User talk:Badgettrg

Welcome!

Hello, Badgettrg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

• Good to see someone of the gastrointestinal persuasion around! -- Samir धर्म 06:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Badgettrg, I use the cite journal template. There's a neat tool that helps out: [1]. For example to cite PMID 8594428, I would go to the tool, which will create a script in cite journal format {{cite journal | author = Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, Andreola S, Pulvirenti A, Bozzetti F, Montalto F, Ammatuna M, Morabito A, Gennari L | title = Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. | journal = N Engl J Med | volume = 334 | issue = 11 | pages = 693-9 | year = 1996 | id = PMID 8594428}}
• You can then reference it using <ref name=Mazzaferro> {{cite journal...}} </ref> , where Mazzafero is the first author.
• Here's an example: The Milan criteria for liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma suggest that one HCC less than 5 cm or three less than 3 cm have increased survival with transplantation.^[1]

I'd also recommend Diberri's template filler http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/?type=pmid for formatting refs where you have a PMID, PMC or ISBN. Saves having to remember that the pmc value should be only numeric and will usually provide a DOI and url for recent refs. {{cite pmid|number}} and {{cite doi|value}} work ok too, with a more verbose style. http://reftag.appspot.com/ for giving a cite book from a google books URL is also useful. RDBrown (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I am pretty happy with http://sumsearch.org/cite/ . It follows the convention of assigning the name attribute of the ref tag using "pmid12345678" - as does diberri's (at least diberri did in the past) - so that two independent uses of a citation in one article by two independent wikipedians will not lead to duplicate citations in the reference list . I think this is better (because PMIDs are unique) than using the author name as done in your example. Unlike diberri, sumsearch adds links to ACPJC if available. it can also help with numeracy. I have been using http://sumsearch.org/cite/ for a while now, is there a problem with my reference structure? They seem ok to me; however, I wrote http://sumsearch.org/cite/ so I can fix it if needed. Diberri has moved to a new url. Thanks - Robert Badgett 00:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case I think you have a bug, and I have an enhancement request. Fixes |pmc=PMC<<number>> bugs and has some of my normal fiddles. Please put separate page ranges with ndash (as Diberri's tool and the DOI Bot do). If easy please add URLs too. Diberri's source is up on CPAN. I'm interested in your source too. Some of my notes on my talk page may be useful, don't know. When putting in named references by hand, I will use an unquoted surname2digityear. I think the ref tag values don't need quoting if they're valid identifiers ([a-zA-Z]+[a-zA-Z0-9]*), as the pmidnumber you're using are. You're right that the pmid form is unique, but it's not good for my fallible memory at least. RDBrown (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. The page numbering and urls should be fixable. But per http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/so08/so08_skill_kit_pmcid.html , the PMCID includes the prefix "PMCID". Note that for the Berlin questionnaire article, if you search PubMed with "143529", which is what WP says is the PMCID, you will not retrieve the correct article. However, if you use the proper "PMCID143529" you will get the article. Someone needs to fix the templates at WP because it is displaying a misleading number. Ideally, since I am guessing there are many PMCIDs in WP without "PMCID", the template should look for either format then prepend the PMCID is needed then make the url only display PMCID once. Otherwise, PMCIDs and PMIDs will get confused. I will work on the pagination and urls. Curious, this previously was not a bug at WP and the PMCIDs worked correctly. - 169.147.175.193 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you know that number is for a PMC as the formatted entry tags it, the leading PMCID is redundant. The problem is if you leave the PMC in, the generated URL probably won't work (linking the number or the article title if there isn't a URL). The number only form is longstanding, since it provides the anchor for the link out and the article on PubMedCentral will show their preferred form, it's unlikely to be a problem for most people. When there are a lot of refs, brevity helps too I think. RDBrown (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the close look. 1) I fixed the lack of URLs 2) I am not seeing a problem with pagination. Do you have an example where it is not picking up the pagination correctly? 3) I would like the PMCID to remain as is since it matches the NLM's instructions. The NLM recommendation keeps users from confusing PMIDs and PMCIDs, in addition, this approach supports future expansions of PubMed xml such as NIHM. Similarly, I note that the diberri tool is not able to handle PMCIDs and NIHMs as input because of this whereas my tool (and PubMed) can handle all of these as well as NCTs. I just made this proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 - Robert Badgett 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hope this helps -- Samir धर्म 04:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the article. IBS was the one GI article I didn't want to touch. I've removed the 5 points of stress management but per the WP:MOS, pathophysiology and epi should be separate (but not overlap each other). -- Samir धर्म 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on the Back pain article! -- Fyslee 09:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (Physical therapist)[reply]

