User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 24
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bluerasberry. 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. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
You participated in previous related discussion. There is an ongoing move discussion, and I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I commented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The creation of the article Pollution of the Hudson River was a good idea. However, do you think that more of the article should be in the main Hudson River article. The Pollution section seems too small now. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- PointsofNoReturn Yes, I agree. If I were to work more on this then I would move some content back. My work process was as follows:
- Identify all information on pollution in the Hudson River in all other articles
- Cut all of this information from the original articles; paste it all into the pollution article
- Clean up the content in the pollution article so that it would be a viable article
- Without thought, copy the lede of the new pollution article back into all articles from which information was cut
- I did it this way to avoid controversy, and to see if what I was doing would stick without people protesting. I am not saying that the result to the individual articles was good, but at least I tried to avoid being bad, and I was transparent in what I did in case anyone wants to put anything back. I do agree that some information should go back, but since I did not know what should, I just left everything in the pollution article for others to consider.
- It was fun doing this with you. Message me if you need something. Sorry for my delay in responding. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I will probably move some pollution info back to the river article, but not all of it. Also, I am contemplating whether new articles need to be created. Articles like History of the Hudson Valley and Geology of the Hudson River. There could be many sub-articles for this river. Otherwise, I could see the article getting extremely large. I will probably edit the article Hudson Valley too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to Participate in a WikiProject Study
Hello Bluerasberry,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryzhou (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects Md gilbert (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Cardio First Angel
Hi Bluerasberry, I am sorry for the delay. I have been searching for more independent sources. Here is you reply to me:
Hello, you had posted at Roger Dodger's page, and this person asked me to comment because I am from WikiProject Medicine. The major problem with the article is that it does not cite any source which is independent of the stakeholders of the success of the product. Currently, the sources mentioned in the article are the product's own marketing page and the manufacturer themselves. For this article to go live, identify 2-3 sources which were not published by people who have a financial stake in the product's success. Take information from those, cite the sources, then re-submit. When making any health claim, it is expected that sources cited will comply with the guideline at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). I hope you understand that the guidelines are in place to maintain quality here. Let me know if you need assistance on-wiki. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you that it is better to have more than one source. Because it is relatively new item, it is not easy to find them. I have found one which is from the university. There it has been tested by several professors: http://www.schiller.ch/upload/CFA_im_Test_en.pdf This document has also a reference to the material from which Cardio First Angel is manufactured from the testing laboratory Winterhalder (jpg insert). Unfortunately it is in German, so, I have sent it to be translated.
So, if I enclose information from these 2 sources including those I enclosed originally, in my article about Cardio First Angel and resubmit it, will this be sufficient? Please let me know, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animall (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Animall! We are talking about User:Animall/Cardio First Angel. The source you just shared is published by researchers from Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Yes, to me this seems like a third party source. The only other source presented on that article page is the official website for the product, and that is not a good source because it is self-published and exists to promote the product. The minimum is two sources, and if there is some doubt about the quality of any of them, then some people may ask for three.
- Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news source or a place to describe very new things, but instead it is supposed to be a summary of what is already published. If another source on this topic does not exist now then keep the draft in your userspace until there are more journalists and researchers publishing about this topic. Right now the one source is not enough to meet Wikipedia standards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Cardio First Angel
Hi Bluerasberry,
thank you for your reply. You have mentioned, "published by researchers from Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Yes, to me this seems like a third party source". what about the German test lab, which is another source mentioned in the article from Ludwig Maximilian University as a reference and which I asked to be translated into English? I have in the meantime located another independent sources like: lady Laura McQuarrie, who wrote: Cardio First Angel Provides Essential Heart Attack Help in a Crisis Published: May 24, 2014 • References: cardiofirstangel & gizmodo Although there's usually one super prepared or designated individual that knows CPR, the majority of people probably don't have the proper training to assist in a medical emergency—however, the Cardio First Angel is a handy heart attack help device that will guide you through the process of saving a life. Even if you're not trained in CPR, Cardio First Angel is designed to be highly user-friendly and not cause any injury to someone who already needs aid.
