This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | → | Archive 160 |
Hi there. Quick process question, to you as you are most active here: I see Schiste posted the Board statement and you and Pundit signed it. Was this a collective and unanimous decision, and should we expect other board members to be signing it (e.g. Jimmy Wales). I see that you and Pundit explain that here and here. The additional questions I have is whether this statement was officially published anywhere else other than at WP:FRAM, and whether the drafting and issuing of a statement was documented in board meeting minutes or other official documents that will be published at a later date? And a question of timing: the Board acknowledged the open letter from ArbCom (published 08:16 UTC, 30 June 2019) which was circulated to board members (can you confirm the timing of that?). Is it possible to ask to what extent the open letter impacted the board statement that was published a few days later (23:02 UTC, 2 July 2019)? Was the statement already drafted, or in the process of being drafted? If you can answer (even if only partially) some of these questions, it would help understand how the board's position was reached. Thank you. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
PS. As an aside (this isn't a process question, but it came up when I was checking something), the 2016 statement here has as a reference a link to a Symantec press release on "Online Harassment: The Australian Woman's Experience" (2016) which returns an error message - could that be updated/corrected please? Carcharoth ( talk) 09:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The request for arbitration User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. – bradv 🍁 03:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sir, which section of the hypertension should the introduction of the isolated diastolic hypertension inserted in? Ref
Thanks! -- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 10:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Why delete the entire See also section?
Hi Doc James,
Regarding this, it looks like the new editor updated the reference but forgot to update the actual number. Based on the source, it looks like that number should be 1,671. I would encourage the editor to reinstate accordingly, but want to confirm this resolves your concern. Thanks. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pushing for that statement, Doc James. I guess that stopped the hemorrhaging, if nothing else, and seems like a step in the right direction. I feel confident that a statement like this wouldn't have happened had you not pushed for it. I'm also sure you weren't a fan of the reverts of office actions, so thanks for continuing to treat me like a peer on- and off-wiki who just had a different opinion on what was the best means to an end, rather than as a hero or a villain or a shit-stirrer.
I'm not really continuing to follow how this progresses from here - still disappointed and demoralized - but wanted to dip my toe back in long enough to say thanks. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw your comment on COIN about cross-wiki paid spamming, and couldn't help but think of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu/Archive. Examples: d:Q47458384 (all spam), d:Q62573092 (all spam), d:Q30945932 (again, all spam). This is a mess in which the PR agencies don't understand the word "no" and have contracted many independent freelance spammers.
The problem is somewhat like money laundering - spam is global, but coordinating the cross-wiki cleanup requires local knowledge of policies. As for what recommendations I have to address the matter:
I wrote a draft article for the Signpost on this topic. It should have been published last month in the absence of WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM. I'll email it to you. It's somewhat pessimistic and cynical, because in writing it I came to the conclusion that UPE is a much more difficult problem to solve than harassment. MER-C 20:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Proxies and compromised computers are UPE? Pretty sure 4chan/ anonymous or people like Willy on Wheels~enwiki aren't in it for the money. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This ticket ticket:2019070810009947 links to this article, which has a lot to say about Wikipedia's medical related articles. S Philbrick (Talk) 21:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Recently you are personally spending a lot of time on English Wikipedia, and I notice that you are trying to do peacekeeping. Thank you very much for the effort. After Katherine's recent statement, I am personally feeling somewhat better, but there is a long road ahead. -- Pine (✉) 21:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Doc. I just wanted to say thank you for keeping the peace regarding the situation with Fram. I became aware of it a few days ago. There’s a long road ahead for the WMF.
