User talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1

Old links

• EndoFound preliminary version in Sandbox User:Memdmarti/sandbox/endofound
• Hemothorax work User talk:Memdmarti/sandbox/hemothorax

Robert Kistner

Hi, SandyGeorgia! This is a quote from the book. Can you use it? Memdmarti (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Amazon Books has one copy at 7.99 + 3.99 shipping

https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-History-American-Fertility-1944-1994/dp/B001C0ITLO

Duka WE, DeCherney AH. From the Beginning - A History of-the American Fertility Society 1944-1994. 1994, the American Fertility Society, Birmingham. Page 156

Citation:

Duka, WE; DeCherney, AH (1994). From the Beginning: A History of-the American Fertility Society 1944-1994. Birmingham: The American Fertility Society. p. 156.

"Robert Kistner, MD

32nd president

Robert Kistner, MD, the societies 32nd president, was a prolific author who specialized in the treatment of endometriosis and was an early advocate of use of birth control pills as both a contraceptive and preventative for uterine cancer.

Before returning 1986, he had written more than 175 articles and five books. His books included Atlas of Infertility Surgery with G. W. Patton, Progress in Infertility with his longtime friend and fellow society present S. John Berman, Principles and Practice of Gynecology, and The Pill: Facts and Fallacies about Oral Contraceptives with Drs. Rock, Pincus and Garcia.

He was especially known for his three original papers in 1958-60: on induction of ovulation with MER-23/Clomid, pseudopregnancy treatment of endometriosis, and effects of progestins on carcinoma in situ of endometrium.

When he became AFS posted in 1979, Doctor Kistler was assistant clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Harvard Medical School, associated chief of staff at Boston Hospital for Women, and consultant in gynecology at the New England Baptist Hospital in Boston.

He earned his M. D. Degree from the University of Cincinnati, served its internship at the Cincinnati General Hospital and residency at Johns Hopkins, Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn, and the Boston Hospital for women.

In World War II, he served in the Army air Corps as a flight surgeon and later as chief of air evacuation In the Pacific Division. After the war, he was a consultant to the Air Force.

After the Dr. Kistner retired, the Brigham and Women’s Hospital honored him for 34 years of service by dedicating the Kistler library at the hospital.

Dr. Kistner died in February 1990, at his home and Wellington, Florida."

Archived Memdmarti (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

to Colin re Endometriosis Theory List

Hi, Colin! I see you are "semi-retired," but you are SandyGeorgia's "list Guru" and I have a list request for you. The purpose of the following is for me to learn to do lists as I am retired and this is one of many things I would like to learn.

I have an annotated, chronological file with 313 endometriosis listed concepts, observations, and theories. A quick review suggests about 60 are theory or theory-associated and useful for a theory list.

Note: This is low priority as there are likely only a small number of readers, by Wikipedia standards, who might look at it. I accept rejection of low priority projects easily.

SandyGeorgia's comments in User_talk:Memdmarti#WP:SYNTH are incorporated into the listed items below.

My list starts on page 4 at https://www.danmartinmd.com/files/endotheory.pdf. Please look at the listed comments regarding #1-10 and #24.

• Most items have internal references that need to be removed.
• Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 used secondaries and generally follow a format like that used in Timeline of tuberous sclerosis. Those look easy to convert to a Wikipedia "list" style.
• Item 3, 4, 6, and 10 have WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues and likely WP:POV and would need to revert back to the secondary wording.
• Item 24 is my summary of Sampson. That is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:POV and would need a major revision.

Memdmarti (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC); 17:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC); 02:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC); 12:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC); 13:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC); 19:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Memdmarti (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Memdmarti (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Help generating citations

TO easily generate a citation, that will add DOI, PMCs and everything else, you can just plug a Pubmed Identifier (PMID) in to this tool, hit submit, and then copy paste the test into ref tags for a citation. Regards, User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia (User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk) 05:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Edited from from User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Endometriosis_article

2{pb}2 is a line return

Posting to the talk page of WP:MED is just a way of getting more eyes on a topic than posting at an article talk page.

Some pages that may help you are WP:PSTS and WP:RS, in addition to the health specific WP:MEDRS.

In the example you give, 42 (PJ van der Linden 1996) is PMID 9147102, a secondary review that is a MEDRS-compliant source. Although it is dated (and could be updated), it is not derelict sourcing for that kind of text (see WP:MEDDATE). It is sufficient to cite the text that Sampson first proposed the theory, but citation 56 (JA Sampson 1927 AJP), PMID 19969738, which is Sampson's original paper, is added just as a courtesy (not necessary). Sampson is a primary source, referenced by the secondary source-- both are provided, although only the first is needed.

PS, another thing to be aware of is to not guide your Wikipedia editing by things you encounter in articles, because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Nice to see my dear Dr. Kistner in your notes (DCM: Concepts and Theories)... without whom I would not have had children!) User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia (User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk) 05:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia! Most excellent suggestions. Wikipedia template filling is wonderful. I am happy that you found Robert Kistner! Memdmarti (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I just left a long response for you at WT:MED, and am now watching your talk page, so you need not ping me. See the info at the top of User talk:SandyGeorgia-- the best way to get my attention is to post to my talk page, as I lose track of those pingie-thingies, am very busy, and I keep a to-do list on my own talk page of things I am actively intending to work on ... Best, User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk) 13:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia!

Will do! Memdmarti (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Give me a few days; Azziz is a dreadful article. If he paid for that, his money was not well spent. User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia (User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk) 13:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia]]!

