistent referencing style. The style you are using also does not link to pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Farinocystis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nucleus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium falciparum biology

Please take a look at references after 507 ^ Thawani N, Tam M, Bellemare MJ, Bohle DS, Olivier M, de Souza JB, Stevenson MM (2013) Haemozoin inhibts erythropoetin induced proliferation of erythroid precursors.
Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page). Please fix this error. Thanks. --Frze (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plasmodium inui, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celebes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plasmodium unalis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siedleckia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pellicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Autophagy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of malaria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you own copyright to the ref in question we have a serious problem. This edit [4] added "Diagnosis of acute hepatitis C is made by the qualitative detection of HCV RNA. The viral RNA may appear as early as 1-2 weeks after exposure and its appearance is quickly followed by highly elevated alanine aminotransferase. After a follow up period of 8-12 weeks to allow for spontaneous resolution, treatment should be initiated."

The ref says "diagnosis of acute hepatitis C relies on the qualitative detection of HCV RNA, which may appear as early as 1-2 weeks after exposure quickly followed by highly elevated alanine aminotransferase. After a follow-up period of 8-12 weeks for allowing spontaneous resolution, treatment should be initiated." [5]

All the text in bold is exactly the same. You must paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is more. In these edits [6]
You add
"In children born to hepatitis C virus antibody positive, hepatitis C virus RNA negative mothers, alanine aminotransferase and hepatitis C virus antibodies should be investigated at 18-24 months of life. If both the alanine aminotransferase value is normal and hepatitis C virus antibody is not found, follow up should be interrupted.
In children born to hepatitis C virus RNA positive mothers, alanine aminotransferase and hepatitis C virus RNA should be investigated at 3 months of age. Of these
(1) hepatitis C virus RNA positive children should be considered infected if viremia is confirmed by a second assay performed within the 12th month
(2) hepatitis C virus RNA negative children with abnormal alanine aminotransferase should be tested again for viremia at 6-12 months and for antibodies to the hepatitis C virus at 18 months
(3) hepatitis C virus RNA negative children with normal alanine aminotransferase should be tested for antibodies to the hepatitis C virus and have their alanine aminotransferase reestimated at 18-24 months. They should be considered non infected if both the alanine aminotransferase is normal and the antibody levels to the hepatitis C virus are undetectable.
The presence of anti hepatitis C virus antibody beyond the 18th month in a never viremic child with normal alanine aminotransferase is likely consistent with past hepatitis C virus"
Ref says:
In children born to' anti-hepatitis C virus antibody positive, hepatitis C virus-RNA negative mothers, alanine aminotransferase and anti-hepatitis C virus should be investigated at 18–24 months of life. If alanine aminotransferase values are normal and anti-hepatitis C virus is undetectable, follow-up should be interrupted. In children born to hepatitis C virus-RNA positive mothers, alanine aminotransferase and hepatitis C virus RNA should be investigated at 3 months of age: (1) hepatitis C virus-RNA positive children should be considered infected if viremia is confirmed by a second assay performed within the 12th month; (2) hepatitis C virus-RNA negative children with abnormal alanine aminotransferase should be tested again for viremia at 6–12 months, and for anti-hepatitis C virus at 18 months; (3) hepatitis C virus-RNA negative children with normal alanine aminotransferase should be tested for anti-hepatitis C virus and alanine aminotransferase at 18–24 months, and should be considered non-infected if alanine aminotransferase is normal and anti-hepatitis C virus undetectable;(4) anti-hepatitis C virus seropositivity beyond the 18th month in a never-viremic child with normal alanine aminotransferase is likely consistent with past hepatitis C virus infection.
What is this? You have made thousands of edits, are they all copyright infringement? Who is going to clean this up? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A

Yes they all appear to be full of copyright infringement. Take this randomly selected edit from today [7] You added "During invasion of the new red cell most of the MSP1 molecule is shed from the parasite surface except for a small C-terminal fragment which can be detected in ring stages." Ref says "During invasion of the new red cell most of the MSP1 molecule is shed from the parasite surface except for a small C-terminal fragment which can be detected in ring stages." Exact same sentence word for word. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is too extensive. This edit [8] you add "Heparin binds only at the apical tip of the merozoite surface and multiple heparin binding proteins are found preferentially in the apical organelles" and "The Duffy and reticulocyte binding-like families bind to heparin with diverse affinities suggesting that heparin masks the apical surface of merozoites and blocks interaction with the erythrocyte membrane after initial attachment" which is more or less word for word from Plasmodium+falciparum Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B

In these edits [9] this sentence "240,000 children in the United States have antibody to hepatitis C virus (HCV) and 68,000 to 100,000 are chronically infected" is word for word from [10]