The device is like a big red button that can be placed on someone's chest and compressed with both hands, just as you would normally with CPR. These instructions are clearly printed in pictures on the device as a quick reference guide. At the right pace, the device emits clicking sounds so that you can be sure that the CPR is being performed correctly. Stats for Heart-Starting Buttons Trending: This Year & Warm Traction: 1,020 clicks in 33 w Interest: 1.2 minutes Concept: "heart Attack Help" Related: 77 examples / 59 photos Segment: Neutral, 35-55+ Comparison Set: 28 similar articles, including: heart-starting vests, lifesaving shirts, and guided heart re-starter devices.
I assume that she is a journalist and writer from Toronto. To my knowledge she is not connected with the inventor Prof. Dr. Christian Hagl, or manufacturer. http://www.trendhunter.com/LauraMcQuarrie
A Battery-Free, Pocket-Sized CPR Coach Ensures You're Really Helping Andrew Liszewski Filed to: Medical, Health, CRP, Cardio First Angel 5/22/14 4:00pm http://gizmodo.com/a-battery-free-pocket-sized-cpr-coach-ensures-youre-re-1580146411 It might look easy, but properly performing CPR to save someone's life—and not injure them in the process—does require a specific technique. Since not everyone's taken a first-aid course, the Cardio First Angel serves as an impromptu CPR instructor that ensures you're doing it right, no matter how limited your medical know-how might be. It's not the first CPR assistance device we've come across, but what sets the Cardio First Angel apart from other solutions, even apps, is that it works without batteries or power. The unit is placed on a patient's chest, and then the compressions are administered by pressing the large red button with both hands. When done with enough force, a clicking sound is heard, and when done at the proper pace, two clicks are heard so that you know the life-saving procedure is being done properly. A layer of foam on the underside of the device helps minimize bruising or injury as it's being pressed. And since there are no batteries to charge, or outlets needed to operate it, the $95 Cardio First Angel can be kept in a first-aid kit indefinitely, without worrying about it not working when an emergency arises. [Cardio First Angel via http://www.redferret.net/?p=44261] - Nigel Powell is the managing editor of the Red Ferret, as well as a freelance columnist for the Sunday Times newspaper in London.
Another source: news.softpedia.com http://news.softpedia.com/news/Cardio-First-Angel-Will-Help-Even-Those-Not-Trained-in-CPR-Save-Lives-443818.shtml
So, would these count for more than 3 independent references: Ludwig Maximilian University, German test lab Winterhalder, softpedia.com and writers Laura McQuarrie, Andrew Liszewski and Nigel Powell?
Please let me know if these sources are enough for my article to be published (modified from the first draft) in Wikipedia. Thank you Animall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animall (talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
FelixRosch
I am not sure what to do with this guy....he does not understand our basic policies. Perhaps you can explain to him that we cant copy and paste whole articles to make our articles. Plagiarizes is a problem that cant be solved by a link. Copying word for word to make the bulk of an article is simply not possible even with attributions. I would personally would recommend the editor gets a mentor....as seen by his past...Felix needs some real guidances on many aspects of the project. I and many others have tried many times to explain this problem to no avail. He is trying to help but competency seems to be a problem. -- Moxy (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Bluerasberry; Thanks for your message on my Talk page. The Previous editor does not appear to have knowledge of WP:Fairuse and WP:PD, and appears to be edit warring on multiple Wikipedia articles. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Resolved- Admin has deleted content and history from public view.
- I think we need a second set of eyes on this please..Basicly we need to make an effort not to copy and paste ...this is not grade 5 we dont copy someones CV to here to make our articles....we write them in our own words. This is a big problem that cant be over looked on my part...the page clearly has a copyright to it. Our copyright tools are red flaging the article again "Investigation of potential copyright issue" Violation Suspected 80.2% is simply to much to say its quotes///all should know this!!! -- Moxy (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- This wa resolved as described at [cup of coffee for you!] and in other places. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think we need a second set of eyes on this please..Basicly we need to make an effort not to copy and paste ...this is not grade 5 we dont copy someones CV to here to make our articles....we write them in our own words. This is a big problem that cant be over looked on my part...the page clearly has a copyright to it. Our copyright tools are red flaging the article again "Investigation of potential copyright issue" Violation Suspected 80.2% is simply to much to say its quotes///all should know this!!! -- Moxy (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Question about an edit
Hi! I would like to edit a sentence to correct a factual error. The entry is on "Nordoff-Robbins". In the first paragraph I would like to delete the word "learning" (as in "learning disabilities") and replace it with "psychological, physical, or developmental". I have a reference to add to support this change. This reference would be the first one in the paragraph--if I add it, will the numbers automatically change? The book I am using for a reference was originally published in 1971. It has been published a few times since then (in 1985, and again in 2004 by a different publisher). Which citation is the appropriate one to use? I will need some help adding the reference.
