![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
Outbreaks of this disease are projected to worsen for the next day or so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed this in the revision history - not really relevant to anything in this thread but April 1st - this is the most laughable cluebot fail I've ever seen. That revert was made on the April 1st mainpage-linked featured article ( Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2015). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:STOP_Bang_Questionnaire Jytdog ( talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Claims to be a form of 'treatment' - looks more like a form of complete and utter bollocks to me (and to WP:FTN regulars [3]). Since 'treatment' would appear to fall within the scope of WP:MEDRS, I'd be interested to know what WikiProject Medicine has to say on the subject. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, this article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psychopuncture. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The article on Faith healing is in need of some work to bring the representation of the mainstream scientific and academic consensus to prominence and proportional representation as due per NPOV. Also some work is needed to bring MEDRS quality sources on the subject where it deals with biomedical information. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
More opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Abstinence-only sex education#Applying WP:Neutral appropriately. Medical editors are there trying to get another editor to understand how to appropriately apply the WP:Neutral policy, and are failing at it. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The new and improved version of the copy and detection bot that we at WP:MED have been using for nearly a year here is nearly ready to be expanded to other topic areas.
It can be found here [4]. If you install the common.js code it will give you buttons to click to indicate follow up of concerns. Additionally one can sort the edits in question by WikiProject. We are working to set up auto-archiving such that once concerns are dealt with they will be removed from the main list.
We also want to have automatic compilation of data such as the frequency of true positives and false positives generated by the bot. A blacklist of sites that are know mirrors of Wikipedia is here [5]. As this list is improved / expanded the accuracy of the bot will improve. Many thanks to User:ערן for his amazing work.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
VisualEditor has a new automagic citation filling tool now. I've done a bit of testing with Google Books (a temporary problem there was fixed yesterday) and PubMed (if you get a URL that has the PMID number at the end of it), and I've had good success. DOIs seem to depend on the journal: sometimes it works, sometimes it gives you a {{ cite web}} template to "dx.doi.org", which is pretty useless.
My not-so-secret primary goal for this tool is to make it work for WPMED folk. So I'd really appreciate it if some of you would try it out and give me a list of URLs or DOIs for MEDRS-compliant sources that you'd like to be citing, but they aren't working. Here's the process:
The toolbar looks like this:
The 'book with bookmark' icon is in between the link icon and the bullet list menu. If you have brilliant ideas about how to fix this split design, then please share those, too. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, that means I can now do probably >95% of my editing with the visual editor. Contrary to other editors, I haven't found it slow, lookup so far never took more than a second or so for me. Sometimes the date is not parsed right, and you get something like "date = 2012-6" which gives an error at least with the cite journal template. Furthermore, also appreciating that the overall speed of the visual editor has suddenly increased dramatically in the recent past. -- WS ( talk) 14:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how the essay system works, but I found this new essay interesting. Apparently quoting MEDRS is now a surefire sign of Conflict of Interest and even undisclosed paid editing.
Sadly, we may have to take a much closer look at @ Doc James: :>).
Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 23:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
As there is now an ongoing discussion of this essay at MfD, probably best that we terminate the discussion here. Thanks. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Center For Disease Control; Francois Wilson (2014). CDC Guidance on Ebola Virus (EVD): 2014 Edition. International Publications Media Group. ISBN 978-1-63267-011-3.....released recently...-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 09:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
An RFC which may affect the status of Wikipedia's "No Medical Advice" policy is located here. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Following this discussion, I have prepared a draft for the Wikimedia Newsletter. Feel free to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I found the link
[7] There is no acknowledgement that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Several of the DISCERN tool's questions are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. DISCERN questions such as "Does it describe how each treatment works?" and "Does it describe the risks of each treatment?" would be answered on other Wikipedia pages, not on the disease article's page. The author makes an a priori assumption that the medical textbooks used for comparison are perfect sources. The author does not assess those textbooks with the DISCERN tool... awesome--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
09:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Groupuscule has an extensive critique of the statement "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" at his own research page.
This user is requesting comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Questionable_food_safety_claims_at_several_genetic_engineering_articles on the accuracy of that statement. At this point, I think the goal is to workshop just that one sentence summary of scientific consensus, since it appears in so many popular articles.
I agree that this is an important sentence. Groupuscule, you have put a lot of thought into this, but I do not see a counterproposal from you, other than perhaps to remove that sentence and say nothing. I note that you do have recommendations. Would you be willing to propose an alternative to that one sentence which summarizes what scientists are saying? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Diet is considered one of the most important environmental factors affecting lifespan. Genetically modifed (GM) crops, in which new genes have been inserted into the original genome, are nowadays distributed all over the world, thus frequently becoming part of human and animal diets (Sanvido et al. 2007). The fact that GM food may affect human or animal health is debated: actually, no consensus exists neither on the test designs nor on the criteria to be assumed for assessing the presence of possible pathological signs (Doull et al. 2007; Séralini et al. 2007). However, it cannot be ignored that some scientific reports have described structural and molecular modifcations in different organs and tissues of GM-fed animals (e.g. Ewen and Pustzai 1999; Malatesta et al. 2002a, b, 2003a, 2005, Vecchio et al. 2004; Tudisco et al. 2006; Trabalza-Marinucci et al. (2008). These observations suggest that the risk of genetically modifed crops cannot be ignored and deserves further investigations in order to identify possible long-term effects, if any, of GM food consumption that might help in the post market surveillance (Kuiper et al. 2004).
