:::::::I have no doubt that Doc James is big enough to fight his own battles without needing you to go into bat for him. As for accusing me of 'yelling' - stop being so melodramatic. I'm not going to enter into any further discussion about this: I have more pressing things to do. And so should you. [[User:Fortnum|Fortnum]] ([[User talk:Fortnum|talk]]) 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I have no doubt that Doc James is big enough to fight his own battles without needing you to go into bat for him. As for accusing me of 'yelling' - stop being so melodramatic. I'm not going to enter into any further discussion about this: I have more pressing things to do. And so should you. [[User:Fortnum|Fortnum]] ([[User talk:Fortnum|talk]]) 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::::"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
::::::::And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,
::::::::or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;
::::::::'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."
::::::::--''The Boxer'' by Simon & Garfunkel<br />
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
(Selected comments copied from Jimbotalk, where they are about to get be removed by the 3-day archiving)
On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845. This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.
In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.
So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?
And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.
Regarding hiring someone else to fix this, I would very much like the idea to be given careful consideration rather than being dismissed out of hand. The WMF is great at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area (Examples: Visual Editor, Flow, 13 years of failing to making this obvious but boring improvement to accommodate blind people.) I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.
Comments from the phabricator page:
"This doesn't just effect addition of external links, it also prevents new users from registering, requiring them to use ACC to request an account."
"There is no one currently assigned to this, so no one is taking it upon him to fix this at this moment. It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for, so it's not likely to be prioritized from that end."
The only thing stopping us from having an audio captcha is that nobody's put the work into implementing it yet." --Source: Chief MediaWiki developer as of 2008
"So the question is why has work not been put aside to fix an issue of recognised high importance that will, 13 years after first being raised, resolve an issue that results in us discriminating against people who are (in many jurisdictions) a legally protected minority?"
Guy Macon quoted from the phabricator page: It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for. This is likely not to be true. I realise the post was likely referring to teams on the technical side, but... if there is a mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or subsequent legislation, then there is a team with responsibility at the WMF, its legal team (ping Interim General Counsel TSebro_(WMF)). There is also responsibility for legal compliance that goes to the CEO / ED (ping Katherine (WMF)) and ultimately, if management does not ensure compliance, to the Board (ping community trustees Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm). If putting into effect the excellent and appropriate 2006 non-discrimination principles stated by the Board or doing the right thing are not a sufficient motivators after such a long time, perhaps legal obligation / potential liability is a reason for action? I am assuming that everyone wants National Federation of the Blind v. WMF to remain a redlink, rather than becoming a sequel to National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.? 13 years without solving an issue like this – and one the Chief Mediawiki Developer recognised as only needing people to do the necessary work (according to Guy's phabricator page quotes) – sounds indefensible. As Churchill would have said: "Action, this day." EdChem (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, then you should hire developers to work on it. Something the foundation has never prioritized. Ask VolkerE, he has been asking for years internally. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is certainly more than an "English Wikipedia" challenge - and if the Board of Directors think this is important, let your CEO know. — xaosfluxTalk 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the board directs the WMF to fix this, might I request that it be done openly and transparently? I know how developers and their managers think, and there is a strong tendency to work on something like this without telling anyone, throw the result over the wall, then get all upset when the users reject your solution. The right way to do this is to first decide on the requirements (for those who aren't software developers, "requirements" is a code word for "before we start, we need to decide what 'done' means and how we will determine whether we are done"), then let me and other volunteers with skills in this area criticize and improve the requirements. You have a great resource in the form of volunteers like me. It would be stupid to waste that free resource. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jimbo and Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed some time in the near future? Or will we be back here having this same conversation at 14 years and 15 years? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion we should double or triple the size of the community tech team. Per a number of people below appear to be lots of reasons why this needs to be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Please yes, a million times yes. This way things like the accessibility things would get done, as well as highly desired things like Article Alerts for more languages that apparently didn't get done for lack of resources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am no fan of increased spending, but I strongly approve of doubling or tripling the size of the community tech team -- as long as at least half of the new hires are given the job of fixing boring bugs that have been around for years instead of working on huge new projects that are doomed to be rejected by the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: You also have my !vote (when is the new community wishlist going to be launched? I would be willing to add this as one of the 'meta wishes', lets see what the community thinks of this). Of course, this could also be (partially) solved by using the existing resources in other ways. I am not at all surprised that community members get pissed off at an unstoppable inflow of crap. --Dirk BeetstraTC 09:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed some time in the near future? Can we get this on the agenda for discussion? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have received a number of questions / replies about this. One question is are we clear on a solution? Is the ask to provide a voice related CAPTCHA? Do we have a clear indication from those who need this technology regarding what solution they want to see? I am not clear on why proposing solutions was discouraged?
With respect to getting the solution built we have a number of options including a GoSC student, the wishlist, and directly from staff. First we need to be clear on what solution we are looking for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re "I am not clear on why proposing solutions was discouraged?" and "One question is are we clear on a solution?" we have been proposing solutions since February of 2006 and the problem is no closer to being solved. Proposing solutions is not working. Imagine for a moment that we were dealing with someone who who has a chronic medical condition that is normally easily treatable. What would be more effective; getting him in an examining room with a doctor who has been given the job of treating the patient, or two guys in a bar on the other side of town proposing and deciding on solutions to this medical problem, all without any actual contact with the patient or with anyone who can actually treat the condition?
