User talk:Doc James/Archive 153

Process questions

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)

User:Carcharoth yes this was a collective and unanimous statement by the board. Plan is to also publish it on Wikimedia-l. Yes the board all received arbcom's letter. Our statement was already basically done by the time arbcom's letter came out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Any plans to publish it on any other wikis? e.g. Meta or one of the WMF wikis? See also Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Official statements. Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Were do you think we should put this? User:Carcharoth happy to see it placed in other spots. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thinking on this some more, and following on from what I said here, I suggest that a copy of the statement, and a link to WP:FRAM be placed at the following location on meta: Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. See for example the sort of notices and discussion at the archive for 2018. That may be a good place for people to comment from other projects, who may be more comfortable commenting at meta than here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to do that, I think that would be fine User:Carcharoth Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a little bit more BOLD than I'd usually be, but I'll do that (and point people to what you said). Carcharoth (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC) This looks OK. Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 4 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)

Not sure. Is a copy on internet archives? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

[[1]] 155.178.180.12 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Update suggested here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Carcharoth sure and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

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)

Thanks User:Bradv Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Isolated diastolic hypertension

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)

under classification Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Mesothelioma article

Why delete the entire See also section?

Please see WP:MEDMOS. We do not generally add long see also sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

abortion clinic

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 User:Ryan (Wiki Ed) yes it will. And would likely be good to have both numbers in the article to show that the number of clinics is decreasing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Belated thanks

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)

No worries User:Floquenbeam :-) Agree still a lot of work to do to mend things... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki UPE

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:

• A cross-wiki version of COIN (clearinghouse for dealing with paid-for spam)
• WMF Office bans for unrepentant spammers that are already community banned, and for egregious UPE that harms the public (e.g. promotion of securities frauds, spamming in sensitive medical topics, etc.) Escalate to trademark enforcement/legal action if that doesn't work. You shouldn't need to keep the rationale for these bans secret - in fact, do everything you can to out the spammers and the clients.
• PR work (though this may backfire)
• Better steward, checkuser, admin and abuse detection tools. Many tools are blatantly not fit for purpose - you know you have problems when the search engine is better for finding external links than Special:Linksearch and that stewards - the least numerous of our volunteers - are dealing with spambots by the hundreds.

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)

The main issue is, as far as I'm concerned, how do you detect it, and how you know it's undisclosed paid editing, rather than just some other COI type of editing, or some axe-to-grind fanatic? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A fanatic will edit only a narrow topic. A sockfarm creating promotional articles on unconnected startups and businesspeople is UPE. Anything that looks sophisticated is UPE. Any operation that uses proxies or compromised computers is UPE. There are other red flags for UPE specifically over COI which I will not mention in public. Financial COI (shareholdings, cryptocurrencies) is just as bad as UPE. MER-C 20:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:Identifying PR is an attempt at creating a behavioral/content guide to UPE. Bri.public (talk) 18:47, 9 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)

Cross Wikipedia undisclosed paid editing is definitely increasing and I agree we need better tools / mechanism to address it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

OTRS more a head up than a request

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)

Have previously rebutted some of those claims User:Sphilbrick. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, Mercola.com and Sharyl Attkisson? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes thanks. The alt med crowd is definitely upset with Wikipedia as we generally do a very good job. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Time and peacekeeping

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)

User:Pine Yes I am hoping that we can deescalate the current issues. Agree lots of work to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

Kafka

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)

User:Gerda Arendt agree we need to do better with language. We need clear describes regarding what is "toxic" or how will people know what to avoid. We already have a number of widely accepted example such as threatening to sue someone and threatening violence against them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen an exact definition of what 'toxic' is, mostly because the term is by design vague. But if I had to put one forward is that it would be the deliberate polarization of a debate wielding identities and outrage as weapons and arguments.

"This AFD was influence by a bunch of feminists!" "This coming from the admin who just deleted the first woman of color that has achieved reconignition in computational biology?" "MOS:GENDER is just socio-fascism of the liberal elite." "If you're too poor to buy a proper computer, go away", etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Headbomb are those actual quotes of people? Agree they are inappropriate as are personal attacks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Made up for the most part, but close paraphrases of things I've seen before. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a verbatim comment to a declined AfC I've seen lately placed by a long-term user. Why the hell do you submit these articles. Their next submission of the draft was rejected reverted as "trolling" by the same reviewer. Splitting hairs over what "toxic" means is not necessary when there are examples that any reasonable person can see as patronizing and destined to beat down and ultimately expel contributors. Bri.public (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes agree. Those is a position of authority within our movement need to maintain there cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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)

User:Gerda Arendt agree I also do not consider 1 year as a place to start for a ban for that sort of behavior.

To clarify my comment specifically refers to User:Bri.public's example above and not to any major cases taking place at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Community self-governance enforcement mechanism

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)

Do we need a written constitution which explains each groups jurisdiction? Could be a useful clarification User:Yair rand Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I'd frame it as a "constitution", so much. This project's constitution, if there is one, would be the 5P, or other policies governing what the project is and how contributors are to interact with the content and with each other. Wikipedia's relationship with its host and support organization... I don't know if I'd consider that to be such a central element to call it a constitution. It wouldn't surprise me if the WMF felt differently; they're built around supporting the projects, while contributors to the projects are usually barely cognizant of the WMF's existence except during a crisis. (Fun fact: WP:Wikimedia Foundation said that the board had "Three board members(?) are selected by WMF-affiliated chapters" until I fixed it the day before yesterday. The WMF is pretty far away.)

