User talk:Donek

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

username[edit source]

Hello, you can change your user name. More info you can find here: Wikiversity:Changing username, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ping, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome :-) Have fun with your learning project. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: no reply[edit source]

ping ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School Structure[edit source]

How do we feel about the current school Structure? What changes would we like to make? DónalMcK 09:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete the following[edit source]

There were now 2 deletions on this talk page: [1], [2]. Unfortunately there was not given a comment when deleting. In the deletion of my comment I would be interested why it was deleted. This helps me understand the situation better. Would you mind explaining this ? Normally a talk page is seen as a history for users how + when a person communicated with others. You do not need to explain of course, but it would be nice. ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 10:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The item was deleted because i was not aware of the importance of the archived messages. I am new to this and i will bear it in mind in future. It was a piece of advice directed at me for not signing my comments. But as you can see, I have taken your advice on board DónalMcK 12:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the time of explaining. My main reason was that since no comment in the summary was given for the deletion, I could not understand this, since I thought I might get an answer. ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 13:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duely noted. Won't happen again DónalMcK 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment not something like, that is forbidden now. I am - as you - just a user here. That was my personal opinion. What you do or not you decide yourself. This is a wiki, we have room for anything and any user. And we should not limit people in their freedom. One of Wikiversity's goals is to give people the freedom to realize their ideas. Especially in the goal of learning. And since learning (experiences) are individual for everyone, the lesser obstacles the better. Rules and such can help to guide people, but they also have the possibility to limit people in their thinking. I hope we can be different than the real world. ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 13:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I see it more like a wiki cultural education. I agree completely with the sentment. DónalMcK 13:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Donek, while reading our past discussion I come to the conclusion to say: sorry. With my knowledge now I think the above situation should have been handled otherwise by me back then. I hope I "behave" now better :-) Thank you for the learning you have given me with reading this again. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You were right to point it out to me. I hope you won't be afraid to advise me on things in the future. I am a beginner here and I certainly need all the good advice I can. :)

Don't worry, if I fall back in old habits you will notice :-) ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

medical pages[edit source]

About the Proposed Hierarchical Structure....I agree that Wikiversity needs to develop some kind of system for "getting the most out of" people who have expertise. About "topic" pages....I'm not sure if you are familiar with Wikipedia's "wikiprojects". They are "content development projects" where Wikipedians collaborate to develop encyclopedia articles for a particular topic area. All actual learning resources should be on pages with no prefix in the page name. We have portal pages that serve as directories to help people quickly find learning resources. The "school" and "topic" pages are content development projects where participants can plan, organize and develop learning resources for broad subject areas (school pages) or narrow topic areas (topic pages). There are some ideas for utilization of experts at Wikiversity:Review board. I think there should be ways to control who can edit some pages at Wikiversity. There are some ideas about ways to limit who edits pages at Wikiversity:Page protection templates....mainly in the context of research projects. I have experience teaching basic sciences courses at the medical school level. I'm interested in exploring a wide range of medicine-related learning resources at Wikiversity. I've been drifting towards more general health-related learning resources that might be of interest to a wider audience than traditional medical school learning resources. I tend to make pages such as Progesterone and then link to them from related wikipedia pages. --JWSchmidt 01:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Permission to Proceed[edit source]

I see no reason why not, although as I'm an inactive custodian I'm not really the person you should be asking. If you feel it may be controversial, hop on IRC or head to Colloquium and canvass some opinions. --Draicone (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential discussion of Withdrawn proposal[edit source]

DonalMck, I have linked to your withdrawn Proposed_Hierarchical_Structure for an example of the type of brainstorming I wish to see at a scheduled reading groups discussion of means and methods. I hope you do not find this inappropriate. If you dislike the way I am using your withdrawn proposal please simply go to the draft agenda[3] and delete the related bullet item (currently at the bottom of the page). Thanks for your efforts on Wikiversity's behalf! Mirwin 00:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Request by SOM[edit source]

I'd love to help out. I'm a little busy for the next two days, but I should be able to help out after that. Things have been a little crazy for me, but I should be getting active again on Wikiversity and Wikibooks. If you could send me more info on what you would like me to do, I'd be grateful.


