User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Jan


PR

How about using Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers to help out with Wikipedia:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1? I cleaned up the volunteer page recently to remove inactive editors. I think it is an underused page in this project. Biosthmors (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked Casliber is that OK? Zad68 21:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd ask at least two to three people on WP:PRV (if you haven't already). Biosthmors (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Good advice, I didn't know you were 'supposed to' ask multiple people. Feel free to fill that PR page yourself as well! If there's not much on the PR page for me to work on come the end of this weekend, I'll add a few others to the party. Thanks... Zad68 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thanks for all you do to keep medical articles in shape!!! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Safe dosage of silver

Hello, there is a safe dosage of silver ingestion which is shown in the continuation of the reference 5 provided by mastcell on the article's talk page. Please see more info and reference in my message on his talkpage as well. since fda cleared cs for external application and because other forms of silver are routinely being used in traditional medicine can we add this article to medicine Wikiproject?Ryanspir (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to the article content question. I will look at the article Talk page and respond there as necessary. Zad68 18:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

a barnstar from Darkness Shines dated 18:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list

:) Of course I messed it up the first time! It should be {{reflist|close}}. No problem, cheers... Zad68 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

VPT

I saw your posts at User talk:Mr.Z-man and I just wanted to say feel free to ask at WP:VPT if you had a technical issue. =) Biosthmors (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! Thanks... Zad68 04:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Carnotaurus

Hey, thank you very much for your great GA review, it has significantly improved the article :) I'm trying to fix the remaining points in the next days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It was great working with you on it! Wear your green plus with pride! Zad68 04:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

a barnstar from Tito Dutta dated 23:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list

Thanks very much!! Zad68 04:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Deal and advice

i thought you have offered me a deal which i have accepted. I'll indeed appreciate just one quote from medrs. And, i wanted to clarify something, i think that wiki has a policy of not giving a medical advice. I'm refering here to the way the article looks. Like written in red letters: do not use cs. Ryanspir (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You are required to adhere to WP:MEDRS whether or not a 'deal' has been made with another editor regarding it. The 'deal' was a light-hearted attempt to get you to read WP:MEDRS, but as you state you have read it and support it, no further interaction is needed. Article content issues will be discussed only on the article Talk page. Zad68 17:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

original research

If you are going to attack me with the charge of original research or any other policy violation I kindly request that you do so on my Talk page unless it's a part of an argument about a specific content issue. If all you have to say about my "point" is that you understand it, the rest is off the topic of how to improve the article, no? I would not make an issue out of your original research allegation were this not a good example of how Wikipedia can be a hostile environment for someone whose education or professional work is on the topic. Who is going to be accused of OR more often, the person whose particular knowledge plays a role in how material is integrated and presented or the know-nothing who just concatenates near quotes together from various sources? Obviously the latter is going to show less apparent separation from exactly what the particular cited sources say unless the concatenator creates a conflict between the clips. And indeed it is the creation of that conflict that constitutes the critical distinction between original research requiring material removal (to take out the negation) and editing that goes beyond the sources such that a "citation needed" is in order. WP:OR gives the example of "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." Note that you can't use "citation needed" to correct that. So it is that OR typically involves a "but" like in this example or some sort of negation or minimization of one cited claim through the use of another cited claim. If you can find an example where a "citation needed" could not have been used then, sure, there might have been OR on my part. But absent that it's my view that OR is being cited to justify deletion (since remedying OR is, as I've explained, necessarily deletionist) instead of collaboratively building the encyclopedia.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that it is very difficult for true subject matter experts to be productive in their subject areas on Wikipedia, and it's probably not going to get fixed. There are other Wikis that highly prefer validated experts, I think Citizendium is one, but that's not the model here.

But to the point: I am concerned that the DRN conversation will go off-track if the disruptive comments you are making about things other than content continue. It's unfair for you to keep making the disruptive comments in the DRN discussion, and then for you to request that those who are pointing out the disruptive comments--and who are asking you to stop--to not address them in the DRN discussion. If you are serious that you'd like everyone to adhere to the "comment on the content not the contributor" policy (and it is policy), I will be happy to remove my DRN comments if you will remove all the parts of your DRN comments about anything other than the content. Mostly I am talking about your speculations regarding the motivations of others, but your general observations about the state of the US economy are also off-topic there. You are actually shooting yourself in the foot by making these sorts of comments in the DRN discussion; I'm not sure you realize this. Zad68 03:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree then because I believe my comments are content related and yours are not.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Brian, forgive me if I have trouble seeing how your comments that some of your fellow editors (including apparently me personally) at the article are in "a large fan club," "Krugman enthusiasts," and are "liberal yuppies," and also "SPhilbrick wants Krugman's endorsement of the coin excluded from his bio because it makes him look less than 'serious.'" are truly "content related." But we can disagree amicably. Zad68 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Why you continue on trying to pick a fight with me by leveling accusations is beyond me, because I have no beef at all with you beyond this particular insistence of yours. As far as I'm concerned the matter, including the content dispute, is over. Isn't there someone else you can find to wag your finger at?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
And I don't have any beef with you either... honestly yours has been one of the most well-informed voices in this silly discussion. Maybe I'm having unrealistic expectations of what the proper interpretation and application of that second sentence at WP:NPA is. And I do indeed have other stuff to work on... cheers. Zad68 23:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Bronchitis

