User talk:Nbauman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Nbauman/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ankylosing spondylitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annulus fibrosus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic[edit]

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic
Wiknic logo.svg

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.

1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater.

Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.

11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Reference Errors on 4 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polyploid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclei. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter[edit]


Medical translation.svg

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Stetho book.jpg

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery


Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg
TWB.svg

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation


Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?


IEG grant
CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

  • Swedish
    Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
    Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
  • Dutch
    Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
  • Polish
    Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
    (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
  • Arabic
    The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [3]

News in short


To come
  • Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
  • Proofreading drives

Further reading



Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse

If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tunica intima may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The tunicae of blood vessels are 3 layers: an inner layer (the tunica intima), a middle layer (the [[tunica media]], and an outer layer (the [[tunica externa|tunica adventitia]]).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
  • TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
  • Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
  • Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share[edit]

Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

2pm–5pm at Yeoryia Studios at Epic Security Building, 2067 Broadway (5th floor).

Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Health fair may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Association recommend against echocardiograms in asymptomatic adults without hypertension.<ref>[http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4220 Public Citizen. HealthFair

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Friedrich Sigmund Merkel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • from 1872), [[University of Königsberg|Königsberg]] (from 1883) [University of Göttingen|Göttingen]] (from 1885), and [[University of Rostock|Rostock]] (from 1872). At Göttingen, he worked under [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting[edit]

Ah. what is this [4] You have made more than 8000 edits.

You added "Between 2000 and 2010, the number of patients in the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry increased from 21,000 to 26,000, and adjusted mortality decreased by 1.8% per year (95% CI, 0.5% to 2.7%). Males had a 19% (CI, 13% to 24%) lower adjusted risk for death than females. Median survival of children born and diagnosed with CF in 2010 is projected to be 37 years (CI, 35 to 39 years) for females and 40 years (CI, 39 to 42 years) for males if mortality remains at 2010 levels and more than 50 years if mortality continues to decrease at the rate observed between 2000 and 2010."

Ref says

"Between 2000 and 2010, the number of patients in the CFFPR increased from 21 000 to 26 000, median age increased from 14.3 to 16.7 years, and adjusted mortality decreased by 1.8% per year (95% CI, 0.5% to 2.7%). Males had a 19% (CI, 13% to 24%) lower adjusted risk for death than females. Median survival of children born and diagnosed with CF in 2010 is projected to be 37 years (CI, 35 to 39 years) for females and 40 years (CI, 39 to 42 years) for males if mortality remains at 2010 levels and more than 50 years if mortality continues to decrease at the rate observed between 2000 and 2010."

Are all your edits copied and pasted like this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Refs[edit]

Also we should be using secondary rather than primary sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Valsartan/sacubitril[edit]

No offense intended, but I removed your lengthy quote from the Valsartan/sacubitril talk page as I'm pretty sure it is a copyright violation. My understanding is that the limit for fair use is 50 words, and this was pretty close to 500.