Wesley Gray 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The layout is very nice. I also look forward to reading your lessons as I have absolutely no experience in medicine. Keep up the good work!
Wesley Gray 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad deletion[edit source]

When you work on a page, do not delete the interwiki link. Thanks in advance. Crochet.david 07:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice but I do not know what you are referring to. Please advise, Thank you Go raibh mile maith agaibh 07:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this one, another one, for exemple. Crochet.david 07:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean between languages. I didn't know. Thanks for the advice. It won't happen again.Go raibh mile maith agaibh 07:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this system allow to go to an another language which speaking about the same thing. It's to allow somebody (who know the another language) to found another thing.Crochet.david 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the hang of things[edit source]

Hi, Donek. I've been following up your posts to the colloquium, where you enthusiastically requested "orders" for helping develop Wikiversity. I've looked at some of your contributions and also at the discussions above. You are brimming with enthusiasm, but you seem to need some help with not putting your foot in it and/or rescuing yourself from the odd mess. Yes - one can be very bold at Wikiversity, but there are sometimes ways of boldness that are better than others. If you're looking for someone to guide you, then you should visit my talk page more often. Going back to your request for "orders", I'd suggest you shortlist the 3 things which annoy you most about Wikiversity, and then discuss with me the best way of addressing these. It's always best to start with things that you can relate well to (even if "relating to" means "being annoyed by"), so we should start with your own shortlist of things rather than mine. I look forward to helping you. --McCormack 10:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your offer and I will definitely take you up on that. I tried to be cautious at first, then I was told to be bold, then I went overboard!! I look forward to your assistance to help me strike the balance. Here is my shortlist:
  • The school of medicine is obviously my primary area of interest. There is very little content and no staff. Please see my plan of action on school talk:Medicine. I think that quick addition of content increases hits for the site and therefore acts as an advertisement of sorts for people to join the community. Then, more content quicker. A positive feedback mechanism. I have no evidence of course, just my opinion.
  • Inter-school collaboration within Portal:Life Sciences is an invaluable prospect. Consider this, a department, such as the department of anatomy, that has relations to two schools, such as the school of medicine and school of dentistry, can work together to create pages that are mutually beneficial. The course programs may differ, but there will be the possibility of shared lesson pages, cutting down the workload and increasing content addition, hits.... you get the picture - I have a diagram in mind to illustrate this not too far off the diagram at the top of this page. If you tell me how, I can draw and upload it. My ideas for the function of portals/faculties keeps changing.
  • New users sometimes seem to arrive and leave very quick, maybe I'm wrong. If they are encouraged to write a little about their area of interest, they can be categorized and members of schools could maybe approach them and offer them the opportunity to play their part. Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left some recommendations at Talk:Medical School Curriculum which may help. In general, don't assume that loads of fellow med students are going to pile in and help - creating WV content is currently an individualistic thing. Also, try not to work top-down (big framework first); work bottom-up instead (content first, step-by-step). Think about the needs of medical students. So far as I understand the needs of medical students, they are very simple: learn telephone directories fast. Any page or tool which helps with the process of accelerated rote-learning will be well-received; anything else is a luxury for one's retirement. Am I right? What about developing countries? Same thing? --McCormack 08:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to your eight comments in the curriculum talk page. You are right that "learning by lists", as I would call it, is very important and it is something that I didn't consider. But medicine requires full understanding of processes more than learning from lists. In fact, many consultants under whom I have studied, have made difficult diagnoses by working from "first principles" rather than lists. But list lessons are very important and I will include them. I have no knowledge of medicine in developing countries but I am happy to research it after I plan the school. The main differences I suppose will be the disease rates and treatment options. I plan to not touch the medical school until certain issues have been resolved, which won't actually be that long. In the meantime I will assist Gbaor with medical categories. Go raibh mile maith agaibh 20:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine related pages[edit source]

Hi! I am impressed with your work here! There are few pages in my will do list that might interest you, and potentially help to improve/categorize. Here is a short list:

  • Category:Medicine - needs to tide up, too many pages at the main category, create subcategories if necessary
  • Topic:LMCC - many short pages, which needs to be categorized (merged?)
  • Topic:Neuroethics - quite active topic, many contributions from a good anonymous contributor, you (we) should synchronize our steps here with the others, (re)categorization needed (Category:Neuroethics ?)

