• Sept 06 - Feb 07
• Feb 07 - Aug 07
• Aug 07 - Feb 08

Daoken 10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If neither Jennylen nor yourself have any objection, I'm going to change the title of this article to "Asian martial arts (origins)" or "Origins of Asian martial arts". JFD (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received my copy of The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar yesterday. Shahar is a professor of East Asian studies at Tel Aviv University and holds a PhD in East Asian Languages and Civilizations from Harvard; and his book is published by the University of Hawai'i Press. Moreover his articles on martial arts have been published in peer-reviewed journals including the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies and Asia Major.

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research—two of Wikipedia's three core content policies—both state that "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" and go on to say that "material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable".

If this article must include material largely attributed to self-published sources online—and frankly I don't think that it does—don't we have an obligation to Wikipedia's readers to draw a distinction between reliable and unreliable sources?

JFD (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFD. I've been a little busy lately, so my wiki activities have been seriously cut back. I wholeheartedly support the Wiki policies that you have addressed above. The statement lacks a bit of context though, is there a dispute currently ongoing that needs to be addressed? Djma12 ^(talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - I've been trying to improve our article on total body irradiation from a stub to something useful, and thought I'd ask for your input if you have time to look at it. Take care. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurs to me that we should have articles on radiation pneumonitis and fractionation (radiotherapy), don't you think? Just in case you're not busy enough. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! I am nursing a tendon injury that inhibits my typing, but will get on it after I recover. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with your sentiments however, when you remove citations, and insert sentences, referencing them (incorrrectly) to events that took place 14 years later! You must forgive people for assuming (i) these were either simple mistakes and (ii) questionning your N(?)POV. You can hear Sabido speak the words for himself if you watch the documentary. From memory I referenced the time at which he says these words exactly. Stephenjh (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a citation to what you are referring to? The citations provided are from random herbalism websites and personal essays. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your vigilance. It seems that my edits have been misunderstood as a 'wholesale replace' and 'removal of all that existed before'. I want to explain what happened: 1) 'a wholesale replace' (done by me) 2) 'a revert' (done by the regulars) 3) 'discussion' (with me asking what should be done and receiving suggestion 'that keep every source from the previous article in and add your sources: integrate') 4) I edit again (much after the 'JSR's new article replacing the existing one' thread started) and 'keep every source from the previous article in and add my sources'. 5) I receive suggestion to add sages and other material with sources if I can, these existed in the previous version but without sources. 6) I get a message on my talk page and a vigilant editor has assumed that I have reverted 'all of the previous version thereby undoing the work done by the community' and 'JSR's new article replacing the existing one' (written on Sep 14) holds true on Sep 15 when 'I incorporated sourced material from the previous versions into the current one' on Sep 14 itself.

I am in the process of preparing a draft for expansion with sources. I assume that I have explained myself adequately (I have tried to). Allow me keep all of the sources which existed in the article throughout Sep 15 and before without exception.

Regards,

JSR (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I replace the version now? I have a draft for asked expansion ready and I reverted after I explained myself on the talk page but undid myself since I want your vote of confidence and not your disapproval of any of my methods. I emphasize that all previous sources stand and so should the new ones (especially when the bibliography section is as selective as this, now completely undone). Please let me continue (the article was to be completed by tomorrow).

Awaiting response. I have responded in detail on the talk page :), JSR (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the version which had sources from all the versions prior to September 15 (date of reversion) and am in the middle of a major expansion. I see that you may be busy in real life. I have found the recommended material and I could not keep away so please don't have any misgiving as I have retained citations from the previous version and corrected them where required. When the final version is completed (should take two days now that I have my sources) then I will notify you on your talk page and other people on the article talk page.

Regards, JSR (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem,

• For Mitra & Rangesh look in the Reference section for: Mitra, K.S. & Rangesh, P.R. (2003) in "Irritable Colon (Grahni)", Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies edited by Mishra, L.C. CRC Press: ISBN 084931366X. Mitra & Rangesh can be found in chapter 20 of the book Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies edited by Mishra, L.C. 72. CRC Press: ISBN 084931366X.

• Mungantiwar is chapter 5 in the book Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies edited by Mishra, L.C. 72. CRC Press: ISBN 084931366X.

Since the book itself is a compilation of studies done variously I cite directly from different chapters, covering different studies, each authored by different scholars. In other words, I have already cited directly from the specific study within the main compilation.

Thanks and regards, JSR (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are fourfold;

• It's all very poorly written. You have to read everything three times to work out what it's actually trying to say.
• The contributing editors don't seem to appreciate the difference between Dux' claims and verifiable facts. Removing a claim is not the same as saying it's not true.
• Nor do they understand the limitations of primary sources and the need for a neutral voice.
• everything is coated in a thick impenetrable layer of publicity copy.

But since there are some facts and valid points in there, somewhere, and I believe they have the right intentions, I'm reluctant to mass revert everything. It just makes for a tedious job sorting out the horrible mess it's become.