Ugh, mention of Ricardo Azziz (Uruguayan) reminded me to look in on Ricardo Asch (Argentine), who destroyed lives of my Venezuelan friends :( User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia (User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk) 14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Guests in the morning for a garden brunch, and then I will get back on Azziz and Kistner Thanks! User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia](User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk) 02:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:SandyGeorgia|SandyGeorgia

Archived Memdmarti (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Memdmarti (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Alphabet soup

Refs

1 2 3 4 5 Memdmarti (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarify

These likely belong in Inforbar "| diagnosis ="

hypergonadotropic hypogonadism,

If it has a genetic cause, it may be called gonadal dysgenesis.

gonadal dysgenesis,

Current 9/6/2020

Diff

Premature ovarian failure (POF) is the loss of function of the ovaries before age 40. A commonly cited triad for the diagnosis is amenorrhea, hypergonadotropism, and hypoestrogenism. If it has a genetic cause, it may be called gonadal dysgenesis.

The term "primary ovarian insufficiency" was first used in 1942 by Fuller Albright who first described the condition. About 5 to 10% of women with primary ovarian insufficiency conceive subsequent to the diagnosis without medical intervention.

Ping

{{u|SkepticalRaptor}} and {{u|Lymoz}}

Memdmarti (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1 error

ERROR: Talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1 should have been User Talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1

Talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1

• Robert Kistner at Talk:Memdmarti/Archive_1#Robert_Kistner
• Talk:Memdmarti/Archive_1#to_Colin_re_Endometriosis_Theory_List
• Talk:Memdmarti/Archive_1#SandyGeorgia_Help_generating_citations

Also see list at TOC {{TOC limit}} at User Talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1

-- Memdmarti (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

-- Memdmarti (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Archiving 20200831

To Do

From S....Georgia Diff

• User:Memdmarti is your user page, which is generally your "about me" page and often is used to display one's work (past and ongoing) as well as frequently used links'
• User talk:Memdmarti is typically where you converse with other editors, and you should have an indexed archive to past conversations. There are many ways you can index and list your talk page archives. The first thing to decide is if you want a manual archiving system (you decide when to archive something, and you pull the trigger) or if you want an automated archiving system (where things get archived according to pre-set parameters like page size and time since last response). If you poke around on other people's pages and figure out what you'd like, I'll help you set that up. S....Georgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 August 2020
• Problems: So, the problem now is that you are using your user page and your talk page in multiple ways that make it hard to follow. You don't have archives set up on your talk, you have many things on talk that aren't back-and-forth conversations with other editors, and you have a sorta/kinda duplication of same on your user page. For example, right now your talk page has two links to your archived talk pages, and mixed with other stuff. You would be better served by just having some sort of archival method, and you can choose one by seeing the kinds of things other editors have done.
• What I suggest is better use of

1. a) archives for your talk page, and
2. b) user sub-pages.
3. For example, just as you have User:Memdmarti/sandbox/endofound, you can set up User:Memdmarti/WhateverYouWant to keep track of whatever you want, and you can then add that link to User:Memdmarti so you can find it. I suggest this to make your communication with other editors easier. For example, you could set up something like User:Memdmarti/Editing tips and move all of the editing tips off of your user page to there, put only a link to it on your userpage, and then as you change and update tips, other editors (who have your user page watched) don't get watchlist notices. When other editors get too many watchlist notices, too easy to miss something, and we don't need to see when you update your notes to self. I am not sure if this is making sense, so I'll stop for now ... the real reason for my message is to say I am way behind and working to catch up. Best, S....Georgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

-- Memdmarti (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Thoracic endometriosis syndrome

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 Thoracic endometriosis syndrome requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "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 deleted 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. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, DarkGlow! I have contested the nomination on the talk page.

I hope the problem was that I used HTML links like "Thoracic endometriosis syndrome can include catamenial (menstrual associated) pneumothorax" rather than Wikilinks like "Thoracic endometriosis syndrome can include catamenial (menstrual associated) pneumothorax." Diff

If so, that may be fixed.

If not, is there a way, short of creating a stub, to cover a subject that is covered in several Wikipedia pages? Tank you, Dan -- Memdmarti (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the only issue was that the disambiguation page led to external links, which is prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines. If you wanted to recreate the article with Wikilinks, I'm sure it would be fine! – DarkGlow (✉) 09:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Dan, have a look at WP:MOSDAB, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! The five or six internal links had been fixed and linking to Wiktionary, linking to a primary topic, and the introductory line could have been fixed. But, it was deleted as unnessary. I agree that it was not necessary as it was only organization of what is found on a search for Thoracic endometriosis syndrome.

On a better note, the paper I have been working on with Horace Roman, Bordeaux, France, was accepted. I will send an email with a link and an explanation why it might be important to 1% or more of women with bowel involvement when it it published in about 30 to 90 days. I am also setting up a section in "Theories and Concepts" contrasting the normalization of pelvic pain and persuing fertility as a disease. In Staal et al. 2016, the delay to diagnosis for pain was 8.3 years and subfertility 1.8 years. The concept dates back to at least to Markovic et al. 2008, but the separate data is new. I will let you know when it is online on my website. Thank you, Dan -- Memdmarti (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Images

I know you didn’t upload (copyvio) images ... I pinged you to Tamerseckin’s page, hoping you can convince him that Wikipedia is not a toy. The first one he uploaded, OK ... by the third, it was not funny anymore. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It was uplaoded by Tamerseckin not Tamer Seckin. I do not think it could have been him as he was in a ZOOM meeting with me from 1800 to 2000 tonight (2200 to 2400). The edits were 22:44 to 23:52. I looked that up because I thought someone might have done that after the meeting. Memdmarti (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I will let him and the others at the EFA know. Memdmarti (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Here are Tamerseckin (talk · contribs · logs)’s most recent image uploads on Commons, which he also added to the Endometriosis Foundation of America article, requiring multiple edits and reverts to fix. Two are likely copyvios, one probable, and he already had one copyvio deleted, as you can see here. After the first deletion I removed the first image from the article, the second was a photoshop. With a 2015 deletion, the issue should be taken seriously. After you and I worked so hard to avoid COI editing at that article. Congrats on your new position there! And sorry this happened on the same day. Do you think red-carpet photos with celebrities convey a scientific, encyclopedic image for EndoFound? COI can impact judgment like that.