Hey Zad, just letting you know that there have been several changes made to the Bronchitis page since we last spoke in accordance with the peer review. Have a look when you get a chance and let me know if there are any new issues. I know the epidemiology and prevalence stuff still needs to be added. In the meanwhile, I added a paragraph of history since I finally got access to a paper for it. Biosthmors said a more dated paper was satisfactory for the purposes of giving a history section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Will look now... Zad68 04:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Peer review round 3 notes posted, tear 'em up! Zad68 04:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Left you a new response when you have a chance.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Desoto10

I think that there are two different people using his account. There are two distinctive styles of writing that he uses. Like for example, this one of them cannot differentiate epa with secondary source and previously the other one provided full analysis of majority of board members of a journal. Ryanspir (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... if there are two different individuals using the same account, that is indeed against Wikipedia policies. Consider contacting someone in the WP:CHECKUSER group about it; unfortunately I do not have more information to offer you about this. Zad68 18:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Knock yourselves out!Desoto10 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bowing out

Hey, Zad ... regretfully, I am taking circumcision off of my watchlist. I've just noticed there is of late a block-happy admin editing there, and to the extent I can avoid doing so, I don't ever want to edit around him ... he has been known to block established editors with no warning and where he is likely involved. On a fast-moving article like that, I can't be sure I won't inadvertently revert the same thing twice within weeks of each other, and that's the sort of thing he would block for. Besides, seeing his name on my watchlist creeps me out. Sorry I can't continue to help there! Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker). No problem Sandy. Zad feel free to ping me if you would like input. Biosthmors (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
OK... I'm sorry to hear this and honestly I have no idea what or who you're talking about. If the need arises I hope you won't mind answering a question or two here and there on the side, not at the actual article, and then I'd be the one to bear the responsibility of implementing it. Thanks for the help you have provided... cheers! Zad68 18:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Ping me anytime! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas

FTR, when I said I thought Deicas had not violated the topic ban, I thought it was a close call, and if not over the line, was very close, and headed toward problems. I also see that Bovlb has responded with wise advice, and echoed my thoughts, it is our practice to give recently sanctioned editors a little latitude to vent. That editor also construed your post in a reasonable way to help you steer clear of that borderline in future. In light of your strong apology, I wanted to make sure you didn't think I viewed your post as a major blunder, but more of an understandable close call, and one where I want to make sure an outside observer won't conclude there has been a pile-on, but an extreme effort to extend the assumption of good faith, and an avoidance of any pile-on.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick, no worries, and thanks for your concern about how I might have taken what you wrote. Until I read what you wrote, it didn't really occur to me that what Deicas had written to Charles could have been taken as something other than a request for Charles to pick up where Deicas had left off. And, as you note, it's a close call, especially with the editor's history, so both of our responses were reasonable.

My apology to Deicas was actually entirely unrelated to what you wrote. Here's what happened: I did some reflecting on how Deicas must have taken what I and others wrote. My intentions were good: I wanted to give Deicas the information he (assuming 'he' here) requested, but I genuinely did not want Deicas to make an ill-advised petition to ARBCOM or get too close to the Krugman topic so that he'd run afoul of his topic ban. However, to Deicas it must have sounded like this: He got beaten up by the schoolyard bullies at the article Talk page, and then dragged to the teacher's office (ANI) and got his lunch money stolen (topic ban). When he asked where the principal's office is (how to appeal?) the same bullies came back and told him 'It's right down this hall (ARBCOM), but you won't get anywhere with that, so don't bother!'

