User talk:DiverDave/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK for Kaikō[edit]

NW (Talk) 06:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of submarine topographical features[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job[edit]

The Original Barnstar
...on the Heard Island 13-part hook and all the research behind it. Congratulations. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, hamiltonstone. Thank you very much for awarding me the Original Barnstar for my work on the subantarctic and related subantarctic glacier articles; it really is nice to be noticed. Your vote of confidence in my abilities provides me with a modicum of reassurance that my efforts to date are actually helping to improve the Wikipedia project. Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you in some way. Kind Regards, DiverDave (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for ABISMO[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Richie Castellano[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Richie Castellano at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I have reduced the hook to 187 characters. I hope this works for DYK:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim[edit]

Hi, DiverDave. I have replied to your comment. I am willing to help People bios rewrite any parts of the article that are believed to be promotional. Will you point out specific phrases or sentences that you deem to violate NPOV? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your note, Cunard. I see the nomination for deletion was withdrawn in a non-admin closure. I consider this debate closed; I would much rather get back to editing articles. However, I would like to make two points:
  1. I did not make the assertion that any portion of this article violates NPOV. Rather, the entire article reads like the résumé of a non-notable individual.
  2. With respect to tendentious editing, I would encourage People bios to consider rewording the phrase on her userpage: "I started editing Wikipedia to try and raise awareness when it came to notable members of the Korean American community....". This kind of statement makes it sound suspiciously like a single-purpose account. Strictly speaking, however, it is not inconsistent with the objectives of Wikipedia, so long as she sticks with notable members of the Korean American community, which Dr. Kim is not (yet). I understand People bios is very new to Wikipedia, and therefore I feel we should cut her a fair amount of slack. It warms my heart to see that several of us have come to her defense; this reinforces my faith in the Wikipedia community. People bios seems to be learning quickly, and with help from experienced editors such as yourself, I am certain she will soon become a valued member of our community. Best Wishes, DiverDave (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Castellano-endorse.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Castellano-endorse.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your message, Feydey. I did not create the image file. I have indeed obtained the necessary permission from the copyright owner, and I did forward that permission in an email to permissions-enwikimedia.org. I am happy to forward that email to you as well if you wish. Please let me know what else I need to do to make it right. DiverDave (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Well-Deserved Barnstar For You[edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your laudable patience, wisdom and thoughtfulness in dealing with a well-intentioned new editor, I very happily offer you this adorable barnstar. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(This barnstar is in particular recognition of the patience, wisdom and thoughtfulness it surely required to write this) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Richie Castellano[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People bios[edit]

Hi DiverDave, This is People bios (I changed my signature yesterday). I think I figured it out. If you go to the top and click on "my preferences", you can enter your email and enable it. This will allow you to email me first, but my email wont show up until you respond. It will show up on the lefthand side in "toolbox" as "E-mail this user" (this option is not available apparently unless your email function is on). If you want, you can also just enable it, let me know, and then I can email you first so that my email will be shown first and you will be able to maintain your privacy. If this is too much trouble, then it's okay. Also, thanks for the words of advice from above (Cunard's post). I have taken them into consideration, and above adjusted my pages accordingly.℮ՏڂҺℯɼ ❤ ʗҺɑʈ 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to the whitelist[edit]

Dave, your edit here seems to throw over the whole whitelist page. I am not sure what you were trying to do, so I have reverted it to the last stage. Were you maybe editing a very old revision of the page? Thanks for the clarification. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. That is exactly what happened. I was trying to follow up on a website I had posted on 10 June, and had to go to old revision of the page to find my entry:

mappery.com/map-of/Heard-Island-and-McDonald-Islands-Map[edit]

I am not sure why this site would be blacklisted, as it appears on the surface to be not only harmless, but in fact a quite useful and reliable source. I would like to add this "Map of Heard Island and McDonald Islands" to the "External links" section of several articles on the geography of Heard Island and McDonald Islands. Please consider whitelisting this URL. DiverDave (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Many maps sites are blocked because they're simply aggregaters of info available elsewhere. In this case, the same map is available at the official site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I forgot I was on an old revision of the page, and posted a reply to OhNoitsJamie Talk. Sorry about that! I will try to be more careful next time. DiverDave (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, these things happen! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Flea 2003 140x190.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Flea 2003 140x190.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

Here's the thing about references, just so you're... er... warned so to say.