There are more substantial changes I would like to make for this entry, to correct other misinformation and add further information. But I want to start small!
Thanks, Creativemusictherapy (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)creativemusictherapy
- Creativemusictherapy Good call in starting with a single edit. Here is one way to add a reference about a book:
- Go into the edit window
- Type your sentence, then leave the cursor at the end of the sentence
- at the top of the edit box, click the "Cite" tab to toggle the "template" menu to drop down
- In the template menu, choose "cite book"
- If the book as an ISBN (the identification number in the front) then type that in, then press the magnifying glass to fill out the form automatically
- Otherwise, fill out the form yourself
- Click "insert" at the bottom of the form
- Save the page
- About your question of which book to use, any is fine. In the reference it is ideal to note the book's edition. If you fill out the form only using the ISBN, then this will be noted as the publisher requests when Wikipedia connects to the international database to look up the ISBN information.
- I will demo this in class. Thanks for messaging. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Standard model
Thank you for your guidance. In the article "Standard Model" I tried to revise the date of the discovery of the Higgs-boson which, according to the CERN home webpage, was inJuly 2012. But someone else ( can't find who that was anymore) changed it back to 2013. I'd like to find out what their source is.--An old lie is always more popular than a new truth! (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ve744 I see that you changed the year and they changed it back. There is currently a bit of tension in the Wikipedia policy pages that the intro to an article is supposed to be a summary of the text in the body of the article, but without the citations. The thought is that casual readers are confused by the citations, and some research supports this idea. The drawback is that as you see, sometimes shaky data gets into the lede, which is the most important part of the article.
- Here are some ideas for resolving this:
- Instead of you checking the other sources, cite the CERN page as your own source, then leave the burden of defending another date to anyone who would challenge you.
- If you really want to research more, look into the article. All information in the intro is supposed to come from the body of the article, and there ought to be sources for everything. At the bottom of the Higgs Boson section, what is currently reference 24 seems to say that 2013 is the date, but there could be another context for this.
- Have you seen Particle Fever? I enjoy learning about CERN and I thought this documentary was a fun presentation of this research. Talk soon - message me if you see something interesting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Error with citation
I did my best to follow your directions but there is an error with the citation. How do I fix it? Creativemusictherapy (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)creativemusictherapy
AnomieBOT III
If you want a soft redirect, you should use {{Soft redirect}} instead of creating a broken redirect. Anomie⚔ 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks re: Fred Hutch
Hi there,
Sorry, did not mean to step on any toes with that addition. I have been trying to build up the connections between my new Harold Weintraub bio page on Wikipedia, and other related pages. But I appreciate your point. If we could find a third-party description of the Graduate Student Award, then I think that would probably be acceptable. Right?
I share your enthusiasm for FHCRC. I was very interested in doing research there some years ago, but went somewhere else (which was quite good, also) instead.
Best Wishes, Awgrasso
Awgrasso (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Awgrasso Yes, exactly, having another source for this information is the only problem here and not the content you provided. No, you did not step on any toes, but rather this is the way that Wikipedia works, and I still feel guilty when I see a new user and I do this because I do not know how much they know about collaborative editing.
- If you ever have basic editing questions then message me here, and if you are interested in medical research generally then consider saying hello at the talk page for WikiProject Medicine where most of the others hang out. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I will do so. I am still getting used to collaborative editing, that's for sure!
Awgrasso (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
| Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon | |
|---|---|
  You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!).