So.. in case you want to try the category organization system, now you have a chance :), you could also incorporate these existing pages into your conception to School:Medicine--Gbaor 12:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation to help. I would be glad to. Give me a couple of hours to browse around the categories. In the meantime, can you tell me what LMCC is? Go raibh mile maith agaibh 19:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that was quicker than I thought. My first priority when viewing Category:Medicine was to limit the subcategories of subcategories etc. which can easily happen. My next aim was to limit the amount of information on Category:Medicine, especially the number of pages. I think I have a solution:

The subcategories will not need subcategories of their own. My idea is to have a subcategory called "Medical Lessons", which might list all lessons within the school. The other subcategories should be composed of only those "topic:" pages listed in the school homepage; maybe call them "Category:Department of .....".

Pages in Category:Medicine should be reduced to the disclaimer, curriculum, home page, and module home pages. All other pages and should be divided up among the departments/subcategories. Remaining "Topic:" subcategories should be removed and their pages divided up too. Examples:

Please discuss anything you disagree with. If these are created I am happy to do the donkey work and divide them up. I will then proceed to search out the uncategorized medical pages and categorize them accordingly.

Let me know what you think. Go raibh mile maith agaibh 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it is not "donkey work", because categories should be defined correctly, if one wants to do a good job. To your suggestions:
As I said before, you know probably more about medicine, than me, so I leave the "professional side" to you, but...
  • "The subcategories will not need subcategories of their own." - disagree - these are really needed, if you don't want a cat. with 100-200 pages. An example (that came in my mind) is Category:Viruses>Category:Virology>Category:Microbiology>Category:Biology Please note, the logical order of the things (i.e. you would naturally search for Microbiology under Biology cat., and surely you are not suprised, that Viruses are under Virology cat.)
  • This brings up the next issue: Medicine related topics and lessons could (should) be categorized in 1 cat., but also in categories according to the (sub)fields of medicine. Reasons: Not to have (single) extremely large cat.s and the logical order in the preceding point.
  • "Pages in Category:Medicine should be reduced to the disclaimer, curriculum, home page, and module home pages" - agree
  • ...and dont forget the colon (:) when you create an internal link to a cat., because you actually categorized your talk page under Category:Medicine
  • more about categorization: Wikiversity:Categories - somewhat outdated,; lot more on WP w:Wikipedia:Categorization
  • Not cat. related - "Lesson:" is not a separate namespace, so you could omit this prefix. But don't bother with this point if you want to do the job with Lesson prefix, we can get back to it later. The content is the most important. --Gbaor 07:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand me when I say donkey work. Where I come from, it means doing the hard labor. I didn't mean it was a simple task - maybe you thought I meant monkey work. Not an important point anyway. On to business!

I agree that it would be ideal to limit medical pages to one category but a minority might need two, due to inter-disciplinary cross-over, especially between pre-clinical and clinical departments. Example - anatomy of the heart will need to be categorized as anatomy and cardiovascular for easy browsing. Next, I think you know more about categorizing than I do so I'll take your advice on subcategories but I would really like to limit how many steps browsers have to take to reach the lessons. Maybe the first bunch of subcategories should be created then we can assess the number of subcategories needed at that stage. Do you agree?

I had no idea i had categorised my page as that. By the time you read this it will be undone. Should usernames be categorised anywhere at all or not? Do you want me to continue or stop using the "lesson:" namespace?

