If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).
![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
What do you think?
Wikipedia:BMJ/Reviewer tutorial
I'm hoping to walk them through the tutorial en masse in a conference call, so I can answer their questions as we go. But I've set it up for now so they can each do it on their own. Bedtime here. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just a couple of thoughts. First, you could mention that the target audience is not doctors, medical students, or researchers, but rather a broader public who mostly aren't capable of using the professional literature. Second you could give an overview of what we're hoping for from a review -- an assessment of accuracy (above all!), comprehensiveness, appropriate weighting, and clarity. Looie496 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Done. I'll ping you when we've indoctrinated the reviewers. Or before, if something interesting happens. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm asking some newbie friends over the next few days to go through the tutorial, so you'll see some activity in the BMJ section of Talk:Parkinson's disease. Please ignore it. I'll delete them once I've discussed the experience with them. (Anthony) 122.109.121.189 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Done. I'll ping you when we've indoctrinated the reviewers. Or before, if something interesting happens. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
It's bedtime ime here. Would you mind fielding any questions that arise over the next few hours?
When I wake up, I'll add a section, with a little formatting, for any reviewer who has completed the tutorial, so they can post their review. If they're keen to start, would you please just add a subsection to the article talk page using their name as the heading?. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll field anything I see -- I won't be watching constantly. Looie496 (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Good morning! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- @Anthonyhcole: You didn't miss anything :-), but it's good that you're back because I'm about to go offline. Looie496 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-
I have no idea why nothing's happened yet. I'll leave it a bit longer and ask BMJ if they've heard anything sometime next week. Hopefully they're all just relaxing into wiki time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 3 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Glutamate (neurotransmitter) page, your edit caused a PMID error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Genetically modified organisms case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.
2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.
7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.
11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed
Octopamine (neurotransmitter)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20151226163731im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Copyright-problem.svg/40px-Copyright-problem.svg.png)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Octopamine (neurotransmitter), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.bing.com/knows/Octopamine.
It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Octopamine disambiguation
While I don't have an objection to splitting octopamine into two articles, one problem this creates is that there are now many incoming links to the page that now need to be disambiguated. If fact, there are well over one thousand of them that need to be fixed. Is there a plan for dealing with them? -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The vast majority of those come from a few templates, so the problem is not nearly as bad as it looks. The number of pages that actually talk about octopamine in the article text is unlikely to be more than a couple of dozen, mainly relating to insects. I'll start fixing them shortly. Looie496 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)