The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Request to use photo
Hello,
Charisma Media would like to use the photo at this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Vision_United_States#mediaviewer/File:World_Vision_US_Headquarters.jpg) in our article about World Vision. The photo will be placed as a 10x6 on the page. Do you own the rights to the photo and would you send us a release to use it? Is a photo credit needed?
Thank you, Sean Roberts sean.roberts@charismamedia.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.47.26 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Your note on w:mr
Hello,
Thank you for your note on my home project (Marathi Wikipedia.) I have been active there for a number of years and hoping to continue on for many more. I share your hope and enthusiasm for Indic Language wikipedias. I am outside of India but believe that the Indian diaspora has a major role to play in the development, growth and sustenance of Indic Language Wikipedias.
Thank you for your note of encouragement and do share any thoughts you have towards the goal of well-developed Indic Language Wiki-projects and a healthy user-community to support them.
Cheers,
अभय नातू (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Help on Big Data?
(Posting this on User:Rui Gabriel Correia, User:BlueRasberry, User:SPACKlick)'s pages)
Hi! I hope it's okay to ask for your help on Big Data, since you've been involved in the current discussion.
Frankly, I feel that while User:Jugdev is most likely acting in good faith, he is engaged in disruptive editing. I think we're locked in a pattern: If I revert the page during the US day (and explain why), he'll revert it again in the middle of the US night (and post a message saying "I already explained that my change is in keeping with WP style and it comes from a highly respected source"). (example, example, example)
Honestly, I think our only play--assuming he hasn't already crossed the line to disruptive editing--is to take turns reverting changes. If it's always "Narsil reverts, Jugdev unreverts, Narsil ununreverts", then we're both edit-warring. If several WP editors revert his changes and he's always unreverting, I think we have a clear case that he's being disruptive.
Apologies for bothering you! If you'd rather not be involved any further I totally understand.
(P.S. I see he's already been blocked once, recently, for edit warring. I'll ask User:Kuru--who imposed the block--whether he's reached that point again.) Narsil (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Narsil I am watching that talk page. I commented there. Thanks for being in the discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It's sounding likely that we'll get some great images.
Did you want to review when a draft is ready or did you feel it may be inappropriate if we are too close and both paid editors. Doesn't matter to me - an editor with an interest in the subject is the ideal person to participate. CorporateM (Talk) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- CorporateM I have watched this page for years and reviewed it in the past. If you draft something share it with me. As I told you, I have a standing request with them going back years requesting images, and if you broker that then it would make me happy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for all your help in these last few weeks. Suz956 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
Primary sources
Hi Lane, Celeste here, stuck at the hospital in blizzard #4 doing some prep work for San Antonio. Question for you: if a paper is a large cohort study ( i.e.e, Danish Medical Birth registry, >1 million pregnancy records examined) but is labelled as "original research", is that still considered a primary source and thus not favored for citation? thanks!
--Celesteroyce (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Celesteroyce Wikipedia seeks to report the best available information and to qualify conclusions in the way that the authors do. The rule is not that primary sources cannot be cited, but that most of them are not appropriate to cite. Some primary sources may be the best sources to cite in some cases.
- In the example you give, if the authors say "This is how things are in Denmark" and do not make an assertion that their observation is more broadly relevant, then the source would be treated like most other primary sources, because if the authors themselves do not draw general conclusions from their observations then Wikipedians should not also. If instead the authors assert "We looked enough at the available research, we designed research which is broad enough to form a general conclusion, and we are arguing that what we observed is broadly applicable", then the study may be appropriate for Wikipedia.
- The rule for wanting secondary sources is a rubric to help reviewers without a background in medicine to quickly do a quality check that works in most cases. There are lots of exceptions. For other opinions, anyone could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or just add the source and statement into an article and see how others respond. To preemptively start a conversation the source could be added to the article while also adding a note of doubt or defense to the talk page of that article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey Blue, I apologize for taking a bit of time with the article but I think I've addressed the points you've raised (if I haven't or if I've done so inadequately, please let me know and I will continue to work on them) so I think the article is ready for you to take another look. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- I replied on that page. Thanks for following up. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is there anything more we need to do? I've searched pretty extensively and can't find anything for the doing nothing section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- I replied. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Yoga to the People
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Yoga to the People requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- I replied. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)