User talk:Robert Badgett

Hi, and welcome. Could you take a look at Hypertension? It needs you. Regards, Nancy Sculerati 16:57, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

we have no templates of any kind. The only health sciences articles that are currently approved are Infant colic and Contraception (medical methods). You can see how different those two are and they were both fine, so you should feel free to approach this as you feel you can do the best job. Other health sciences articles that are started, (some barely) important and could use lots of additions are Tuberculosis, and Cancer, Stroke, and Myocardial Infarction. Nancy Sculerati 18:37, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Robert (is it Robert?) I am pretty terrible at references and would advise you to teach me (once you figure it out) rather than ask me- although it's nice to get messages from you on my talk page. He isn't active tonight- but Gareth Leng seems to be great at this, and it's a pleasure to see your work here, by the way. Regards, Nancy Sculerati 19:30, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

No- try all the ways, andx we'll see how it works out. Nancy Sculerati 16:36, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Lumbalgia

Hi Roger, I've been working on your LBP article. Are we heading in the right direction? If so, we might be able to pull together one more editor and work toward getting it to Approved status.. What do you think? --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:23, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the quick response. I responded on my talk page. --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:22, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Venous stasis ulcer

Robert, I recently checklisted the article you started at Venous stasis ulcer and noticed that it was incomplete - not even in stub format. I had requested a delete, but was informed that I should check with you first and see what your plans with the article are and see if we should salvage it. Thanks. --Todd Coles 20:46, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

That page was a result of a discussion with N Sculerati about how to start a new page when I do not have time to write an entire page. The idea was that I would added sentences at a time. On that particular topic, I have done better writing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venous_stasis_ulcer. Although some of the pages I have helped on at WP I think are good enough to move to CZ with a little editing; I do not think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venous_stasis_ulcer is in that category except for its treatment section.

Ok to delete Venous stasis ulcer. Or if you prefer, I can bring over the treatment section only of the WP page. Regarding future pages, is there a prescribe course for starting stubs, or does CZ prefer I not start a page till its content is more mature?Robert Badgett 21:42, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Robert, the relevent sections of Citizendium Policy for stubs is just in the CZ:Article Deletion Policy:

• it consists of two sentences or less, or 50 words or less, which have been left on the wiki for more than two hours;

Larry saved it! Then I expanded on yours some, so I wouldn't have to delete it, though this is not may area of expertise. Do look it over an make any changes you want for now. It shouldn't get deleted now. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:54, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

ThanksRobert Badgett 22:42, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Rob

Nice to see you back. Let me know if I can ever help you in any way.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 23:33, 8 October 2007 (CDT)

Thanks very much.Robert Badgett 00:23, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

Accidental fall

I moved your article to accidental fall--I hope this is OK. The title should be singular, and the word "accidental" in the title makes it clearer what the subject of the article is. It's not autumn, and it's not a descending body of water. --Larry Sanger 07:49, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

You are fast.Robert Badgett 07:57, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

According to the National Library of Medicine, their canonical term is accidental falls. On one hand it seems ideal to match their term to facilitate future connectivity to other databases; on the other hand the plural does sound odd. Either way is ok with me.Robert Badgett 08:00, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

==Non-specific viral-like syndromes-- Articles to consider are West Nile virus, Dengue fever, borrelia (not lyme disease), leptospirosis, acute HIV, Enterovirus , and murine typhus. Maybe influenza and adenovirus.Robert Badgett 10:07, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Do you want this fixed?

This. Stephen Ewen 01:03, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

There are a lot of technical things that would be nice to fix for CZ; I have littered the forum with some of them (highlighting citations/backlinks and nav popups). Fixing Infobox_Disease would definitely be on this (you must have been the person that fixed the link to the PMID on cite ref). While we are on a roll, how would I promote consistency in disease and drug articles such as done here. Thanks very much for anything you can do.Robert Badgett 01:36, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Cochrane Collaboration Moves

Hello Robert,

Moving the Evidence–based medicine section to the Evidence-based medicine page and the Study guidelines section to Clinical practice guideline is certainly a reasonable idea. However, they are brief and should still remain in the Cochrane article with a link in the Cochrane article to your work at the Clinical practice guideline article and the Evidence-based medicine since they serve to briefly explain the concepts for the Cochrane Collaboration. I will put the links in now. You can copy and use what you think is appropriate of course --Thomas Simmons 19:12, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Pericarditis

Hi Dr Badgett, I just added subpages to Pericarditis. Would you care to check the categories? Aleta Curry 00:31, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. I do not yet have a feel for what the subpages add over just adding the same content as sections in the article. Is there information somewhere on subpages?Robert Badgett 00:58, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Hi again. Okay, the subpages are for information related to the main article that you wouldn't want in the actual text of the article, and the article and its subpages is called a cluster. So, at a minimum, you'd probably have a bibliography subpage and a related articles subpage.