Influenza (flu)
Types Avian A/H5N1 subtype Canine Equine Swine A/H1N1 subtype
Vaccines 2009 pandemic Pandemrix Live attenuated Seasonal flu vaccine brands
Treatment Amantadine Baloxavir marboxil Laninamivir Oseltamivir Peramivir Rimantadine Umifenovir Zanamivir
Pandemics 1889-1890 Russian flu 1918 Spanish flu 1957-1958 Asian flu 1968 Hong Kong flu 1977 Russian flu 2009 swine flu
Outbreaks 1976 swine flu 2006 H5N1 India 2007 Australian equine 2007 Bernard Matthews H5N1 2008 West Bengal 2015 United States H5N2 outbreak 2020–2022 H5N8 outbreak
See also Flu season Influenza evolution Influenza research Influenza-like illness Vaccine reformulations
v t e

H5N1

Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 Genetic structure Infection Human mortality Global spread in 2004 in 2005 in 2006 in 2007 2020–2024 Social impact Pandemic Vaccine

v t e

Thanks for helping with the flu article. Care to help with H5N1? I'm adding the flu and H5N1 navigation templates here in the hopes that you will be inspired to read them and someday maybe add a line or two. Again, thanks. WAS 4.250 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You`re the man! Andycjp Advent 2006

Does "clinical dx/rx" include the data in the WHO report Epidemiology of WHO-confirmed human cases of avian influenza A(H5N1) infection that should be included in Transmission and infection of H5N1 (but isn't because no one with an adequate background has volunteered)? Three Indonesian Clusters of H5N1 Virus Infection in 2005 contains data published after that which is relevant. The only other such study I'm aware of is one I thought poorly done on the cases in Turkey. WAS 4.250 21:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you wrote a little about yourself on your user page. It is not a home page, but it belongs to the wiki as general information. Perhaps, take an interest in the layout of others' users pages before starting your own. Snowman 23:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice section for the PCP article. Good work! - Ryanjo 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to delete User:Badgettrg/test, add "{{db-author}}" at the top of the page; administrator will come along and delete it. John Vandenberg 21:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your work on pneumonia. Could you please provide the full academic references for the papers that you referenced to. PMID codes in isolation are generally not sufficient (as they do not contain the year, name of journal, and authors). Cheers. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section is great, it will make a welcome addition to the article. Just place it wherever you feel it fits best in the medicine section. One small note, section titles on Wikipedia aren't capitalized (like article names), so please change it to 'The physician's perspective' or something similar. If you can add anything more to the article feel free to continue contributing, there's a section on the talk page with some suggestions on what needs to be covered, including several medical aspects. Just drop me a line if you need any help. I'm really just trying to keep the article free of vandalism and improve it's coverage, so I obviously know far less about the subject than yourself, but if I'm happy to help in any way I can. Thanks again for your work. Richard001 00:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You've re-added previously deleted information on the LEARN diet. The article will likely keep getting deleted unless you can make clear why the topic is important, and unless you supply reliable sources that we can verify the information from. Good luck, and let me know if you have questions. -- William Pietri 02:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see proposed version at User:Badgettrg/LEARN_diet and its discussion at User_talk:Badgettrg/LEARN_diet. I have asked the administrator to restore or {{delrev}}. The first speedy delete was by a non-admin (I think) whose username escapes me. How do I find out if they are an admin - if they are not an admin they need feedback about process. The second delete was an admin - although I disagree with their interpretation of criteria for speedy deletion. By their criteria, I have seen many pages to delete. The LEARN diet]] page is useful for readers of the recent JAMA RCT at Obesity: Low carbohydrate versus low fat. Without the LEARN diet page, the reader is stuck wondering, 'what is the LEARN diet?'. Do we want the user to have to Google LEARN diet? I was only able to figure out what it was by following its reference out of the JAMA study.Badgettrg 02:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All deletion is done by admins, so no worry there. If you see a page meriting speedy deletion, please tag it. We'd love to have an article on something where the information can be verified in reliable sources. Otherwise, Googling the topic is what people probably should do. So I'd encourage you to keep the article in your user space until you've found those sources and encorporated them. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 03:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time you had a barnstar. Axl 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Badgettrg, for numerous contributions to medical articles. Axl 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please stop by Talk:Migraine if you can. We are discussing the classification of migraine as a disease or a disorder. Thank you, Postoak 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for your contributions to Comparison of reference management software, but note that I reverted them. The heading for "import" says:

This table lists the file formats which may be manually imported into the reference managers. This is in contrast to database connectivity, which is listed below.