Thank you for you advice and help. Go raibh mile maith agaibh 21:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I would really like to limit how many steps browsers have to take to reach the lessons." - There is no exact answer for that. It largely depends on the medicine (sub)field size and number of entries/pages. If you want a number, then you could maximize levels of subcat.s in 2 or 3 from the main category. Once the categorization is done, we can review it and do few changes if necessary. I agree with your suggestion.
Please also mote, that the main organizational and orientational structure should be on Portal/School/Topic pages (i.e. this is the primary way, how people will reach the lessons). Personally I always take the opposite way> from pages to categories, to find out what else is around here related to that page I browse.
Lesson: namespace - The content you put in those lessons belong to the main namespace, which has no prefix. So you can drop it from the titles, but you can still refer to those pages from other parts of the text as lessons.
You were still categorized under cat. Medicine :) Now I corrected it. Generally the users are not categorized, except they use an User template. Several users (their subpages) are categorized under certain cat.s, if appropriate. So do as you wish :) There is no rule for this. For example one of my subpages is under cat. Category:External learning resources --Gbaor 05:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How unreliable of me :). I just forgot. Anyway, I have completed the first task in categorizing medical pages by tidying the Medicine category. I will now look in the pages uncategorized for medical ones and I will try to categorize accordingly. The next step will be sorting out the subcategories and then I will get back to you. Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biology Portal upgrade[edit source]

I'm glad to see your participation at Wikiversity. The school, topic and portal pages are critically important pages that serve a role in directing participants towards existing content and developing content. I, of course, have no objection to improvements in such pages. However, it is very disturbing when people change these important pages and destroy links to content that have been carefully created by past participants. Further, many such changes do not strike me as improvements, but rather as exercises in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I wish we had more effort towards actual content creation rather than effort put into making a prettier directory page or a new version of a directory page with a new page name or a new version of a page with a new "box format" or set of page sections.

not just as a "faculty" for university level courses
historically, Wikiversity has been dominated by college students, so there has been a strong bias towards college level resources. Personally, I am a strong opponent of using the term "faculty" at Wikiversity, either to refer to subject areas or to people. I do not think it hurts anything to retain the "college course catalog"-type of directory structure that was the first organizational structure created at Wikiversity. I'm saddened and perplexed by Wikiversity participants who think they have the right, in the name of "reform", to destroy what others worked so hard to create. My belief is that rather than destroy perfectly good structures that were created for good reasons (and that still serve a useful purpose), we should be thinking in terms of layers and adding new parts to the directory structure. I suspect that most high schools simply have a science department and so it would make sense for Portal:Secondary Education to have a link to another portal that would be all about high school science education. Of course, there would also reasonably be links between such a secondary level science portal and the life sciences portal. So, I favor creation of new portals rather than trying to change the function of existing portals. Wikipedia has hundreds of portal time, Wikiversity should have thousands.
complete revamp of School of Medicine
"affiliates" <-- it would be nice if there were a page to link this term to. Does it mean "collaborating wiki editors"? At one time we found it useful to use this template:

, but I see it was removed with the comment "Major revamp according to community dialogue". I'd be interested to see the specific "community dialogue" that says "In the name of reform, throw away useful navigation templates that were created by other participants".
--JWSchmidt 15:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I aim to communicate with a lot of other more-experienced users in for the development of both my skills and the projects I am involved in. I am a direct person and I will respond to any direct and constructive criticism/advice you have given me, and I thank you for it. This is my second spell at wikiversity. I was here in November before I was ill and I have returned for about a week and I want to make up for lost time. My over-enthusiasm has drawn a lot of attention and I am determined to take the positives out of it. As regards content creation, if you look at my O&G contributions as well as my evidence-based medicine contributions you will see that I have added quite a lot of content (for a beginner) in the little time I have spent here. My major revamp was intended for easier navigation for people and I think I have achieved it by removing the big long lists that were there previously. I am happy to add your own 'box' as I think it would be very useful. I apologise for deleting it. If you were referring to other links I deleted please do not hesitate to let me know what they are and I will return them. Affiliates would differ from the link box you have as I plan to use it to list active collaborations with other schools and departments that the school of medicine is currently involved in and what those projects are. However, I was confident of doing the revamp because I know that nothing is 'destroyed'; all history can be reinstated. Am I mistaken?
I agree with absolutely everything you said about the portal:biology and I would look forward to liaising with you (and everyone else in the portal) regarding the planning an overall structure for the portal, the levels of study, the disciplines in each level and deciding what content is to be added. I would enjoy the opportunity to add scientific content at all levels within my areas and levels of expertise. I think, however, action takes planning. This is the reason I contacted you. Go raibh mile maith agaibh 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if my earlier comments were too terse. I'm busy in the real world, so I just put my thoughts down quickly rather than diplomatically. Please allow the emphasis to remain on "I'm glad to see your participation at Wikiversity"...I trust you do do what is best. --JWSchmidt 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gynecology Case 1[edit source]