So, when I did garden, subpages are "related articles" (flower, tree) and subpage biliography (What Flower is That?, Gardening Australia Magazine), and subpage catalogs.

Yes, there is information and I'll try to find where it is, but I'm really bad at that. If I can't find the link, I'll ask Matt or Stephen

You can also click in the boxes all the way at the left, second box down, "Communication", then follow the link to the forums, where all the chat goes on. We've had some looong subpages discussions there.

Aleta Curry 01:35, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Back again. Here is subpages info: CZ:Subpages Aleta Curry 16:06, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Image

Hi Robert. Say, what's the situation with Image:Materson_et_al._NEJM_1994._PMID_8177286.jpg? Are you the creator of that? Or who is the copyright holder? Is is it really licensed under a Creative Commons license? How do we know that? Kindly let me know. We need to make sure all images are in the clear or do what it takes to get them in the clear. Let me know if you need help. Stephen Ewen 03:00, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

I created the image based on text in the article based on data in the original article (PMID 8446138) and the followup correction letter (PMID 8177286). I thought http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ was a good license. To me, basic scholarship always specifies sources. Is this not a good license? Thanks Robert Badgett 09:02, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

Okay, thanks, all clear. I was not sure whether it was taken from the source or based upon the source. Stephen Ewen 11:31, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

Medical errors

With respect to this edit to Medical errors: If you previously inserted information into a Wikipedia article, and then inserted the same text into Citizendium you need to credit Wikipedia as a source, provide a link back to the Wikipedia material and cite the GNU Free Documentation License as the license the text is under. By the way, I have no professional medical expertise. The information I posted in the article is derivative from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. I'm sorry to start this article and then not diligently follow up with it, but I have too many other projects. Fred Bauder 04:41, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

This is mistaken, Fred. Copyright is with the creator of the work, not the publisher in this case. When person X submits something to WP, they do not transfer their copyright to WP. You own the copyright to what you create and submit at Wikipedia and you can later take your particular submission there and do whatever you want with it. Its your creation and your copyright. On the other hand, if another takes my work there, the GFDL is in full force.

Stephen Ewen 10:02, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

Of course, it would be nice if you can document that it is solely your work on wikipedia. This can be done by viewing edit histories on wikipedia. Then go ahead and place information to that effect on the talk page (up top somehwere), that would be helpful for authors that come by next year and think it was copied without attribution. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:13, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

Per the article's history at WP, I created the section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Preventable_medical_error&diff=151566577&oldid=151564122 on Aug 16th and there have been no edits to it since. So should I remove the from WP statement on the CZ version of the article?

Robert Badgett 11:39, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Pain

Hi Robert. The article I think was mainly written by Christo. I see your point about the organisation. As a physiologist I guess I would have gone for an organisation that separates a)the anatomy and physiology of nociceptive pathways and b) perception of pain.

This is approximately how it is organised, but the headings don't make this clear, e.g. the categories "neuropathic pain" and "nociceptive pain" are not equivalent. I think reorganisation would help.Gareth Leng 11:48, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Merck

Hey Robert, we have this opportunity from the people at Merck that I thought I would run by you, what do you think?

NOTE: FOLLOWING IS NOT A BIO (but please read)

First, let me applaud your effort to provide a wiki with content from expert contributors. There is a great deal of information available free online, though not all of it is reliable.

Second, I propose a collaboration between Citizendium and the Merck Manuals department at Merck & Co., Inc. This department, of which I'm a staff member (Executive Editor, Electronic Publications), publishes The Merck Manual, a print and online textbook created by expert contributors.

We are prepared to place links in your External Links section of Citizendium topics to related material in our online version of The Merck Manual. Two examples:

Subject: Guillain Barre Syndrome. Your page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Guillain-Barre_syndrome The link in External Links would go to: http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec16/ch223/ch223d.html

Subject: Otitis Externa. Your page: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Otitis_externa The link in External Links would go to: http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec08/ch088/ch088c.html

Unfortunately, we are not in a position to author material for you, but we'd be delighted to add value to your pages with links to our material. We invite you to visit The Manual at http://www.merck.com/mmpe/index.html to determine for yourself whether links to this content is acceptable and desirable. In a preliminary review, I found 40 to 50 Citizendium topics to which we could contribute.