If that is not Tamer Seckin, then the matter is even more serious, as that account will have to be blocked as an impersonator. I will ping admin EvergreenFir who has worked on the Commons images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

And I wonder who burcu ozturk, the author of one of the photos according to metadata, might be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I have asked the director and Tamer if they know burcu ozturk.

I wil let you know. I have been up since 5 and am about to call it a night.Memdmarti (talk)

Dan, as to the real identity, be VERY careful with what you post, re WP:OUTING SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Got that. I am writing them or their contact; I do not need to know who they are, I just need them to get the message. I just want them to understand what they did and what to do next. If they are identified, it will be by them on the User:Tamerseckin or User talk:Tamerseckin page.

Do you want to review the body of my email before I send it to my contact whose information will be removed.

The email will be a generic description of User pages, User_talk pages, main pages, answering Adm questions, COI template, and Paid COI template. Those are what gave me the most trouble 3 or so months ago. Dan Memdmarti (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure how to advise you here, Dan, as it is really easy to get into harassment trouble with outing, even via email. And I am updating my browser on real computer, so stuck on iPad for now, with all the typos! I think it best to wait to hear from EvergreenFir ... there is no hurry. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you are fairly certain that account is not Dr. Seckin, it will be blocked anyway. If we don’t hear from Evergreen soon, I will ask another admin for help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SandyGeorgia! If I have identified them, they see themselves as acting in the best interest of Dr Seckin and the EFA.

I will be careful to use short and corrective and not accusatory wording in my email. I do need to respond to their email. Dan Memdmarti (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have reached out to one admin, could try another, but do not want you to get in trouble!! Can you give me an hour or two to locate someone to help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! If I know who they are, there are concerns outside of Wikipedia that have to be addressed. If I get in trouble, I will know you warned me. Thank you, Dan. Memdmarti (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok <eeeeek> ... pls take great care lest the person is a celebrity. Also, it may be possible for them to request the account be renamed rather than deleted ... I am not an admin and really don’t know. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Your are wonderful, SandyGeorgia! I will explain later after I decide if I had an epiphany or a TIA. Memdmarti (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I may have killed my real computer, which may be worse than a TIA, since it works better than my brain ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of computer's, were you on the thread that noted Admiral Grace Murray Hooper’s “It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” Admiral Hooper had the first Mark-1 in 1944 and created COBOL. Dan Memdmarti (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I am humor-deprived, in a panic since my real computer has not recovered from browser upgrade. Barkeep49 has agreed to help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I am on stand by. Dan Memdmarti (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

An extended skillset is needed here ... feelers are out ... it would be ideal if you could hold off until we hear from an admin, and then, best handled via email, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Will do. Dan Memdmarti (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at the images uploaded by User:Tamerseckin and agree they are all problematic. It is not at all unusual for uploaders to claim "own work" on either photos of themselves taken by others or photos they think they own the copyright to because they have permission to use them, both of which are wrong. If the uploader really does own the copyright or is authorised to act on behalf of the copyright holder, then they really need to go through the Commons OTRS process to verify this. -- Colin°^Talk 19:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin and SandyGeorgia! I am waiting to see if they contact me. Dan.Memdmarti (talk)

Dan, I have emailed you through the Wikipedia interface, which is what admins would most likely do as well. Have you gotten my email? If the email you use on your Wikipedia account is different than your usual email, I hope you are checking the Wikipedia email. I have my real computer working again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I replied by email about a minute ago. It should arrive shortly. If not, let me know.

Go, computer, go! ☺ ☺ ☺ Dan Memdmarti (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti, SandyGeorgia, apologies. This had dropped off my radar today - I have been otherwise occupied today. I have blocked the user on enewiki for the username violation and if/when identity is confirmed can work through the COI with them. I am, however, the wrong person to comment on the Commons images. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, BK ... I am afraid that was inevitable. Concerned that no one has (as far as I know) gotten back to Memdmarti, and hate for a new-ish editor to be in the middle of such a convoluted situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Barkeep49 and SandyGeorgia! It is not so convoluted that I cannot follow it; I hope it stays that way. Dan Memdmarti (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Dan, you can click here to see that, in fact, several more images have been deleted from Commons as copyvios. After this settles down, we should discuss the image that is currently in the article (appropriate?) ... no hurry, we do not need to solve this now ... Both Barkeep49 and I had terribly busy days, and I did fret all night over this :) :) Now you know why I've never submitted to being an admin ... the responsibility would drive me nuts. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! You and I agree that "red-carpet photos with celebrities" do not "convey a scientific, encyclopedic image for EndoFound" or the educational goals set by the board.

I have already asked the director to look at that image as I want it removed. I will let you know if she agrees as I have COI.