List-defined references are GREAT if you need to modify the references themselves (e.g. adjust thing, fix broken links) for whatever reason. You never have to hunt them in the article. However, they require more effort to add references, since you have to add the reference and the footnote separately. It's nowhere as annoying as the old template based systems were, but it can get irritating. Circéus (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm getting started on the references work. I'll have a preliminary version on later tonight (EST) or tomorrow at the latest. Think you can please postpone any further significant edit for 24 hours? I really can't do work if new refs are getting added and text is moved around. Circéus (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will stay away from the article for the time being, and allow you to work your magic. Thank you again for your help! DiverDave (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once I got the references converted to list-based and fixed up the reference names, I'll copy it back and you'll be able to go and have all the fun you want, I can edit the references directly in the article from there. Circéus (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm virtually done (only those in W-Z left to do, plus deal with the journal links). So edit away :p.

Good question... Some references need improvement, that one blog for Fernando Alves Martins jumping to mind immediately. I haven't touched to FAC in a long time. Maybe try asking Delldot (who is an EMT IIRC and did push several articles through FAC). In general, though, I'm not too clear on what improvements can be done. Circéus (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think 99% of what I could do is done. Anything else (such as trying to avoid citing only abstracts, if that was the case with some articles and replacing a few dubious refs) is out of my realm or minor errors I introduced while cleaning up (I suspect I might have inverted a few first/last pairs). Circéus (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for History of general anesthesia[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And kudos from me for the most comprehensive article I've seen as a DYK. Top work! Plenty of redlinks for you to be working on in that History of Medicine template though... Bigger digger (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment, Bigger digger. It is nice to get some positive feedback once in awhile! DiverDave (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can have some more when all those red links are gone, so I guess I'll be posting here again in September 2011? Bigger digger (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americna Revolution article[edit]

Hi: I noticed you resized and right-justified the images. Is there some standard you are working off of? If so, I would appreciate you passing along whatever that is. Shoreranger (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Shoreranger. Yes, the MOS provides some guidelines with respect to images. Specifically addressed are image justification (in most cases, images should be right justified on pages), image size (as a rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default), and captions (most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups that should not end with a period). The American Revolution article deals with a very important and interesting subject. Frankly, I am rather surprised it is only currently B-class. However, it has been delisted for valid reasons, and I intend to do my best to help it re-attain GA status, and eventually FA status. As you know, this will be virtually impossible unless the article adheres fairly strictly to the Manual of Style. I hope we can work together to make it the best possible article. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of general anesthesia[edit]

Hi, DiverDave. Re History of general anesthesia, I did try to explain myself further on the article's talk page, but since you referred only to my edit summary I'll try to make my point clear. The issue is this. Simply saying what actually happened where and when, objectively, and without comparisons, is fully npov. Focusing specifically what was going on in only Europe and Araby, and specifying that one was advancing while the other was not, not only calls for an editorial judgment, it also implies that objectively there is something important about the European/Arab rivalry that has to be addressed, as if it is some sort of metaphysical fact that those two cultures, as opposed to, say, Eskimo versus Bantu, or Chinese versus Lapp have to be compared. That is the "agenda," in a mild sense, of thinking that there needs to be some sort of cultural boosterism. The facts are what they are. Certain people (who happened to be Arabs) happened to do some things on some dates. Certain people (who happened to be Europeans) happened to do certain things on other dates. Referring to what happened in one place during "a golden age", in comparison, not with the whole world, but just with one other place, turns an article on medical history into a comment on the culture wars. The use of loaded terms and the implied narrow comparisons of just certain cultures is, by its very nature, parochial and controversial. Not only does comparing the Arabs to the Europeans leave the Chinese or Indian reader wondering why they haven't been mentioned, it implicitly says that European civilization is the gold standard, and your culture just doesn't measure up unless it has at some time bested the Europeans. It is very easy to avoid. All advances at in all places should simply be listed on their own merits, without referral to broad, subjectively defined cultural categories, and comparisons should be left to the reader.

