Ozzie10aaaa (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
Please see [[Talk:Nicotine#@WikiProject Medicine|this thread]]. Thanks. {{P|1}} [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 06:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
Please see [[Talk:Nicotine#@WikiProject Medicine|this thread]]. Thanks. {{P|1}} [[User:Seppi333|'''<span style="color:#32CD32;">Seppi</span>''<span style="color:Black;">333</span>''''']] ([[User Talk:Seppi333|Insert '''2¢''']]) 06:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
== Request comments on MEDRS == |
|||
See [[Talk:Electric smoking system#Comments on MEDRS]]. [[User:QuackGuru|<b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b>]] ([[User talk:QuackGuru|<span style="color: #B02200;">talk</span>]]) 02:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:51, 31 January 2019
Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!
We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.
- Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
- Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
- Put new text under old text. .
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (
~~~~
). - Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
- Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list
List of archives | |
---|---|
|
The Global Burden of Disease is a massive database of diseases with epidemiological figures: Should it be on Wikipedia?
From the GDB website you can get an enormous set of data for diseases where you can get their prevalence, incidence, sex ratio, age distribution for almost all countries in the world. You can have a visualization tool to get the scale of the project: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/
And best of all, all these data are under the Open Data Commons Attribution License (http://www.healthdata.org/about/terms-and-conditions).
In fact, most of these data are already inside Wikipedia, because links to this site are often found in the "epidemiology" section for a great number of disease pages on Wikipedia. But I'm asking myself about a more complete use of these data. What about a massive table with all the prevalence for each country for example, with sex ratio? or one about incidence?
Thanks for your opinon about this! Linuxo (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm rather dubious about simply replicating an outside source, if it provides the information in a way that is easy to find. Many pitfalls there. Better to have links on our articles, and some smaller tables at places. There are also many notorious problems about interpreting such international data. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- good points! The thing is it's not so "easy to find" on GDB. I've found this site by chance for example (Google robots are at lost: try "Appendicitis prevalence" and you never will get this site) and in addition, there's no API to SPARQL to it. It would be so great if there was some "Wikidabase" where to put all this massive amount of data. Wikidata extracts data from wikipedia but doesn't store itself that's why I was thinking about storing it in wikipedia pages.Linuxo (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
They are not using an open license "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License" User:Linuxo
The license issues would need to be figured out first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's an Open Database License. We can't use it? Linuxo (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is not clear. It says "by non-commercial users via the Open Data Commons Attribution License."
- No one knows what "non-commercial" means and therefore the community has decided not to allow it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- As a rough guide to whether we can use something on Wikipedia, "If I reprinted this entire work myself and sold in on Amazon, crediting it to the author but keeping all the money for myself, would they complain?" is the thought experiment you need to be performing. ‑ Iridescent 15:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- If you wanted to copy the database, or to come up with an automated way to extract specific bits of information from it for use, citing the GDB as the source, then you probably need to be talking to Wikidata. (Why, oh, why don't they have a well-documented API?)
- But I don't think that databases belong here in Wikipedia. We want sentences like "n people develop appendicitis each year" (followed by a citation). We don't want raw data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- The Open Database License does not impose a non-commercial condition. It's an BY-SA sort of license. The Global Burden of Disease database licensing as described does not make sense. I could use graphs derived from this data in multiple articles, and if they were linked to the data, they would be much easier to update. HLHJ (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Linuxo: I like the data and want it in Wikipedia. It would take a series of activities over time to make this happen.
- Data like this starts in Wikidata, not here in English Wikipedia. The Wikidata community has expertise in accepting, curating, and reusing data, including making it available for presentation here in English Wikipedia. For your project to go forward first share ~5 datapoints here in English Wikipedia, then upload a test dataset into Wikidata, then seek community conversation with all these example cases. There is no replacement for a live example in conversation.
- The Open Data Commons license from Open Knowledge International is incompatible with Wikidata for not being open enough. License incompatibility typically halts projects until and unless you can persuade the rights holder to release the content under a more open license. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Nicotine eyes again
May I request some eyes on Talk:Electric smoking device (and suggestions for what on earth we should call the things)? There are currently four RfCs and 1.5 move requests there. Perhaps more importantly, I'd welcome views on Talk:Nicotine#Lede edits, where the inclusion of lede information on the health effects of nicotine on users is being discussed. HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- relatedWikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Proposed merge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
There're a lot of issues with the current nicotine article.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Nicotine could use your help!