I would like to put a picture of the educational outreach program but fear that the requirements for pictures of adolescents are more than copyright. Are pictures of recognizable individuals in classroom situations clarified in a "WP:" page?

If your fretting has to do with me rather than Wikidedia, don't be concerned. I have been in more serious conflicts than this one. If those situations were not confidential, I would share. I will come out of this OK, but I am worried about User:Tamerseckin and others. I don't think they grasp what they did. Dan Memdmarti (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a very tough situation, which is why I fretted so over a new-ish user being stuck in the middle of this. As to what images to use, I remain willfully obtuse on image issues, have always been scared to death of image copyright and have never uploaded an image, and have to defer to Colin who is the best person to help out with this. It strikes me that the most effective thing to do at this point is to upload a logo ... ??? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I agree about the logo. I have one in an unlinked holding file waiting on permission. Memdmarti (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert -- there are admins on Commons who know more -- and the rules vary from country to country (what might be legal for you in the US might not be for me in the UK). Logos can also be a problem as they are typically copyright too. One like this with the person silhouette would certainly count. It may be possible to upload a logo like that to Wikipedia (not Commons) as a non-free image, provided the article mentions and discusses the logo (i.e. if you can describe what it is supposed to represent, why it was chosen, why those colours, etc). Even a logo of text can be a problem in some countries where the choice of font, layout and colour are enough! Looking at the website, I was struck by this image advertising a video. Now, if the foundation (or the film makers, if they still own copyright) can get that video released with a CC BY-SA licence (not a -NC or -ND variant) then that would be wonderful. You could upload the whole video to Commons and upload that montage image too. By appearing in that video for promotional purposes, you already have the "personality rights" needed so this wouldn't have the problems you mention above about a video with members of the public or children in it. -- Colin ^Talk 07:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin! I will save this in case the organiztion wants to add that type material.

SandyGeorgia, the image is tagged for deletion in seven days if User:Tamerseckin does not respond. See Commons

Continued in User_talk:Memdmarti#Images II / Memdmarti (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Memdmarti/Archive 1

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 Memdmarti/Archive 1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and 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.

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 "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 deleted 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. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, ~ Amkgp! Sorry, I did not see that coming. It is a link to the Talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1 as a convenience only. It has no other useful information and can be deleted. Do I need to do anything else? Memdmarti (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti, Nope, the deleting admin will take the required action. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, ~ Amkgp! Did I miss the instructions at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page not to do this or do they need to be added? I incorrectly concluded that an archived talk page accompanied by an article page meant the article page was already live. Or have I also done something wrong in the creation of Talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1? Memdmarti (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti, Archive pages generally don't accompany anything on its talk page. Its an archive so it should not be in main-space. For your case I think all the contents of Talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1 should be at User talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1 (to be created and moved if does not exist). You can use this script User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver for archiving talk-pages. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, ~ Amkgp! Memdmarti (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done memdmarti error corrected by Discospinster: Memdmarti/Archive 1 moved to User talk:Memdmarti/Archive 1 and then deleted. Memdmarti (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Primary ovarian insufficiency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genetic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:DPL bot and User:JaGa! I know to watch for that, just missed it. Memdmarti (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Images II

Continued from User_talk:Memdmarti#Images / Memdmarti (talk)

See editing file at User:Memdmarti/editing_tools#Images

• Wikipedia:Images

-- Memdmarti (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Student Editing

Help with student editing on

• False pregnancy,
• Fertility medication and
• Hypoestrogenism.

From User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Another_new

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#Monitoring students at Med articles for the classic student editing issues.

False pregnancy

Moved to Talk:False_pregnancy#Proposed_Revisions

FIX: Talk:False_pregnancy#I_emailed_the_author_of_the_source

Memdmarti (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Replies before Move

Yikes. Awesome; this is where you are invaluable!! So, we have multiple options. 1) You put all of this on talk, and wait to see if the students or someone else addresses them (they have another week to go). 2) You fix them yourself now :) 3) You fix them yourself after the students are done. 4) We wait for me to fix them (at the rate things are going here, we'll be waiting a long time :) But you need a citation for point 4. I am still catching up this am ... will deal with ASRM once I am fully caffeinated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I like 1) / 3). I will revise and put in talk. Then check next week to see if the students fixed then. How do I let the students know the revisions are for them?

The ref for #4 has "ectopic pregnancy <snip> can also cause women to erroneously believe that they are pregnant" That is self contradictory. An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy. Pseudocyesis after an ectopic is similar to that after a miscarriage. I will look for a reference that says that. Memdmarti (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point (only a week to go in the course), it isn't worth worrying about whether the students have taken on board that they are supposed to engage on talk. They rarely do, and if they haven't by now, not worth fighting it. Most students leave after their course is over, and never stay engaged with Wikipedia, so mentoring them is fairly futile. I like your plan ... put your stuff on talk, and return in a week to fix it yourself; that will give you excellent experience in an area you are an expert and where you needn't engage COI. This is awesome; most appreciated! I get involved just trying to clean up huge student messes, and had not realized how bad the article still was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

:) Memdmarti (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Still working through my morning watchlist and will get to ASRM shortly on my talk ... linear thinking here, and I have to process my watchlist in order or I forget where I was! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Student Editing II

Consider

The following use nowiki /nowiki to disable the function. Look at it in edit mode.

• Consider adding a Table of Contents to your page with {{TOC limit}}
• Consider using {{Reflist}} to specify a References section.

Note re Your Sandbox

This is in your Sandbox, my notes can be deleted per WP:BLANKING.