Hi Donek, Great to see your energy, vision, knowledge, directedness, and preparedness to learn :). I'm not how the link above might fit into the scheme of things, but it needs a category/ies. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have done that. I am currently doing a lot of categorizing now. There is a problem. When I want to create a new subcategory (5 in total) they are coming up as red links. Can I create them or do I need to request them from a custodian?? Go raibh mile maith agaibh 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can create them! If its a new category which you've added to a page, it will be a red link at the bottom. Click on it, and then add a higher category to the page, e.g, Category:Gynecology you might categorise as Category:Medicine (or perhaps something in between), and save. You can add more than one category of course, but one is a good start :). Let me know if I can do anything else, I'm more than happy to help. See also Help:Category. Sincerely, -- Jtneill - Talk 00:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got it! :) Well done. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help JT. I now need help when it comes to deleting a subcategory because medicine has a few unnecessary ones. However, I think this may well be a custodian-only ability. Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

go raibh mile maith agaibh[edit source]

I just looked up the meaning: ;) Very 'wiki'. Reminds of a phrase from some North American indians who don't say 'goodbye', but rather es-con-gee-hai (phonetic) which means 'be well until we meet again'. You may like to tweak your signature though to also show your user name, so it could be like Donek - Go raibh mile maith agaibh. Some of us also add a link in the signature to our talk page. So the raw for my signature is -- [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] - <small>[[User talk:Jtneill|Talk]]</small>. See what you think. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might give that I try but unfortunately I have forgotten how to change my signature. Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you got it :) -- Jtneill - Talk 23:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: welcome back[edit source]


I'm very busy so I probably have to disappoint you and say that I won't be a regular contributor who will quickly expand the medical content here. I will most likely every few months add another clinical case. If you have specific questions you'd like to have my opinion about, or specific pages you'd like me to quickly do some copy-editing, you can always ping me.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. That's great and thanks for the offer. I see that you are currently involved in the clinical cases. I have created a Clinical Skills department in which links could be made to your work. Also, I think links should be made in the clinical departments depending on what area of medicine each case belongs to. Do you agree? Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military medicine @ level 5 list from School:Medicine ?[edit source]

[4], [5] - probably the user doesn't know much about wikis. What do you think about this ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe should've kept it in there. For some reason I thought it hadn't been edited in a while. I have replied to his comments on the talk page and I hope to see him sign up as he does seem very passionate about his field of interest. Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Categories[edit source]

Which list are you talking about ? Normally most stuff can also be done by non-custodians. Could you give me one example what you would like, then I could have a look. See you, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you mean Special:UncategorizedCategories - the data displayed there is still old data: see "The following data is cached, and was last updated 09:34, 19 June 2008.". That means though you categorized them the list is not uptodate :-( Did this help ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you need the list (though not updated) to continue tomorrow or so to categorize the other pages: some browsers show the visited pages in another color - that might help you to find out which pages you didn't yet visit, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you atm - probably there is somewhere a list with the different queues from all wikimedia projects (WV is one of it). And they get done after a certain strategy. Here e.g. you see from en.WV the job length: Special:Statistics. More info probably you can find at: meta:Cache strategy + meta:Wikimedia servers, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Issue of Concern[edit source]

Thank you vrey much for pointing your concerns. We have following disclaimers: Wikiversity:Medical disclaimer (+ Wikiversity:General disclaimer). If you like you can instead of removing review it and make a new version of that page ? E.g. providing links to places which state "more" the truth. Argumenting the various points from another point of view ? What do you say ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests[edit source]