RefWorks and Zotero can import from the PubMed database & are listed as such in the database connectivity section. They cannot import stand-alone PubMed-formatted files or PubMed files from any site other than PubMed. I provided commentary about this issue on the Talk page for the article & that is why there is descriptive text before those two tables. If you think that text should be clarified, please feel free to improve it! If you think that there shouldn't be a distinction between manual import and database connectivity, please bring it up on the talk page.

Further: the links you put in "Word processor integration" talked about MS Word integration, which is why they were marked as "yes" in the very first column of that table. Thanks again! --Karnesky 16:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was curious as to why the addition of coordinates to Triple Falls (DuPont State Forest), Upper Whitewater Falls, Bridal Veil Falls (DuPont State Forest). The Waterfall template already includes the information you've posted. Were you correcting the posted information? 5minutes 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some subdivisions near DuPont State Forest. Part of the big problem facing mountain counties: the growing debate between protecting natural resources and gaining the tax dollars that come from homes built in subdivisions (and priced / valued to the moon). Either way - thanks for your contribs. I'm not sure if the inclusion in the infobox is enough to get the falls on Google Earth, so rock on as far as I'm concerned. There's at least one other NC Waterfaller out there posting articles (WNCOutdoors), who's done quite a bit to get things started. 5minutes 12:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you linked every occurrence of "Non-Euclidean geometry" on the Euclidean geometry page. Well, that should not be so. Only one or a few instances should be linked. Overlinking is generally considered not good. Thanks. You can reply here. 15:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was a frustrated user after spending time on that page not realizing the other page was lurking. I suspect I overdid it. Feel free to remove, but please leave some. The page previously just had two links that were buried in random paragraphs. I am not aware of a specific policy on density of links, but I do not mind a heavy dose - for example, first mention per paragraph of an important concept that is covered in a related page. Badgettrg 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, you're doing sterling work on many pages. I only recently noticed your major contributions to obesity. Please keep it up, and drop by WP:CLINMED to join in the discussions.

A quick note on edit summaries. I would strongly recommend you offer a bit more information on the nature of your edits. This makes it much easier for other editors to understand what you are trying to do.

I've recently done some work on pseudoxanthoma elasticum. Would you mind proofreading it for me? JFW | T@lk 10:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your additions to warfarin. Good work. Please do remember to add edit summaries. It makes it much easier to keep track of the development of articles. Also, I would think summaries of guidelines belong in the references section much like reference itself does - or do you disagree? JFW | T@lk 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Badgettrg. Thanks for joining us on the Alcoholism page. You obviously have significant knowledge in this field, and your contributions are appreciated, but you've expanded the article in ways that we've previously trimmed it back because of length considerations. At one point we were working towards having an encyclopedic description of all of the drugs that are used for detoxification, but we decided that (a) they made an already too long article considerably longer, (b) this information is tangential to alcoholism in general, and (c) that particular type of information significantly exceeded the scope of knowledge for your typical reader, and would result in them not reading the article. In summary, the Alcoholism article is not a good place for us to give detailed information on how to detoxify an alcoholic.

Please hop onto the discussion page and chat us up about the topic. It's always good to have more informed voices with the more complex issues. In the mean time, I'm going to have to give it a good look-over and remove a bunch of what you contributed. - Robert Rapplean 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same concerns about the level of details of my edits for that page. Rather than deleting the new content; how about we move it to a Alcohol detoxification stub and link to the new article from Alcoholism?Badgettrg 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought. Done! Thanks again. I'll encourage the detox enthusiasts on our page to go contribute to that one. - Robert Rapplean 17:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since part of the goal is to trim down the long alcoholism page, I removed a bit more of the detox content on the alcoholism page and also put in a main tag. Feel free to change if it is not in the direction the alcoholism page needs to go.Badgettrg 20:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Just thought you'd like to know I've deleted Image:Gray1217-Castells Point.png. As for derivative works of Gray's plates, you may simply tag them with {{Gray's Anatomy plate}}, note in the summary you edited it yourself, and add the copyright license of your liking. I recommend {{PD-self}}, and have taken the liberty of tagging Image:Gray1217-Castells Point-b.png with it; I hope you don't mind.