Please accept my apology if my actions were in error. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98, thanks for being so courteous about it. I realized I might have been pushing it but I had good reasons for posting it.
I've never heard of a 50-word rule. I've heard of a 1,500-word rule that academic presses agreed to, for quoting each others' works. I've talked to copyright lawyers and they told me that there is no easy rule. You can't tell whether something is fair use until it's gone to court and a judge has decided. Here's what an authoritative legal publisher said:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html
The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. As a general rule, never: quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, take more than one chart or diagram, include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission, or quote more than one or two lines from a poem.
Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, copying 200 words from a work of 300 words wouldn't be fair use. However, copying 2000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair. It all depends on the circumstances.
To preserve the free flow of information, authors have more leeway in using material from factual works (scholarly, technical, and scientific works) than to works of fancy such as novels, poems, and plays.
In this case, Lehman had 15 one-paragraph reviews, and I quoted one of them. I would have linked to it directly, but I couldn't link to that one paragraph among the other 15. His blog is free on the Internet and not behind a paywall, so neither he nor the BMJ lost anything of commercial value by it. The BMJ actually tries to make their content available free whenever possible, and particularly on Wikipedia. They gave Wikipedia editors a significant number of free subscriptions. Lehman wrote that he wished that a particular article behind a paywall could be posted on Wikipedia, because it was important and everyone should see it. (I actually summarized it on Wikipedia.)
As you can tell if you read his piece, he really disliked the idea that Novartis was exaggerating the merits of a drug in a poorly-designed trial, and that lots of people were falling for it, and he wants to get the word out. He's a doctor, who gets a salary from the NIH. He doesn't get paid for clicks.
And as Nolo wrote, this is a scientific work, and I'm definitely promoting the free flow of scientific information, so I have even more leeway.
I was pretty sure that Lehman wouldn't mind my copying that section, and would probably be glad I did it. I thought that putting it in talk was a good way to have everyone read it and understand what the problems were with this entry.
So given those circumstances, I think it was acceptable fair use.
But I'm not going to make an issue of it. --Nbauman (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Hi, just wanted to take this off the article Talk page. When you were arguing to expand the back-and-forth of opinion over the paradigm trial, I was guessing that you had an axe to grind, since that is typically the motivation for such discussions. And indeed when you wrote this and then this, you made it clear that: a) you see mainstream scientific publishing as corrupt; and b) your goal here in WP is to teach readers how to see through the corruption; c) mainly by generating content based on editorial/commentary sources that you select on your own authority, that expose the corruption. This whole string of logic is a POV and your certainty about it has no place here - and it being a WP:FRINGE POV at that (fringe, by definition, since it rejects mainstream scientific publishing as corrupt) -- is going to make life hard for you here in WP. As I mentioned on the Talk page, I suggest you check that POV at the login page. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think Richard Horton represents a fringe view? --Nbauman (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
i am sorry but what are you talking about in particular? i'm unwilling to make blanket proclamations (e.g. I was only commenting on the POV i mentioned above, not you globally). I can tell you that very esteemed people have gone to the fringe on this issue. For example Marcia Angell has gone way over the deep end on the "corrupting influence of pharma" - I heard her talk once and i was blown away by the level of bullshit-slinging she has sunk to, to make her points. there are valid issues but painting it black is a move that leads directly to the fringe. so what line of thinking of Horton's are you asking me to comment on? Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's what Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, said about medical publishing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_%28editor%29#Peer_review
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.
Do you think that Horton's viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint? (And there are many other journal editors who have said the same thing). I'm not asking whether you agree or disagree. I'm asking whether you think it's a fringe viewpoint.--Nbauman (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
you want to pin him to the wall of a strong statement he made 14 years ago. hm. i think his continued work and ascent in the field of scientific publishing is all the refutation needed that he does not view scientific publishing as a corrupt enterprise. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not pinning him to the wall. He still believes that. He's been repeating it ever since [5] and he never retracted it, even when publications and doctors at lectures continue to quote him. I've read his recent writings. Larry Husten[6] just collected Horton's recent tweets on the subject and Horton says clearly that companies regard journal publications as "marketing".
Do you think Horton's viewpoint, as he currently believes it, is a fringe viewpoint? --Nbauman (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
so you picked testimony from 5 years later - 9 years ago. Yet he soldiers on. One wonders how he lives with himself. How do you suppose he does? Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
and by the way, let's not forget this paper by drug discovery scientists at Bayer (and see this discussion) and this paper by drug discovery scientists at Amgen and this subsequent action by Nature, which is at least trying to do something about this problem. You have a wonderfully litigator-like style, but let me cut to the chase. The scientific publishing process is what it is. Like every single human endeavor that has ever existed, it definitely has flaws. Is it a stinking pile of horseshit that we should treat as such? That is a fringe view. The PARADIGM study was what it was. On a personal level, I am very very curious how regulators will treat it. (they are the ones who matter most of all) But here at WP, MEDRS governs how we source things. We try to communicate to the public what the mainstream scientific community describes as True, as expressed in review articles and statements by major medical and scientific bodies (none of which will be perfect shining jewels revealing disinterested Truth but which the WP community has judged are the best things our human and flawed institutions can produce), and as best as we can grasp and communicate it. Doing that skips over the hew and cry over and any specific WP:PRIMARY source, which do not and should not matter here. They are not what we are about, writing an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
sorry i failed to acknowledge the 2012 tweets. yep he is still saying similar things. everything i said above still holds. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your answer. I'll simplify my question. Richard Horton said that drug companies regard their randomized, controlled trials in major peer reviewed journals as marketing. Is that viewpoint, which is held by many other editors of major medical journals, a fringe viewpoint? All I want is a yes or no. --Nbauman (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── you want X and I want Y. i will humor you. It is absolutely true that scientific publications are an essential means for companies bringing new products to market, to communicate to their relevant stakeholders (which include doctors and payors) what their products do, good and bad. If early results for CAR-T being developed by Juno, Novartis, and others hold up in phase III trials, we will find out about it from scientific publications. Is that process open to manipulation? Sure. Do academic scientists try to win their next grant by spinning their data when they publish? heck yes. (and btw, bench science in industry is generally more rigorous than it is in academia; which i acknowledge is a different story from publication of clinical trial results) do talking heads make money and draw eyeballs (in other words, make money) by making strong claims this way or that way? heck yes. pretty much everybody except regulators has something at stake. Are any one of those voices (each with many individual voices within it) corrupt? That is a fringe POV. and in the midst of all that messy human pursuit of self-interest, we somehow get by. imagine that. but again, none of that has anything to do with MEDRS and your effort to import all that mess into WP is not what we do here. That is what I want - that we do WP's work, here in WP. maybe you will humor me.Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i will also say that i am so so happy that the ACA provided money to AHRQ to do comparative effectiveness studies! we so need that. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The only "yes" I saw in there was this: "Are any one of those voices (each with many individual voices within it) corrupt? That is a fringe POV."
