User talk:Ytrottier/Archives/2012

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ytrottier. 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.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Commonsimages. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Commonsimages redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Very nice job on the Heavy Press Program article. Interesting and useful topic, and well presented. Appreciated! Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The recognition is appreciated.--Yannick (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You have undertaken to "disintangle" these by saying that RBE is "represented by" W_R (previously called Q). And changed the tables to W_R tables and banned RBE from them (even though this is an article about RBE-- see title). If there is a difference here, it is subtle, and still is not explained. The reference given is to an out of print book and is not helpful. Would you like to explain this? If W_R is merely what you call the RBE from in vitro tissue experiments, when you get to dosimetry in a living organism, but otherwise is the same number, then we should say that. But it's sort of ridiculous to have two different terms for the same thing, and insist on them. SBHarris 18:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Answered on Talk:Relative biological effectiveness

Hi Ytrottier,

I noticed that you have been working on three articles:

• International Commission on Radiological Protection
• International Congress of Radiology
• International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements

I have also been putting some notes together regarding these three topics as well as the International Society of Radiology. I have taken the view that since all four are so closely tied up with each other and there is not a lot that can be written about each, that it makes sense to combine them into a single article with redirects from the other articles. I suggest that they be combined under the title International Congress of Radiology. I have written a draft lede paragraph:

At the first International Congress of Radiology (ICR), held in London in 1925, proposals were made for the establishment of three commissions - one to advise on units of measure, another to advise on radiological protection and the third to promote education in the field of radiolgy. The first two commissions are now separate bodies in their own right - the International Commission of Radiation Units & Measures (ICRU) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), while the third, the International Commission on Radiological Education (ICRE) remains a subcommittee of the ICR. Since its inception, the ICR has grown sufficiently large to warrant the setting up of a separate body, the International Society of Radiology whose main purpose is the organisation of the congres.

After reading your texts, I do of course plan to "borrow" it. Do you have any comments? Martinvl (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would note that this WP:MERGE notice should normally be posted on Talk:International Society of Radiology, along with merge templates on all four articles. Though in this case, there's so little interest in these articles that I would think you could just go ahead and merge and see if anyone notices. I feel kinda sheepish that you felt obliged to ask me personally; I honestly try to rein in my feelings of ownership over articles. So please, go ahead.--Yannick (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The reason that I asked you personally was that you are the only editor who has been involved in these articles. I have seen "Merge request" flags that have hung around for months, but I don't want this to happen here. I will put the "Merge" flags in place and then work on the ICR article. Once it has some sort of form, I will invite comments for people to look at my sandbox (You can do so now of course, but it is full of aides memoire, URL links, text fragments etc so it won't make much sense). Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you like. Sandbox drafts are usually only required for protected pages or conflicts of interest, but you can do it that way if you feel more comfortable. Note that I sometimes go for weeks or months without logging in, so I might not be around to respond when you're ready. Don't let that hold you up.--Yannick (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yannick

I am contacting you as a courtesy as somebody who supported merging the articles - having got the merged article 3/4 done, I found a number of problems regarding categories and links to non-English Wikipedias. Also the articles look liek they can stand alone, so I will undo the merge. The only other person to comment was DougSim and he opposed the merge in the first place. Regards Martinvl (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's too bad. Most pages on Wikipedia seem to have categorization and interwiki problems, so I wouldn't normally count that as an important reason one way or another. I hope some the work you did can still be useful to the separate articles.--Yannick (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been able to salvage most of what I wrote. Martinvl (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There are currently several contradictory and confusing definitions in the various articles on equivalent dose.