Keep up the excellent work, and if I can be of any assistance, please let me know :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very muchBadgettrg 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was impressed to see this. You've done some interesting work in clinical informatics too. I've often wondered how we can teach doctors to engage more with Wikipedia. Any bright ideas? JFW | T@lk 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are a physician: are you in practice or academics?

• Regarding licensed doctors, we need to 1) find a way to make wiki edits easier. You and I take editing for granted, but I think technical tasks like linking references to PubMed will frustrate many clinically excellent docs whose edits we want yet they do not have the time to learn the technicalities of editing. I think we need to promote facilitating edits such as described in the discussion you participated at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Let.27s_make_linking_to_PubMed_easier. 2) we need to find a way to give fair CME for good edits.
• Regarding medical students, I do have an idea that I recently implemented, and enthusiastic about, and am writing up for publication.
• Lastly, I have fundamental concerns with WikiPedia allowing edits from unregistered users. At the moment I have not to waste too much time in edit conflicts with unsupported/fringe opinions; but I am sure it will happen due to the many financial conflicts of interest in medicine. I am still debating whether to fully switch over to Citizendium. I would do so, but WP is so far ahead with nice templates and even PDA access through http://pda.en.wapedia.mobi/. Do you have insight as to whether Wikipedia will stop allowing unregistered edits? Badgettrg 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a clinician in specialist training. I totally agree that the present system of sourcing is annoying, but it's the best we can do. I also support your worries about unregistered and fringe editors, but the Wikipedia community has decided to tolerate these; it would be a complete waste if you switched to Citizendium. If you having trouble with these editors, simply ask WP:CLINMED for backup; we can usually help.

Why did you undo my edit to warfarin? I gave some reasons in my edit summary. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to join the discussion on Talk:Lyme_disease regarding the length of the article?

I also noticed your edits on the Symptoms section, usefully removing some content to a different article; I added a very brief summary in situ. Neparis 22:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was low on time so quit after the move when I should have done a summary as you did. I have to pass on joining the discussion. Badgettrg 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information that you added to Exenatide was already in the article. Since there is no need for redundancy, I removed it. If you wish to add the same section, please remove the redundant material first. Thank you. Ward3001 20:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was trying to avoid stepping on the toes of whoever added that content to antidiabetic drugs. It was pretty sparse anyway. Did you see the external link to dailymed I added at the end?Badgettrg

Do you mean the external link to Daily Med? The info appears mostly, if not completely, identical to the PI. Ward3001 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, I noticed from your publications and faculty page that you have an interest in physical examination. Many articles presently lack useful resources in this regard, and I am personally quite fascinated by interobserver variability in the identification and interpretation of clinical signs. The JAMA articles ("does this patient have clubbing" etc etc) on the Rational Clinical Examination fill an important void, IMHO. Apart from the textbooks (e.g. Barbara Bates), are you aware of any journals dedicated to the issue? JFW | T@lk 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if there were more, but it seems to me that physical diagnosis research is getting sparser. The Journal of General Internal Medicine might be friendly to physical diagnosis research.Badgettrg 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just must have noticed that I've been copyediting atrial fibrillation a little bit. I was about to include the studies from last week's BMJ when I noticed you'd already done that. Great.

It seems most of the article is referenced now, and we may reach the stage where we can push for peer review. Do you think any further improvements are needed? If so, is there anything I can do to help? With a bit of luck, it could even reach featured article status. Some more images might be needed.

Interested? JFW | T@lk 22:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you removed the section "Diagnosis: Routine office evaluation". I am not sure if on purpose of not as you were moving a lot of text around. I put it back in, let me know if you think it should be someone else. We had a patient in the hospital who seems to have had their a-fib missed a routine visit, so this article had an interesting, relevant observation.

