Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:45, 1 April 2007

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Topnife, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, 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!  -- WS 22:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw. really nice to see another doctor around here, be sure to also have a look at WP:CLINMED and WP:MCOTW and I hope you don't mind I added your userpage to Category:Physician Wikipedians. --WS 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I noticed you marked Image:Gastric Bypass, Roux en-Y.jpg as being a creative commons license image, but you also said on the image's page that it was used by permission. This caused me to put the "permission" tag on it, which means it will be deleted soon unless you can document that the image was actually released under a CC license, and not a "Misplaced Pages has my permission to use this image" license. The latter is not allowed; we only use images here that have been released under the GFDL, have fallen into the public domain for one reason or another, or have a legitimate fair use argument. Thanks - Tempshill 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, the license tags page is not a friendly page. From your description, it sounds like the "Attribution" template may be what you want. I'll go switch it to that. If they truly want to allow that usage - that is, that it can be used for any purpose as long as it's attributed, then that's great and is certainly usable. Note this includes commercial usage! They may not be OK with that! Please don't get a statement from them that Misplaced Pages has permission to use this image - such images are forbidden.

The reason for the folderol is that our content is supposed to be licensed under the GFDL or a similar "free-as-in-freedom" license. Numerous "fair use" exceptions exist, but they are troublesome to some of Misplaced Pages's "downstream" users that may live in countries that don't have the same fair-use legal situation that American websites do, for example. Other downstream users may sell Misplaced Pages content commercially in some way, which is legitimate as long as they follow the GFDL license - but this legitimate use of the content gets tangled up and difficult when our content includes pictures with licenses like "permission" or fair-use photos.

Thanks and be sure to leave any questions on my talk page - Tempshill 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, to answer your other question, if a statement from the author of a picture is given to you that confirms the licensing, then you (at present) can just paste the statement into the image's "licensing" section. This is not at all secure or verifiable, but it seems to be the policy here. Tempshill 05:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Japanese American Internment

Hi--I just got round to your comments on the talk page, and I really do appreciate your last attempt. You've made a number of points more dispassionately than a number of others who attempted same, particularly re: the MAGIC decrypts. There is a reference to MAGIC in "Support then and now", which was placed there two years ago by a user who wasn't as clear and objective as to their contents. Especially since MAGIC keeps coming up, the article needs to deal with it. I'll keep your comments in mind. --ishu 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings again. I'd like to ask you to consider contributing to the article in the near future. For a number of reasons, I think the time may soon be right for you to make some helpful input to the article and discussions. Briefly, there is attention from a number of other editors, which is feeding a growing acknowledgement of POV and citation issues in the current article.

The attention comes from a series of administrator actions generated by one editor. This editor has more knowledge about the topic than you state you have, and has raised a number of similar issues. This editor has also highlighted several factual misstatements. However, while this editor has been very persistent, he/she also has been very disrespectful of the process, which has resulted in several disciplinary actions against the editor (warranted in my view), including a Request for Comment (RfC).

I'm asking you to consider editing for several reasons. First of all, you are more skeptical of the article as presented than I am (and/or less familiar). As a result, you read it more critically and with more challenges to basic assumptions. Second, you have already brought a set of good questions and perspectives to the discussion. Third, you approach the article and other editors with good faith to an extent I have not seen from skeptics in the past.

I have reviewed some of your challenges and those of this other editor. Fundamentally, there are factual errors that have been propagated throughout much of the existing references on this topic, and some of these are present in the article. Having said that, let's say for example we have 100 references, 85 of which contain at least one factual error (often times, it is the same error). I hope you agree with me that each of those 85 references may actually have at least one useful fact to contribute. This other editor does not agree on this point.

Once the RfC is resolved, I'm considering nominating Japanese American internment for the article improvement drive. If and when I do, I hope that you will support the nomination and editing process.

I'd like to add that the whole RfC process makes me realize I owe you an apology for failing to intervene in your discussions with GMatsuda. He stepped over the line in a number of ways, and that's not OK, and not just because you gave up on the article. It's clear to me that GMatsuda committed many of the same acts as this other editor. I admit that my take on the topic is more in line with GMatsuda's, and this is almost certainly why I let it go. I can only offer you an apology and pledge to do better next time. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and maybe we could have had a better article and discussion if I'd set more boundaries.

You are free to decide what to do. Whether or not it matters to you, I will not think less of you if you decide against contributing to the article. Regards, and happy editing, ishu 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bariatrics

Bariatrics: Wow, we actually have a bariatric surgeon editor! Care to weigh in on this article with me?--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 09:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED

Hi,

the main page of WikiProject Medicine has just been redesigned, comments are welcome! Please consider listing yourself as a participant.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Gastric bypass surgery

I agree, it's not terribly US-centric. I'll remove the {{globalize}}. --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes you might like to use

{{User physician}}	{{User surgeon}}	{{User degree/MD}}
This user is a physician.	This user is a surgeon.	MD This user has a Doctor of Medicine degree.

--DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 01:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Dear Dr. Topnife,

We're both surgeons. What do you think of making contributions to something else in wikipedia that's outside of medicine? You've made edits that are not medically related. Earlier today, I made a comment about the John Edwards (running for president).

There seems to be a fight going on there about Mrs. Edwards' cancer. John Edwards said (and I paraphrase) that the cancer is "completely treatable" and likened it to diabetes (probably because both are not curable, but treatable).

Some argue that Edwards is being deceptive and putting too much of a spin. There was a mention that being misleading is potentially harmful to the public because someone else with breast cancer might misunderstand and think that her prognosis is good. They even wanted to put grim prognosis numbers. Some others thought that "original research" and "soapboxing" is not permitted in wikipedia and they wanted to put just the info from the glossy Edwards press reports.

I take a neutral stance in between.

The problem I see is that is it potentially bad to write about this type of comment? Some doctors in wikipedia stick to medicine but others do not. I don't want to get into a fight between a bunch of Democrats and Republicans. Is this a concern among you, that is, editing outside of medicine?

Best regards, Frank (Doc United States) Here's the link My part is near or at the bottom called "A Response from a Physician". What do you think about this?Doc United States 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)