Please let me know if you are interested in such a collaboration.

--Matt Innis (Talk) 14:33, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Very interesting, but I would not touch. I do not think the editorial processes of the Merck Manual are sufficiently transparent for us to be ok with linking to them. Note that they do not even put references in their content. Also, their chapter I looked at is two years old. I would link to emedicine before I would link to the merck manual.Robert Badgett 14:42, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Interesting, Robert--could you say so on cz-biology and cz-healthsci, which I posted the proposal to? --Larry Sanger 14:47, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

I looked at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,30.0.html, but did not see your thread.Robert Badgett 14:56, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

He means cz-biology mailing list and cz-health-sci mailing list. Stephen Ewen 16:16, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Aristolochic acid, any symptoms/treatment info?

Robert, would you happen to have good information regarding treatment and more symptoms info for my Aristolochic acid article? David E. Volk 16:40, 7 November 2007 (CST)

Sound like you need a clustered medline search. Try a Vivismo search at HighWire (click here). After you get your search results back and make any edits you want to your strategy, click the tab on the results page that says "Articles Indexed by Subject". If you prefer a straight up medline search, click here. Looks like this compound may cause:

• nephropathies of various types
• bitter taste
• genotoxic in vitro

..but that is after a quick sanc of results without reading the abstracts. - Robert Badgett 21:54, 7 November 2007 (CST)

Diabetes

Hey Robert, I made a disambiguation page for diabetes (disambiguation). I'm not sure that this is the best way to do it. Maybe use diabetes as a page to generally describe diabetes and then link to all the types. Either way, thought I'd help out some! --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:29, 8 November 2007 (CST)

That could be a good way to go; lets see what happens. Diabetes is not a term/concept according to MeSH; so this may appropriate. - Robert Badgett 08:37, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Wow, that's an awesome list.. you think we will end up with articles on each or will we combine a bunch? --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:47, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Some day, maybe we will... Note that by using the National Library of Medicine's xml, we could automate the building of medical disease pages. See Allergic rhinitis. I added to the causation section, but all else can be built automatically. Same for drug information pages, see Doxycycline. - Robert Badgett 10:07, 8 November 2007 (CST)

I think you are right. If we follow their classification system, we should be ahead of the curve and be able to recreate their rational nomeclature system. I'll see if I can fall in line with what you are doing. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:35, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Compression fracture

Hi Robert, check out my first attempt at using the MeSHID process! I do realize that MeSH uses Fractures, compression but Larry seems to want Compression fracture. Does that work for you? --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:56, 14 November 2007 (CST)

I suggest choosing canonical terms with MeSH rather than MedlinePLus. If you check Mesh (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2007/MB_cgi?mode=&term=Compression+fractures) you will find Fractures, compression as you said. However, note that "compression fractures" in an entry term. I think entry terms are fine to use. I know that Larry prefers singular nouns. Either way ok with me as "compression fracture" also scores. Note that search plugins can make this work much faster. - Robert Badgett 22:01, 14 November 2007 (CST)

Good news. I've got the links loaded! --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:15, 14 November 2007 (CST)

Are these chagnes ok?

Yup, keep them coming! I appreciate all the help I can get ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:34, 15 November 2007 (CST)

Diagnostic test

Hi again, Rob. Could you review the additions I made to diagnostic test (opening two paragraphs). Also, please see my question before I continue adding subpages. Thanks! Aleta Curry 15:06, 27 November 2007 (CST)

Reminder! It's a party!

Your friendly neighbourhood Mistress of Ceremonies here, reminding you about the December write-a-thon! Please drop by and add yourself to the list of partiers--or non party-goers--as the case may be. You can leave a comment, question or excuse there, too--or talk to me Aleta Curry 16:05, 4 December 2007 (CST)

You deserve to be credited...

Well, I see you were working away on party day, which makes you one of the shy boys. I’ll have to come and drag you in next month! Aleta Curry 23:41, 9 December 2007 (CST)

Re: Depression page...