from the above cite.. Malatesta et. al. (2008)] in Histochemistry and Cell Biology Journal from User:Groupuscule . In the period here revised,October 2006–August 2010, a few reviews on health risks of GM foods/plants have been also published (Dona and Arvanitoyannis, 2009; Magaña-Gómez and de la Barca, 2009; Key et al.,2008). In general terms, all these authors agree in remarking that more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public. Especially critical is the recent review by Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009), who remarked that results of most studies with GM foods would indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects, and might alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. These authors also concluded that the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which, in turn, may promote cancer. ... IGF-1 has more than a few possible problems as per [9] .-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
? not sure what you mean WAID. i took LSD's question to mean "reasonably" caught, the same way harmful or not-useful-enough drugs are reasonably caught. anybody who thinks anything is 100% safe is out to lunch. (and going back to where all this started, is that the scientific consensus statement is not "food from GMOs is safe" it is a) limited to currently marketed food from GM crops, and b) is relative to conventional foods (which are not perfectly safe) - so: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" Jytdog ( talk) 22:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
While most scientists do support the claim that GMO food is safe for human consumption, we're lying to our readership if we say terms like "broad consensus" because that's not true whatsoever. For NPOV's sake, we need to mention critical scientists and their claims. There are critical scientific bodies, especially, in the EU and Russia and to some degree in China. I tried slapping a systemic bias tag on the article when editors wanted to only use Anglo-centric sources to back up the claim "broad scientific consensus" and that didn't even last. When even tags get quickly taken off an article, with no discussion, we have an ownership problem. LesVegas ( talk) 14:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_61#excoriation_disorder i made a response to ozzie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatadoshu ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Vatadoshu I believe you are correct,(je parle un peu français, any question you have just ask)thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
i posted a message there
/info/en/?search=Talk:National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence#clinical_knowledge_summaries
please, note that i make suggestions (in my messages) and i will not modificate "en.wikipedia.org". my english is too confuse.
Vatadoshu (
talk)
21:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Vatadoshu I think your first suggestion is better...CKS is a service of NICE. "NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries: Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations." http://web.archive.org/web/20140111035349/http://cks[dot]nice[dot]org[dot]uk/ ...is O.K.
ok Vatadoshu french 12:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK ...
Moxy is over at that article helping with the wikicode--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of tools available to help with citation placement and formatting, some of which are internal tools and scripts while others are available from external sites. For example reFill and Reflinks edit references by adding basic information to bare URLs in citations. Another example is Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books that converts a long Google Books URL into a filled-out {{ cite book}} template ready to be pasted into an article. -- Moxy ( talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
accessdate
. The English equivalent of
fr:Modèle:Citation is {{
Quote}} but its formatting is not suited for placement inside a reference. However. {{
Cite web}} has a quote
parameter, and also archive-url
and archivedate
. This works:
[2]
PrimeHunter (
talk)
14:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
the rules are not the same , the modeles are not the same. yes it is difficult ok not the modele quote but juste "|quote=" inside the cite web modele. "upper case"?? accessdate didn't work just because of this March? - (in french wikipedia with the visual editor, it is not possible to put a quote in the modèle web cite or article or book, the quote need to be another modele, with the modele "citation" or "citation bloc") - even if the visual editor seem to be the same, all is different.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z" --
Moxy (
talk)
18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Moxy: yes it is normal. in this link
http://web.archive.org/web/20140111035349/http://cks[.]nice.org.uk/, if you clic on the letters, you have on the right the diseases and disorders. the lettres C you have candida, carbon... you first clic on the letter, then you clic on the disorder, then you have the webpage. all the page of this webcite have not been archived. but some yes. exemple: A-> acne vulgaris->
[.nice.org.uk/acne-vulgaris#azTab acne vulgaris full page]->and then on the left you can clic diagnostic/management/summary/references/etc... if you clic on letters using the link "google cache" it will not work, only the link webarchive works. ->
[.nice.org.uk/ web archive]
Vatadoshu
french 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
[.nice.org.uk/ re-web archive] ->this works. under the letters there is this quote: "Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations. The service is being regularly maintained and upgraded as and when significant new evidence emerges and up to 10 new topics will be added each year.". the service is just a database.
Vatadoshu
french
08:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Moxy:; @
Ozzie10aaaa:; @
PrimeHunter: hey and now WTF :
"Since the
DSM-5 (2013), excoriation disorder is classified as "L98.1 Excoriation (skin-picking) disorder" in
ICD-10;
[3] and is no longer classified in "Impulse control disorder" (f63)"."
i have put this here:
/info/en/?search=Excoriation_disorder#Classification.
i have done the same you show me, where is my error? the reference show bad.