Yes, deletion is a custodian tool (because of the obvious harm that could be done). There are a few options, depending on the circumstances, e.g., Gynecological History Taking could be deleted I think because its a duplicate of Gynecological history taking. That's no problem because you created the pages, and its duplicate content (I think), so its a very straight forward case. For now, you could even Help:Redirect GHT to Ght (which is the more conventional casing) and that would be fine. If you feel anything that you created should be deleted, then you can nominate it by going to Please delete my page. For proposing content which you did not author for deletion, see the full Wikiversity:Deletion policy, although discussion can be a good idea first, e.g,. on the associated talk page or as with Erkan about the Diabetes myths page. Hope this helps. -- Jtneill - Talk 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that with GHT but, as regards the other issue, is there a policy for suspending a potenially harmful page while a discussion progresses? Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of as such (but I could be wrong). Some options might include: Posting to the page's talk page to say that you think there are problems with the advice, then adding a clear statement to the content page to say that the accuracy of the article is disputed with a link to the talk page. And as Erkan suggests, it could be proactive to provide links to better advice. There are some other templates that could be added (and I'm no template expert), but see Category:Administrative templates, e.g., you could add something like {{Template:Cleanup|your reason why you think the page needs cleaning up}}. You could alternatively nominate the page for deletion, which will involve placing a template to indicate the deletion nomination at the top of the page. -- Jtneill - Talk 23:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the information is wrong, on the contrary, it is generally correct, but there may well be omissions such as, if you also have .... then you can't follow this advice completely. You understand. Also, I don't think we have the authority to post medical advice. Example - if someone saw that I was involved in the medical school and asked me for advice regarding a dietary regime because they have high blood pressure, I would have to inform them that I can't give medical advice, even though I am very confident of my knowledge in this area. However, if someone asked me "what is the dietary advice recommended for patients with high blood pressure?", I could answer it because it is information rather than advice. If we don't have a policy in place for this, I think we ought to. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 23:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like this is a good argument for improving/rewriting the content and IMHO from here might be best placed on the page's talk page. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not that the information is wrong, on the contrary, it is generally correct, but there may well be omissions such as"
Another way is also to put in a Template (e.g. {{Wikiversity:Medical disclaimer}} ) until someone finds the time to rephrase it/try to fill in omissions, .... Also a note on the discussion page would be nice with the concerns. In the meantime also the original contributor could be informed (some didn't click the watch-button) so they might also help out again. There could also be input a delete-template and/or a notice at Wikiversity:Request custodian action or in the Wikiversity:Colloquium, then you may get more views than offered until now (e.g. I went to bed yesterday and missed all the fun now :-)). ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 06:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe slow down categorisation[edit source]

It might be an idea to slow down on the categorisation, particularly for pages / areas you're not yet overly familiar with. Some fixing/recategorising may need to be done, e.g., see my comment about sorting to the top of categories by using |*. e.g., perhaps focus on now on building some pages into solid learning resources. Looking through categories is a good way to tour, but note I rolled back some of the categories added to the Survey research methods and design in psychology pages because: (a) they're categorised in psychology, rather than psychiatry, and (b), the subpages for that course are categorised within the course, and then course is categorised within the discipline (psychology), although the course could also be categorised in psychiatry. Hope this makes sense. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. See now Category:Psychiatry and if that's the way you like it. My inclination would be to just list the psychology category (and remove the Survey methods course), but if you think that's a useful listing in psychiatry, that's fine. So, the general idea here is not to list lots of separate subpages in psychiatry, but instead to list the overall category. In a similar way to you, I did a first-cut reorganisation of Category:Psychology a while back, which may be of interest. At least everything is now in subcategories which, for a large category, is the way to go. BTW (by the way), IMHO means in my humble opinion :). -- Jtneill - Talk 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see how you're using * for sorting to come back to later. For future, maybe minus (-) would be better (i.e., sorts to the end rather than the start). Or you could categorise as something like Category:Medicine unsorted to come back to later. -- Jtneill - Talk 00:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basic or default categorisation is just e.g., Category:Medicine which will list the page alphabeticaly. |* will sort to the top, |- will sort to the bottom, |{{PAGENAME}} will using suffix, not the prefix. As I understand it. -- Jtneill - Talk 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand it. I have undone the *'s I did previously, except for a few because I want to work on them. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medicine-stub[edit source]