I had the page semi-protected indefinitely. That should cut down on the number of meatpuppets. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in fact the most poorly written article on Wikipedia. He needs to be described as a true martial artist, not just an actor and author and all that b.s. I am a student of his and would like to see what I know to be true posted on this page. He is a martial artist and needs to be recognized as such. Like I've said before, do you need him to show up and give you a demonstration on his abilities before he's recognized??? Avianraptor (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were not a problem. I made a mistake. A huge section with a ton of useful references was deleted six edits ago, and I had to painstakingly rewrite it by copying and pasting etc. I didn't mean to revert.Likebox (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Djma12, thanks very much for being a third party to help at Radiation hormesis. PDBailey (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was necessary to break the logjam. I couldn't figure out what PDBailey's wanted. It seemed to me he wanted to make Hormesis seem like a fringe theory, which it isn't, rather than a minority opinion, which it is. As I understand it now--- he just wanted a simple disclaimer on the studies that support hormesis to warn about possible publication bias.Likebox (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I'll continue to see if I can mediate in a productive fashion. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That was my intepretation of Undue Weight too. But then, why would PDBailey keep flagging the section as POV violating? Can you remove the tag?Likebox (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the third set of eyes at Radiation Hormesis. I can't say I appreciate the (incorrect) imputation of my motives/conclusions, but I do appreciate knowing how I come off and will try to take that into account.

But I write this because I think our central disagreement has not been mediated. My claim is that text from the National Research Council, the NCRP, UNSCEAR and the French Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Medicine define the majority view. Likebox's claim is that the primary literature (regardless of journal quality [1]) is central. Any further comment on this would be appreciated. PDBailey (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, BOTH of you are correct, and I think this is the crux of your disagreement. Likebox is correct that hormesis is actually not a minority view in respect to in vivo studies, and you are correct in stating that the NRC represents the consensus view in terms of clinical application. This is why I changed up the lead, but would also like to see the in vivo studies included. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you were getting confused as to who was who. I am looking at this edit and in these edits did you intend to direct those at me? PDBailey (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know who is who... I kinda lost track of the conversation in terms of speaker. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Addbot (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maen. K. A. (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the unusual (for me) step of reverting your revision. You no doubt in good faith changed my "this is a Christian polemic" revision, but that leaves a poem which undoubtedly is a Christian polemic (it concludes such worshipping of stones there was/until the coming of good Patrick of Macha (see Crom Cruach) cited as if it were an impartial source, which it isn't. Paul S (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps polemic was an unwise choice of words on my part: I meant it in the very narrow sense of an opposing theologian, but you are right, the more usual sense is of a confrontational piece of writing. I'll substitute tract...? Paul S (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hoping for a reasonable discussion in the Frank Dux article. I really am. But I'm starting to lose hope. As a side note, do you feel I've been biased, non-neutral or overly aggressive on that talk page? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found your comments to be appropriate and neutral. I wouldn't take the criticism of SPAs too seriously. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not the SPA's that are making the complaint. Another editor from another discussion is using the Dux article as an example of what he calls my "bias" and "overly aggressive" editing in a Wikiquette complaint here: [2]. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't soliciting your input at the WQA, but I do appreciate it anyway. This latest incarnation of the Dux friendly editor is at least acting civil at this point, so I'll engage him on that basis. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He just posted a proported copy of Dux DD-214.....and it doesn't support Dux claims at all. I deconstructed it in on the talk page in detail. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with depleted uranium. I noticed that http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/ doesn't say, "that no evidence for an increased risk for cancer has been seen as a result of exposure to depleted uranium," it says something quite different; specifically, "In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer." There is no other mention of cancer on that WHO page.

Please note that does not consider the possibility of carcenogenic chemical properties apart from radioactivity. I don't know if there's an easy way to explain all that in the intro. Maybe it could be explained in the body and summarized in the intro. 76.254.66.122 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent criticisms. I have posted my response on the article's discussion page. Best regards, Djma12 ^(talk) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; it sure feels good to be appreciated. I hope you have time to look at Gulf War syndrome and its talk page. That article was recently re-written over the past month or two, and a lot of material based on peer reviewed sources was removed when it was halved in size. There is a discussion related to DU going on at its talk page, and although it's already had the benefit of one M.D. since the re-write, I'm not sure he did much more than add blank sections and expansion templates. I'm sure the community would both appreciate and benefit from the editorial guidance of another M.D. who has already taken the time to look into these issues. 99.60.1.71 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God Proof is available for free download at the link, and it is the only book devoted to Gödel's ontological proof. A on-line bibliography on ontological proofs [3], calls it "useful as a non-technical, but reliable, introduction to Gödel's argument". Perhaps you'll agree this makes it the kind of resource someone looking at the Wikipedia article might want to try next.

I am the book's author and I will not claim to be unbiased in the matter. But after my discovery of the long missing Morgenstern document on Gödel's citizenship hearing, I am treated as a minor expert on him. Wikipedia has many links to books which are not available for free download, and I hope on rethinking you'll believe this is a useful enough link to deserve to be restored. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 seek the improvisation of this article (along with the related ones) and would like a healthy discussion to be re-initiated in order to improve the article. I would be glad if you show your experienced intervention/involvement. Diptanshu^Talk 14:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellow editor, You are invited to join the WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of electrical engineering. If you'd like to join, add also your name to the member list. Thanks for reading! SchreyP (messages) 18:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 13:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!