Vatadoshu
french
13:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
if for any reason , this doesn't help the last option is the village pump, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) they take care of all types of technical issues (bonne chance, si ils ne peuvent pas aider juste revenir ici et nous allons trouver une autre solution)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
|<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf -> full texte for verification}}
. I'm not sure of your intention but the comment syntax is <!-- ... -->
and not <!-- ... ->
. Adding the missing -
in -->
will still produce an error because there will be an unnamed parameter with value "full texte for verification". Maybe you meant the whole thing to be a comment and should have ended: |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf full texte for verification -->}}
.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
14:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC) -
was missing. now it look good. it's ok. thanks.(the original with visual editor was |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf -> full texte for verification-->}}
but it seem there was a bug). i am happy that you seem to understand me well.
ou here 2 to download, clic on "CkayaTb" (russe/russian) in green (en haut à droite/up and right)-> this one is better.
/info/en/?search=User:Vatadoshu/b1 (you can test here)
so i think putting the invisible comment outside the model (but inside reference) is better. don't you?
Vatadoshu
french
17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
well, yes French Wikipedia is a little easier than English (but they are generally the same), but the important thing is we resolved the wikidata problem, if your ever interested I was looking at Acute lung injury it needs references, I have put in some so if you have time I would recommend that article for editing (on English Wikipedia /wikiproject med)...let me know...( Eh bien, oui Français Wikipedia est le même que l'anglais, mais la chose importante est nous avons réglé le problème de Wikidata, si votre jamais intéressé je regardais syndrome respiratoire aigu, il a besoin de références, je ai mis en quelque sorte si vous avez le temps je recommande que l'article pour l'édition (sur l'anglais Wikipedia / wikiproject med) ... laissez-moi savoir)?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
"NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries". Retrieved 27 march 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help) {{
citation}}
: Empty citation (
help)
Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations.
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
at the behest of a colleague I am asking if this [20] should be enough to warrant a reference to climate factors (rainy season/short dry season) and its effect on viral spread at [ [21]] ? thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
recently , (Visual editor/whatamidoing section above) I came across this article I did some cleanup, added a reference or two, if anyone can help, what it needs most are references (reviews or Google books). thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Merge done. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This open access surgery textbook was just published by the world bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21568/9781464803468.pdf?sequence=5
It is under a CC BY license
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thought about requesting a formal peer review for Peripheral artery disease, but thought I'd ask here first. From people not too involved, what needs work? I think this might be a B-class article. Would like to bring it to GA, as is High importance. BakerStMD 03:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I know we are short of basic healthcare images. There are 1175 released by the UK overseas aid ministry at Commons:Category:Images_from_Department_for_International_Development. Lots about health, as well as disasters, politicians, Bill Gates & Angelina Jolie. No doubt not very fully categorized. Johnbod ( talk) 10:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's a small draft article that will soon be deleted unless someone cares to improve it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed the creation of
Silver Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy). Reading through it, I'm not sure it's centered on mainstream views or avoids "see what great things are coming" language. Would appreciate more eyes on it.
Zad
68
12:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Now, this article isn't that but does have issues....
Zad
68
14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What happens during Inguinal hernia surgery to cause sterility? 173.224.6.9 ( talk) 17:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Ed M
just floated a balloon at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Disclosure_of_COI_at_account_creation.3F ... interested in thoughts on it. it may be a dumb idea. Jytdog ( talk) 13:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Joni Mitchell believes she has a disease which doesn't really exist, Morgellons. The article is chock full of primary and lay sources and very repetitive. Similarly, another unrecognized disease, Orthorexia nervosa also has a lot of sources which seem to violate WP:MEDRS. Could use trimming. Abductive ( reasoning) 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
News reports, opinions, reception, and controversy are not covered by MEDRS, but follow the normal RS rules. --
BullRangifer (
talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
12:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
So, since every study shows this Morgellons phenomenon to be, in fact, Delusional parasitosis, why is Morgellons not a redirect to Delusional parasitosis? (And why doesn't the lead of Morgellons say what the cited source says-- it is not a condition at all). The two articles say the same thing. BullRangifer's statements above notwithstanding, why do we have an article on an imaginary condition when there is a real condition? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the proper place for a deletion, move, or redirect discussion. Let's just keep that in mind.
Policy: It's notable in its own right, therefore it deserves its own article. It is already mentioned in a single paragraph in the delusional parasitosis article, as it should be. (The only thing missing is a "main" link, which I'll add right now.) The content in the two articles is definitely not the same, even though there is some overlap. One cannot merge the Morgellons' content into the main article without losing lots of information, sources, and content. We would do our readers a great disservice, as well as violate policy, if we didn't keep the article. To include all the content would create a weight violation, since delusional parasitosis has other forms. Besides that, Morgellons is more about fibers than about parasites.
We are writing an encyclopedia, not a medical textbook. That's one reason why our inclusion criteria are very different. We have lots of articles about things that are "not a condition", "not a real treatment", "a lie", "a deception", "a myth", etc.. Chiropractic subluxations aren't "real". There is no objective method for proving their existence, but its a notable subject. Homeopathy isn't "real", yet we have an article. I could go on.
Even though our inclusion criteria for medical and alternative medicine subjects does not require official recognition, Morgellons does have its own MeSH number. It is officially recognized as a subset of delusional parasitosis. If it were a very small subject, with very little coverage, we might be able to cover it in a few paragraphs, but it's a large subject in the alternative medicine world and it has thus gained enough notoriety for mainstream coverage and CDC investigation. It's definitely fringe and we cover fringe subjects here. We don't hide them.