I don't like having conversations like this on personal talk pages. I am responding here once, and saying what I have already said on the article's talk page. I am definitely not challenging your good faith, and don't see you being anything but civil. If I am unclear or you have further comments, please post them there (you can copy and paste this there if you like) and I will respond to you on the talk page of the article.μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Medeis. To be honest, it had not occurred to me to look at the article's talk page (my bad). And yes, your posting there indeed explains what you meant. As you have appropriately suggested, please refer back to Talk:History of general anesthesia for further discussion. DiverDave (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for World's littlest skyscraper[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitespace[edit]

I'm not sure what you edited, exactly, in [1]. But at least the space below headings is not an MOS issue. All I can find in the MOS is:

"A blank line below the heading is optional; but do include one blank line above the heading, for readability in the edit window. (Only two or more blank lines above or below will add more white space in the public appearance of the page.)"

So there isn't a need to remove the blank lines, as they are permitted by the MOS and have no effect on the output of the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Carl. I have reverted the edit in question. Mostly this was a dummy edit, so I could save this excellent article to my watchlist. There are however multiple instances of double spaces within and between sentences. Additionally, five of the section headings have spaces below them, while the remainder have no spaces. I'm afraid I have a touch of OCD, and this kind of thing drives me nuts, even though I know it's trivial. :) It seems to me this issue should be settled one way or the other, if only to put my own mind at ease. I just posted this comment on the talk:MOS page. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracheal intubation[edit]

Hi,

I'm sorry I haven't been able to find time to revisit the FAC and update my review. I see you've been busy. I'm reading through it again but I'm a slow worker and have limited time. You could ping Jimfbleak and Brianboulton to ask if they'd revisit it if you think you've made sufficient changes and have reached a stable point in your edits. You could also post a neutrally worded request for reviews at WP:MED. Brian is one of our best writers, and not a physician (AFAIK), so if you can persuade him to copyedit it and also to help point out which bits he didn't understand as a lay reader, then that would be very helpful. I would love to have time to spend with you going through the article to help make it really lay-friendly, but I'm not sure I've got enough time to do this under the pressure of FAC. I'm reading through it to see if your changes are enough to make it lay accessible, which is one thing I'm quite determined an FA should be.

As I'm reading, I'll make some minor tweaks. Forget WP:OWN, as far as I'm concerned, this is your article as you invested the effort in it. So feel free to revert any edits I make that you think are incorrect or unhelpful. For any query/fix more complex, I'll post a comment on the talk page or FAC page.