So you're saying that it is a fringe POV to say that any of the voices in medical publishing are corrupt? Do you mean the mainstream view is that none of the voices are corrupt? --Nbauman (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
see my reply to you in our other conversation. done here! good luck. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Been following this conversation a little and the two cents I'll add is that if something is wrong with the science in a publication (which is ultimately what is insinuated with the "corruption" comment), it is not our place as editors to say so. We need another source such as another publication saying the methodology or conclusions were incorrect. Some people have a lot of trouble stopping themselves as to how far an editor can go for digging into a publication, especially when there is some POV about companies involved in the science. Studies associated with a company in some form can still be correct (or incorrect) so we first rely on peer-review to check that to a degree, and further studies to continue that commentary as much as we do with non-industry associated science. The tools are all there to handle concerns about "corruption" (rather the end result of it) without even having to bring it up. Sticking to the science can help you a lot in these topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
to be fair to nbauman, kingofaces, where we got "into it", was that nbauman wanted to have a great big section, something like this, providing published commentary on a published clinical trial (PMID 25176015) with the goal of countering what I believe he would call the advertising/spin of the original publication (sponsored by Novartis and three middle-listed authors from Novartis). So Nbauman wasn't putting his own OR in the article. from my perspective the overall WP:WEIGHT given to the publication of the clinical trial (a WP:PRIMARY source) was undue, and the selection of commentary to use, was OR. In the course of working that out, nbauman stated his POV on publication of clinical trial results, which I reacted to here, off the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I imagined there was a lot more going on as I didn't read into the background too much either, and didn't want to read into the situation more than the POV statement you pointed out. As you've seen as well Jytdog, there are some POVs out there like nbauman described that often get them into trouble as editors here. That's the comment I was mainly focusing on here as I was hoping my advice (or maybe reminder) could help Nbauman's future science content edits go a little smoother by focusing on what I described rather than the corruption POV. When done right, you're killing two birds with one stone (to the degree editors can at least) and checking the POV at the door too. Either way, that's my two cents on dealing with the POV, so I'll just leave it there intended as a piece of friendly advice for Nbauman. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Kingofaces43, you're a PhD biologist, so you should you be able to understand this.
The core question here is whether it is a WP:FRINGE view (or idea) to say that articles about clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals are "marketing."
By definition, WP:FRINGE is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field".
This idea has been published by the editors of those same journals, such as Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, Marcia Angell, Jerome Kassirer, and John Ingelfinger, former editors of the NEJM, Richard Smith, former editor of BMJ, and others of similar stature, all of whom have described those articles as "marketing". I realize your field is entomology, but you should recognize that those are 3 of the top medical journals, by any measure. That's where I got the idea from, and I've had this explained to me by medical editors who were also medical doctors, so I don't think I'm getting this wrong.
(I explained this in detail at User_talk:Jytdog#Valsartan/sacubitril, and at Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril.)
Here's what I don't understand, and what I'd like to ask you: How can an idea be WP:FRINGE if it has been published in many articles in the Lancet, NEJM, and BMJ, and in articles by the editors of those same journals? --Nbauman (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I really don't know why you can't hear this - what makes your claim describing "those articles as "marketing"" problematic, is the breadth and singularity of it. it's a gross oversimplification. as i said to you before if you were to nuance that I would have a different reaction. (and btw let me add that you are basically saying that the lead authors of the PARADIGM study ( and any other clinical trial you put under that umbrella) who are not Novartis employees, are under the control of Novartis' marketing department. zoiks.) Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm on a bit of a contentious issue burn-out right now, so I'm not going to wade into the long history and discussion going on here, but just comment on what I see at a glance as the main issues from an outside science sourcing background. It seems like you are looking to add criticism of a study. Is there a review article you are pulling this criticism from? If not, even in non MEDRS topics, I'd be extremely careful about using individuals like you listed as sources of criticism for a study. However, in a very MEDRS topic like this, I'd consider using their opinions undue weight almost right off the bat. They may be important people, but they are only a handful (even if they have a prestigious position). We need a review article to formerly summarize what the scientific community thinks in these topics to avoid that complication. If something was flawed in the study, a review article will cover why in a future publication. Until we have that, we don't know what kind of weight to give the criticisms (no idea if they're legit in our position as Wikipedia editors), so we would normally hold off on criticisms until that time. Nothing wrong with waiting for more work to come out before adding the review's info as that's the nature of science anyways.
On a more general note, publications can indeed be used for marketing. I don't think anyone is denying that. From the way you are describing things, you are saying the publications in general can be used as marketing. Nothing incorrect there. If my read is correct on the situation though, you want to take that general idea, and apply it to a very specific study. Going from the general to specific would start going into fringe territory (really more original research though) without reliable sources saying the specific study had such issues. I think that concern is largely moot though as, even if a study was used as marketing, that's pretty much completely irrelevant to us as editors. Whether it was used for marketing or not tells us nothing about the validity of the study or acceptance in the scientific community, and that's what really matters.
I'd also like to point out my posting here wasn't meant as "piling on" at all. This is a topic I deal with in agricultural related articles as well, so I was hoping to give you some pointers on dealing with concerns of industry involvement, nothing more. If industry involvement is a concern for you, then that still brings you back to the question (as an editor) of, "Documented in reliable sources, were the findings in this study valid, and are they accepted by the scientific community?" That's the question that ultimately determines whether edits stick in these topics, while focusing on industry involvement can be a distraction from that ultimate question. If you think industry involvement somehow made the study invalid, then skip all that concern and go straight to the main question everyone else is supposed to be asking anyways. Either way, that's more like my 25 cents now, so I'm just leaving this here as pointers as a passing commenter. Good luck. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Kingofaces43, you've attacked me personally, which violates WP:CIVILITY, by accusing me of POV editing, without even talking to me first. You've distorted my words, by confusing statements that I've cited from WP:RS with my own beliefs. You accused me of saying things that I never said, such as accusing people of "corruption."
I'm trying to figure out how you could possibly come to these false conclusions, or if there's any truth to them, and when I ask you, rather than either giving me an explanation or retracting them, you say that you're in a "burn-out" now, and don't have any more time. If you don't have time, then just admit that you don't have all the facts and you shouldn't have said anything.
(For the record, you say that we should wait for a peer-reviewed article to uncover flaws. Things don't work that way. This month, a study in JAMA doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9646 looked up all the studies in the medical literature that had a second, independent group reanalyze them. They found five. By your criteria, there would only be five articles in the entire medical literature that Wikipedia could accept to criticize a study.) --Nbauman (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Note to self: An article on industry influence on clinical trials. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=1898873 Industry Collaboration and Randomized Clinical Trial Design and Outcomes Nitin Roper, Nasen Zhang, Deborah Korenstein JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10):1695-1696. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3590. --Nbauman (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Real life editing question[edit]