If you decide to keep this but want to clean up your Sandbox, consider creating a [[User talk:Username/xyz]] page where xyz can be an Archive or a specific page like User talk:Username/Notes. Note that User talk:Username/Notes is red because it does not exist. If you click it, it will start the process that requires a "Publish page" to complete and make it functional. Also a signature "~~~~" to keep the bots away. Just remember to write the name down so you can find it

Memdmarti (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Formatting suggestions

Copied from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Ricardo_Azziz#Formatting_suggestions

Hi, SandyGeorgia! OK?

Memdmarti might I suggest the following format for suggested changes? First, start a new section for each major proposed change. Next, clearly specify the source used to support the request, the current text, and the proposed change. You might copy the following template to a new section when proposing a change

Name the suggested change in a section heading, for instance, Changes to Awards and honors section

• Source [put the url here, then a space, and then list the publisher so we can see it is third party reliable source;] no need to fully format the citation unless we decide to use it.
• Current text Put the current text here
• Proposed text Put the proposed text here

Just copy that format, start a new second-level heading, and sign!

Follow up

OK, not a problem here or for me, but in terms of learning about WP:CWW, here are some notes:

• First, when you copy something of someone else's, it is good to also include their signature in the part you copied. Notice that if a novice reader looks at the info above, it is not clear who said what or where (part here, part there, part you, part me).
• Second, you have mixed (above) the copied part (mine) with your query ... again, not a problem here, but if you do things like this on article talk pages, it results in a mess where one cannot tell who said what.
• Third, again, not a problem here, but whenever you move content you should include a link in edit summary back to the original. You included a diff, which is different than a link (Content copied from Talk:Ricardo_Azziz#Formatting_suggestions). I think the reason that matters (besides attribution) is that some bots that do things like repair broken citations can go back to the linked articles to recover things.

On the Azziz article, that was a pretty huge timesink (two days for an article that gets average six daily pageviews, where I typically am working on articles that get several thousand average daily views). The problems there could have been avoided by NOT having unknowledgeable paid editors adding content, that is so much harder to repair than just writing an article from scratch. Had I written the article originally, it would be about two paragraphs, but when you find a mess of content already added, it has to be cleaned up and neutralized, which is dreadful time consuming work. BUT ... I thought it important to do that for your learning curve, as it would be great to keep you involved :) Now I need to take some time catching up on my own editing! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia!

Let me know when you have reviewed the Robert Kistner material. Memdmarti (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Getting ready to add it now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SWYGT

Another thing to learn: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I was hesitant to add text based on a source I had not personally seen, but I figured out how I could attribute it to avoid problems. Let's say that ten years from now, it is determined that I entered fraudulent or copyvio information (I know, just a hypothetical). Someone would search for who entered the text, and would find my insertions, with my edit summaries, that specifically point to the talk page and to your sandbox. Now, you can delete your sandbox at any time, but if I had done some deliberate malfeasance, any admin could view the deleted revisions. So all based are covered by me doing

• this, (which specifically links to the version of your sandbox I used
• and this, which I used on every edit where I inserted text based on your sandbox.

I left you some questions at Talk:Robert Kistner, as some of those dates and titles don't gel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! It helped that my life has been based on source (primary) documents. I added the reference to "Kistner RW. The treatment of endometriosis by inducing pseudopregnancy with ovarian hormones. Fertil Steril. 1959, 10(6):539-556. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)33602-0, https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(16)33602-0/fulltext." It was on the publisher’s site. The Google link went to a PDF, but luckily had Fertility & Sterility in the summary at https://www.google.com/search?q=Suppression+of+ovulation+by+pseudopregnancy+treatment+of+endometriosis%2C+RW+Kistner%2C+R+Greenblatt&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS821US821&oq=Suppression+of+ovulation+by+pseudopregnancy+treatment+of+endometriosis%2C+RW+Kistner%2C+R+Greenblatt&aqs=chrome..69i57.1540j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

As interesting search in PubMed is “Sampson JA. Peritoneal endometriosis due to the menstrual dissemination of endometrial tissue into the peritoneal cavity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1927” It goes to his 1927 Am J Path article on venous dissemination as the 1927 Am J Obstet Gynecol article is not in PubMed . The AJOG article is on the publisher’s site (https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2815%2930003-X/fulltext) and DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(15)30003-X.

Sampson’s 1927 AJOG retrograde theory (actually first mentioned in 1921 but 1927 is more complete) is the one that is most controversial for the “excisionists” headed by Nancy Petersen at Nancy’s Nook, but most accepted by much, if not most, of the rest of the world. Nancy’s group uses David Redwine’s 1988 single component “Mulleriosis” (endometriosis) rather than Ron Batt’s 1985 four congenital component (congenital endometriosis, adenomyosis, endosalpingiosis, endocervicosis) of “Mullerianosis” mirrored by the same four components as acquired versions. Until about 1992, I only used Sampson. After that, I used Sampson and Batt’s “Mullerianosis” until it became evident over the past ten years or so that I also needed venous dissemination for bone marrow stem cells and possibly distal sites, Coelomic metaplasia, induction theory, and others for the 18 I review in the introduction to my Concepts and Theories file that you read to find Robert Kistner. Note: If you currently use “Mulleriosis,” I hope to steer you to “Mullerianosis.” Memdmarti (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Great! Yes, I have encountered odd situations like that, too. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Note that I added dates and changed the sequencing of my last paragraph above. That was after using "Show preview" several times. That type of late correcting aggrevated one of my current co-authors so much that he reminded me that the paper "will never be perfect." Memdmarti (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds just like me ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Numbered list item