To me, most all articles, including this one could still be improved, but ok with me to proceed. I do not know about peer review and unfortunately will not have time to contribute but will watch.Badgettrg 22:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this information appears twice: under "Routine office evaluation" and further down under "Screening". Surely, once is enough? Cheers, Doctormatt 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Well, check atrial fibrillation again and see what you think. I split the content over the two locations - hopefully without redundancy.Badgettrg 05:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to avoid the use of the term "office" evaluation, because in the UK this term is not used for general practice (the word "surgery" is used instead). The peer review process takes place at Wikipedia:Peer review. It is a crucial step in the improvement of high-quality articles, and I would strongly recommend you familiarise yourself with the process. JFW | T@lk 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'Primary care appointment' or 'Primary care visit? Unfortunately, in the U.S., 'consultation' implies a subspecialty visit. I am having difficulty thinking a good term. Do you have otehr ideas?

I will look at Wikipedia:Peer review.

Have you seen http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_9/cross/? I would like to see WP think in this direction.Badgettrg 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the proposal of "relative evidence weight" very interesting, and even technically feasible. Mr Cross seems a sensible bloke. Is he editing Wikipedia by any chance?

Obviously, what Wikipedia needs most is experts in the relevant fields wielding their knowledge of the literature and removing mindless cruft and House M.D. trivia in favour of material that makes sense to the layman. My personal ideal is to shorten the gap between the patient/carers and the evidence. That would mean that someone just diagnosed with COPD will be able to see fairly easily on the basis of what evidence she has been prescribed tiotropium and a LABA.

Have you heard about WP:MCOTW (medical collaboration of the week). We are working on meningitis. Your help would be appreciated! JFW | T@lk 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that unless WP starts disallowing anonymous edits, we are heading for major conflict of interest in medical pages as authors start seeing the power of WP. I searched Pfizer at http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ and was relieved not to find any white-washing on first glance. I suspect most of the vandalism will come from small outfits and not the big companies with reputations at stake.

I am guessing that Cross is an editor for WP, but I do not know. WP:MCOTW sounds interesting, but I doubt I will be able to help. Day job spills into night job for me.Badgettrg 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a new project has started up to focus on journals and journal articles. Please consider joining in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, as we could use your experience and we will be promoting encyclopedic topics like /Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (PMID: 7580661) and /annals. John Vandenberg 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting project. I added some suggestions to Template_talk:Infobox_Journal. When I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, I did not get the impression the project would promote synoptic types of articles such as /Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (PMID: 7580661).Badgettrg 22:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Warfarin. Thank you. --Slashme 06:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry.Badgettrg 06:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice cleanup. Thanks! Howard C. Berkowitz 16:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick heads-up about obesity. I'm not sure whether it's a great idea to provide information in the form of lists. Similarly, I'm not quite sure about the need to provide verbatim conclusions from studies in an indented fashion. Is there no way this information can be presented in prose without formatting? JFW | T@lk 21:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I favor judicious use of bullets over prose (see Using structured medical information to improve students' problem-solving performance and Nielsen recs (see #4)
• I think really short quotes (I probably indent them more often than needed) are a safe way to pass along the conclusion without distorting the original message (see How accurate are quotations and references in medical journals - this article is not about using literal quotations, but the risk of paraphrasing).

Badgettrg 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The first study is about medical students. I'm not sure if they can be generalised to the general readership; there are also differences between medical textbooks and an encyclopedia... I agree misquotation is a big problem (BMJ 2005 traced an error in the pathology of dermatomyositis through its misquotations in the literature), but are you convinced that verbatim citations are the right answer to this phenomenon? JFW | T@lk 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected. Hope you can help…

JFW | T@lk 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bob - hope all's well. Would you mind writing a stublet on the LEARN diet (presently a red link from obesity). Alternatively, if you throw me a reliable source I could do it as well.

Will we have your help on diabetes mellitus? I think we need to include the most pivotal trials, and split off the less relevant stuff into sub-articles. JFW | T@lk 11:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a trivial edit; every time I look at diabetes mellitus, I end up editing diabetes mellitus type 2. Happened again this time.Badgettrg 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of LEARN diet, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:Badgettrg/LEARN diet. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recreating that. I only noticed now that it was previously deleted. If this has been the subject of clinical trials and meta-analyses it is obviously not an advertisement etc. I will defend the content if necessary. If someone tags it as a speedy again, just add {{hangon}}. The CorenSearchBot action was undone by another contributor, so no need to worry about that. JFW | T@lk 17:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I note that you are preparing a version of Annals of Internal Medicine at User:Badgettrg/annals. Could you please remove the categories and stub tag from the draft article, as at the moment the draft page shows up inappropriately under Category:Medical journals & Category:Scientific journal stubs. Thanks, Espresso Addict 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DoneBadgettrg 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to move [[]] to [[]], ther is a move button at the top of the screen. Doing a cut-and-paste is wrong, since the original edit history has to move with the page in order to maintain the legally-required GFDL contributions history. Please read Help:Moving a page for the details.