• Relative biological effectiveness and Dosimetry have the old discrete factors with value up to 20
• the source ICRP 103 has for neutrons a formula (as I had in Sievert) in terms of L, with values up to 30
• Equivalent dose has for neutrons a direct function of the energy, which I do not recognise from the source, with values to just over 20
• Effective dose (radiation) has the formula both tissue and radiation type, but weights only for tissue type

Since you would likely revert my changes anyway, could you have a look? −Woodstone (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for my input! I know we've had some tough discussions, and I'm sorry if that's cast a chill on your editing. Honestly, I don't keep grudges, and I wouldn't revert your edits out of hand. I try to evaluate the material objectively and just do what's best for Wikipedia. I've sometimes reverted my own edits after re-reading them the next morning. But on to the technical stuff:

The ICRP has changed their values for neutron W_R over time, and then some regulators have adopted their own values different from the ICRP, so there will be inconsistency. And there is not a strong motivation to settle that question, nor is there much data, because in practice, anyone who receives a measurable dose of neutrons in the controversial range is unlikely to live long enough to worry about cancer.

In an international encyclopedia, I figure the most important figures to bring forward are the ICRP's latest recommendations, from ICRP103. I'm guessing you don't have a copy of the full ICRP103, otherwise you would have recognized the formulas I transcribed into the equivalent dose article. The source you linked to is just a free extract from ICRP103; you have to pay to check the formula yourself or order the document through a library. The extract does say the values for neutrons are given "as a continuous function of neutron energy", not linear energy transfer as you claim! Way back in 1977, ICRP26 gave the Q factor of most neutrons in terms of LET, but you've got to keep up with the times. There's more that could be said about the RBE-LET relationship, but not here and not tonight. Feel free to order some articles, read up on it, and add the explanation to Wikipedia yourself.

And by the way, the peak W_R is now just a bit over 20, not 30 as it was in ICRP60 (1990). I've got to point out that this kind of mistake makes me wonder how you do your research. You've garbled together ICRP26, 60, and 103, kind of like what a google search might give you, and then given a token citation that doesn't support your claim. I think you need to be aware that some people have copies of the actual reference documents, and we are harder to fool.

So from my review, all of the articles you listed have correct neutron W_R values, properly supported by appropriate citations. Some of them should be updated with the latest ICRP103 values, perhaps as an additional column. The proton W_R values have already been updated to ICRP103, unfortunately they still cite old sources that do not support the stated values. I might get around to updating the tables or I might not. If they bother you, I encourage you to fix them yourself; all I ask is that you do your research and do it right.--Yannick (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ytrottier. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Neutron radiation weighting factor as a function of kinetic energy.svg, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: File is an image file. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But it's a broken image that I uploaded myself, and now regret. I'm left wondering how to go about deleting that. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks.--Yannick (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. For future reference, you can tag something that you uploaded with {{db-g7}} and it will be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G7, "Author requests deletion". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 21:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure the references you used where a mixture of primary sources and a power point presentation. We should be using ideal sources like review articles. Have explained further here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography#Recent_additions_by_User:Ytrottier

The other issue is that you are using case studies of machines which have malfunctioned in the "typical scan dose" section when it was already discussed in the section here [1] thus what you added was duplication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 21:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I see however that you where simply moving text from one page to another. It probably belongs at neither page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 21:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As you seem well versed in the unites of radiation measurement wish to ask you something.

• We have table one in this paper (you have to click on it to see it) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra072149 that lists organ doses and states mSv=mGy

• We have the FDA website that states "A CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (abbreviated mSv; 1 mSv = 1 mGy in the case of x rays.)" for effective dose.

The units thus appear equivalent. The two quantities we are dealing with are "organ dose" versus "effective dose"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 03:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Answered on Talk:X-ray computed tomography#Units in use--Yannick (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "X-ray_computed_tomography". Thank you. --Nenpog (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Nenpog vs. Guy Macon, Doc James, and Yobol. and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Per this, the RFAR request that you were listed as a party in was rejected and closed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ionizing radiation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Effective dose (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, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

		The Nuclear Barnstar
		For your work on Louis Slotin. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you! I didn't think anyone noticed!--Yannick (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gray (unit), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roentgen (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) 11:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)