WP:SYNTH

WP:SYNTH WP:OR WP:POV

This is one of the hardest things for researchers and topic experts to understand about Wikipedia. We can't extend beyond what sources say to include our own knowledge and research. We typically don't include a list of journal publications at all in a bio, but in this case, we included those three articles because a source specifically called them out as his most notable work. We have to stick to what the secondary source said about Kistner's work-- not extend it to include our own knowledge-- which isn't really relevant to his bio anyway, rather to an article on the topic. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, SandyGeorgia. My head wants to explode when Wikipedia wants secondary rather than primary references. There are two common times that I use a secondary reference in my publications. The first is when the secondary reviews several primary sources and I need to keep under the journal's requirement for seven, 30, 100, or some other citation limit. You likely noted that my web file on Concepts and Theories has more than 400 references covering almost 4,000 years. At the other end, I am working on a JAMA Viewpoint article that has a limit of seven references. The second time I use secondaries is when the secondary disagrees with the primary and I want the readers to look at both. As a peer reviewer, I would not intentionally let someone use a secondary to reference a single primary unless there was something specific that the secondary pointed out. But I imagine that you have heard other versions of my comments/tantrum before.

Thank you again, I appreciate your help. Memdmarti (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: If the secondary had something new to say about the primary, does that mean that the secondary is actually a primary? Memdmarti (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a really Really tough thing for researchers to grasp about Wikipedia, and it is why we lose so many of you ... when we need your expertise here :) We should be working very hard to help you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so we can keep you around! Try to think of it as Wikipedia ONLY summarizing what others have stated; for example, in this case, two guys wrote a book in which they stated that three of Kistner's papers were highly notable. No matter what we know has changed since then, or might be added to that, we just report what they said. We aren't saying it's true, we aren't saying we agree-- we're just saying they said that. We aren't extending what they said. (Of course there are exceptions, and then WP:CONSENSUS comes in to play-- where on article talk we can debate whether a source should be excluded for various reasons. Just because something meets WP:V doesn't mean we HAVE to include it.)

It is learning a whole new way of writing-- the example being that we don't use Azziz's CV to cite his article-- we only say what others have said about him, with very limited use of his primary source data (eg, we trust him to give the years on his degrees in this case). Secondary reviews are supposed to say things about primary sources ... like ... that was poor methodology, etc :)

Keep at it, and please don't get frustrated ... it would be good to find a content area outside of your ob/gyn specialty, and just dabble to see how Wikipedia works, which will put you in better position to contribute your expertise in gynecology. Here's an idea. Spicy is working up complete blood count to submit to WP:FAC. When someone is prepping an article for Featured status, it is considered poor etiquette to get in their way, but it is always helpful for others to read through the article and point out any areas of rough, conflicting, jargony or weak prose. Or put a list on article talk of things that aren't clear. And Ajpolino is similarly working up Buruli ulcer for FAC. I think the fastest way for you to become a valued ob/gyn contributor to Wikipedia is to spend a lot of time first in other areas, just seeing how they work. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Dan Memdmarti (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Just in case you are tossing about to find an area for contributing under the learning curve ... here is something that would be instructive. Working on a WP:BLP (Azziz) is harder than working on a bio of someone deceased, as there is often more material to work with once obits are generated. You can view samples of medical bios that are FAs at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Medical_biographies (keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that even Featured articles can deteriorate over time, particularly if their original authors are no longer editing or watching).

I started Isabelle Rapin several years ago, and then unwatched, and did not realize she had died. She has the potential to become a Featured article, because there is a wealth of good material. I don't know if everything from her New York Times obit was worked in, and ... better ... there is an untapped biography of her listed in Further reading that might be used for expansion. Since the article is not being actively edited by anyone, and since there is so much material that can be used, it could be a place for you to poke around, with me giving you guidance. Of course, the BEST place to poke around is a topic that holds your interest, so if autism isn't it ... not for you :) I keep intending to go write habit cough and Morgagni hernia ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I agree with your earlier comment that I would be best learning in nonmedical areas. I looked at List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents and was surprised that I had forgotten that the 1967 Apollo 1 fire was in a training exercise even though those three deaths are burned into my mind. The Talk discussion led me to List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents#During_training_or_testing and the correct placement. I am amazed that there are 19 flight-related and more than 230 non-flight-related deaths associated with space programs. Memdmarti (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant, if you are interested in space flight, there are endless possibilities there (and quite a few Featured articles, too). Most lists on Wikipedia are ill-defined and not well sourced, so you might look at a few of Colin's Featured lists ... List of polio survivors, Timeline of tuberous sclerosis, List of people with epilepsy, just to get an idea of what list articles are supposed to look like. Colin also has an interest in retaining medical content experts, after some bad experiences years ago, so he may be a guide or mentor for you in list editing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget Laika ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Cпасибо, SandyGeorgia!

1. Laika is an example of a current controversy in Richmond regarding animal research at the Veteran’s Administration (VA) Hospital. I will look at it but it is highly controversial with PITA on one side and some researchers on the other.
2. I will write Colin, listed as semi-retired, regarding the use of https://www.danmartinmd.com/files/endotheory.pdf to create a theories list.
3. Do the same primary / secondary reference considerations for other pages also apply to list pages. If so, my file may be only 50% or so useful. Memdmarti (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to all Wikipedia content. Either I am not understanding your question and proposal below, or we just took a step backwards :) Before I went for a country drive to buy the World's Best Berry Pie, we were talking about you editing in areas outside of your area of expertise, and I came home to find you-- I think ??? -- asking if you can publish a list of your own opinions about endometriosis articles on Wikipedia.