I'm going to follow the request-and-fix procedure at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. -- ArglebargleIV 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it easier to revert my change, then to a proper move?Badgettrg 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that once the destination file is created, it takes an administrator to fix it -- non-admins can't do a page move over an existing file. Once the process the tag I dropped on ‎Preventable medical error, they'll fix it up, though. -- ArglebargleIV 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – no worries. — madman bum and angel 20:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Badgettrg 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history of migraine, I'm not sure if semi-protection of the article would have any benefits. Semiprotection will only stop anonymous editors (who are in the minority) and those who have recently registered. It will not stop long-term editors with a weird perspective. I see you've started work on the article; I don't treat migraine frequently so I won't be able to help much, but we definitely need to mention recent associations with stroke risk. JFW | T@lk 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to better understand the connection with stroke and vasospasm in other location. Although the treatment section of this article is bothersome, someone has done some very nice work in other locations. For example, I did not know about the NEJM study suggesting an association with PFOs. Agree that protection may not help; I wish that WP would require registration and make the authorship of odd edits easier to identify. I thought for sure some of the triptan edits would prove to be anonymous edits from Glaxo, but http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ did not reveal that to be true.Badgettrg 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I moved your new article to your userspace; User:Badgettrg/Malignant hypertensionTemp. When you have enough content to warrant an article, feel free to re-release it. Thanks! Tan | 39 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, could you clarify why you created that page? The edit summary indicates that there might be a copyright problem. If that is so, could you inform me which sections are copyvios, so I can rewrite them? JFW | T@lk 21:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created that page in error while helping a student working on malignant hyperthermia. Someone else tagged malignant hypertension as a possible copyright problem. - 16:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, Bob, are you behind the influx of several new contributors all gradually updating the MH page after months of inactivity? If your students work hard this can be a WP:GA. Do you have access to some good images (e.g. a vial of dantrolene in its interesting suspension)? JFW | T@lk 11:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- Addbot (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Would you be interested in volunteering some time and expertise to help the Wikimedia Foundation in a collaboration with the National Institutes of Health? I unfortunately do not have a lot of details to give at this time, but in short, I'm looking for a group of Wikimedians (primarily US or UK based, but that's not a requirement) that have interest or expertise in various medical fields, to help participate in a Wikimedia Academy event with the NIH. Even if you don't think you'd be able to attend the event, but would be interested in helping out online in any capacity, I'd love to hear back from you. Please leave a message on my talk page at User talk:Swatjester if you are interested. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account was used for 4 edits today, referred to at Talk:Syphilis#My edits today as follows:

That request bore your account's sig, and like the acct's remaining edits of the day it is confirmed (by edit histories and your contribs page) as belonging to your account.
The substance of the talk-page request creates a presumption that the four edits were made by a person different from the creator of the account, either because at least one other person has the knowledge to log onto WP as User:Badgettrg at will, or bcz the creator assisted someone in doing so on at least that recent occasion. The latter violates Wikipedia:User_account#Sharing_accounts, and IMO the provisions of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Protection indicate blocking your account in either case, pending it becoming clear that further use of the account by multiple users will not recur (or that i have misconstrued the situation).
I trust you will quickly understand that account sharing, whether intentional, inadvertent, or security-negligent, compromises both the clarity of attribution that GFDL entails and the clear lines of accountability that the continued success of the project requires in light of both the respect, and the desirability as a target of vandalism, PoV-pushing, and spam, that WP has achieved.
As you will read in the materials referenced just below, any admin can remove the block on your account at their discretion; i put myself on record as considering your block unjustified as soon as another admin is confident that you have met whatever expectations are usually applied to situations of this kind. (As this is my first such encounter, i do not intend to be the admin who makes that judgment.)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for account sharing or loss of control of account. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Jerzy•t 07:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Please unblock this account. While it is nice to know that a WikiPedian saw my note about the edit; my account was not shared or used by any user other than myself. If my purpose was nefarious, I would not have publicly disclosed the source of the edit immediately after making the edit. I made the edit that she composed because WP policy required her to make a certain number of edits before she was allowed to edit a locked page (syphilis). Her work is part of a course (http://medinformatics.uthscsa.edu/ms4/) that teaches evidence-based medicine by creating evidence-based edits. While I discourage my students from choosing wikipedia as the wiki they edit because I fundamentally disagree with Wikipedia allowing anonymous edits by default; most all students still choose to edit WP because no registration is required. In my view, the WP policy of delaying access to locked pages would be unnecessary if WP required users to reveal real names except in cases where doing so might lead to damages. Ironically, in this year's class, the student involved was the only student who attempted to register herself instead of doing an anonymous edit.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Your explanation that you made the edits on behalf of wajulp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to allow them to bypass the semiprotection of Syphilis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is satisfactory and I am unblocking this account. But in the future please do not do this, as it messes up our attribution system, your talk page edit notwithstanding. Instead, please have your student gain WP:Autoconfirmed status or request unprotection of the page so that she may make the edit with her own account. Request handled by:  Sandstein  Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I've no opinion on the unblock request, but it's worth noting that compelling someone to reveal their real name is just as bad as compulsory registration, if not worse because of the very real risk of real-life harassment, especially on a site so well-known as Wikipedia is. (Indeed, we've lost a couple administrators and more than a few editors over the years due to off-Wikipedia harassment of editors' families and phone calls to employers.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside I was also reviewing this case, and found that the article was indefinitely protected 15 months ago, apparently without any previous protection periods, and I have therefore removed the protection for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I not only acknowledge Sandstein's prerogative, but also support their specific judgment, and look forward to Badgettrg's student as another colleague, to her participating in working out the process of establishing verification, and to her getting the clear attribution she is entitled to.
  --Jerzy•t 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

• I hope it was not poor communication on my part that led you to think you needed to defend your having acted in good faith; i perceived no evidence of bad faith, but further article editing (while we straightened things out), by one account with the intention that another end up receiving the attribution, would have only made the situation harder to clean up.
  I'm not sure i'd have done anything differently -- besides mentioning the possibility that you did all the editing -- if that third construction of the evidence had occurred to me, and i think we are now well situated for moving forward within WP standards to proper attribution of the material.
  As to your critique of WP policy, i crave indulgence of my wandering off topic to respond: i don't advocate for even all of portions of that policy that i understand, but i counsel you that there's only one WP, and the alternatives do not, and will not soon, approach being substitutes. And none of the stupidities i think i've identified in WP's policies justifies failing to make the most of it. Ahh -- let me put it this way: the money i carry around bears slogans that insult the intelligence of any rational person (and in fact should also offend the religious, with the pagan idolatry the state commits in using the money to claim alliance with their Invisible Friend); foregoing the capabilities conferred by using that money would be on a par with avoiding WP bcz of any of its faults.
  --Jerzy•t 05:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

Thank you for uploading File:Black Balsam Knob in autumn.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the photo and thought I indicated so when I uploaded 8 October 2007. Regardless, I do not seem to be able to edit the author attribute at the photo's original page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Balsam_Knob_in_autumn.JPG and at the new page someone move it to at http://commons.wikimedia.org, /wiki/File:Black_Balsam_Knob_in_autumn.JPG. I do not have an account at the commons. I think we are making this unnecessarily hard. It appears that someone moved the photo from a place where I have an account (wikipedia) to a place I do not have an account (wikimedia) and now wants me to edit the metadata at the new site. Can the process of editing the metadata be a little easier? Thanks - Robert Badgett 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone already notated it was your own work [2]. The reason I marked it as no source is because you never actually indicated it was your work. Here is the text of the page as it read:

== Summary ==
[[Black Balsam Knob]] as seen at sunrise from [[Blueridge Parkway]] Milepost 419. Graveyard Fields and the Yellowstone Falls of Yellowstone Prong are in the foreground. Photographed 2007-10-06.