Keep up the good work, as usual. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I just added my reply (pictured) to the Board statement, as you probably will see anyway, - you are the one of those who signed whom I met before. In short, I think that a term such as "toxic behaviour" is not in the spirit of assuming good faith. Should I say that elsewhere also? Interesting discussions Beetstra and Iridescent, in case of interest, I try to stay focused so don't want to repeat. Good luck, - it needs to be healed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Why the hell do you submit these articles. Their next submission of the draft was
An alternative to defining the vague "toxic" would be to not use that term. "bad"? "problematic"? - None of the examples given is pleasant, but also: none would let me think of a one-year ban. We had a half-year ban of Joefromrandb by arbcom last year, - did it improve the project? I missed him during that time, and was happy when he returned. I might have been too proud to return to a group demonstrating they think I'm not good enough for them. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the Framban issue is mostly solved. The cost of the crisis was pretty awful, and there are more problems coming from the continuing uncertainty about whether community self-governance means anything to the WMF. To quote WJBscribe's parting words: There is an urgent need to clarify the extent to which WMF is required to defer to community consensus, and the extent to which it must explain its actions and be held accountable for them by local communities. Without this, the project will hemorrhage contributors. Absent sufficient autonomy, wikipedia will simply not be the project that many of us chose to give our time to.
I'm considering proposing a policy whereby the community sets certain red lines (around eg content, content policy, user interaction policy, probably a few other areas), and we commit in advance to go nuclear if the WMF overreaches into those areas without justification related to legal issues, software security, things delegated to T&S, or certain other areas that are within the WMF's purview. (Presumably we wouldn't actually need to carry it out, because the WMF neither wants to take away self-governance nor to burn everything down. If everything goes wrong and there comes a day when the WMF does want that, I'm not sure we should care by that point.)
Do you think the board or WMF would be at all likely to be in favor of such a plan? I don't want to come to a situation where the WMF thinks we're declaring war on them. Rather, we should work together to set up a boundary that the community can enforce, and ensure self-governance for years to come. Leaving it up to the WMF to restrain its own authority isn't really workable, and the board... Well, one important lesson to learn from what happened while waiting for the board statement to come out, is that Wikipedia really does live up to its name relative to other processes. There's also the issue that the board is supposed to be setting a more general direction, and we can't rely on it to roll back WMF encroachment each individual time it happens.
Is this something worth trying? -- Yair rand ( talk) 21:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey James! Apparently, you did not frame the RfC correctly. Also, as the purpose of the RfC to amend the manual of style? If yes then the RfC was not fair because you did not post a ‘heads up’ about the RfC on the relevant manual of style talk pages. Perhaps you should address the reason Redrose64 withdrew the RfC and my suggestion and then repost the RfC?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
DocJames, have you seen any medical quality sources that examine whether there is a link between having seizures or having epilepsy, and developing a cancer, such as primary brain cancer? Is it feasible or probable? I haven't been able to find much, and I didn't want to add anything to Wikipedia without solid proof. I'm not looking for medical advice, just what you've heard or seen or know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.47.132 ( talk) 02:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding moving the Salty Dog Paddle to draftspace, I do not believe this action was appropriate. The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As a matter of good practice the editor moving a page to draft should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors, which you may want to do. The payment to create the article was disclosed upon its creation "Lihaas (talk · contribs) has been paid by Salty Dog Paddle on behalf of off freelancer.com. Their editing has included contributions to this article." Clintoncimring ( talk) 23:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Doc James! I have been steadily searching for better secondary sources related to my (currently reverted by you) History text I posted on the 5FU page. While I am able to find other secondary sources, the primary source seems much higher quality due to the fact that this is a history section (often cites older work) that I would like to contribute to? Without any additional text added regarding 5-FU's clinical testing on humans, we are left with only statements about animal testing. Perhaps you can assist me to improve this section or at least my sourcing? Thanks! Bmx808 ( talk) 00:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Doc, I'm not going to tag you with an edit war tag but you really should look at your own behavior in this matter. At both the NRA and 1994AWB page your editing looked a lot like warring. At the NRA page we had T72 make some changes. SS reverted those changes. If you look at SS's history you will see they aren't some gun nut. When T72 restored the content without discussing it. I reverted that change as I agree with SS that it wasn't an improvement. So you came there after interacting with me on the 1994AWB page. That alone would look like you were just following my edit history and can look like hounding. Regardless it was perfectly reasonable for you to question the reversal of T72's edit but at that point you should layout your reasons for support on the talk page. You shouldn't just ignore that two other editors have objected. Doing so looks like edit warring on your part, especially in light of having just reverted me on another article. Now about 1994AWB. I'm not sure how you decided the 2017 paper supported your 6.7% claim. Yes, the content was in there but it wasn't a conclusion of the 2017 authors. T96 was right to remove it when you added it the first time since you were COATRACKING by adding a paper that doesn't support the effectiveness of the 1994 law in a way that suggests it does. You addition was reverted. You tried again and the second try was still bad and thus reverted again. What did you do next? You reverted a whole range of edits by T96. How is that the correct response? You also did that without any real justification. Sorry, that looks like battleground behavior here. You are a very experienced editor and I'm sure if you pull back for a moment you can see how this might not look good from the POV of those whom you are reverted. Springee ( talk) 01:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Let me make this clear, I did not object to the image as such, rather I objected to changes in wording (and the addition of tags) that has been made without discussion, and which I said I saw no need for (at talk). Slatersteven ( talk) 08:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Mr.,
I thank you for your efforts. I have sent you today the first edition of our Wikimania presentation about Wikidata and Health by email. I ask if you can review it and give me advice.
