User talk:Tdvorak

Radiation Oncology wikibook
Great work on the Rad Onc book so far. It was a good idea to split up the prostate chapter. It was getting pretty big, and I knew it would have to be split up into different pages soon enough, so thanks for going ahead and doing that.

Why don't you go ahead ad add yourself to the authors' page (Radiation_Oncology:Authors) and take credit for all the work you did.

Brim 06:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page names
I was wondering why you were changing the page names to have directory-style levels, such as changing Radiation Oncology:Brain mets to Radiation Oncology/Palliation/Brain Metastases? To me it seems more cumbersome to have these longer names. Is there some advantage to doing this that I'm not aware of? &mdash; Brim 21:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It probably wasn't necessary with the brain mets. But for prostate, all the subchapters would have to then be on the pain Radiation_Oncology page (like Breast is now), which would potentially make the main page really really long. The other problem seemed to be that I didn't see an easy way to link to part of the page (sort of like # does in HTML). So when I wanted to reference back to "palliation" from the RTOG studies, it would just load up the main Rad Onc page. It seemed to me that using directory structures allows to have a page dedicated to a particular topic. I guess with wiki you can keep all topics on the top level, including the "parent" pages and just crosslink. But then you lose the auto-navigation on top that wiki provides. And I guess the last part is just habit, I find it easy to keep track of things like this. Your preference would be to keep it a flat structure? Tdvorak 12:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that I have thought about it, there probably isn't much difference in how you set it up. So maybe the shorter path names are easier. I will have to play around with it some more. But for now, I guess I will leave prostate hierarchical and see how it works on the other topics you have already set up. Tdvorak 13:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main reason I was asking is because I had set-up the wiki using : but saw that you were switching to / and wanted to keep things consistent. I now see how the path names create the auto-navigation links. I wasn't aware of that before when I first created this wiki, which is why I used the : delimiter instead of the /. I prefer to use templates (like the Radiation Oncology:TOC template) for navigation since it's more flexible and customizable. I like having the ability to link to the RTOG trials page from any page within the book since it makes it easy to keep the RTOG trials up to date.

For large topics like prostate, I think the path names make sense since there will be many subpages within the topic. For brain mets (as an example) I think it makes more sense for the page name to be Radiation_Oncology/Brain_mets rather than Radiation_Oncology/Palliation/Brain_mets since brain mets is really the main topic rather than being a subtopic of palliation. &mdash; Brim 18:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bile duct
Awesome job!! Brim 17:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Since I was doing a lit review anyway for my paper, and since it's such a rare topic, figured I might as well make it all-inclusive :) Tdvorak 14:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Optin
I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms

That's a lot of edits
Thanks for adding the edit count tally to the Author List. It's pretty interesting to look at it that way. Thanks for all the outstanding work you've done on the project.

If you're a believer in "edit velocity" (akin to PSA velocity), consider that it took me two years for my 2585 edits, but you did your 1443 edits in roughly half that time (and were on hiatus for roughly 6 months of that period). In short, great job! Brim 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Contact
Hey T, looks like you are still busy working away at the wiki. I'm not sure how to get ahold of you, but wanted to email you. Send me your email address using wiki if you don't mind. Hope to hear from you,

Shogun (rodney)

Details about your book
Hello Tdvorak! I was wondering if you could give me some details about the Radiation Oncology book that you are working on? I know that the book is relatively old, and I also know that it is impressively big and well-structured. Are you the only major contributor, or are there more? Is this book affiliated with any kinds of groups or classes? Is there any specific help that the book needs, at least from non-experts? (formatting or editing help, for instance).