We don't have a policy which says that we get to hide or minimize articles which document nonsense, conspiracy theories, or delusions. We don't get to minimize or hide things because we don't like them or don't believe in them. That type of thinking is editorial censorship. We don't allow that. I'm a healthcare professional and scientific skeptic who definitely opposes this type of crap in real life. My activism has resulted in death threats to me and my children. It's no fun. Wikipedia is a very valuable source of information, and it serves as a wonderful place to document what is true or not true about these issues. That happens to be a main purpose of the encyclopedia, and we should not undermine that function. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia is currently doing a good strong cleanup of that article, which has been subject to lots of school projects and crufty edits and has long been in need of love... hooray for Sandy! Jytdog ( talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Unarchiving to request help ... I have worked on this hunk of junk for countless hours, but the article is a wreck ... affected by years of poor student editing, pushing apparently prof textbooks, usually with no page nos, and now apparently three different courses at work on it as well (typically adding primary sources when scores of free full-text reviews are available). If anyone is able to pick a section, any section, and do minimal improvements, help is appreciated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a fieldthat gets "stretched" ... with student editing, often to include "my prof's latest book". In any case, we should always evaluate sources, and use the best available when we are able ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
New article by new editor needs attention. Is this a notable topic for a list article? Everymorning talk 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
[32] I believe this to be a good read. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Cutting edge medical research or undiluted snake oil? I am not sufficiently familiar with the field to tell, except that I know enough physics to see that the "definition" of "frequency" given in the draft is utter nonsense. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have copied this conversation to the draft's talk page and declined the submission as a hoax as it is based on junk/pseudo-science. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 22:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear reviewers, thank you for your feedback on the drat biofrequency chip. The science surrounding this technology is decades old, but it is now in a novel formulation. Drug companies are beginning to use this technology for patients who are not able to metabolize certain nutrients/drugs or have adverse events from an oral formulation. I did not include the products that are commercialized to avoid the perception that it is promotional, however it is a real technology. People are wanting more information on biofrequenccy chips and it would be nice to find some information on Wikipedia. I have removed the reference that was a problem and corrected the links with others. If there is anything specifically that can be done further to the draft to improve on it's value I would appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenfinger ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Put up for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biofrequency_Chip Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I am working with {{ Drugbox}}. I met these questions:
- DePiep ( talk) 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The scrotal inflation article has become the target of an editor who appears to be (a) providing "how-to" advice for this dangerous procedure, including a "how to" picture, and (b) apparently using the article as a gallery for showcasing what I presume to be his own efforts. I've backed off both. I've backed off the edits, and chosen a relatively boring image at random from the Commons image category to replace the image to frustrate his efforts to use the article as a showcase. Can more editors here please add this article to their watchlists, to help stop this recurring in future? -- The Anome ( talk) 10:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | → Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_this_summary_OR.3F |
This is a note that there's a discussion open
here regarding whether or not some proposed content has
WP:OR issues.
Zad
68
19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Information about GMO Inquiry 2015 is available at
GMO Bites—
Common Ground (February 2015) and
GMO Bites: April 2015—
Common Ground (April 2015). See also
http://gmoinquiry.ca.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
23:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This new article contains some useful material, I think, but it lacks balance. I brought it up at WT:SCIENCE, but as far as I can tell nobody participates there. Any thoughts on the appropriate way to deal with this? Looie496 ( talk) 18:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There's some WP:BEANS in collecting all of these errors in one place :) We do have pathological science, but that's a collection of specific incidents, not the same as the publication-bias type of criticism. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Polysporin, in which one view is to merge with Neosporin, another is to leave the two articles separate, and a third is to merge the two under the generic name in the header above, which now redirects to Polysporin. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I am a fan of Wikipedia:Crowdfunding projects and for the first time I am seeing one related to health.
I am continually encouraged by the enthusiasm that comes to Wikipedia from the alternative medicine community. Let's all hope for good attention and a good outcome from this project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully enough people will see through the nonsense, and even if this is funded it won't amount to anything. It would still be considered self-published so if that is the point of writing it, it still can't be referenced. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 15:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks. I request input. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
For me, at least, when I click on the "cite" button at the top of the edit window, then the templates button, then "cite journal", and enter a pmid or doi, it doesn't automatically fill in the template anymore. Is anyone else having this problem? Everymorning talk 01:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I use this when all the Wikipedia based on break http://librepathology.org/cite-gen/ Unfortunately this happens on a fairly regular basis. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
so this happened: Wikipedia:Advocacy and COI ducks. I've asked the admin who closed Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks to have a look. Jytdog ( talk) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Info Box. I have built a Page for Evidence Aid in my sandbox and would like to provide and info box, Are there any tutorials for this? AmyEBHC ( talk) 15:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help! Could I ask for help to make sure this is ready to submit? It is my first page:-) I tried to follow the guidelines and apply feedback. It is in my sandbox AmyEBHC ( talk) 19:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Great thanks, AmyEBHC ( talk) 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Huddsblue sent a nice email to my talk page and another editor offered to help him with future COI. I think it would be frustrating for WP to deal with COI when good articles are needed and COI hurts everyone...it was quite an entry for my first page:-) Really appreciate the help and encouragement. AmyEBHC ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2015 (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 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
Outbreaks of this disease are projected to worsen for the next day or so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed this in the revision history - not really relevant to anything in this thread but April 1st - this is the most laughable cluebot fail I've ever seen. That revert was made on the April 1st mainpage-linked featured article ( Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2015). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:STOP_Bang_Questionnaire Jytdog ( talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Claims to be a form of 'treatment' - looks more like a form of complete and utter bollocks to me (and to WP:FTN regulars [3]). Since 'treatment' would appear to fall within the scope of WP:MEDRS, I'd be interested to know what WikiProject Medicine has to say on the subject. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, this article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psychopuncture. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The article on Faith healing is in need of some work to bring the representation of the mainstream scientific and academic consensus to prominence and proportional representation as due per NPOV. Also some work is needed to bring MEDRS quality sources on the subject where it deals with biomedical information. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
More opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Abstinence-only sex education#Applying WP:Neutral appropriately. Medical editors are there trying to get another editor to understand how to appropriately apply the WP:Neutral policy, and are failing at it. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The new and improved version of the copy and detection bot that we at WP:MED have been using for nearly a year here is nearly ready to be expanded to other topic areas.