Or rather, I could use it. After deleting a ton of content from Nicotine#Adverse effects and Nicotine#Overdose, I now need to add a lot of content from the sources listed in the maintenance templates in those sections and the drug monographs listed in this talk page section. If you feel comfortable with editing/writing about these topics in drug articles, I would really appreciate some assistance, because this is going to require a lot of work.
The current revision contains no coverage of acute adverse effects and overdose symptoms. I don't really care where or how any new content on these topics is covered at the moment; I really could just use some help generating the content. I can fix any issues with formatting, wording, and text placement later. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Has Cochrane lost its way?
- Newman, Melanie (2019). "Has Cochrane lost its way?". BMJ: k5302. doi:10.1136/bmj.k5302. ISSN 0959-8138.
Interesting piece. I was struck by one ex-board member's criticism that Cochrane SRs are "largely synthesised information from industry sponsored studies". Not sure what (if any) implications these ructions have for how we use Cochrane content as a source. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Shouldn't have any effect on our use of Cochrane reviews. One bad apple, who appears to be an antivaxxer, blah blah. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Studies on recently developed drugs are almost all "industry sponsored studies" in one way or another. In some fields, "synthesised...from industry sponsored studies" is synonymous with "using the only evidence that anyone actually has". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Shouldn't have any effect on our use of Cochrane reviews. One bad apple, who appears to be an antivaxxer, blah blah. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have met Peter Gøtzsche. He is a man of very deep principles and there is little doubt that he is morally outraged by what he sees as fraud in these studies. However, this has led him to form a point of view on the actual scientific question that is well out of line with mainstream thought (it's a lot closer when he is talking about psychotropic drugs, by the way, where he is also courageously outspoken). Gøtzsche is given to... robust statements of his opinion. His statements on psychiatric drug trials and the effects of these drugs on patients speak of anger and disgust, which are not the usual currencies of scientific discourse. I can see why a body that guards a reputation for measured and dispassionate analysis would be likely to fall out with Gøtzsche. I do not think this will be a big deal for them in the long term, but then, I thought Trump would lose in 2016 and Britain would vote Remain. Sometimes obvious stupidity happens anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is a response[1] in the current BMJ by Cochrane's Editor in Chief and Deputy Editor in Chief, which sets out their response to the initial allegations. The summary is one page, and the full response is 27 pages! I agee with previous contributors: in 5 years we will probably look back at this as a 'storm in a teacup'; Cochrane sets out, and works to, pretty rigorous and open standards; Peter Gøtzsche is indeed impressive on a personal level, and is not afraid to speak truth to power, sometimes more passionately than most, and we can all be wrong about some things (I am not judging this particular statement, but making a general observation)! Kitb (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- In many situations the only RCTs are industry funded. When one does a review one needs to use what is avaliable.
- The world very much needs more independently conducted trials without industry involvement. But that is not a problem either we or Cochrane are going to fix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, and although I am absolutely no apologist for the pharma industry, it's interesting that the top 21 of organisations publishing completed trials registered on Clinicaltrials.gov[2], are all pharma. Out of the next 10, only 2 are not - VA at 22 and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at 33. The highest academic institute was Johns Hopkins, at #37, with nearly 25% of registered trials unpublished.[3] The highest UK institute was London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, at #67, with one third of their registered studies unpublished[4], whereas Oxford, at #157, has just over 50% of their registered trials unpublished![5]. By comparison, only 2 out of the bottom 24 were pharma companies. Kitb (talk)
References
- ^ "Cochrane's Editor in Chief responds to BMJ EBM article criticizing HPV review". www.cochrane.org.
- ^ "Home - ClinicalTrials.gov". clinicaltrials.gov.
- ^ "Who's not sharing their clinical trial results?". trialstracker.ebmdatalab.net. Retrieved 21 January 2019.
- ^ "Who's not sharing their clinical trial results?". trialstracker.ebmdatalab.net. Retrieved 21 January 2019.
- ^ "Who's not sharing their clinical trial results?". trialstracker.ebmdatalab.net. Retrieved 21 January 2019.