To help you see the issues, let's start with these articles (please read them :)

1. PMID 23007298
2. PMID 25453712 (search for the word Leckman)

The first gives us a secondary source (a reliable source) from which a list of the most important works in Tourette syndrome could be written. Several problems: a) would that Wikipedia list be a copyvio, b) would it be of any use since it is outdated, and c) why would we do it when the journal article already does? Colin knows lists better than I and could better answer.

So next, suppose I wanted to use the first source to make the statement that James Leckman is the most highly published TS researcher? And suppose I make that claim by counting the number of citations he has in that list? THAT is WP:SYNTH, WP:OR-- publishing on Wikipedia a conclusion that I came to by myself, via counting, that has not previously been published.

But now read the second source, which is a reliable source that contains the fact I already knew-- that James Leckman is the most proflific TS researcher. I can include that statement in Leckman's article based on the second source, but not the first. I see no utility in republishing a list of the seminal works in Tourette syndrome, and fear that would be copvio. And I can't count Leckman's articles myself to draw a conclusion. But I can report a conclusion drawn by a secondary reliable source.

Now, to your sample. If I am understanding correctly, you are asking if WP:P&G allow us to publish your previously unpublished (in a reliable secondary source) list, which amounts to ... List of important endometriosis articles according to Daniel C. Martin. I know of no other criteria by which that list could be defined. Do you see the problem there? Whatever you called it, this list would be sent to WP:AFD the minute you started it, would be a WP:SNOW delete, and you would be accused of using Wikipedia to advance your own work, theories and ideas. (Not where you want to be!) Because the ONLY criteria used to generate that list would be ... Daniel C. Martin's opinions. This is why I suggested you gain more experience out there in the broader Wikipedia world-- you haven't yet understood the basics of what we can and can't do here, and why. We only include content previously published by reliable sources, and we can't synthesize conclusions not reached and previously published by reliable sources.

The ONLY thing we care about in writing endometriosis are the most recent highest quality secondary published reviews. Unless a reliable secondary source highlights a primary study as seminal work, we rarely mention them and almost never use them. For example, at Tourette syndrome I do mention some of Leckman's seminal work, because secondary reviews by someone other than Leckman call out their importance. Further, the decision of what are the best and highest quality secondary reviews is based on editor WP:CONSENSUS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, SandyGeorgia I thought I was following your instructions to look at Colin’s lists and write Colin. Those lists include Timeline of tuberous sclerosis dating back to 1835 with several 19th century references. My note to Colin is at User_talk:Memdmarti#Endometriosis_Theory_List? directly below this section at present.

In answer to your question above about publishing my file, I do not think that is what my note to Colin says. My plan was to see if he thought that my references could be used to create a useful list. As many as 50% of my references are secondary .

Should I write Colin and withdraw my request? Memdmarti (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No need to ping Colin again; he's already been pinged three times to this page, he is a savvy and experienced medical editor, and when/if he next logs on, he will read through this and get the picture.

Communication may still be muddled a bit, and we are perhaps talking past each other and I apologize for any misunderstanding. I thought you were planning to work on space flight list articles. Yes, many of your references are secondary, but do you see from my example above that providing your list of important secondary sources would still be SYNTH? It's important on Wikipedia to get very familiar with the WP:OR page. Even if your list includes secondary sources, the publication of them in the form of "these are the sources I consider important in endometriosis" is original research. We need a published reliable source that makes the claims, as in the example I give above, and even then -- it it's published elsewhere, why duplicate it here? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Memdmarti (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You Shall Be Converted to a True Wikipedian :) Keep going ... resistance is futile!! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you never know when Locutus of Borg or even Vader might manifest; you could be turned to the dark side if you do not laugh at the mixed metaphors. Memdmarti (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You do like your metaphors, don't you! And now ... I MUST Get Back to some semblance/pretense of catching up with my regular editing. I doubt that Colin will surface soon, or have a lot of time to dedicate to anything, but if/when he does, he is a WikipedianSupreme, who has been disillusioned in the past by Wikipedia's failure to help bring researchers and content experts into the fold. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Copying within Wikipedia

Here's a new topic for you :) Have a look at WP:CWW; generally, if you do something like this, you should indicate in edit summary that you copied the content from elsewhere, and your edit summary should include a link to that page. It is not important in this case (since I don't mind), but when you get going in article space, it is very important to learn this part. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia!

Should I edit that thread and add an edit summary to include "Edited from SandyGeorgia at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Endometriosis_article""?

Not needed here, not a concern, just take care with CWW once you start editing articles and article talk pages. Also, rather than copying my entire signature (which makes it look like I signed), just reference my username :0 Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia!

Is that correct? Memdmarti (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Perfect! Now you can see the difference between my personalized signature, and your use of my username. (That also pinged me, so you can also just use my name without linking it ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

False pregnancy

See! You can contribute, within your COI! Let me know when you are finished, and I will look in. Thanks for the contributions! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia. I am finished except for Talk:False_pregnancy#I_am_still_looking_for_a_reference_for_this. It is a direct quote from the source and is OK but temporarily incorrect and misleading. I have tried PubMed and Google to find a better source and will try textbooks when I come back to that. Memdmarti (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing User talk:Memdmarti (section) Jump to navigationJump to search This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (Memdmarti (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)). Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.