It can be found here [4]. If you install the common.js code it will give you buttons to click to indicate follow up of concerns. Additionally one can sort the edits in question by WikiProject. We are working to set up auto-archiving such that once concerns are dealt with they will be removed from the main list.
We also want to have automatic compilation of data such as the frequency of true positives and false positives generated by the bot. A blacklist of sites that are know mirrors of Wikipedia is here [5]. As this list is improved / expanded the accuracy of the bot will improve. Many thanks to User:ערן for his amazing work.
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
VisualEditor has a new automagic citation filling tool now. I've done a bit of testing with Google Books (a temporary problem there was fixed yesterday) and PubMed (if you get a URL that has the PMID number at the end of it), and I've had good success. DOIs seem to depend on the journal: sometimes it works, sometimes it gives you a {{ cite web}} template to "dx.doi.org", which is pretty useless.
My not-so-secret primary goal for this tool is to make it work for WPMED folk. So I'd really appreciate it if some of you would try it out and give me a list of URLs or DOIs for MEDRS-compliant sources that you'd like to be citing, but they aren't working. Here's the process:
The toolbar looks like this:
The 'book with bookmark' icon is in between the link icon and the bullet list menu. If you have brilliant ideas about how to fix this split design, then please share those, too. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, that means I can now do probably >95% of my editing with the visual editor. Contrary to other editors, I haven't found it slow, lookup so far never took more than a second or so for me. Sometimes the date is not parsed right, and you get something like "date = 2012-6" which gives an error at least with the cite journal template. Furthermore, also appreciating that the overall speed of the visual editor has suddenly increased dramatically in the recent past. -- WS ( talk) 14:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how the essay system works, but I found this new essay interesting. Apparently quoting MEDRS is now a surefire sign of Conflict of Interest and even undisclosed paid editing.
Sadly, we may have to take a much closer look at @ Doc James: :>).
Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 23:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
As there is now an ongoing discussion of this essay at MfD, probably best that we terminate the discussion here. Thanks. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI statement 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Center For Disease Control; Francois Wilson (2014). CDC Guidance on Ebola Virus (EVD): 2014 Edition. International Publications Media Group. ISBN 978-1-63267-011-3.....released recently...-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 09:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
An RFC which may affect the status of Wikipedia's "No Medical Advice" policy is located here. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Following this discussion, I have prepared a draft for the Wikimedia Newsletter. Feel free to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I found the link
[7] There is no acknowledgement that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Several of the DISCERN tool's questions are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. DISCERN questions such as "Does it describe how each treatment works?" and "Does it describe the risks of each treatment?" would be answered on other Wikipedia pages, not on the disease article's page. The author makes an a priori assumption that the medical textbooks used for comparison are perfect sources. The author does not assess those textbooks with the DISCERN tool... awesome--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
09:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Groupuscule has an extensive critique of the statement "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" at his own research page.
This user is requesting comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Questionable_food_safety_claims_at_several_genetic_engineering_articles on the accuracy of that statement. At this point, I think the goal is to workshop just that one sentence summary of scientific consensus, since it appears in so many popular articles.
I agree that this is an important sentence. Groupuscule, you have put a lot of thought into this, but I do not see a counterproposal from you, other than perhaps to remove that sentence and say nothing. I note that you do have recommendations. Would you be willing to propose an alternative to that one sentence which summarizes what scientists are saying? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Diet is considered one of the most important environmental factors affecting lifespan. Genetically modifed (GM) crops, in which new genes have been inserted into the original genome, are nowadays distributed all over the world, thus frequently becoming part of human and animal diets (Sanvido et al. 2007). The fact that GM food may affect human or animal health is debated: actually, no consensus exists neither on the test designs nor on the criteria to be assumed for assessing the presence of possible pathological signs (Doull et al. 2007; Séralini et al. 2007). However, it cannot be ignored that some scientific reports have described structural and molecular modifcations in different organs and tissues of GM-fed animals (e.g. Ewen and Pustzai 1999; Malatesta et al. 2002a, b, 2003a, 2005, Vecchio et al. 2004; Tudisco et al. 2006; Trabalza-Marinucci et al. (2008). These observations suggest that the risk of genetically modifed crops cannot be ignored and deserves further investigations in order to identify possible long-term effects, if any, of GM food consumption that might help in the post market surveillance (Kuiper et al. 2004).