This is an impressive book, and one that I think deserves some additional attention, both inside this project and elsewhere. If you need anything at all, please let me know. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Whiteknight. Thanks for the feedback & encouragement! The Radiation Oncology book is a project that several of us (2 main authors, and couple semi-frequent contributors; also see Author List) are working on. It is not affiliated with any classes. It is meant as a quick (and eventually comprehensive) reference source for radiation oncologists, who are physicians treating cancer patients with radiotherapy. There are a number of different cancers, and they are each treated differently. This book is meant to provide a handy online reference with links to the published studies. Each PubMed link (PMID) takes one directly to the abstract of that given study, and from there it is possible to get to the actual paper. The beauty of course is that it can be as detailed as we want (and have energy!) and current (unlike print textbooks, which are immediately out of date in our specialty).


 * Thank you for your offer to help. I think we are mostly fine on formatting; we have slowly settled down on a formatting style that seems to work. There is not yet a lot of prose to edit per se, since thus far most of the content is summaries of the individual studies and clinical trials. But any help is of course appreciated, both in terms of grammar and in terms of spelling.


 * As for getting it attention elsewhere, I leave that in your hands :) We have thus far not made any active effort to disseminate its existence to our specialty, but there certainly are a number of radiation oncologists who found it via Google. We are in the process of writing a manuscript about its creation, structure, and ultimate goals.


 * Tdvorak 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Images in Radiation Oncology
G'day, I see that you've been active in this book recently. There is a large quantity of images in this book that have been uploaded early in the project when image licensing wasn't given a priority, but are now in jeopardy of being deleted because they don't specify copyright information. A discussion has been started about these images on the Administrators' noticeboard (near the bottom), and your input could be useful. cheers, Webaware talk 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work so far on the graphics! Brim 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! They really liven up the page, don't they :) Of course, I am putting up just about any ole' crappy image I come across for now (like PCNSL), but hopefully they will get better over time. Also, I really ought to size them more-or-less the same Tdvorak 01:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Vantage Oncology
http://www.vantageoncology.com at Radiation Oncology/Corporate - This looks like advertising/spamming to me. I looked at the site and don't see any valuable resources. I meant to delete it from Talk:Radiation Oncology but Wikibooks was undergoing maintenance so I couldn't. Do you see any value to this site that I may have missed? Brim 14:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was meant as advertising. But I figured that we could set up a "corporate" page and have links to the major equipment manufacturers, planning system vendors, etc. This could also include links to the various academic departments, free-standing facilities, and places like Vantage. This was more in the spirit of providing a comprehensive radonc resource; I don't have a strong feeling about them in particular. So for now I have moved them here from the Talk page and will expand the page as I have time Tdvorak 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair enough. Brim 19:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Google Analytics
Installing the script is the only step you need to take, really. When the script is in your profile, every page hit you make is recorded by google and aggregated into a daily report that I can access using my google account. I am developing a bot to upload the results to a page in my user space. The records will appear there. Since the results are aggregated daily, your page hits will likely not be reflected in the list until tomorrow. I'll let you know asap. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Do I put myself in the script (which is what I have done - import_script('User:Tdvorak/google.js');) or do I leave your username, since it's your bot that's tracking this?Tdvorak 15:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to leave my username in there. I'll fix it for you. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WB:RIGHTS
I wonder if you'd like to help out with project maintenance. If you're interested, I'd like to nominate you for patroller rights. Feel free to ask me if you want more info. Thanks. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 01:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please participate
Hope you wouldn't mind participating on the "vote" to restore the CheckUser (CU) function (mostly used to fight vandalism) to the Wikibooks project, a minimum of 25 expressions of support is required to grant the flag to administrator Thenub314 (this will also enable admin Adrignola to get the function active again, since there is a minimum requirement of 2 active Wikibookians with the flag). In case you do agree to participate, your vote needs to be added to administrator Thenub314 request for permission. Thanks. --Panic (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You mention that the function is to be "restored". I am not familiar with the history of this tool on wikibooks; why was it removed in the first place? Thanks. Tdvorak (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Former CheckUser Mike.lifeguard relinquished the use of the tools, thus bringing Wikibooks below the 2 CU minimum. – Adrignola talk 14:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Tdvorak! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)