This stub template could do with using the medical symbol. Let me know if you want help with "how". -- Jtneill - Talk 01:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see no problem, with recategorising existing Category:Medicine stubs into more specific stub categories, such as Category:Psychiatry stubs. In fact, that's a good way of organising. Just note that Category:Psychiatry stubs should then also be categorised as Category:Medicine stubs, so that all medical stubs can be found via this category. Hope this makes sense. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 14:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes mellitus[edit source]

Hi Donek, I'm not sure that you're going to win community consensus and support by blanking pages without discussion - e.g., like this [6]. I would recommend that you try some of the other methods suggested by Erkan Yilmaz, Gbaor, myself, and others and discuss your concerns about an article on its talk page or the colloquium. With discussion, we can often come up with a better way forward. I am close to reverting the blanked changes on the diabetes changes, but we want to want work together, not against. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we came to an agreement yesterday regarding medical advice. Your comment: "Sounds to me like this is a good argument for improving/rewriting the content". It will be rewritten soon but I need to check all the pages that offer medical advice. However, community consensus has been reached if you read the Wikiversity: Medical disclaimer where it says "Wikiversity attempts to discourage participants from providing medical advice. Wikiversity participants should remove medical advice from Wikiversity webpages when they see it or tell the custodians." If another member disagrees I have provided a link to the talk page where they can explain why. Please do not revert it back. Sincerely, Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donek. I was dealing with this and then got called away in the middle of editing. I've updated the medical disclaimer so that this is clearer. We also need a medical disclaimer template, which I may write now if I can manage. I think there is a simple misunderstanding here: i.e. the difference between "advice" and "training/information". Nothing to get worried about, but it's an important area for WV to be clear about, and currently our help pages are not helpful enough about the difference. --McCormack 13:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donek, I've made some edits to Diabetes mellitus as some examples of how an existing article might be improved and rewritten gradually and iteratively, so that useful content is retained and improved, and poorer/inappropriate content is removed or improved. Please have a look at the changes: [7], but it is only a start. This is one way forward. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your efforts in trying to resolve this issue. I don't want to be a thorn in anybody's side but the issue remains because, as McCormack says, it's not very clear. Is there anyway a policy proposal can be made? When the need to protect ourselves and the public from unofficial medical advice clashes with the desire to protect user's original work, there is no procedure in place. I think this needs to be a priority. On another point, and I am not on the attack (rather the contrary), I don't think my efforts needed to be reverted using roll-back as I don't consider myself to be a vandal, and I hope no-one else does either. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the rollback: don't take this too hard! Just don't blank pages again and it'll just be something funny to remember about. Take a look at for a look at the mistakes of the great and famous. --McCormack 14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Donek. I have updated the disclaimer page and created a couple more pages, including Template:medical disclaimer. If you wish, you can place the medical disclaimer template at the top of your medical pages. Please note, however, that Wikipedia relies on the general medical disclaimer only - it does not add warnings on every medical page. --McCormack 13:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to point out that there's nothing wrong per se with a complete rewrite of a page, if deemed appropriate (and if there is nothing to be salvaged from the existing page). Also, on proposing a policy, it's simply a case of being bold, just writing the policy, and inviting discussion on it. Go raibh maith agat. :-) Cormaggio talk 15:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But just to be safe: when you re-write, really re-write - i.e. have your new version ready first. Often I edit above or below an existing text, using odd bits of the old stuff as and when needed, and then delete the old one afterwards. --McCormack 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice guys, I'll certainly bear it in mind. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motivational interviewing[edit source]

Thanks for touching base - your plans sound excellent. Go for it. All I had done was add some categories; just now I've moved/renamed the page, created a See aalso section for the WP link, and added some stub templates. But I've added nothing in the way of content and your plans sound fine. Prochasta and Diclemente's stages of change may even warrant its own page since it has other relevance, but there's no problems starting such content on the current page. And yes, the readership could be quite broad for the topic. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Policies[edit source]

Hi. Am I right in thinking that you rolled back Wikiversity:Policies by almost two years, or did I miss something? Did you discuss this with anyone before doing it? Thanks in advance for your reply. --McCormack 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi again. I think I've worked out what happened. You clicked on a special link which I had created. The special link was to a 2-year-old version of the same page. You didn't realise the version you were viewing was two years old. You then made the mistake of editing the old version. This had the effect of replacing the current version with your newly edited version of the 2-year-old version. I see that this was an entirely unintentional process on your part. I think I need to do something safer than directly linking to an old version of the page. --McCormack 04:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical versions[edit source]