This sentence "membrane rupture of longer than 6 hr before delivery, and procedures exposing the infant to maternal blood" is from [11]

This sentence "In chronic cases a significant reduction in mean alanine aminotransferase levels may occur albeit with a rebound during the postpartum period. The viral RNA levels may rise toward the end of pregnancy." very close to [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C

The user has mostly written this article. This section [13] is more or less the first paragraph of [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be okay as it is take from PLoS which is CC BY but there are issues with it being a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This however is not open source with words in bold the same "It consists of approximately 400 amino acids organized into three domains: an N-terminal domain containing a conserved pentapeptide (region I), a highly repetitive species specific central domain and a C-terminal domain containing a second conserved sequence (region II)."[15]

"CSPs contain approximately 400 amino acids and are organized into three domains: an N-terminal domain containing a conserved pentapeptide called region I, a highly repetitive species-specific central domain, and a C-terminal domain containing another conserved sequence called region II.[16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, With okay you mean a fixable copyright violation that can be addressed with proper attribution instead of comlete removal I suppose. That's a rather broad interpretation of okay. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D

This sentence "Gametocytes undergo a number of changes in their erythrocyte membrane elasticity which may allow them to be retained within the bone marrow until maturation."[17] is more or less like this one "gametocytes undergo remarkable shifts in their erythrocyte membrane elasticity, which may allow them to be retained within the bone marrow until maturation" [18]. Th`reverted all your edits to this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment seems a little odd. The guidelines are the only ones that have been published to date and were quoted exactly as they were written. Guidelines are supposed to be quoted exactly as they are written. Their legal status is similar to that of case law: while the text of case law is copyrighted but not merely is it permitted that case law be copied and quoted indefinitely, it not not permitted to change a word. This is the important difference from public domain material: public domain material may be altered at will while copyrighted material may not. Also while most copyrights expire after a finite period, that applying to case law does not. This is why in common law countries quotations of previous cases must be used precisely as they are written. As guidelines may be quoted in a court of law and represent an existing recommended standard of care they should also be quoted precisely as they are written along a reference to their source. This is exactly what was done here. This is compatible with existing legal standards. Rephrasing guidelines might lead to error and is not recommended. For these reasons I think this particular comment is incorrect.
Secondly might I refer the editors to the WP page on fair use: [[19]]. The average scientific article is usually 6-7 pages in length (5000-6000 words or greater). Close paraphrasing of 20-30 words from an article of this or greater length is not normally considered to be copyright infringement. Indeed for many scientific works it is essential to quote the material precisely as it was written. Since Einstein died in 1955 the formula E = mc2 is still in copyright as copyright has been extended until 70 years after the author's death. The expiration of copyright on this expression actually extends past this date as the original formula was L/c2 = m. However this formula has been and continues to be widely quoted as it was written. Scientific works are considered differently in law to non scientific works as it is intended that others will reuse the work described albeit with correct attribution.
The instant article is a review of material that has been published elsewhere. Reviews particularly ones with hundreds of references as this one has are considered by default transformative rather than derivative works. This is because the variety of material includes such a range of material that it would be exceedingly difficult to argue that this page as a whole is a derivative of any original single work. The composite itself is an original work.
Thirdly I would like to point out that the reversal of several years work on this page seems a little excessive. As the record shows that this page has been extensively edited both by myself and a number of others over a period of several years. Most if not all of the article has been rewritten at least once. It is in use as a reference work in universities in several countries. This I know for a fact because I have had students - both undergraduate and postgraduate - quote to me material taken directly from it. For this reason this reversal appears to be an excessive response.
Fourthly if there are any problems I am more than happy to rephrase any sentences that have given rise to concern.DrMicro (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not use text here under "fair use". Text must be CC BY SA. We must paraphrase guidelines. The APA from the DSM has requested that we not use their text word for word for example. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DrMicro:
I've been blocked before, and I know that being blocked is very frustrating. Let me reply to your points.
Your first point, about quoting guidelines exactly, is interesting. When there is no other choice, Wikipedia does allow quotations under the US fair-use doctrine. Even block quotations.[20] But if you want to insert a quotation into Wikipedia, then complying with fair-use doctrine is not enough: you must also comply with the Wikipedia standards I shall reference below. Please read on.
About your second point: Wikipedia doesn't call fair-use content "fair-use": it calls it "non-free". And unfortunately, "the use of non-free content on Wikipedia is ... subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law."[21] There are various reasons for this. (For example, facilitating downstream reuse in countries with no fair-use doctrine.) If you have the time, you can read about Wikipedia's stricter standards, and the reasons for them, at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Note that User:NYKevin has advised Wikipedians: "Avoid non-free content whenever possible; it's usually not worth the trouble." Is he right? I'm not sure. Maybe he is.
About your third point: Our editors are busy; wholesale mass reversion is quicker than careful precision reversion.
About your fourth point: This is a generous offer; I thank you for it.
If you do take a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content and tell us that you have looked at it, this may help somewhat towards your being unblocked.
Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for extensive copyright infringement, this is an emergency block, will be brought to AN and WT:MED. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Case has been posted to AN here [22] and to WT:MED here [23] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved admin, the above block is hereby endorsed and made indefinite until further notice. A Contributor Copyright Investigation request has been filed, and you are encouraged to respond to it here. Your comments will be pasted to the case request if you do so.
A couple of things to note. Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. If the above represents most of the issues with content copy / pasted that will be found, an assurance that you understand WP:Close paraphrasing and will avoid the same errors can be enough to lift the block.
Should there be more, however, please be aware that while we understand that this may have been fully unintentional on your part, acknowledging the issue and a commitment to help clean up your contribution record is the only way forward.
Regards, MLauba (Talk) 10:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support your unblock