Yours Sincerely,
-- Csisc ( talk) 14:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Doc, I hope things are going well. I need a handle on understanding this user. I'm considering preparing an ANI thread about their actions toward another user.] They have been as brusque in dismissing my concerns as they have you and others. This looks like more than harassment of a particular user. It looks like an inability to function civilly in a collaborative environment. Thanks, Dlohcierekim ( talk) 03:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey James - can you take a look at this IP user. Has put up links to private clinics on the Dental braces, but seems to be adding links on other pages. As best I can see, most are getting reverted but I wasn't sure if the IP should be blocked for a period. Ian Furst ( talk) 15:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The drugs.com team appears to review/edit the provided information.
Except from
Editorial Review Process
The Drugs.com editorial team regularly reviews all information provided by various trusted medical publishing partners to ensure content is accurate and up-to-date. Each article is peer-reviewed by at least one member of the Drugs.com team. The review and update status can be found at the top or bottom of each document.
The
Timolol eent entry states
Medically reviewed by Drugs.com. Last updated on Oct 1, 2018.
The
Timolol Maleate entry states
Medically reviewed by Drugs.com. Last updated on Feb 25, 2019.
The
Timolol ophthalmic Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Warnings entry states
Medically reviewed by Drugs.com. Last updated on Jul 26, 2017.
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 05:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
What is your problem with my edits, Doc James? I happen to think they're highly appropriate and instructional. And they add to Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy.
Harold N Bass, MD, FACMG — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hb2019 (
talk •
contribs)
22:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw your welcome here. Is that a template? If not, it probably should be. Also, there's a character that doesn't need to be there. It doesn't hurt anything but it's just distracting for me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Boskit190 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is back please check your inbox. Thank you. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
hi Doc James,
I have a left a few messages asking you to explain what you meant by broken references etc.
I also see that my edits are getting deleted but there is no information on who is doing that or explanations for it. The page seems to have been worked on as well but again I have no idea who or why.