Hi Donek, To find links to historical versions, go through the History tab on the page in question, and then click on an old version (by date). You can copy that full URL to make a link to a specific historical version of the page. You can also make a comparison between the differences from one version of a page to another and link to that URL (to show the differences to a page made by an editor). I've updated the Diabetes link on Wikiversity:Dealing with Medical Advice but thought this might be handy info. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not the right category?[edit source]

Hi Donek, Not very long ago you added a category to two subpages of a resource I started. I've been away for a while, so I didn't see them until now; but I'm not sure they're the right choice of category. The two pages in question were The Neurodiversity Movement/News and The Neurodiversity Movement/Section One. You added them to Category:Psychiatry. I can see how it's related, but I don't think this is the best choice of category. The resource in question is not really about psychiatric issues- it is about a social movement. The social movement is a movement related to neurology, not psychiatry, but even so it's not a science or medical resource, either. It could be categorized as history, although most of the resource is not intended to focus on history. So I'm not sure where it belongs. However, I am pretty sure it does not belong in the psychiatry category. I am also curious as to why the Autism subcategory is under psychiatry. Could you explain this? Autism is not a psychiatric disorder, it is a neurological condition. That is why I am confused by this categorization. --Luai lashire 15:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for your reply. I agree that Sociology might be an appropriate category. As for whether Autism belongs in the psychiatry category or the neurology category, I suggest both. That way it is simply easiest for anyone who is looking for it to find it. --Luai lashire 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social psychology (psychology)[edit source]

Hi Donek, Thanks for your message and good to see you around again with lots of ideas. FYI, this is a semester-long unit and has an on-campus enrolment of ~80 students. So, that's the key reason for the number of participants - i.e., in particular because an "e-portfolio" / learning journal represents 25% of their assessment for the unit. It's an experiment - last year I had students writing blogs, this year we're trying Wikiversity :). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic:Moulton Vs. Centaur of attention[edit source]

Hi Donek, This page (which has been largely authored by you) has been proposed for deletion. Would you comment/vote on this proposal here? Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Topic:Moulton_Vs._Centaur_of_attention -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RNA interference[edit source]

"Does the effector protein bind the dsRNA and present it to dicer or does it present the siRNA to RISC" <-- I am not an expert in this area. When I created the RNA interference page I spent some time learning about the subject and I had the feeling that it was a very actively changing field of study. I could not give an account of what "effector protein" means for people working in the field of RNAi. To figure out what "effector protein" means in this context, I would try to find some recent review articles such as this that use the terminology "effector protein" in the context of RNAi. This particular article mentions "the notion that the initiation and/or effector stages of RNAi" and does not give me the impression that they have firm ideas about this topic. What is your biology background? --JWSchmidt 13:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this article: R2D2, a bridge between the initiation and effector steps of the Drosophila RNAi pathway, which is cited at Wikipedia. The text of the article is not very useful because they assume that the reader knows what they mean by "initiation" and "effector". I'm guessing that "initiation" means production of siRNA and that "effector" is used to refer to what then acts on the siRNA: the RISC complex-mediated nuclease I agree with what you originally said on my page about the initiation and effector steps. this article discusses the idea that there are different RISC complexes in different cells, so it might be that in some cases a dicer is a required part of RISC function (thus physically linking initiation and effector proteins in a single complex) while in other situations the initiation and effector steps might not be physically linked. I got my B.S. in biochemistry 30 years ago, so I came into all this back in the days when it was "news" that there were introns and exons! I wonder if you have seen The concept of irreducible complexity. --JWSchmidt 16:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Neurology[edit source]

Greetings! I´m writting from Neurosciences Foundation. We´d be happy to contribute with this project by developing the Department Neurology. We don´t have experience in Wikiversity, so we´d thank advise on how to start creating contents.

continuing the medicine school[edit source]

I'm interested in the school so Im asking if you will continue?