Per that if you'd like to help the project. =) Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI I've made those edits on your behalf. Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say thank you to Biosthmors. Your help is most unexpected and welcome. Because I tend to work on topics including protozoa and rare genetic diseases that are of interest only to a relatively sected audience let alone editors, I was not expecting many active editors here to be of assistance.
My own thinking is that DocJames has gone over the top reverting a consideratble amount of work by myself and others. Under more normal circumstances this would amount to gross vandalism. It is my opinion that he should revert this pages at least for the moment before some one blocks him for vandalism.
It may be worth noting that DocJames and I have history. I have tended to avoid editing pages where he has declared an interest as he is almost certain to want to rewrite everything almost as soon as it is written. And heaven help you if you change a word that he has written. I do not normally indulge in ad hominem attacks but this time I think he has gone too far. DrMicro (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm ... if you're interested in being unblocked, an acknowledgement of the extent of the problem, an agreement to help clean it up, and an agreement to discontinue doing same would go a lot further than blaming the problem on Doc James. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)If this were an unblock request, then I would have hereby declined it; you don't address the violations of copyright at all in this statement. Indeed, under normal cicumstances what Doc James did, mass reverting your edits, would be gross vandalism. But these aren't normal circumstances, these are emergency actions fixing the copyright violations, and normal circumstance is a mile away from the current situation. If you would like to help cleaning this up, we have to be sure you understand the extent and severity of your actions. We sure could use your help cleaning things up again, in so far that is even possible without mass deletions. This is not a case of "sure, I'll help if someone points me to an edit that was problematic". This is a case of all your edits needing to be checked. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we have an issue. If you consider my removing of your "copy and pasting" to be vandalism, than you do not appear to understand the issue in question.
Additional issues include:
  1. your continued use of primary sources
  2. your refusal to use the cite template which makes finding the issues around copyright harder for the rest of us Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DocJames has reverted not some of my work but that of hundreds if not thousands of other editors. That does seem to be vandalism. He has done this without first verifying if there might have been any violations in these pages. These include pages that he knows that there are no problems with: this is because he has reviewed these matters himself repeatedly. Several of these edits have left these pages now with information that is both out of date and even incorrect. I can only presume he intends to rewrite these pages.
There are also dozens of other pages I have worked that he does not seem to have reverted. These include [[Chebyshev's inequality], Bimodal distribution, DNA virus, RNA virus, Qualitative variation, [history of probability]], Taylor's law, Apicomplexa and many others. Perhaps DrJames might like to revert these also? I will note that the current page Plasmodium after these reverts still includes a significant amount of my work. If he wishes to purge that page he will have to go back even further in the history. 83.71.73.50 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you are correct. I have reverted back farther. Not all of the articles you have worked on have issues but a significant number do including the one on Plasmodium. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rights removal

Given the copyright situation, I have removed both your Autopatrolled & Reviewer rights for when you are unblocked as they both requires a demonstrated understanding of of Wikipedia policy on copyrights. -- KTC (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The effort to fix the copyright problems due to this editor are taking place here [24]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source of text

By the way did you mostly take content from the abstracts or did you sometimes also copy and paste from the body of the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try to help out?

I'm standing up for you, but it seems like other people are developing persuasive arguments against you. Do you think you might change your position a bit, apologize for all the copyright violations, and not accuse anyone making reverts of copyright violations vandalism? The "v" word is a dirty word to throw around on Wikipedia, FYI. I'm looking forward to your reply. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 05:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Frze > talk — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year DrMicro!

Happy New Year!
Hello DrMicro:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Frze > talk 20:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

  1. ^ Jean WH (1984) The harmonic mean and other necessary conditions for stochastic dominance. J Finance 39 (2) 527