I've been in this situation before where I was one of the !voters in a topic-ban discussion and I tried to do the same thing, which I'm now realizing probably did not help the editor start moving down the right path. I'm concerned for Deicas' Wiki-future but if he's going to be receiving assistance it probably won't be well-received coming from me. So, that's the reason for my reaction there, and again thanks. Zad68 15:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive response, it looks like we are on the same page. While I think that Deicas's style is a major part of the problem, like you, I tried to look at it through Deicas's eyes, and it would not be unreasonable to think you were being ignored/bullied/blasted unfairly. I'm not optimistic about the future, but we'll see.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird misunderstanding

Bo Dahlin is an established professor of education at Karlstad University reporting on an empirical study he conducted together with two other professors of education. To suggest any of the following -- 1) A professor of education is not a reliable source on education, 2) It is impossible to have an empirical study of attitudes, or 3) That the results of studies are to be reported as the author's "beliefs" -- strikes me as slightly bizarre. To suggest all three at once leaves me speechless. hgilbert (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hgilbert, your responses aren't demonstrating a good grasp of Wikipedia's WP:RS policies... I'll be adding more to the RSN discussion to keep this all in one place. Zad68 01:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Re User:Ryanspir

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andy but it looks like it got closed before I even got there! Zad68 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Waldorf

Hi Zad,

Alex asked me for advice about this here, but as I am inexperienced in these sort of things I would appreciate your input. In particular, is the correct venue here since the remedies in the original case were rather general, or would it be here? Other than a clear argument supported by diffs showing persistent civil POV pushing, is there anything else we should be aware of? Thanks, a13ean (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi A13ean, Arb Enforcement is for requesting application of a sanction under and existing ARBCOM ruling. Arb Clarification and Amendment is asking to have an existing ARBCOM ruling explained or changed. So they're really two different venues with two different purposes. If you have a long-term case of persistent civil POV pushing, and you can back it up with a clear litany of diffs over a long period of time, and preferably supported by multiple trips to NPOVN, DRN, or a RFCU, and the disruption continues, you can try taking it to ANI. It appears to me that in recent history, the community patience for CPUSHers has worn thin and it's taking less and less to get enough support !votes for a topic ban. If you have an individual case of a specific edit or series of edits that look like they are in violation of an ARBCOM ruling, you can bring it to AE to ask for sanctions. What I am going to do is read through the current Request for clarification and enforcement and possibly provide input. Zad68 01:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Colloidal silver.

Hello Zad. Regarding the edit warring warning you sent me concerning removing the text "Silver preparations deliver metallic silver not ions". I would very much like to get consensus on this but thats a bit hard when no-one responds or even seems to read the argument I put up on the Silver Talk page. Yesterday I placed the argument, announced my proposal to change it, waited 3 hours, heard nothing. So I changed it. This morning I see my edit was undone by Doc with no explanation other that the reference 'seems OK to him'. There was no indication on the Talk page that he had even read my argument. So I reverted his undo to get some attention paid to the argument I laid out on the Talk page.

Anyway heres my Silver Talk page argument again.

Extended content

It contains additional points to ones made previously. My suspicion is that the text in dispute is being used out of context, but without even an abstract to check we have know way of knowing.

"I maintain that the ordinary home-made or store bought 'alternative medicine' product commonly called colloidal silver or silver water is largely ionic because its (usually) made with nothing but pure silver and pure water. I've provided commercial references for this eg http://www.purestcolloids.com/notcs.php (Yes I understand they are not RS) and links to the Wiki article on electrolysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis.

Heres a few quotes from the Wiki article... 1, "An electrolyte : a substance containing free ions which are the carriers of electric current in the electrolyte. (In pure water the 'free ions' can only be the Ag+ ions released by the silver electrodes because there is no other source of ions.)

2, "A direct current (DC) supply provides the energy necessary to create or discharge the ions in the electrolyte. (Again, the discharged ions are the Ag+ ions from the silver electrodes. This is how colloidal silver is made at home.)

Yet a single unreadable source (that seems to be more relevant to medical dressings than alternative medicine) is being used to deny this. According to the reference, and its placement within the section, we are to believe that common colloidal silver is 'metallic'. I've googled and can find no other references or sources that support that claim so I propose to remove it yet again for the reason that too much weight is being given to a single, out of context, reference that offers us nothing but a vague and confusing abstract, which incidently I cant find anywhere else but in the Wikipedia article itself. (The abstract does not appear on Pubmed)"

RegardsBlakebeau (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blake, thanks for the reply. You actually have some solid points that I agree with. I just posted a very long and detailed response at the article Talk page here, so we'll continue the content discussion there.

You need to be aware of some editing behavior issues though: 1) Waiting 3 hours isn't enough, generally you should wait at least 24 hours and 2) it's not a good idea to revert back your contested edit without gaining consensus on the article Talk page first, it's considered edit-warring and can lead to you getting blocked. Anyway, let's discuss at the article Talk page. Zad68 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


Hey Zad, I got a copy of the paper and, as I mention on the article talk page, it is not too impressive. Your comments there would be appreciated. Thanks. Desoto10 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)