Could you please advise. Thanks Pbnj1518 ( talk) 16:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Pbnj1518
DocJames I have left you a few messages but maybe you are not seeing them because they're on my talk page. I believe that we added the sufficient secondary sources, right? What else needs to be edited in order to have these warning boxes removed? Please let me know. Someone else said I needed to explain my edit so that implies to me that I can edit and explain and that's what I attempted to do. I'm not trying to cause any problems. I am new to editing and would appreciate it if you would point out what I can do to rectify this. I just want to resolve Eric Verdin's page so that it does not appear to have issues. Please let me know. Thank you. chloecaviness —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC) DocJames Hi Doc James, Thank you for removing that one warning box. I have disclosed that i work for Buck Institute. I thought that is what i need to do in order to have the other box removed. Going forward, i will not edit the page directly but instead suggest edits to have them approved or not. What else do i need to do to have that remaining warning box removed? [[User:chloecaviness|chloecaviness] —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
My argument last September that a primary source like the NEJM ought to be good enough to include a note in WP at least as an experimental treatment, went nowhere. You allowed Jytdog to stonewall this without a comment, and all my work was removed. Just gone. Every else in the WP medical community sat on their hands. But Now, nine months later (as I predicted) the drug has been approved, on the basis of zero new info. And I just discovered that Jytdog was banned a few months later (without any input from me, though I'd have been glad to add to this, had I known) for being tendentious, real life intrusive, and lying (correct me if this is mischaractization). The interpretation of MEDRS was bad, the editor who dug in his heels was bad (by community concensus), and the overall result was certainly bad. I haven't yet looked to see what happened to tafamadis and ATTR cardiomyopathy treatment information on WP. Wikipedia, which was going to provide all humans with free access to sum of all human knowledge, turns out only to do that if the "knowledge" is not fancruft which can make money on Wikia. Or, if the knowledge is about some speculative medical treatment that somebody has a problem with. Until the treatment becomes reality, of course. Then (if it doesn't bother anybody psychologically) WP goes back to talking about things like mind uploading. Turns out WP:MEDRS is quite elastic if you're interested in whatever speculative subject is being discussed. But not, if not. S B H arris 04:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
See the bottom of User talk:Jimbo Wales#13 years. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. I checked the relevant MOS authorities ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related_articles#Trivia and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material, but I thought I should ask you first. Larry Niven's science fiction novel Destiny's Road centers around a planet where hypokalemia is the most serious problem facing the colonists. I'm sure I can dig up secondary references for it. Mayt I add an "In popular culture" section to the hypokalemia article? — DocWatson42 ( talk) 06:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this NIH-sponsored research a primary source and not allowed to be used on Wikipedia? -- Exert yourself ( talk) 13:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this randomized controlled trial ( PMID=30663824) eligible to be used on Wikipedia as it complies the request from WP:RMEDS:"The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)."? -- Exert yourself ( talk) 14:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Doc James, thank you for adding a source for explaining the etymology of hemangioma, but it also important to check what is actually written in the source. The source uses the ancient Greek forms, not the modern Greek forms. In wordsmithery in medicine, rarely modern Greek is used. Thank you in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus ( talk) 11:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | → | Archive 160 |
Hi there. Quick process question, to you as you are most active here: I see Schiste posted the Board statement and you and Pundit signed it. Was this a collective and unanimous decision, and should we expect other board members to be signing it (e.g. Jimmy Wales). I see that you and Pundit explain that here and here. The additional questions I have is whether this statement was officially published anywhere else other than at WP:FRAM, and whether the drafting and issuing of a statement was documented in board meeting minutes or other official documents that will be published at a later date? And a question of timing: the Board acknowledged the open letter from ArbCom (published 08:16 UTC, 30 June 2019) which was circulated to board members (can you confirm the timing of that?). Is it possible to ask to what extent the open letter impacted the board statement that was published a few days later (23:02 UTC, 2 July 2019)? Was the statement already drafted, or in the process of being drafted? If you can answer (even if only partially) some of these questions, it would help understand how the board's position was reached. Thank you. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
PS. As an aside (this isn't a process question, but it came up when I was checking something), the 2016 statement here has as a reference a link to a Symantec press release on "Online Harassment: The Australian Woman's Experience" (2016) which returns an error message - could that be updated/corrected please? Carcharoth ( talk) 09:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The request for arbitration User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. – bradv 🍁 03:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sir, which section of the hypertension should the introduction of the isolated diastolic hypertension inserted in? Ref
Thanks! -- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 10:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Why delete the entire See also section?
Hi Doc James,
Regarding this, it looks like the new editor updated the reference but forgot to update the actual number. Based on the source, it looks like that number should be 1,671. I would encourage the editor to reinstate accordingly, but want to confirm this resolves your concern. Thanks. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pushing for that statement, Doc James. I guess that stopped the hemorrhaging, if nothing else, and seems like a step in the right direction. I feel confident that a statement like this wouldn't have happened had you not pushed for it. I'm also sure you weren't a fan of the reverts of office actions, so thanks for continuing to treat me like a peer on- and off-wiki who just had a different opinion on what was the best means to an end, rather than as a hero or a villain or a shit-stirrer.