RfC on moving MMR vaccine controversy article
The word "controversy" in the title is problematic for a number of reasons, it seems plausible that a better title could be found. Please weigh in with suggestions. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Marketing of electronic cigarettes
See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes#Issues have not been resolved for discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Conflict improves articles
I'd like to post an interesting article about Wikipedia interactions (preprint):
Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James (29 November 2017). "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". arXiv:1712.06414 [cs, stat].
In summary, it says that conflict is adversive, but it makes article content better. I hope some of you will find this cheering. The authors welcome feedback. HLHJ (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- thanks for posting its interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to pester James for his reply, so I'm going here to ask for opinions. Thoughts? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Orangelioncat and penile articles
Orangelioncat (talk · contribs) is a new account. Some here might want to review Orangelioncat's edits to articles like Venous leak and Erectile dysfunction. Looking at images and sources he's used, there appears to be a WP:Conflict of interest aspect to the editing. Since Orangelioncat is also editing anatomy articles about the penis, I'll drop WP:Anatomy a line about this as well. I've already welcomed Orangelioncat with a WP:Med template. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Penile Reconstructive Surgery was moved to draft space(thanks Brtishfinance)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I've looked at Draft:Penile Reconstructive Surgery.
- I noted on my talk page that, as we know, newer research can conflict with older research. It can also be incorrect. So this is where WP:Due weight comes in. In cases where the anatomical research is in conflict or is inconsistent, we report both or all sides...unless the other side or one of the sides is too much of a minority view to mention. For example, we give different reports on the urogenital diaphragm in the Urogenital diaphragm article because the literature is not consistent on it. We mention the dispute regarding the limbic system in the Limbic system article. For penile articles, I am concerned that Orangelioncat will prioritize Geng Long Hsu's and his colleagues' work over what the literature generally states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Antisperm antibodies, template of neutrality and weight
I propose to remove the template of neutrality and weight. The prevalence in populations is proved by sources, and additional data:
- "Immunological infertility is assumed to be the cause of infertility in 9-36% of the concerned couples. ASA were present in sera of 30% women with unexplained infertility. In this study ASA have been identified in 10-15% of men experiencing infertility and 15-20% of women with unexplained infertility. The frequency of ASA in fertile population of women and men is <2%. In infertile men and women ASA are present in 5-25% of individuals." [1]
- Data on the frequency of ASA in infertile men have shown high variability (from 7% to 44%), depending on the method applied [2]
- "The incidence of ASA in infertile couples is 9–55%, depending on the reporting center. Antisperm antibodies have been described in 8–21% of the infertile men (autoantibodies) and in 6–43% of infertile women (isoantibodies). [3]
The source used in the article (2017) has more weighted and relevant information. 10–30% of infertile couples, and in males, about 12–13% (20,4% in meta-analysis[5]) --Путеец (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- WP:POV templates can be removed whenever the dispute has stopped (e.g., no discussion about it on the talk page for a couple of months). You just re-started the talk-page discussions, so now you either have to figure out if people agree with you now, or wait until everyone gets bored and stops talking about it for a month or two again and boldly remove them without re-igniting the dispute first. (Of course, in the second case, there's a chance that someone will revert you, and then you're back to the 'find consensus' part.)
- On the subject matter, I glanced at the article, and I wonder whether there might not be an important gap between "our test found some antibodies" and "these antibodies produce a clinically meaningful effect for this couple". Antibody detection tests are not always as specific as one might hope, and developing immunological tolerance to a long-term partner's sperm is a known thing (check the literature on Japan, where the local choice of condoms as the primary form of birth control interferes with this process). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- 1)WP: POV templates have already been deleted. The script canceled the edit. Active editor who put the templates for a long time does not work. Is it possible to repeat the deletion? 2) We discuss only the statistical results described in the sources. A source has been suggested that refers to very old data. I proposed several new ones that confirm the article’s content. --Путеец (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- That reversion was by @CASSIOPEIA:, whom I'm sure would be happy to explain how removing a year-old pair of maintenance templates got categorized as "unexplained content removal". ("Misclick" is my first guess, since maintenance templates aren't content by any stretch of the imagination.)