== Licensing ==
{{cc-by-sa-3.0}}

It had the date on which it was photographed but not who created it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. I'm not looking for more comments, as there have been many already, but you're welcome to add yours if you want to. Presto54 (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use for medical content per WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I had not seen WP:MEDRS. While it has some good ideas, it has some pretty crazy ideas as well. You deleted my edit? Will you please find a review article to replace the fact I added? I don't think you can since the article was just published. - Robert Badgett 19:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is that we use secondary sources for medical information. Have removed the content supported by primary sources which was added to UTIs. A few other the reasons we use secondary sources is many primary ones give undue weight to the topic at hand. Primary sources also often contradict each other and of course do not give an overview of all the evidence at a given point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), " In other situations, such as randomized controlled trials, it may be helpful temporarily to cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published." - Robert Badgett 12:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

We much prefer secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Ask at WT:MED for further advice if you do not accept mine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it to the talk page. If you wish to add the conclusions than these can go in the main space.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Author/Badgettrg

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Helicobacter Pylori. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Badgettrg/ms4, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Badgettrg/ms4 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Badgettrg/ms4 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Badgettrg, wasn't sure if you follow wisdom teeth so I thought I'd leave a message here re the page. I'm concerned your last edit,

"The Cochrane Collaboration has published a systematic review of randomized controlled trials [emphasis added] in order to evaluate the effect of preventive removal of asymptomatic wisdom teeth. "Insufficient evidence was found to support or refute routine prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adults" according to the Cochrane Collaboration"

is misleading.

Because of the emphasized sentence preceding the quote from the article, my conclusion (and I believe most people reading the paragraph) will be that there was RCTs available, but the data didn't show any benefit or harm. Rather than, there were no RCT's. I thought I'd contact you here, in the hopes of building a consensus, rather than just making the change, as this tends to be a contentious topic. Thoughts? Ian Furst (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Yes, I should not have used my generic Cochrane line. Feel free to revise. Thanks. Robert Badgett 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"generic Cochrane line", love it! Never know which to quote, so many seem to draw the same conclusion due to lack of available data, will do. Thanks. Ian Furst (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

going to copy this conversation to article talk page as well, just in case others have/had/develop the same concern. Ian Furst (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

---

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

• WHO's list of Essential Medicines[3]
• Neglected tropical diseases[4]
• Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

---

IEG grant

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

• Swedish
  Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
  Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
• Dutch
  Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
• Polish
  Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
  (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
• Arabic
  The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [5]

News in short

---

To come

• Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
• Proofreading drives

Further reading

• Translators Without Borders
• Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Medical Translation partners Translators Without Borders WikiProject Medicine (English) Wiki Project Med Foundation resources Progress (full) Progress (simplified) Babylon Integration guides Wikipedia - Translate outreach Editor Outreach Journal outreach get involved Sign up

Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:To Fly - Screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Shining Rock from Black Balsam Knob (cropped).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Shining Rock from Black Balsam Knob.jpg

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not clear to me how to fix this in the author field. What template is needed, etc. Robert Badgett 19:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed your question on Fastily's talk page about this image. You need to use a fully completed {{information}} template (click on the link to see all the fields and how to fill it out). Add it to the image and fill out all the fields and all should then be good if it is your own image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photograph you uploaded to Wikipedia back in 2007. It has now been transferred to Commons but it is unclear if you are the original photographer. If you got this image from somewhere else, please try to remember the source so we can confirm the CC licence. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not clear to me how to fix this in the author field. What template is needed, etc. Robert Badgett 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I read this earlier today. One of the key things is the average age was 76. Would be better to use a review article per MEDMOS.[6] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit clean-up of Syncope (medicine). Maybe a systematic review on the topic will emerge, but at present, this is the only cohort I am finding that applied a risk score to every patient. Lot of unsourced content on the Syncope (medicine). Robert Badgett

Hello, Badgettrg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Badgettrg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for publishing Are Students Able and Willing to Edit Wikipedia to Learn Components of Evidence-Based Practice? (Q56559082). I incorporated it into Health information on Wikipedia in Scholia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Badgettrg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Badgettrg,

Thanks for the Biomedical Citation Maker – an extremely useful tool! This is just a heads-up about a minor citation error its output can generate. PMID 19422432 generates ^[1]:

The solution is to remove et al. from the authors parameter and use displayauthors=etal, producing ^[1]

So the output is the same, just without the cite error.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Robert Badgett 15:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That was fast! Thank you Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
3. Remove anything in the Signature: text box. (It might already be empty.)
4. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
3. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]