Cheers, Colin°Talk 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your encouragement and your extremely helpful edits, Colin. This is the first article I have had the temerity to nominate for FAC. I am pretty familiar with the subject matter, but as you can tell, I have a great deal to learn about how to make this topic both interesting to, and approachable by the lay reader. Your comments at the FAC page were right on the money, and I am trying to address each of them to the best of my abilities. Again, thank you very much for your interest and willingness to help a newbie! DiverDave (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm glad you're taking it this way and not getting too downhearted at my "oppose". I'm aware this can discourage other reviewers so I do apologise for my slowness in returning to the FAC. I do hope you can encourage others to review too as I'm just one opinion. Another editor you may wish to ping for help or review is GrahamColm. I'll watchlist your talk page for now. Must go to bed... Colin°Talk 23:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see the FAC has closed. It is a shame there weren't many other reviewers. Are you still keen to have another go later? I hope so as it is a very good article and deserves to make it. If you want to continue, I'll make some more comments on the talk page, particularly about where I've stumbled on medical jargon, or where it is a bit dry. I'll also have a check up on those sources I can access. Once the text is lay-friendly and engaging, then it would be a good ideal to enlist one of WP's copyeditors to polish it for FAC. Then it should sail through... Colin°Talk 08:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your continued interest in this article, Colin. I too am surprised there were not more reviewers. This is not an obscure topic, as nearly all of us will undergo general anesthesia and probably tracheal intubation at some point in our lives. The fact that this article does not yet meet the criteria for FA actually raises my (already high) opinion of Wikipedia — I do not believe in the compromising of academic or any other standards. I would indeed like to see this article through to FA, when it is finally ready. I think it is probably close at this point, but I know for certain the "History" section needs to be copyedited, preferably by someone other than myself. Any suggestions you have are most welcome. I have not yet pursued your earlier advice with respect to Jimfbleak, Brianboulton, or GrahamColm, because I was afraid my request would appear as if I were canvassing for votes. Now that the FAC is closed, would it be considered OK for me to seek their assistance? DiverDave (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also, Sandy. Your suggestions were very helpful, and I look forward to bringing this article back for your review, once it is finally ready. Any and all further suggestions from you, Colin, or any of the other experienced editores here at Wikipedia are most welcome and appreciated. DiverDave (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be discouraged, DiverDave-- the good news is that standards are quite high in medical FAS, and you've got the best on board with Colin, so when you get that star, it will be most worthy. I'll stay away, so I won't be compromised in closing the FAC. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've not forgotten about this article. I've had guests staying all week. It is probably best to hold off on copyediting till the end. BTW, I can't see any mention of the issues wrt oral and maxillofacial surgery. What does one do about the tube getting in the way? Also the complications section doesn't give me a good idea of the likelyhood of these complications. I don't want 101 statistics but some would help. The article highlights the risk of untrained (or poorly trained) people attempting the procedure but surely some of the risk varies between the emergency situations and the planned anaesthetic situations. I would hope that "intubation of the esophagus" was extremely rare in the latter case, as was broken teeth. Perhaps the whole complications section should be split in two, as we don't want to unnecessarily frighten people going in for planned ops. The phrase "trauma to teeth and other structures within the upper airway" is a bit unhelpful compared to the "broken teeth or lacerations of the tissues of the upper airway" in the lead. The word "trauma" is unfamiliar to most readers and could include anything up to poking the tube right through the airway wall and out the other side! I'm guessing that a very sore throat is nearly universal. Colin°Talk 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, and your continued interest. Nasotracheal intubation, RAE tubes or jet ventilation are common solutions to the problem of the "shared airway" situation. I can add a subsection under Special situations that details some of the concerns wrt surgery in and around the mouth. We certainly do not want to unnecessarily frighten people, but we should also be forthright about the attendant risks of intubation. I will look for reliable sources that give some insight into the incidence of some of the more common and more serious complications. I will re-examine the phrase "trauma to teeth and other structures within the upper airway". Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not finding enough quality time for this article this week. I'm away on holiday over the weekend. I will slowly continue my review/tweaks if that's useful. If you're growing impatient then Graham is my recommendation, though he's not that active just now either. Once I'd gone over the text, I'm planning to check the sources are OK, support the text, etc. This is something Graham would be even better than me at as he's likely to have better source access and is more medically knowledgeable than me. Colin°Talk 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits and recommendations have been extremely useful in improving this article, Colin. I did ask BrianBoulton for assistance a few weeks ago, but I never received any reply so I assume he is either not interested in the topic, or otherwise occupied. I am reluctant to ask anyone else for asistance at this time, because I myself do not have sufficient time right now to dedicate to this article. I have many upcoming engagements in the real world that will keep me away from Wikipedia until early next year, so I have been editing other articles for the time being. I fully intend to expand the "Alternatives" and "Complications" sections, and also to add a section on "Nasotracheal intubation" when I can get a decent block of dedicated time to fix this article properly. DiverDave (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'll continue to work on it when I have time. And again, feel free to fix/revert anything you think I've screwed up. BTW: I've got your talk page watchlisted so you don't need to post a talkback. Colin°Talk 08:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. I'll keep tinkering away when I find time. I think "lumen" is probably one of those jargon words the article needs to use but carefully. Enjoy your break! Colin°Talk 20:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of World's littlest skyscraper[edit]

The article World's littlest skyscraper you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:World's littlest skyscraper for things which need to be addressed. Jappalang (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of category Pseudoscience[edit]

Why are you doing this? Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Categorization, articles and subcategories should be moved to subcategories when appropriate.

"Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C."

DiverDave (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Not placed into every possible category" does not mean it can only be placed in one. This wholesale removal of articles from the pseudoscience category needs to be discussed. In the meantime, I suggest you revert your changes.Fainites barleyscribs 20:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. I don't think this helps the encyclopedia. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I really thought I was helping the project. I am not suggesting that any of these articles do not fall into the realm of pseudoscience—they most certainly do. However, the category Pseudoscience is tagged with the {{{catdiffuse}}} template, and is among the categories listed at Categories requiring diffusion. The tag states that:

"Articles and subcategories in this category should be moved to subcategories when appropriate. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain appropriately categorized subcategories."

I was attempting to help the project by assigning the pages to their respective relevant subcategories within the Pseudoscience. Further, each of these pages has multiple categories assigned. Have I misinterpreted something?

I have no problem reverting any or all of these, if you feel strongly about this. DiverDave (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting you weren't trying to help the project Dave. I'm puzzled now though. What subcategories are these articles going into? I saw this because I watchlist Attachment therapy. Where's that gone then? Fainites barleyscribs 20:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, Fainites. Attachment therapy is in the category "Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities", which is a subcategory of "Alternative medicine", which is a subcategory of "Pseudoscience". It was my understanding that this is how it is supposed to be done. DiverDave (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::::I never thought you were suggesting they weren't pseudoscience. I admit I find this confusing, but I think that they should be reverted and wouldn't be surprised if some already have been. I suspect the average editor won't see the distinction. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and revert the edits, but can you please explain to me why the guideline"...if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C" should not be followed in this case? Confused, DiverDave (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too tired to think straight right now, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. But if I go to "Alternative therapies for development and learning disabilities" it doesn't seem to connect up through to the pseudoscience category. Fainites barleyscribs 21:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - I see how it works. I have to go to the categories at the bottom of each page. The trouble with this is though Dave, I'm not sure every alternative medicine is a pseudoscience. I thought one of the elements of pseudoscience is that it is held out as scientific when it is not. (Certainly attachment therapy does this.) Fainites barleyscribs 21:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A moot point now, as I have just reverted all of the objectionable edits, including restoring Attachment therapy to the Pseudoscience category. I hope you understand the rationale for my edits, and that there was/is no political agenda involved. I believe in Wikipedia:Be bold, but I also respect the principles of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Consensus. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. That's fine. Fainites barleyscribs 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cool Images[edit]

Just wanna thank you for all those super cool medical images you have contributed. I must ask, where do you work and are they looking for interns. :P Peter.C • talk 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the compliment, Peter—it is always nice when one's efforts are appreciated. I have just updated the gallery of images I have contributed thus far to the Wikimedia project. Feel free to peruse the gallery, and to use any of these images as you see fit. Naturally, we must always adhere strictly to the guidelines of the Wikimedia project, or else we will incur the wrath of Hammersoft.... :) I am reluctant to state the exact location of my work in this forum, as this may conflict with certain regulations to which I am subject; I hope you understand. Certain clues as to my identity and location can be found by reviewing this page. My general location is indicated by one of the flags visible on the left side of the page. By the way, I am VERY impressed with your work on the Trauma (medicine) article. Keep doing what you are doing, and you will go quite far in this life. Let me know if I can be of any assistance in your work here at Wikipedia, or elsewhere in your academic pursuits. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) By any chance can you get a picture of a PCA machine? Also what is this "fresh plasma", you make plasma sound like some sort of beverage one would consume at a social gathering. :P Thanks! Peter.C • talk 01:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will get you an image of a PCA infusion pump as soon as the opportunity arises. Cheers, DiverDave (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! On a final note, I was wondering if you would like to help with the med collab which happens monthly. I don't think I have seen you around it and we can use your help. :)