I've started a discussion to try to generate ideas for the boundaries of WMF/WP jurisdiction at WP:VPI#Scope of Wikipedia self-governance. --Yair rand (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC about autism

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)

User:Literaturegeek thanks and replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Epilepsy, seizures, and cancer

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)

Well cancer can cause seizures / epilepsy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Salty Dog Paddle

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)

We have a bunch of account using a bunch of sockpuppets.

What us your connection to the topic in question?

By the way is this also you User:ClintonCimring? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

/* History */ added history about testing 5FU on humans

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)

What about [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You should consider your own edit war when tagging others

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)

So User:Tobby72 opened a discussion on the talk page on July 5th at 12:42.

Those changes look perfectly reasonable.

You reverted them on July 13th at 23:47[3] without joining the discussion.

I commented that they looked reasonable and restored there content.

You reverted me July 15th 00:57[4] still not joining the discussion on the talk page.

Your first comment on that section of the talk page was only at 01:02 July 15th.

So yes I would call what you are doing edit warring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You forgot part of the sequence. user:Slatersteven reverted T72. So after SS objected to T72's edit, T72 reverted without justification. I reverted T72 for two reasons. 1. They didn't try to discover or address SS's concerns. 2. I generally agreeed with SS even though I didn't state it. If you felt T72 was correct that's fine, you might be able to make a good case to that end. However, that needs to be done on the talk page and needs to be more than a two word "Looks reasonable" reply. Yes, I could have written more. As an experienced editor who was now reverting not one but two editors you should also have written more. Springee (talk) 01:44, 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)

Wikimania presentation about Wikidata and Health

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)

User:Csisc thanks will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I thank you for your answer. I ask if you can eliminate the slides you find as useless. --Csisc (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have done all the required changes to the presentation. See you in Wikimania. --Csisc (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

insight

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)

Not sure what to do User:Dlohcierekim. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

IP keeps putting up links

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)

User:Ian Furst agree and blocked for a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Timolol drugs.com publishers

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)

User:Whywhenwhohow At the bottom is says "AHFS DI Essentials™. © Copyright 2019, Selected Revisions October 1, 2005. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc., 4500 East-West Highway, Suite 900, Bethesda, Maryland 20814."

They have just bought a license for the material.

Same as this is from TruPharma LLC via the FDA.[5] This being the package insert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting my edits?

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)

As explained on your talk page. Please read WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Medical editing welcome template

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)

User:Vchimpanzee Yes it is and it is here {{Medical student notice}}. Feel free to adjust further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

ygm

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)

edits not showing up

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

Replied on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

removing warning boxes at the top of an article

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)

You are not the only paid editor who has worked on that article. Your pings do not work as my user name has a space in it. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Tafamidis approved for ATTR cadiomyopathy May 6

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. SBHarris 04:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The article was based mostly on secondary sources... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It was indeed, and I'm not arguing that this is/was a bad thing. It's just when we have no secondary source for an important study finding, but only a primary source from a first class MEDRS source like NEJM, I think we should use it (putting in whatever qualifications you think good, so the reader is not mis-led.) Jytdog never got that. He thought primary sources should be excluded from biomedical WP, end of discussion, since they are not as reliable. He was so intractable he took me to WP:AN3 rather than budge on the issue (that's one of the things that makes editing WP hell). Of course, I disagreed with him. I believe that the general workings of medical science disagree with him. In this case, the FDA disagreed with him. How about you? Here's your chance to think about it. SBHarris 01:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Sbharris the FDA is a perfectly fine source. I generally stick with just secondary sources per WP:MEDRS (I generally do not have an issue finding them). It is more that the community is looking for stuff that has stood a bit the test of time.

When the CT head study for subarachnoid came out[6] I still waited for this to be combined into reviews in balance with the rest of the literature before adding the conclusions here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Unanswered question

See the bottom of User talk:Jimbo Wales#13 years. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Have posted User:Guy Macon Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"In popular culture" references in medical articles?

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)

User:DocWatson42 if you can find secondary sources, sure... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Primary source?

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)

User:Exert yourself per WP:MEDRS we are looking for secondary rather than primary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Etymology of hemangioma

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)

User:Wimpus I do not speak Greek and thus am just going of what the reference says. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In case you can not read what is stated in the reference, you have to be very careful to use such a reference. In case you would have read Greek, you would have noticed that the Greek from the reference differed from what was already written on the page. Wimpus (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah the ref is basically in English https://books.google.ca/books?id=fstFQVnw8-wC&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false

This was summarized as "The word "hemangioma" comes from the Greek haema- (αίμα) meaning "blood"; angeio (αγγείο) meaning "vessel"; and -oma (-ωμα) meaning "tumor"."

If you look closer at the edit in question you will notice I was just adding a ref to what was already there. Thanks for fixing it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)