from the above cite.. Malatesta et. al. (2008)] in Histochemistry and Cell Biology Journal from User:Groupuscule . In the period here revised,October 2006–August 2010, a few reviews on health risks of GM foods/plants have been also published (Dona and Arvanitoyannis, 2009; Magaña-Gómez and de la Barca, 2009; Key et al.,2008). In general terms, all these authors agree in remarking that more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public. Especially critical is the recent review by Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009), who remarked that results of most studies with GM foods would indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects, and might alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. These authors also concluded that the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which, in turn, may promote cancer. ... IGF-1 has more than a few possible problems as per [9] .-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
? not sure what you mean WAID. i took LSD's question to mean "reasonably" caught, the same way harmful or not-useful-enough drugs are reasonably caught. anybody who thinks anything is 100% safe is out to lunch. (and going back to where all this started, is that the scientific consensus statement is not "food from GMOs is safe" it is a) limited to currently marketed food from GM crops, and b) is relative to conventional foods (which are not perfectly safe) - so: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" Jytdog ( talk) 22:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
While most scientists do support the claim that GMO food is safe for human consumption, we're lying to our readership if we say terms like "broad consensus" because that's not true whatsoever. For NPOV's sake, we need to mention critical scientists and their claims. There are critical scientific bodies, especially, in the EU and Russia and to some degree in China. I tried slapping a systemic bias tag on the article when editors wanted to only use Anglo-centric sources to back up the claim "broad scientific consensus" and that didn't even last. When even tags get quickly taken off an article, with no discussion, we have an ownership problem. LesVegas ( talk) 14:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_61#excoriation_disorder i made a response to ozzie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatadoshu ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Vatadoshu I believe you are correct,(je parle un peu français, any question you have just ask)thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
i posted a message there
/info/en/?search=Talk:National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence#clinical_knowledge_summaries
please, note that i make suggestions (in my messages) and i will not modificate "en.wikipedia.org". my english is too confuse.
Vatadoshu (
talk)
21:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Vatadoshu I think your first suggestion is better...CKS is a service of NICE. "NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries: Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations." http://web.archive.org/web/20140111035349/http://cks[dot]nice[dot]org[dot]uk/ ...is O.K.
ok Vatadoshu french 12:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK ...
Moxy is over at that article helping with the wikicode--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of tools available to help with citation placement and formatting, some of which are internal tools and scripts while others are available from external sites. For example reFill and Reflinks edit references by adding basic information to bare URLs in citations. Another example is Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books that converts a long Google Books URL into a filled-out {{ cite book}} template ready to be pasted into an article. -- Moxy ( talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
accessdate
. The English equivalent of
fr:Modèle:Citation is {{
Quote}} but its formatting is not suited for placement inside a reference. However. {{
Cite web}} has a quote
parameter, and also archive-url
and archivedate
. This works:
[2]
PrimeHunter (
talk)
14:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
the rules are not the same , the modeles are not the same. yes it is difficult ok not the modele quote but juste "|quote=" inside the cite web modele. "upper case"?? accessdate didn't work just because of this March? - (in french wikipedia with the visual editor, it is not possible to put a quote in the modèle web cite or article or book, the quote need to be another modele, with the modele "citation" or "citation bloc") - even if the visual editor seem to be the same, all is different.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z" --
Moxy (
talk)
18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Moxy: yes it is normal. in this link
http://web.archive.org/web/20140111035349/http://cks[.]nice.org.uk/, if you clic on the letters, you have on the right the diseases and disorders. the lettres C you have candida, carbon... you first clic on the letter, then you clic on the disorder, then you have the webpage. all the page of this webcite have not been archived. but some yes. exemple: A-> acne vulgaris->
[.nice.org.uk/acne-vulgaris#azTab acne vulgaris full page]->and then on the left you can clic diagnostic/management/summary/references/etc... if you clic on letters using the link "google cache" it will not work, only the link webarchive works. ->
[.nice.org.uk/ web archive]
Vatadoshu
french 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
[.nice.org.uk/ re-web archive] ->this works. under the letters there is this quote: "Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations. The service is being regularly maintained and upgraded as and when significant new evidence emerges and up to 10 new topics will be added each year.". the service is just a database.
Vatadoshu
french
08:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Moxy:; @
Ozzie10aaaa:; @
PrimeHunter: hey and now WTF :
"Since the
DSM-5 (2013), excoriation disorder is classified as "L98.1 Excoriation (skin-picking) disorder" in
ICD-10;
[3] and is no longer classified in "Impulse control disorder" (f63)"."
i have put this here:
/info/en/?search=Excoriation_disorder#Classification.
i have done the same you show me, where is my error? the reference show bad.