Peter.C • talk 01:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This month it appears to be hypercholesterolemia. I do not have a great deal of direct experience with this subject, but I will take a look at it and see what I can do. Thanks for the invitation! DiverDave (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! One more thing I forgot to tell you. You should use WP:CHAT because loads of wiki topics are discussed on it. Also I feel lonely on it being the only person from the medicine project on it. Are doctors to cool for IRC or something? :P Peter.C • talk 01:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been involved in any kind of chat rooms. Not because I am too cool—far from it. Rather, because 1) I am old-school, and the concept is a little intimidating to me, and 2) I am the world's worst communicator. For example, I just checked my email and FB accounts for the first time in a month. I will look into it, but keep your expectations low.... DiverDave (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pediatric trauma[edit]

I was wondering if you could help me with Pediatric trauma. I am trying to overhaul it and get it to a DYK and I only have about 4 days left to do that. Peter.C • talk 01:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some text and 5 additional references to the Pediatric trauma article. It is no longer a stub, and now easily contains enough prose to meet the criteria for DYK. You should now be able to write an interesting and verifiable DYK hook, using a sentence supported by an inline citation from a reliable source. You might consider placing this photograph as the lead image. It shows a gunshot wound (entry and exit wounds) to the left leg of a 3 year-old girl, and is more likely to draw the reader's attention than the table. The table could go further down, perhaps in an ==Epidemiology== section. Just a thought. I hope I have not been too bold in my approach. BTW, I have obtained some photos of a PCA device, but have not yet edited or uploaded the files. Will do ASAP. Regards, DiverDave (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not being bold at all. Thanks for all you have done for the article. Regarding the lead photo, I am working on getting a super nice photo of a whole trauma team working on a pediatric burn patient (it is the pediatric version of the image on Trauma (medicine). Also I am gathering sources for a epi section. Lastly, thanks for the picture, can't wait to see it! Peter.C • talk 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intubation[edit]

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia but I have some intubation questions. 1) How many intubation's did you need to do to gain the respect of your coworkers? (how many times did you have yo intubate before they allowed you to do it without question). 2) What do you think about this - A paramedic only needs five intubation's before they can become certified? 3) Have you ever intubated commando style (digitally)? 4) Could you EVER do this? Thanks for putting up with me! Peter.C • talk 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

thanks for your high quality contributions at methoxyflurane! i like your style of rewriting/expanding articles. do you find that trying to get articles recognized as good isn't worth your time? i've considered attempting a GA review, perhaps on PFOA, or others, but i haven't yet. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the message and the compliment, Shootbamboo. In reply to your query, I have learned quite a bit by dragging three articles through the Good article nominations process. Two more that I plan to take to GAN soon are Jacob (sheep) and Methoxyflurane. Specifically, I have learned much about the Manual of Style, including formatting of references, images, captions, etc. I am also learning, more slowly, how to make articles morre interesting and more readable by laymen. You are obviously an expert in organofluorine chemistry. I would highly encourage you to pursue GA status for the perfluorooctanoic acid article. But I must warn you—the process can be frustrating and you might be tempted to take criticism of the article personally, especially after having already invested so much of your time (more than 600 edits thus far). The reviewer will invariably find many seemingly trivial issues with the article, and you will have to address every single one of them to his/her satisfaction. Ignoring or dismissing any issue raised will incur the ire of the reviewer, and might lead to the nomination being declined. On the plus side, after you and the article have emerged from the process, you will both be much improved. You might find this essay to be helpful; I certainly did. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that sounds great. thank you for the advice. =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, DiverDave. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 19:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, DiverDave. You have new messages at PFHLai's talk page.
Message added 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DYK25[edit]

The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
Many, many thanks, DiverDave, for your hard work writing and submitting articles for the DYK section on MainPage. While numbers are secondary to quality, 25+ excellent contributions to DYK definitely deserves recognition, so I'm more than happy to present you with this richly-deserved medal. I look forward to finding more of your DYKs on MainPage. Happy editing. Cheers! PFHLai (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pediatric trauma[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Good sources[edit]

Hello hello. I was just curious about some books you use/know of that are amazing and can be used to help edit. Also do you have an ETA on that PCA machine? Thanks! Peter.C • talk 03:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Peter, I have been quite busy recently. Some of the sources I have been using for the trauma-related stuff are:

  1. Editorial Board, Army Medical Department Center & School, ed. (2004). Emergency War Surgery (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Borden Institute.
  2. Zajtchuk, R; Bellamy, RF; Grande, CM, eds. (1995). Textbook of Military Medicine, Part IV: Surgical Combat Casualty Care. Vol. 1: Anesthesia and Perioperative Care of the Combat Casualty. Washington, DC: Borden Institute.
  3. Committee on Trauma, American College of Surgeons (2008). ATLS: Advanced Trauma Life Support Program for Doctors (8th ed.). Chicago: American College of Surgeons. ISBN 9781880696316. OCLC OL22228190M. {{cite book}}: Check |oclc= value (help)

As an ex-military guy, I would like to see military medicine better represented on Wikipedia. There is a tremendous knowledge base out there, that has barely been tapped. The first two books are freely available and can be downloaded; just click on the titles.

I have just now uploaded these two image files of PCA infusion pumps to Wikimedia commons:

I hope they can be of use to you; feel free to use either one or hopefully both of them in the Patient-controlled analgesia article. I can help you with that article if you want, but please keep you expectations rather low for now, as I will be very busy from now until early next year. Good luck, and happy editing! DiverDave (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help! Also, I don't think I really have any more sources on PCA machines and your the guy who deals with them on a daily basis so you can work on it. I have added one of the images to the page. Also - you DID help the DYK article a lot! You added a whole new section and helped bump it up to the appropriate amount of characters. Mind if I ask what you did in the army? Were you a army medic by any chance? Peter.C • talk 21:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Methoxyflurane[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Geriatric trauma[edit]

Hey Dave. If you ever have a free moment feel free to edit geriatric trauma. We might be able to get make it a DYK! It's ok if you can;t though, you're a busy guy :). Thanks! Peter.C • talk 22:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Teuthidodrilus[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Teuthidodrilus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! - Tim1965 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no action, so I shall decline the nomination. Sorry, it looks like I got that one wrong. You seem to have addressed the issues raised. Schwede66 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Geriatric trauma[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Teuthidodrilus[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allopathy and its Difference with Modern Scientific Medicine : Request to join the discussion[edit]

I came across your userpage and thought that I could try to involve you into the discussion regarding my attempts to radically modify the article on Allopathic medicine where my edit as available at this link, had been reverted. The discussion is available at the respective talk page. I had referenced my edits so that the information that might not be known to many, can be verified. I would like a healthy discussion to be re-initiated in order to improve the article. I would be glad if you show your experienced involvement. DiptanshuTalk 14:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

categorizing lighthouses[edit]

I left the window open with the intention of coming this morning and categorizing the Australian lighthouses and I see you beat me to it. I moved Cape St George Lighthouse (Australia) to a category as well for consistency.

Any intention on moving on with writing articles? I noticed you edited Cliffy Island Lighthouse. --Muhandes (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Muhandes. I must go to bed now, as is it 0130 local time. Like you, I am a bit of a wiki-gnome, and I just felt the urge to expand the Cliffy Island Lighthouse article a bit. Then I noticed that many of the Australian lighthouses were in need of recategorization, so I did just that. Lighthouses are not among my major interests, but I do have some recent photographs of several Tasmanian lighthouses that I hope to eventually upload. DiverDave (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm doing the QLD lighthouses but some day I'll finish that and move to TAS and other regions, would be nice not to have to beg for photos in flickr and panoramio. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Low Head Lighthouse[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Low Head Lighthouse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your help with Calabozos. I'm a little disorganized right now so I'm moving very slowly and have barely gathered any information yet. I'll be sure to add it once I can. ceranthor 23:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Ceranthor. Many thanks to you for starting the article. Calabozos is an interesting volcano and a nice addition to the WP:Volcanoes project! DiverDave (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Low Head Lighthouse[edit]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassadors[edit]

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the compliment, Sadads. I will apply to the program, though I have a complicated work schedule and the amount of time available to me varies quite a bit from week to week. DiverDave (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DiverDave/Archive_3&oldid=1139058020"