I'm not really continuing to follow how this progresses from here - still disappointed and demoralized - but wanted to dip my toe back in long enough to say thanks. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw your comment on COIN about cross-wiki paid spamming, and couldn't help but think of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu/Archive. Examples: d:Q47458384 (all spam), d:Q62573092 (all spam), d:Q30945932 (again, all spam). This is a mess in which the PR agencies don't understand the word "no" and have contracted many independent freelance spammers.
The problem is somewhat like money laundering - spam is global, but coordinating the cross-wiki cleanup requires local knowledge of policies. As for what recommendations I have to address the matter:
I wrote a draft article for the Signpost on this topic. It should have been published last month in the absence of WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM. I'll email it to you. It's somewhat pessimistic and cynical, because in writing it I came to the conclusion that UPE is a much more difficult problem to solve than harassment. MER-C 20:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Proxies and compromised computers are UPE? Pretty sure 4chan/ anonymous or people like Willy on Wheels~enwiki aren't in it for the money. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This ticket ticket:2019070810009947 links to this article, which has a lot to say about Wikipedia's medical related articles. S Philbrick (Talk) 21:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Recently you are personally spending a lot of time on English Wikipedia, and I notice that you are trying to do peacekeeping. Thank you very much for the effort. After Katherine's recent statement, I am personally feeling somewhat better, but there is a long road ahead. -- Pine (✉) 21:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Doc. I just wanted to say thank you for keeping the peace regarding the situation with Fram. I became aware of it a few days ago. There’s a long road ahead for the WMF.
Keep up the good work, as usual. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 21:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I just added my reply (pictured) to the Board statement, as you probably will see anyway, - you are the one of those who signed whom I met before. In short, I think that a term such as "toxic behaviour" is not in the spirit of assuming good faith. Should I say that elsewhere also? Interesting discussions Beetstra and Iridescent, in case of interest, I try to stay focused so don't want to repeat. Good luck, - it needs to be healed. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Why the hell do you submit these articles. Their next submission of the draft was
An alternative to defining the vague "toxic" would be to not use that term. "bad"? "problematic"? - None of the examples given is pleasant, but also: none would let me think of a one-year ban. We had a half-year ban of Joefromrandb by arbcom last year, - did it improve the project? I missed him during that time, and was happy when he returned. I might have been too proud to return to a group demonstrating they think I'm not good enough for them. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the Framban issue is mostly solved. The cost of the crisis was pretty awful, and there are more problems coming from the continuing uncertainty about whether community self-governance means anything to the WMF. To quote WJBscribe's parting words: There is an urgent need to clarify the extent to which WMF is required to defer to community consensus, and the extent to which it must explain its actions and be held accountable for them by local communities. Without this, the project will hemorrhage contributors. Absent sufficient autonomy, wikipedia will simply not be the project that many of us chose to give our time to.
I'm considering proposing a policy whereby the community sets certain red lines (around eg content, content policy, user interaction policy, probably a few other areas), and we commit in advance to go nuclear if the WMF overreaches into those areas without justification related to legal issues, software security, things delegated to T&S, or certain other areas that are within the WMF's purview. (Presumably we wouldn't actually need to carry it out, because the WMF neither wants to take away self-governance nor to burn everything down. If everything goes wrong and there comes a day when the WMF does want that, I'm not sure we should care by that point.)
Do you think the board or WMF would be at all likely to be in favor of such a plan? I don't want to come to a situation where the WMF thinks we're declaring war on them. Rather, we should work together to set up a boundary that the community can enforce, and ensure self-governance for years to come. Leaving it up to the WMF to restrain its own authority isn't really workable, and the board... Well, one important lesson to learn from what happened while waiting for the board statement to come out, is that Wikipedia really does live up to its name relative to other processes. There's also the issue that the board is supposed to be setting a more general direction, and we can't rely on it to roll back WMF encroachment each individual time it happens.
