User talk:Soupvector

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great to see you here in an official capacity! Happy to support in anyway I can. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
• Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you. If you like I can speak to you about the work that I'm doing as a Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent comment on the Project Medicine talk page

I appreciate your comment to the Project Medicine talk page about somehow bringing wikipedia med articles to the level of journal publishing. Unfortunately, it is true that most of the active editors do not regularly assess references related to the articles they are reviewing. Instead, it seems to me, other editors primary go through the existing med articles flagging them for not meeting the MEDRS guidelines. My impression is that there are very few active editors who have the skill to read journal articles and reinterpret them, and then get the info into a WP med article. As a matter of fact, I don't remember ever seeing even one edit summary that has described the insertion of such a reference. Of couse such improvements exist-I make them myself. I just don't see other editors doing it. Then we have the problem of an editor referencing original research-but there are ways around that.

Go here to see the types of edits that are being done, in realtime, to articles in Project Medicine. I just reviewed these edits and found no MEDRS references added to any of the articles. A lot of editors revert vandalism (very important) or copyedit. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Bio

Your bio was fixed some considerable time ago. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

Agreed, after some considerable time (as you noted). Thanks for checking. soupvector (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

He's also editing his own biography without so much as a sniffle from the Wikipedia insiders. We protect our own, it seems. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:1966:D8A0:E91:4026 (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

(assuming that you're referring to me) I simply made an easily-verifiable change regarding my title, and added a more reliable source for my membership in ASCI. I thought this would be uncontroversial, but I acknowledge that I probably should've just suggested the edits. If there are any concerns about the content, please revert. I have been tempted to make other changes, because aspects of my work that I consider notable are not mentioned, but I recognize the obvious COI and will suggest edits here in future, rather than making them myself - thanks for catching my attention on this point. soupvector (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Human skull

Human skull

Hello there,

I'm getting the feeling I should run Featured Picture Candidates by you, first, for your once-over, before nominating them. :)

Do you think you could "Support" this one, at Featured Picture Candidates, if I were to nominate it there?

If it does not meet your standards somehow, please, let me know, beforehand, and I won't, and I'll try to find something else to run by you, instead.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me know your thoughts on this image, please? — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice image, simpler than the others (thus less susceptible to error). The labels are in Latin, which is odd - not even doctors (in the USA, at least) use the Latin "os" or Latin spellings, in general. English labels might be better. If you like, I could edit this. Since I'm new to the process I've just been commenting rather than !voting. soupvector (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What about this one instead (assuming the caption or title would indicate that it's the bones that are labeled)? soupvector (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fine image. Is that something that you can agree would be valuable to have as a Featured Picture on Wikipedia? — Cirt (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about Featured Image criteria, but I don't see a problem with it. soupvector (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

extra innings

Does that mean you would "Support", or just ignore it and not comment at all? — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I'm feeling pressured by your line of questioning - especially this last one. I'm not sure if the Guideline really applies to this situation, so this is not an accusation, but what you're doing feels to me like WP:Canvassing. I was just trying to help. soupvector (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC) NO I am NOT canvassing. You commented at two (2) of the last Featured Picture nominations I made, with helpful, valid points, that did ultimately result in the failure of those nominations. I am just trying to prevent failure, a 3rd time. I am, therefore, trying to preemptively seek your advice on your expertise on medical images, before nominating a medical image, again. Does that make sense that I want to avoid a 3rd failure, Soupvector ? — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Up until those last couple of questions, I had no problem with what you're doing and I did not express any concern. Re-read your message that prompted my citation of "canvassing" and ask yourself whether you were trying to line up a vote and not just get feedback. I'm just saying how it felt to me - your intent is entirely in your head. We can let this drop, I think. soupvector (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC) You're right, you were reading into something that was not there in my head, okay? — Cirt (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Yes - okay. I thought it was important for you to understand how that behavior can be perceived. It can cause real trouble. soupvector (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC) My intent. My intent was to avoid wasting my time on a fruitless venture nominating a third (3rd) failed Featured Picture candidate due to (certainly valid and helpful) comments from yourself. Okay? — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Your success rate is not my concern (slow down if you're getting frustrated). I'm commenting for the benefit of WP. Lining up support prior to a !vote is canvassing. Period. — soupvector 21:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I apologize if I've confused you. I was not trying to line up support. I was trying to make sure there was an absence of a possibility you could find some fault and comment about the fault and thus avoid me having to waste my time. Okay? — Cirt (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Notice about 10 lines up, where I said "I don't see a problem with it"? Why wasn't that sufficient? Why did you then ask, Does that mean you would "Support", or just ignore it and not comment at all? If you weren't trying to line up support, then what were you doing? I'd already indicated that I had no objection. Please let this go. — soupvector 21:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Notice about 10 lines up, where I said "If it does not meet your standards somehow, please, let me know, beforehand, and I won't, and I'll try to find something else to run by you, instead." Once again, you are correct, I should not have used the word "support", but I was trying to gauge if the image met your standards. Okay? — Cirt (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Entamoeba histolytica life cycle - asking for your expertise

Asking for your expertise on another medical related image.

This one is a Featured Picture on Commons, at File:Entamoeba histolytica life cycle-en.svg.

It is used on Wikipedia articles: Entamoeba histolytica, Parasitism, and Amoebiasis.

Can you please look it over and see if you can find any fault in it?

Does this meet your standards?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a very nice diagram, with two minor problems that relate to the inner curve (from the step where the Trophozoites divide): for one thing, there are no arrows to indicate which way that curve is flowing (minor problem, as one can guess, but we should not have to guess - and the color gradient on the curve doesn't help that much); secondly, the invasion step ("Trophozoites invade the intestinal mucosa") is pointing to the ascending colon, whereas the "migrate" step (2 steps prior) is pointing to the descending colon - which is confusing since stool passes from the ascending colon to the descending colon, not the other way around. To fix the latter, I think one would need to reverse much of the figure. — soupvector 21:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! Glad I'm asking for your expertise, thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Avian flu vaccine development by reverse genetics technique

Asking for your expertise on another medical related image.

This one is a Featured Picture on Commons, at File:ReverseGeneticsFlu.svg.

It is used on Wikipedia articles: Vaccine, Influenza vaccine, Influenza research, and Reverse genetics.

Can you please look it over and see if you can find any fault in it?

Does this meet your standards?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice figure, no objections. (I'm going offline for awhile) — soupvector 22:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)