Vatadoshu
french
13:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
if for any reason , this doesn't help the last option is the village pump, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) they take care of all types of technical issues (bonne chance, si ils ne peuvent pas aider juste revenir ici et nous allons trouver une autre solution)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
|<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf -> full texte for verification}}
. I'm not sure of your intention but the comment syntax is <!-- ... -->
and not <!-- ... ->
. Adding the missing -
in -->
will still produce an error because there will be an unnamed parameter with value "full texte for verification". Maybe you meant the whole thing to be a comment and should have ended: |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf full texte for verification -->}}
.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
14:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC) -
was missing. now it look good. it's ok. thanks.(the original with visual editor was |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf -> full texte for verification-->}}
but it seem there was a bug). i am happy that you seem to understand me well.
ou here 2 to download, clic on "CkayaTb" (russe/russian) in green (en haut à droite/up and right)-> this one is better.
/info/en/?search=User:Vatadoshu/b1 (you can test here)
so i think putting the invisible comment outside the model (but inside reference) is better. don't you?
Vatadoshu
french
17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
well, yes French Wikipedia is a little easier than English (but they are generally the same), but the important thing is we resolved the wikidata problem, if your ever interested I was looking at Acute lung injury it needs references, I have put in some so if you have time I would recommend that article for editing (on English Wikipedia /wikiproject med)...let me know...( Eh bien, oui Français Wikipedia est le même que l'anglais, mais la chose importante est nous avons réglé le problème de Wikidata, si votre jamais intéressé je regardais syndrome respiratoire aigu, il a besoin de références, je ai mis en quelque sorte si vous avez le temps je recommande que l'article pour l'édition (sur l'anglais Wikipedia / wikiproject med) ... laissez-moi savoir)?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
"NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries". Retrieved 27 march 2015. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help) {{
citation}}
: Empty citation (
help)
Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations.
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
at the behest of a colleague I am asking if this [20] should be enough to warrant a reference to climate factors (rainy season/short dry season) and its effect on viral spread at [ [21]] ? thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 15:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
recently , (Visual editor/whatamidoing section above) I came across this article I did some cleanup, added a reference or two, if anyone can help, what it needs most are references (reviews or Google books). thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 20:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Merge done. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This open access surgery textbook was just published by the world bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21568/9781464803468.pdf?sequence=5
It is under a CC BY license
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thought about requesting a formal peer review for Peripheral artery disease, but thought I'd ask here first. From people not too involved, what needs work? I think this might be a B-class article. Would like to bring it to GA, as is High importance. BakerStMD 03:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I know we are short of basic healthcare images. There are 1175 released by the UK overseas aid ministry at Commons:Category:Images_from_Department_for_International_Development. Lots about health, as well as disasters, politicians, Bill Gates & Angelina Jolie. No doubt not very fully categorized. Johnbod ( talk) 10:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's a small draft article that will soon be deleted unless someone cares to improve it. — Anne Delong ( talk) 20:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed the creation of
Silver Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy). Reading through it, I'm not sure it's centered on mainstream views or avoids "see what great things are coming" language. Would appreciate more eyes on it.
Zad
68
12:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Now, this article isn't that but does have issues....
Zad
68
14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What happens during Inguinal hernia surgery to cause sterility? 173.224.6.9 ( talk) 17:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Ed M
just floated a balloon at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Disclosure_of_COI_at_account_creation.3F ... interested in thoughts on it. it may be a dumb idea. Jytdog ( talk) 13:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems that Joni Mitchell believes she has a disease which doesn't really exist, Morgellons. The article is chock full of primary and lay sources and very repetitive. Similarly, another unrecognized disease, Orthorexia nervosa also has a lot of sources which seem to violate WP:MEDRS. Could use trimming. Abductive ( reasoning) 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
News reports, opinions, reception, and controversy are not covered by MEDRS, but follow the normal RS rules. --
BullRangifer (
talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
12:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
So, since every study shows this Morgellons phenomenon to be, in fact, Delusional parasitosis, why is Morgellons not a redirect to Delusional parasitosis? (And why doesn't the lead of Morgellons say what the cited source says-- it is not a condition at all). The two articles say the same thing. BullRangifer's statements above notwithstanding, why do we have an article on an imaginary condition when there is a real condition? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the proper place for a deletion, move, or redirect discussion. Let's just keep that in mind.
Policy: It's notable in its own right, therefore it deserves its own article. It is already mentioned in a single paragraph in the delusional parasitosis article, as it should be. (The only thing missing is a "main" link, which I'll add right now.) The content in the two articles is definitely not the same, even though there is some overlap. One cannot merge the Morgellons' content into the main article without losing lots of information, sources, and content. We would do our readers a great disservice, as well as violate policy, if we didn't keep the article. To include all the content would create a weight violation, since delusional parasitosis has other forms. Besides that, Morgellons is more about fibers than about parasites.
We are writing an encyclopedia, not a medical textbook. That's one reason why our inclusion criteria are very different. We have lots of articles about things that are "not a condition", "not a real treatment", "a lie", "a deception", "a myth", etc.. Chiropractic subluxations aren't "real". There is no objective method for proving their existence, but its a notable subject. Homeopathy isn't "real", yet we have an article. I could go on.
Even though our inclusion criteria for medical and alternative medicine subjects does not require official recognition, Morgellons does have its own MeSH number. It is officially recognized as a subset of delusional parasitosis. If it were a very small subject, with very little coverage, we might be able to cover it in a few paragraphs, but it's a large subject in the alternative medicine world and it has thus gained enough notoriety for mainstream coverage and CDC investigation. It's definitely fringe and we cover fringe subjects here. We don't hide them.