- The rules for removing those templates are pretty clear (although Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Hi, at WP:Huggle there is no "removing of maintenance templates" but "AFD/deleted whole page/CSD/removing content", for such I chose removing of content as sub for the edit. (the summary edit and warning template on editor page are automated text from Hunggle once the edit is perfromed). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @CASSIOPEIA: Why did you revert it at all? Those templates are supposed to be present only while a dispute is being actively discussed by editors. They're not supposed to linger merely because someone disagreed with the article at some point in the past. Did you check to see whether there was such a dispute going on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: The revert as no reason (edit summary) was given for the removal - see [4]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @CASSIOPEIA: I don't think you understood my question. Okay, you reverted it because he removed it. Why did you think that anyone needed to restore stale tags about an already-solved dispute? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, I restored because it did not state why the info was deleted.I am not an involved editor of the page. We at Hunggle (vandalism/ disruptive/deletions/etc) fighters, do not usually look in dept of (to investigate and read all the talk page messages) in details of such edit as editor should indicate the nature of the edits they performed in edit summary as there are thousands of such edits daily in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no rule that actually requires editors to use an edit summary; this is a perennially rejected proposal. There is especially no rule that requires an editor use an edit summary that will make sense to someone who would rather quickly revert edits than take the time to figure out whether the edit was appropriate.
- Huggle's rules say that you will take responsibility for the edits you make with it. That means that when you screw up – say, by reverting a valid edit on the flimsy grounds that it was too hard for you to figure out whether it was appropriate, so you decided to assume that it was vandalism – then you don't claim that it's the other guy's fault for not pre-explaining, for your convenience, in your preferred location, that this was actually a good edit.
- I'm also concerned to see that you are claiming that your use of a misleading edit summary isn't your fault. I'm sure that it's true that Huggle doesn't provide you with a single-click alternative that matched the actual situation, but under Huggle's rules, that means that you have to stop using Huggle for that edit and use a regular editing system. Note, too, that you're making this argument in favor of your poor edit summary in the context of you deciding to revert an edit because you disapproved of it not having a useful edit summary attached to it. You can't seriously expect us to believe that your factually inaccurate edit summary is supposed to be okay, but his missing one is grounds for reversion. Should someone with Huggle now go revert yours, on the grounds that the canned edit summary is wrong?
- Usually, "taking responsibility" is enacted quickly, by saying something like "Oops, sorry" and self-reverting. I wonder whether it would ultimately be more useful to have you write a section at WP:CVUA on the importance of never using a misleading edit summary just because some scripts make clicking on a half-wrong canned edit summary easier than providing an accurate one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Wikipedia dont really operate under rules but guidelines. The revert is not based on vandalism but deletion without explanation/reason. An automatic message has been sent to the editor on info editor to provide edit info or if I have make any mistake, the editor would info/discuss with me. - see here [5]. If you think the tag should be removed, then do it and place a edit summary on the edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please show me the guideline that says "deletion without explanation" (you mean blanking, not deletion, and remember that we're talking about maintenance tags, not article content) is grounds for reversion. I think that after editing for more than a dozen years and all the work I've done on policies and guidelines (including writing a large portion of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines itself), I'm tolerably familiar with our ruleset, and I do not remember any rule in any page that says to revert the removal of maintenance tags unless there is an edit summary. I do, however, know that there is a rule on all of the POV-related maintenance tags that says you shouldn't restore them unless there is an active dispute underway (yet another part of our extended ruleset that I helped write years ago, by the way). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I revert on the ground as no edit summary stated (as a way to communicate with other editors so such like now the issues of so many message here would be avoided) as I did not know if the maintenance tags issues has yet to resolve. A message had sent to the editor and if the editor disagree, they would always restore the tag and stage the reason - that is all. My intention had no ill reason. Apologizes if I cause any inconvenience instead of helping Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 22:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- When you ("we", really, because this is true for all of us) are uncertain whether an edit is good, then you should not revert it. Leaving a message is really irrelevant.
- If Huggle doesn't have a clear method for skipping edits that you're uncertain about, then let's request one. It turns out that I know one of the devs, and perhaps it's a design question that would interest User:TutterMouse, so we'd have a reasonable chance of getting that on their list for future improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Hunggle does have the option to skip edits.cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Now I'm mystified by your response again. You've said here that you reverted because you "did not know" whether it was a good edit. You also indicate that you understand that editors can't just go around reverting possibly appropriate edits on the chance that something that looks possible might happen to be a bad edit. So:
- ...if it's easy for Huggle users to skip edits that they're uncertain about, and
- ...if you know that Huggle users are only supposed to revert edits that they're reasonably certain are actually bad (not merely unexplained or an edit that the Huggle user doesn't understand),
- ...then why did it seem easier or better to revert that edit, instead of just skipping it?