Advanced Special characters Help Cite

Catching up

Hi, Dan; I had a series of events in the last week, some planned and some minor irritations (things like a mouse invasion at the cabin) that sapped my time, so I've had to put together a To Do List to prioritize catching up. I got many pings from you that you didn't mean to send, and I think there were times when you meant to ping me that I didn't get. At any rate, I think what I owe you now should all be listed on my talk, and I will get to it!

It is a bit difficult to keep up with what I have pending with you because you are using your User page and talk pages in ways that are a bit non-standard, so I wanted to suggest to you a new organization. Not that this is the RIGHT way (you can generally kinda/sorta do what you want with your own user page), but it is more typical and perhaps easier on others.

1. User:Memdmarti is your user page, which is generally your "about me" page and often is used to display one's work (past and ongoing) as well as frequently used links.
2. User talk:Memdmarti is typically where you converse with other editors, and you should have an indexed archive to past conversations. There are many ways you can index and list your talk page archives. The first thing to decide is if you want a manual archiving system (you decide when to archive something, and you pull the trigger) or if you want an automated archiving system (where things get archived according to pre-set parameters like page size and time since last response). If you poke around on other people's pages and figure out what you'd like, I'll help you set that up.
3. So, the problem now is that you are using your user page and your talk page in multiple ways that make it hard to follow. You don't have archives set up on your talk, you have many things on talk that aren't back-and-forth conversations with other editors, and you have a sorta/kinda duplication of same on your user page. For example, right now your talk page has two links to your archived talk pages, and mixed with other stuff. You would be better served by just having some sort of archival method, and you can choose one by seeing the kinds of things other editors have done.

What I suggest is better use of a) archives for your talk page, and b) user sub-pages. For example, just as you have User:Memdmarti/sandbox/endofound, you can set up User:Memdmarti/WhateverYouWant to keep track of whatever you want, and you can then add that link to User:Memdmarti so you can find it. I suggest this to make your communication with other editors easier. For example, you could set up something like User:Memdmarti/Editing tips and move all of the editing tips off of your user page to there, put only a link to it on your userpage, and then as you change and update tips, other editors (who have your user page watched) don't get watchlist notices. When other editors get too many watchlist notices, too easy to miss something, and we don't need to see when you update your notes to self. I am not sure if this is making sense, so I'll stop for now ... the real reason for my message is to say I am way behind and working to catch up. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia. I hope the mouse invasion was short.

I will likely never ping you intentionally because I know that you are excellent in keeping up with your Watchlist and I have no time senstive projects on Wikipedia. I have not intentionally pinged you since July 15 Diff or earlier. On the other hand, I have put messages like "Organization for SandyGeorgia" with no brackets in the Edit Summary. An Example is Diff. Does you name without brackets in the Edit Summary ping you?

I will work on the organization you suggested. It looks logical and good. (User talk:Memdmarti#top|talk 21:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC))

The suggests above are copied to and reorganized at Diff

WP:ping says User:Username will ping someone. I am changing your name to S....Georgia and removing brackets on my work pages to stop pings unless you like SandyG or have a different solution.

Thank you, Dan Memdmarti (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan ... that should work. I didn't make as much progress as I hoped today, waded into a mess without realizing it, still working! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No ping from this, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Memdmarti (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Ah, the fun that is to be found at WP:ENGVAR. Particularly have a look at MOS:RETAIN; there have been arbitration cases over varieties of English, and it's not a place you want to end up.

Looking at that particular article to see when BrEng was established:

• User:Arcadian (a good medical editor) created it as a split from another article in 2005.[1] At that time, the title was BrEng, but by searching on "ize" (as opposed to "ise") you can see that the entire article used American English. Do you see any actual BrEng in the article? So why was the article created British?
• It was split from Prolactin, which uses AmEng. Look at the first few lines of code in edit mode at prolactin, and compare to Hyperprolactinaemia, which has no such BrEng template at the top.
• Here is prolactin when Arcadian split the content off: [2] At that time, prolactin did use BrEng (note synthesise), although almost all of the hyperprolactinaemia content was AmEng. This was in the days before ENGVAR was well established. And there was a mixture. But many of the early med editors used British English, so there we are. It was created with a title in BrEng although the content uses AmEng.
• Gotta love how long these typos stand.[3] [4]

So. The current version of the article is named in BrEng, but clearly never used and still does not use BrEng. What to do?

1. Ignore it.
2. Summarize the situation at WT:MED, and ask others if they

   Want to move the article to the English title, or

   Want to rewrite the article to BrEng

3. Move it yourself to AmEng, and hope nobody screams at you and calls you a terrible person and whacks you with a thousand wet noodles.

Your choice :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Choose your battles wisely and fear of a thousand wet noodles goes to #1: ignore it. Thank you, SandyGeorgia!

Were it not for Gmail and Grammarly, my typos would be an issue. Gmail can change formatted text into plain txt and toggle reversions. Grammarly fixes the rest. Memdmarti (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but gmail on an iPad ... for indecipherable reasons, when I am on my iPad typing a gmail, I can't backspace to correct typos. Weird. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Section headings

Just a note so you don’t unwittingly engage a contentious problem down the road. It doesn’t matter here and it doesn’t matter with me, but you should rarely alter a section heading established by another editor. Partly because it may set them off, also because section headings can be used to control discussions or introduce POV, and partly because others may have linked to that section from elsewhere. Better in a case like this is to put your “done” indication threaded at the bottom. See WP:TALK. But you do not have to change these, because I don’t care :). If I did, I would just change them back! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! Will put “done” indication threaded at the bottom in the future. Memdmarti (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What is siri in (→ Section headings: siri) at Diff? Memdmarti (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)