We don't have a policy which says that we get to hide or minimize articles which document nonsense, conspiracy theories, or delusions. We don't get to minimize or hide things because we don't like them or don't believe in them. That type of thinking is editorial censorship. We don't allow that. I'm a healthcare professional and scientific skeptic who definitely opposes this type of crap in real life. My activism has resulted in death threats to me and my children. It's no fun. Wikipedia is a very valuable source of information, and it serves as a wonderful place to document what is true or not true about these issues. That happens to be a main purpose of the encyclopedia, and we should not undermine that function. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia is currently doing a good strong cleanup of that article, which has been subject to lots of school projects and crufty edits and has long been in need of love... hooray for Sandy! Jytdog ( talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Unarchiving to request help ... I have worked on this hunk of junk for countless hours, but the article is a wreck ... affected by years of poor student editing, pushing apparently prof textbooks, usually with no page nos, and now apparently three different courses at work on it as well (typically adding primary sources when scores of free full-text reviews are available). If anyone is able to pick a section, any section, and do minimal improvements, help is appreciated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a fieldthat gets "stretched" ... with student editing, often to include "my prof's latest book". In any case, we should always evaluate sources, and use the best available when we are able ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
New article by new editor needs attention. Is this a notable topic for a list article? Everymorning talk 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
[32] I believe this to be a good read. thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Cutting edge medical research or undiluted snake oil? I am not sufficiently familiar with the field to tell, except that I know enough physics to see that the "definition" of "frequency" given in the draft is utter nonsense. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have copied this conversation to the draft's talk page and declined the submission as a hoax as it is based on junk/pseudo-science. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 22:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear reviewers, thank you for your feedback on the drat biofrequency chip. The science surrounding this technology is decades old, but it is now in a novel formulation. Drug companies are beginning to use this technology for patients who are not able to metabolize certain nutrients/drugs or have adverse events from an oral formulation. I did not include the products that are commercialized to avoid the perception that it is promotional, however it is a real technology. People are wanting more information on biofrequenccy chips and it would be nice to find some information on Wikipedia. I have removed the reference that was a problem and corrected the links with others. If there is anything specifically that can be done further to the draft to improve on it's value I would appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenfinger ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Put up for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biofrequency_Chip Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I am working with {{ Drugbox}}. I met these questions:
- DePiep ( talk) 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The scrotal inflation article has become the target of an editor who appears to be (a) providing "how-to" advice for this dangerous procedure, including a "how to" picture, and (b) apparently using the article as a gallery for showcasing what I presume to be his own efforts. I've backed off both. I've backed off the edits, and chosen a relatively boring image at random from the Commons image category to replace the image to frustrate his efforts to use the article as a showcase. Can more editors here please add this article to their watchlists, to help stop this recurring in future? -- The Anome ( talk) 10:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | → Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_this_summary_OR.3F |
This is a note that there's a discussion open
here regarding whether or not some proposed content has
WP:OR issues.
Zad
68
19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Information about GMO Inquiry 2015 is available at
GMO Bites—
Common Ground (February 2015) and
GMO Bites: April 2015—
Common Ground (April 2015). See also
http://gmoinquiry.ca.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
23:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This new article contains some useful material, I think, but it lacks balance. I brought it up at WT:SCIENCE, but as far as I can tell nobody participates there. Any thoughts on the appropriate way to deal with this? Looie496 ( talk) 18:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There's some WP:BEANS in collecting all of these errors in one place :) We do have pathological science, but that's a collection of specific incidents, not the same as the publication-bias type of criticism. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Polysporin, in which one view is to merge with Neosporin, another is to leave the two articles separate, and a third is to merge the two under the generic name in the header above, which now redirects to Polysporin. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I am a fan of Wikipedia:Crowdfunding projects and for the first time I am seeing one related to health.
I am continually encouraged by the enthusiasm that comes to Wikipedia from the alternative medicine community. Let's all hope for good attention and a good outcome from this project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully enough people will see through the nonsense, and even if this is funded it won't amount to anything. It would still be considered self-published so if that is the point of writing it, it still can't be referenced. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 15:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks. I request input. QuackGuru ( talk) 05:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
For me, at least, when I click on the "cite" button at the top of the edit window, then the templates button, then "cite journal", and enter a pmid or doi, it doesn't automatically fill in the template anymore. Is anyone else having this problem? Everymorning talk 01:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I use this when all the Wikipedia based on break http://librepathology.org/cite-gen/ Unfortunately this happens on a fairly regular basis. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
so this happened: Wikipedia:Advocacy and COI ducks. I've asked the admin who closed Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks to have a look. Jytdog ( talk) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Info Box. I have built a Page for Evidence Aid in my sandbox and would like to provide and info box, Are there any tutorials for this? AmyEBHC ( talk) 15:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help! Could I ask for help to make sure this is ready to submit? It is my first page:-) I tried to follow the guidelines and apply feedback. It is in my sandbox AmyEBHC ( talk) 19:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Great thanks, AmyEBHC ( talk) 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Huddsblue sent a nice email to my talk page and another editor offered to help him with future COI. I think it would be frustrating for WP to deal with COI when good articles are needed and COI hurts everyone...it was quite an entry for my first page:-) Really appreciate the help and encouragement. AmyEBHC ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)