- I am worrying about how much good content will we lose, if even a few RecentChanges patrollers think that they're supposed to take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to edits. Some systems really reward people for exercising veto power: the one who dies with the most reverts wins, and who cares whether those reverts were appropriate. Reversions don't build the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Now I'm mystified by your response again. You've said here that you reverted because you "did not know" whether it was a good edit. You also indicate that you understand that editors can't just go around reverting possibly appropriate edits on the chance that something that looks possible might happen to be a bad edit. So:
- @WhatamIdoing: Hunggle does have the option to skip edits.cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I revert on the ground as no edit summary stated (as a way to communicate with other editors so such like now the issues of so many message here would be avoided) as I did not know if the maintenance tags issues has yet to resolve. A message had sent to the editor and if the editor disagree, they would always restore the tag and stage the reason - that is all. My intention had no ill reason. Apologizes if I cause any inconvenience instead of helping Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 22:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Please show me the guideline that says "deletion without explanation" (you mean blanking, not deletion, and remember that we're talking about maintenance tags, not article content) is grounds for reversion. I think that after editing for more than a dozen years and all the work I've done on policies and guidelines (including writing a large portion of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines itself), I'm tolerably familiar with our ruleset, and I do not remember any rule in any page that says to revert the removal of maintenance tags unless there is an edit summary. I do, however, know that there is a rule on all of the POV-related maintenance tags that says you shouldn't restore them unless there is an active dispute underway (yet another part of our extended ruleset that I helped write years ago, by the way). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Wikipedia dont really operate under rules but guidelines. The revert is not based on vandalism but deletion without explanation/reason. An automatic message has been sent to the editor on info editor to provide edit info or if I have make any mistake, the editor would info/discuss with me. - see here [5]. If you think the tag should be removed, then do it and place a edit summary on the edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, I restored because it did not state why the info was deleted.I am not an involved editor of the page. We at Hunggle (vandalism/ disruptive/deletions/etc) fighters, do not usually look in dept of (to investigate and read all the talk page messages) in details of such edit as editor should indicate the nature of the edits they performed in edit summary as there are thousands of such edits daily in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @CASSIOPEIA: I don't think you understood my question. Okay, you reverted it because he removed it. Why did you think that anyone needed to restore stale tags about an already-solved dispute? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: The revert as no reason (edit summary) was given for the removal - see [4]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- @CASSIOPEIA: Why did you revert it at all? Those templates are supposed to be present only while a dispute is being actively discussed by editors. They're not supposed to linger merely because someone disagreed with the article at some point in the past. Did you check to see whether there was such a dispute going on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- 1)WP: POV templates have already been deleted. The script canceled the edit. Active editor who put the templates for a long time does not work. Is it possible to repeat the deletion? 2) We discuss only the statistical results described in the sources. A source has been suggested that refers to very old data. I proposed several new ones that confirm the article’s content. --Путеец (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted the edit as there were no indication why it was removed. if the issues of the still remain and then removing the it might cause the issue remain and lack of editors to action in helping to improve the issue and if I have done a mistake (which a message had sent to the editor, they could always restore their edit and or send me a message on it). I did it in good well, yet cause so much unpleasantness of my mistake of my quick action of my service. Sadly. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I was approached by an administrator on my talk page for apparently copying licensed material in Alkhurma_virus#Epidemiology (the paragraph which describes Saudi Arabia's process to combatting the Alkhurma virus). This admin added an attribute statement, which I removed since I didn't copy word-from-word but rather I tried my best to put it into my own words. I asked the admin for her response/review, but no response was given. So, I'm going here to simply double check to make sure my section in this article is acceptable to WP guidelines and policies. I'd like to make it clear that I did my best to put it in my own words by changing the sentence structure and substituting a lot of words with synonyms.
Thanks for your time. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Diannaa is an absolute expert on copyright matters. If she says that you have a problem, then you may safely assume that you do.