Thaanks for your input, Robert, it was well met on all counts. In the spirit of keeping open dialogue, see the Depression Talk page, rather than my reporuding my comments here. Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 08:06, 19 December 2007 (CST)

Hey, thanks, Robert! Looks great. I actually culled those references, so they were drop-ins.

Listen, my template skills are poor, at best. I noticed that you've scripted most, if not all, of the citation templates. If I gave you the parameters for APA references, could you put one together for me? I thought it would be good if the psych pages used that as a global standard, rather than mix and match or something else entirely. Thoughts? --Michael J. Formica 06:39, 20 December 2007 (CST)

The CZ Template:Citation builds a citation that is pretty close (maybe the same) as the APA format. Please send me an example and I will look it over. Emailing me might be easier (badgett@uthscsa.edu). - Robert Badgett 07:06, 20 December 2007 (CST)

The "fact" template

...in my humble opinion is one of the most obnoxious habits Wikipedians got themselves into (after I left, mind you). Of course, I am all in favor of supporting facts that need to be supported, and I'm also in favor of pointing out that they need to be supported, but...I am not in favor of placing a snarky template on articles. I would strongly prefer moving to the talk page any statements that are so questionable as to require such a template. That's a more honest way forward, I think, if we are presenting our articles as for general public consumption and not for our own mutual admiration. --Larry Sanger 08:34, 20 December 2007 (CST)

I am glad you responded as the fact template was so conspicuously absent from CZ that I suspected it was by design. I think this gets at the larger issue of dispute resolution, etc. While your suggestion is cleaner, I find it very hard to implement. I find that discussions on talk pages get lost. Sometimes the discussion spills into the user pages of those in the discussion, sometimes the discussion spills into several talk pages if more than one is involved. Also, I find it hard to go back and check various threads I have on different talk pages. Lastly, I try very hard to avoid deleting/removing someone's thoughts. I much prefer to resolve or display both views. When I forget to provide my citations, I think it is much easier to respond to a fact template than to find what someone did with my missing text.

I propose that 1) we leave the fact template operational as its give the correct advice at the correct location, 2) we suppress display of the contents of the template when a author or editor is not viewing the page (eg when the public is viewing the page). 3) should I edit the template to something less terse than "citation needed"?

If you want to give editors the option to hide the entire disputed text from the public, we could explore the effects of placing a start and stop tag around the relevant text so the public would see neither the template nor the text. This would be an interesting option as sometimes I see important unsourced claims that I suspect are true (and would only use the fact template); whereas sometimes I see unsourced claims that I am pretty sure are not true and I would like to hide from public until resolution.

I do not think I have seen the word snarky before - but I see it is in M-W.com. - Robert Badgett 08:58, 20 December 2007 (CST)

Yes, commenting out text that requires support would be superior to using a fact template. There is no way to implement your (2) without considerable programming. But I think simply removing the text to the talk page is as good a solution as any. I'm very much open to other creative solutions. --Larry Sanger 09:05, 20 December 2007 (CST)

FYI, when completed, http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Simple_Security will do #2. Stephen Ewen 20:04, 20 December 2007 (CST)

Personally, I've taken to creating article-specific Sandbox pages. It will be cumbersome to continue this practice as the database expands, but, in the moment, it prevents contention driven by wholesale deletion of material, and deflects confusion by virtue of moving good, but unreferenced content to the Talk page. --Michael J. Formica 21:34, 20 December 2007 (CST)

Party! You're invited!

Hi Robert — Your neighbourhood Mistress of Ceremonies here. Don’t forget to come on over to the party and sign in at one of the categories! Aleta Curry 15:22, 9 January 2008 (CST) say ‘hi’ to me here.

Important housecleaning note

Hi Robert. I noted here that you copied over Medically unexplained physical symptoms from WP. In each and every instance where this happens, we need to do one of two things: 1) tick that little "from WP" box next to the save page button; 2) use this on the talk page of the article:

{{WPauthor2|your Wikipedia username|the name of the article on Wikipedia|A statement saying you authored the material at Wikipedia|~~~~}}

Thanks!

Stephen Ewen 23:03, 14 January 2008 (CST)

How about if I was a contributor to the section that I copy/pasted, but I am not the sole author.-Robert Badgett 23:23, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Then you'd use the second option, noting what you just told me in the section where you make the statement. This needs to happen each time it is so, or we'll get nasties from the WP folks. Stephen Ewen 00:06, 15 January 2008 (CST)

I just did this at Talk:Nutritional support. - Robert Badgett 13:17, 16 January 2008 (CST)