Is this something worth trying? -- Yair rand ( talk) 21:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey James! Apparently, you did not frame the RfC correctly. Also, as the purpose of the RfC to amend the manual of style? If yes then the RfC was not fair because you did not post a ‘heads up’ about the RfC on the relevant manual of style talk pages. Perhaps you should address the reason Redrose64 withdrew the RfC and my suggestion and then repost the RfC?-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
DocJames, have you seen any medical quality sources that examine whether there is a link between having seizures or having epilepsy, and developing a cancer, such as primary brain cancer? Is it feasible or probable? I haven't been able to find much, and I didn't want to add anything to Wikipedia without solid proof. I'm not looking for medical advice, just what you've heard or seen or know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.47.132 ( talk) 02:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding moving the Salty Dog Paddle to draftspace, I do not believe this action was appropriate. The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. As a matter of good practice the editor moving a page to draft should mark its talk page with the tags of any relevant projects as a means of soliciting improvements from interested editors, which you may want to do. The payment to create the article was disclosed upon its creation "Lihaas (talk · contribs) has been paid by Salty Dog Paddle on behalf of off freelancer.com. Their editing has included contributions to this article." Clintoncimring ( talk) 23:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Doc James! I have been steadily searching for better secondary sources related to my (currently reverted by you) History text I posted on the 5FU page. While I am able to find other secondary sources, the primary source seems much higher quality due to the fact that this is a history section (often cites older work) that I would like to contribute to? Without any additional text added regarding 5-FU's clinical testing on humans, we are left with only statements about animal testing. Perhaps you can assist me to improve this section or at least my sourcing? Thanks! Bmx808 ( talk) 00:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Doc, I'm not going to tag you with an edit war tag but you really should look at your own behavior in this matter. At both the NRA and 1994AWB page your editing looked a lot like warring. At the NRA page we had T72 make some changes. SS reverted those changes. If you look at SS's history you will see they aren't some gun nut. When T72 restored the content without discussing it. I reverted that change as I agree with SS that it wasn't an improvement. So you came there after interacting with me on the 1994AWB page. That alone would look like you were just following my edit history and can look like hounding. Regardless it was perfectly reasonable for you to question the reversal of T72's edit but at that point you should layout your reasons for support on the talk page. You shouldn't just ignore that two other editors have objected. Doing so looks like edit warring on your part, especially in light of having just reverted me on another article. Now about 1994AWB. I'm not sure how you decided the 2017 paper supported your 6.7% claim. Yes, the content was in there but it wasn't a conclusion of the 2017 authors. T96 was right to remove it when you added it the first time since you were COATRACKING by adding a paper that doesn't support the effectiveness of the 1994 law in a way that suggests it does. You addition was reverted. You tried again and the second try was still bad and thus reverted again. What did you do next? You reverted a whole range of edits by T96. How is that the correct response? You also did that without any real justification. Sorry, that looks like battleground behavior here. You are a very experienced editor and I'm sure if you pull back for a moment you can see how this might not look good from the POV of those whom you are reverted. Springee ( talk) 01:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Let me make this clear, I did not object to the image as such, rather I objected to changes in wording (and the addition of tags) that has been made without discussion, and which I said I saw no need for (at talk). Slatersteven ( talk) 08:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Mr.,
I thank you for your efforts. I have sent you today the first edition of our Wikimania presentation about Wikidata and Health by email. I ask if you can review it and give me advice.
Yours Sincerely,
-- Csisc ( talk) 14:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello Doc, I hope things are going well. I need a handle on understanding this user. I'm considering preparing an ANI thread about their actions toward another user.] They have been as brusque in dismissing my concerns as they have you and others. This looks like more than harassment of a particular user. It looks like an inability to function civilly in a collaborative environment. Thanks, Dlohcierekim ( talk) 03:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey James - can you take a look at this IP user. Has put up links to private clinics on the Dental braces, but seems to be adding links on other pages. As best I can see, most are getting reverted but I wasn't sure if the IP should be blocked for a period. Ian Furst ( talk) 15:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The drugs.com team appears to review/edit the provided information.
Except from
Editorial Review Process
The Drugs.com editorial team regularly reviews all information provided by various trusted medical publishing partners to ensure content is accurate and up-to-date. Each article is peer-reviewed by at least one member of the Drugs.com team. The review and update status can be found at the top or bottom of each document.
The
Timolol eent entry states
Medically reviewed by Drugs.com. Last updated on Oct 1, 2018.