- This kind of thing isn't easy for all of us, but one "trick" that might be helpful is starting with two or three sources, and combining them, rather than trying to re-arrange one. This makes it easier to get out of the mindset of the one source and avoid close paraphrasing problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I find it a bit disappointing that she didn't reply to my comment. I was hoping for more clarification to my paragraph, but alas, I won't bug her for a response. Thank you, also, for the tip, but what shall we do with the paragraph now? Should we leave it as it is? Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Atcovi, if Diannaa fixed it for you, then I'd leave it however she changed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I find it a bit disappointing that she didn't reply to my comment. I was hoping for more clarification to my paragraph, but alas, I won't bug her for a response. Thank you, also, for the tip, but what shall we do with the paragraph now? Should we leave it as it is? Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Orphan medical stubs
Hello friends, once again I'm looking for help with some medical stubs that are also orphans.
Can Myocytolysis be merged somewhere, perhaps to Myocardial infarction or Myocyte? Or should it remain its own article? Like a lot of the medical stubs I've found, it feels like the kind of thing that would work better as a paragraph in a larger article that can give it more context.
In a similar vein, Malleolar canal looks like a it could possibly be merged to Flexor retinaculum of foot or Malleolus.
As always, I'm happy to do the legwork, I just like to be pointed in the proper direction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Malleolar canal looks like it might be a synonym for tarsal tunnel.[6][7] Though I'd suggest waiting for a couple more (anatomically minded) opinions. Little pob (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've redirected malleolar canal to tarsal tunnel, but still need input on Myocytolysis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Eh, myocytolisis could probably be merged into cardiac myocyte, but I also think it's fine as is. Natureium (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've redirected malleolar canal to tarsal tunnel, but still need input on Myocytolysis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Ketogenic diet
Editors may be interested in a proposal that has been made to rename the article: Talk:Ketogenic diet#Requested move 22 January 2019. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a proposal involves a naming conflict between the traditional "ketogenic diet" (a treatment for refractory pediatric epilepsy) and the current "keto" fad diet, with the thought that renaming one or more articles might help readers find the page that they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- unfortunately all the votes are oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think we need some ideas about how to improve things, not just people voting to oppose the first suggestion. Please consider this RM to be a request for advice based upon your best editorial judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- seems like sound advice, thank you(BTW its now half a dozen oppose) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think we need some ideas about how to improve things, not just people voting to oppose the first suggestion. Please consider this RM to be a request for advice based upon your best editorial judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- unfortunately all the votes are oppose--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a proposal involves a naming conflict between the traditional "ketogenic diet" (a treatment for refractory pediatric epilepsy) and the current "keto" fad diet, with the thought that renaming one or more articles might help readers find the page that they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, I notice we have Cyclic ketogenic diet which seems a bit iffy - it appears the term is not used in the PUBMED-indexed corpus. Alexbrn (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Update to {{Retracted}}
Instead of using {{retracted|{{PMID|123456}}}}
, the new code is {{retracted|pmid=123456}}
. It also supports |bibcode=
, |doi=
, |pmid=
, and |pmc=
. Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Adding @Samwalton9: to this discussion as he is working on a retraction bot. JenOttawa (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
World Hearing Day is March 3rd
We have an edit-a-thon planned in collaboration with a bunch of folks. Please see HERE for further details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Relevant merge discussion, please join
Talk:Dental implant#Merger discussion Staszek Lem (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- commented[8]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Cardiac allograft vasculopathy
New article created on Cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Please feel free to add or amend...anyone. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Looks really good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks....the ISHLT nomencalture needs adding I think..but I don't know how to do it. The ISHLT devised a nomenclature to define the presence and severity of CAV, ISHLT CAV0 not significant, ISHLT CAV1 mild, ISHLT CAV2 moderate, ISHLT CAV3 severe.[9] Whispyhistory (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Looks really good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Surgical cable ties
Can we have some more eyes on the cable tie article please? I know that it is not nominally a medical article, but someone with a COI is trying to insert medical information. Discussion at Talk:Cable tie#Surgery and User talk:Odd Höglund (SLU)#Citing yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Basic situation: A company is making a version of cable ties out of the same materials as resorbable surgical sutures, so surgeons can ligate stuff more easily. An employee has proposed that this information be mentioned in the article as a use (no company name or anything like that), plus a sentence explaining why you can't use normal cable ties instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: SLU is the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, not a company. Carl Fredrik talk 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Plan S open-access initiative requesting feedback
The Plan S initiative aims to make academic articles open access as a condition of funding. It is requesting feedback about itself on these questions:
- Is there anything unclear or are there any issues that have not been addressed by the [Plan S] guidance document?
- Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs?
It seems to me as though people here may have useful answers. Feedback is open until the 8th of February.
The plan launched in September and has a large proportion of European research funders and a couple of US ones onside; if you are affiliated with a research funder, they might want to look into it. The best comment on Plan S I've heard so far comes from Elsevier (which doesn't really like the financial transparency provisions, for starters). An Elsevier spokesman said "If you think that information should be free of charge, go to Wikipedia" ("Als je vindt dat informatie gratis moet zijn: ga naar Wikipedia"). I'm not sure if he knew about the journals published here.
There is an attempt to develop a consensus statement, please contribute any thoughts of yours. HLHJ (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Stats are out. And a BIG congrats to User:Ozzie10aaaa for being the most prolific contributor of the year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- actually if I or anyone else contributes its because your the inspiration thank you Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Another list of links to DAB pages
I have collected yet more medicine-related links to DAB pages which need expert attention. As always, search for 'disam' in read mode and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.
- Cardiac plexus
- Encephalomyelitis (Two links to DAB pages, both through (disambiguation) qualifiers. That is perfectly acceptable, provided that every entry on the DAB page is intended; but it's best to mark such links as <!--intentional link to DAB page--> or the like. I've seen too many links like that which were blatant cop-outs by editors too lazy to find the useful link. Indeed, I only noticed one of those two links while preparing this post - they're almost impossible to spot.)
- Yi Zhang (biochemist) (Two links.) Done Done
- Mosquito bite allergy Done
- Insulin Done
- Acute lymphoblastic leukemia Done
- Veto cells Done
- Metabolic Score for Insulin Resistance Done
- Vasoconstriction Done
I had 30-odd pages bookmarked when I started to prepare this post; but only these remain. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Did some of these, but for others I think that we need new articles; TET is a family of DNA demethylases, for example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed one that was done, and regarding TET there is at least Tet methylcytosine dioxygenase 1 which is one of the enzymes in the TET family. --Treetear (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe Cardiac branches of the vagus nerve (linked in article Cardiac plexus) should be a set index article? No point in having such articles as disambiguation pages imo. --Treetear (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Factor I deficiency
I'm requesting a bit of help with Factor I Deficiency. Is this the best title for the article? Could the article be better integrated with (or at least linked from) the section Fibrinogen#Fibrinogen disorders? – Uanfala (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Doc James took care of articlke--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- To clarify, Doc James fixed the capitalisation of the title in the linked diff (Factor I Deficiency -> Factor I deficiency) but there still hasn't been any further discussion on the above comment by Uanfala anywhere from what I can see (e.g. title -> Fibrinogen deficiency, or merge content to Fibrinogen article). --Treetear (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- probably best as is...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- To clarify, Doc James fixed the capitalisation of the title in the linked diff (Factor I Deficiency -> Factor I deficiency) but there still hasn't been any further discussion on the above comment by Uanfala anywhere from what I can see (e.g. title -> Fibrinogen deficiency, or merge content to Fibrinogen article). --Treetear (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Aluminium poisoning
The redirect Aluminium poisoning, currently a redirect to Aluminium#Health concerns, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 29#Aluminium poisoning. Input there from editors with relevant subject knowledge would be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Just over from the cricket project. This chap played a few matches at first-class level for Cambridge Uni and MCC. It seems he was a renal surgeon, though I'm not sure how significant he was in his field. He died in 2017. Just leaving him here to see if anyone here might be able to find out more about his medical career. Thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Health claims in a fashion article
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going commando. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- [10] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Is the content of this article sufficiently supported by medical sources? Some of the claims and the references used to support them seem dubious to me. Also, is the company even notable? The page seems to have been speedy deleted for lack of notability in the recent past. And finally, is the article creator a paid editor? That question has been posed on their talk page without response. Peacock (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:PCock thanks. Moved to Draft:CBDMEDIC. Article needs to go through AfC as so promotional, sources are poor and appears created has a COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Need third party input on whether WP:MEDRS applies to certain statements
Please see this thread. Thanks. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Request comments on MEDRS
See Talk:Electric smoking system#Comments on MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)