User talk:Tom Kelly: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Bio- logical warfare, -logical weapons, -terrorism: new section) |
imported>Chris Day (→subgroups: new section) |
||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
:The whole area deserves an article(s); I happen to think it is useful to have a [[biological warfare]] article that deals with the policies, military doctrines, etc., as it was viewed by nation-states, another article on [[biological weapon]]s, and a third on [[bioterrorism]]. Putting the issue of resources aside, there are quite a few differences in how a nation-state and a terrorist group would use biological weapons. I might be able to put some time on this next week; the next few days are going to be moving boxes, occasionally giving a presentation, and aching a lot.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:08, 1 June 2008 (CDT) | :The whole area deserves an article(s); I happen to think it is useful to have a [[biological warfare]] article that deals with the policies, military doctrines, etc., as it was viewed by nation-states, another article on [[biological weapon]]s, and a third on [[bioterrorism]]. Putting the issue of resources aside, there are quite a few differences in how a nation-state and a terrorist group would use biological weapons. I might be able to put some time on this next week; the next few days are going to be moving boxes, occasionally giving a presentation, and aching a lot.[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:08, 1 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
== subgroups == | |||
Thanks for the enthusiastic response to the subgroup concept. I wonder what you think about the editor author designation with respect to subgroups. Take biocheom. Editors could be in Chemistry or Biology Workgroups. Obviously there will be some articles in the biochem subgroup that are more biological than chemical and thus are likely to be in the biology workgroup only, Thus chemist editors will not be able to act as editors for all articles tracked by the biochemistry sub group. This also goes for biology editors with the opposite scenario. For any interdisciplinary subgroup this will always be true. For this reason, I am wondering whether is is best not to worry about whether members of the subgroup are editors or authors. Should we just have members and leave it at that? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 23:13, 28 September 2008 (CDT) |
Revision as of 22:13, 28 September 2008
Messages
Please leave your messages below. Tom Kelly 19:18, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
Welcome back! Good to see your name show up blue and not red! I missed your enthusiasm. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:30, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
- Welcome again! Congrats! You made it through your med school year! Stephen Ewen 22:20, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
Literature /Draft
Tom, I've left a comment for you at Talk:Literature/Draft. Regards, Russell Potter 09:51, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
Thanks
for your contribution in the schizophrenia talk page. Richard Pettitt and I investigated on the topic of self medication. You will find a tentative summary of the research in the treament section.
And, also, PLEEEASE, if you have anything that could help me to investigate on this WHO study you mentioned ("I believe a WHO study showed that people who had less access to antipsychic meds had a higher quality of life than those who could afford the meds." Talk:Schizophrenia#WHO_study), tell me. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 13:25, 28 January 2008 (CST)
- Oh, there we are. This lack of trust i have about Wikipedia. I wonder where it's coming from. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 13:31, 28 January 2008 (CST)
- I did not get this data from wikipedia - I got it from lecture from an M.D. specialist in schizophrenia. I don't remember if he MD/PhD neurobiologist or MD psychiatrist since I've had multiple lectures on the subject so far. Anyway, keep digging and I'm sure you can find a better source than wikipedia since there is still doubt. Sorry I don't have more time to help. I'm drinking from a fire hydrant. Tom Kelly 14:18, 28 January 2008 (CST)
- Oh, no, I wasn't implying that you had found that on WP. I was just noting that WP can provide useful references; I'm beginning my study of the references I found, on the talk page. Thanks for your response; I hope you get some free time, for yourself and perhaps CZ. Cheers, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 14:46, 28 January 2008 (CST)
- I did not get this data from wikipedia - I got it from lecture from an M.D. specialist in schizophrenia. I don't remember if he MD/PhD neurobiologist or MD psychiatrist since I've had multiple lectures on the subject so far. Anyway, keep digging and I'm sure you can find a better source than wikipedia since there is still doubt. Sorry I don't have more time to help. I'm drinking from a fire hydrant. Tom Kelly 14:18, 28 January 2008 (CST)
Thanks for your help on the Economics Forum. Nick Gardner 03:30, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
English spellings
Thanks for your enthusiasm. You're welcome to edit. I'm writing to ask you if you see any American stuff missing to let me know, OK? (Or put it in...) Ro Thorpe 20:40, 24 March 2008 (CDT)
Pathogen vs. disease
While they aren't yet complete, you can see my test cases at User:Howard C. Berkowitz/Q fever and User:Howard C. Berkowitz/Coxiella burnetii. Comments are welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:34, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
Definitions
Hey Derek, I see that you are really involved with the Definitions project. When did the definition project begin and how is it going to be useful in the future? Tom Kelly 20:23, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
Retrieved from "http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Derek_Hodges"
Well, here's a cut and paste from the Citizendium general announcement project list:
Why have definitions at all, you ask? Since Chris Day has added a definitions tab (but note, we've had definitions for a long time), many people have wondered. In short, it's because we use (and reuse!) these definitions on our "Related Articles" pages, which double as glossaries. For background, see:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Definitions http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Related_Articles
For an example of a glossary in use, see:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Glasgow/Related_Articles
--Larry
_______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list Citizendium-l@lists.purdue.edu https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l -Derek Hodges 20:32, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
Bio- logical warfare, -logical weapons, -terrorism
- (copied on my page as well)There are also some good articles on Medscape, as well, of course, as a huge military as well as medical area. Before the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, I was the only person at Bunker-Ramo Defense Systems who knew anything about microbiology or toxicity, so I used to be the staff person monitoring it. In recent years, I did some designs of WMD detection labs as part of proposals for mobile disaster hospitals.
- The whole area deserves an article(s); I happen to think it is useful to have a biological warfare article that deals with the policies, military doctrines, etc., as it was viewed by nation-states, another article on biological weapons, and a third on bioterrorism. Putting the issue of resources aside, there are quite a few differences in how a nation-state and a terrorist group would use biological weapons. I might be able to put some time on this next week; the next few days are going to be moving boxes, occasionally giving a presentation, and aching a lot.Howard C. Berkowitz 23:08, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
subgroups
Thanks for the enthusiastic response to the subgroup concept. I wonder what you think about the editor author designation with respect to subgroups. Take biocheom. Editors could be in Chemistry or Biology Workgroups. Obviously there will be some articles in the biochem subgroup that are more biological than chemical and thus are likely to be in the biology workgroup only, Thus chemist editors will not be able to act as editors for all articles tracked by the biochemistry sub group. This also goes for biology editors with the opposite scenario. For any interdisciplinary subgroup this will always be true. For this reason, I am wondering whether is is best not to worry about whether members of the subgroup are editors or authors. Should we just have members and leave it at that? Chris Day 23:13, 28 September 2008 (CDT)