So, this edit was made a few minutes ago. I know what I would do with it but held back, to come and talk with you about it. What would you do? Let's see just how much we are on the same page or not, on an edit neither of us originated, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I've given up trying to argue with you. I have nothing more to say to you at least until you retract those uncivil, insulting, false charges that I'm POV pushing fringe views. Now you're encouraging pile-ons from editors like Kingofaces43. My last advice for you is that you might look through your attacks on me here for certainty and so forth, and consider whether it actually applies to you. Since it does. --Nbauman (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
this wasn't an attempt to argue at all, but instead to reconcile by trying to work on something neither of us had touched. and i had nothing to do with kingofaces commenting here. Good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
oh, btw, as far as I can see, you didn't disagree with my description of your perspective in my initial edit above, where I wrote that "you made it clear that: a) you see mainstream scientific publishing as corrupt; and b) your goal here in WP is to teach readers how to see through the corruption; c) mainly by generating content based on editorial/commentary sources that you select on your own authority, that expose the corruption. " If I got something wrong there, I am indeed sorry about that and if you care to tell me, i would be interested to hear. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Medical assistant may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • community colleges have successful programs where graduates make more than $25,000 a year.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/upshot/medical-assistant-programs-a-case-study.html When Higher

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ed Miliband may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • called Hamas a terrorist organization, and criticized its “wholly unjustified rocket attacks.”<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/world/europe/milibands-embrace-of-jewish-heritage-complicates-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

  • TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
  • Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
  • New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
  • Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter



MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Caucasus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The '''Caucasus''' {{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|ɔ:|k|ə|s|ə|s}} or '''Caucasia''' {{IPAc-en|k|ɔ:|ˈ|k|eɪ|ʒ|ə} is a region at the border of [[Europe]] and [[Asia]], situated between

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share[edit]

Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village.

6:30pm–8pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street

Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant (to be decided).

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Erdely Discussion[edit]

A discussion in which you may be interested is occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Split Proposal[edit]

A discussion in which you may be interested is occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I don't know if you've visited it, but you may also be interested in checking-out and/or monitoring Sabrina Erdely which is attracting a large volume of sanitizing IP editors. BlueSalix (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  • So far, those IP editors are actually posting non-public, personal information on a third party. Another member of the Oversight team has suppressed the edits - Alison 22:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.