The
Timolol Maleate entry states
Medically reviewed by Drugs.com. Last updated on Feb 25, 2019.
The
Timolol ophthalmic Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Warnings entry states
Medically reviewed by Drugs.com. Last updated on Jul 26, 2017.
Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 05:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
What is your problem with my edits, Doc James? I happen to think they're highly appropriate and instructional. And they add to Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy.
Harold N Bass, MD, FACMG — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hb2019 (
talk •
contribs)
22:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw your welcome here. Is that a template? If not, it probably should be. Also, there's a character that doesn't need to be there. It doesn't hurt anything but it's just distracting for me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Boskit190 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is back please check your inbox. Thank you. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
hi Doc James,
I have a left a few messages asking you to explain what you meant by broken references etc.
I also see that my edits are getting deleted but there is no information on who is doing that or explanations for it. The page seems to have been worked on as well but again I have no idea who or why.
Could you please advise. Thanks Pbnj1518 ( talk) 16:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Pbnj1518
DocJames I have left you a few messages but maybe you are not seeing them because they're on my talk page. I believe that we added the sufficient secondary sources, right? What else needs to be edited in order to have these warning boxes removed? Please let me know. Someone else said I needed to explain my edit so that implies to me that I can edit and explain and that's what I attempted to do. I'm not trying to cause any problems. I am new to editing and would appreciate it if you would point out what I can do to rectify this. I just want to resolve Eric Verdin's page so that it does not appear to have issues. Please let me know. Thank you. chloecaviness —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC) DocJames Hi Doc James, Thank you for removing that one warning box. I have disclosed that i work for Buck Institute. I thought that is what i need to do in order to have the other box removed. Going forward, i will not edit the page directly but instead suggest edits to have them approved or not. What else do i need to do to have that remaining warning box removed? [[User:chloecaviness|chloecaviness] —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
My argument last September that a primary source like the NEJM ought to be good enough to include a note in WP at least as an experimental treatment, went nowhere. You allowed Jytdog to stonewall this without a comment, and all my work was removed. Just gone. Every else in the WP medical community sat on their hands. But Now, nine months later (as I predicted) the drug has been approved, on the basis of zero new info. And I just discovered that Jytdog was banned a few months later (without any input from me, though I'd have been glad to add to this, had I known) for being tendentious, real life intrusive, and lying (correct me if this is mischaractization). The interpretation of MEDRS was bad, the editor who dug in his heels was bad (by community concensus), and the overall result was certainly bad. I haven't yet looked to see what happened to tafamadis and ATTR cardiomyopathy treatment information on WP. Wikipedia, which was going to provide all humans with free access to sum of all human knowledge, turns out only to do that if the "knowledge" is not fancruft which can make money on Wikia. Or, if the knowledge is about some speculative medical treatment that somebody has a problem with. Until the treatment becomes reality, of course. Then (if it doesn't bother anybody psychologically) WP goes back to talking about things like mind uploading. Turns out WP:MEDRS is quite elastic if you're interested in whatever speculative subject is being discussed. But not, if not. S B H arris 04:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
See the bottom of User talk:Jimbo Wales#13 years. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. I checked the relevant MOS authorities ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related_articles#Trivia and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material, but I thought I should ask you first. Larry Niven's science fiction novel Destiny's Road centers around a planet where hypokalemia is the most serious problem facing the colonists. I'm sure I can dig up secondary references for it. Mayt I add an "In popular culture" section to the hypokalemia article? — DocWatson42 ( talk) 06:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this NIH-sponsored research a primary source and not allowed to be used on Wikipedia? -- Exert yourself ( talk) 13:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this randomized controlled trial ( PMID=30663824) eligible to be used on Wikipedia as it complies the request from WP:RMEDS:"The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)."? -- Exert yourself ( talk) 14:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear Doc James, thank you for adding a source for explaining the etymology of hemangioma, but it also important to check what is actually written in the source. The source uses the ancient Greek forms, not the modern Greek forms. In wordsmithery in medicine, rarely modern Greek is used. Thank you in advance, with kind regards, Wimpus ( talk) 11:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)