That's the situation we are in now. You, as a board member, do not have the technical ability or authority to modify the Wikimedia software so that it no longer discriminates against a protected minority. You do, however, have the ability and authority to require someone at the WMF to answer the following questions:
What is the name of the WMF employee (or employees) who has been given the assignment of fixing this? Alternatively, when will that employee be named and by who?
What is the budget -- in other words how much does the WMF expect to spend on solving this? Alternatively, when will the budget be created, and by who?
What is the deadline -- in other words how long does the WMF expect it to take to solve this? Alternatively, when will the deadline be decided on, and who will make that decision?
Where will the software requirements be published, and how does the WMF propose that an independent third party can look at the results and verify whether the requirement were met?
Once we have a WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, an open conversation about possible solutions that includes that employee could be very productive. It isn't required, though. The politics of the WMF are such that any developer who tried such a stunt would most likely be fired. The way we normally do things around here is to have someone work on a problem in secret (possibly with "community surveys" but never an open discussion), come up with a solution, and then try to ram it down the community's throat. But that is a separate problem that we will not solve here, and one that doesn't need to be solved in order to solve our discriminating against the blind problem. All we need to do is to answer my four questions above. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have someone who has taken on trying to solve this problem per the ticket.[1] They are a contractor with the WMF from what I understand. This is not an easy problem obviously, with a lot of balancing issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did the WMF give this contractor the assignment of fixing this, or are they volunteering to fix it without being paid? If the latter. will WMF management either allow them to make changes to our software or assign someone who has the job of evaluating their solution and deciding whether to implement it?
Any proposed "solution" needs to include the name of an WMF employee (or contractor) who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed (no one assigned to fix it, no budget for fixing it, no schedule for fixing it)? Can we get this on the agenda for discussion? Or can we just announce that we are never going to fix it so I can stop asking? I really don't want to have this conversation at year 14 and year 15. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact: The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005, but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting, has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall. I just updated WP:CANCER with WMF financials from 2017-2018. Enjoy! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are lucky to have the ability to have paid staff working on as many issues as we do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In one way I agree. It's not like the WMF is wasting money right and left; most of what we do is really worth spending money on. And so far we have avoided the kind of high-visibility screw-up that results in a huge drop in donations.
On the other hand, did we not have paid staff working on many of these same issues ten years ago? Yes, they are clearly doing more now, but how much more?
From 2007-2008 to 2017-2018 donations went from $5,032,981.00 USD to $104,505,783.00 USD -- 20.76 times higher.
From 2007-2008 to 2017-2018 spending went from $3,540,724.00 USD to $81,442,265.00 USD -- 23 times higher.
In 2008 Wikipedia had over 5 million registered editors, 250 language editions, and 7.5 million articles. Wikipedia.org was the 10th-busiest website in the world. We had already started Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikiversity and Wikispecies, we had already opened chapters in multiple countries, and we had already moved from Florida to San Fransisco.
I was here in 2008. I did not notice any pressing needs that were not funded because we were spending 4.3% of what we are spending now. What, exactly, are we doing now that we were not doing ten years ago that justifies us spending twenty three times as much money? Are we really doing twenty three times as much now as we were doing then?
I have a dream. My dream is that the WMF simply spends the same next year as they spent this year, that the extra money goes into the endowment, and that in a year or two we replace the huge banners begging for more donations with a simple "donate" link, because the existing amount of donations is enough and because we could keep Wikipedia running forever off the endowment even if nobody ever gave a penny again.
I think that donations would still keep increasing, and that we would still be able to expand every year -- just not quite as fast as we have been expanding. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 2008 we were way under spending on security and site stability (and were mostly lucky that no major problems occurred). We are now in a significantly better position on both those issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Five or even ten times higher spending on those things wouldn't bother me. It would take a lot of convincing to persuade me that improving spending on security and site stability accounts for a $78 Million jump from $3.5 Million to $81.5 million. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the image syntax for {{Infobox}} was designed for images, using the standard image syntax. You can abuse that by declaring the video to be a thumbnail, but as you saw, that puts it inside a box, the same as happens with any thumbnail.
What you want to do is to either accept the standard way that we put images into infoboxes (so there's no thumbtime) and put the display image at 0:00 in the video; or we have to modify the standard infobox syntax (that's 3,000,000 articles we affect) to cater for videos by adding a thumbtime parameter. That will require some consensus.
Any other solution will put the video lower down on the page and isn't good for mobile views.
I still think you ought to be asking for a new class for the video so that mobile view can display it as the first thing on the page. However, that will also require building some consensus. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically we have this line in the template {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|size={{{image_size|{{{width|}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|upright=1.36|alt={{{alt|}}}}}
Actually figured out a work around. All we need to use is "frameless" and put the time in seconds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
^ abcdeCite error: The named reference NIH2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference CDC2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference GBD2015Pre was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Citations
Hello.
In 2017, you made an edit to Botulism (this one) that added a bunch of cites to the first source in the article to the lead. I believe that the citations are unnecessary. What's your reason for the cites? Thanks, Abequinn14 (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Abequinn14: Many medical articles, especially concerning diseases, contain vital knowledge and James has been championing their translation into a lot of other languages for many years. The job of producing good translations into lesser-known languages is difficult, and yet the speakers of those languages are often those most in need of the information that our articles contain – think of the huge number of sub-Saharan languages that exist, for example. One of the ways of making the translations manageable is to start by just translating the lead, and ensuring that the lead contains all of the most vital information. That means that medical articles tend to have references added to the lead to verify the information, which will allow bilingual editors of the articles in the other languages to expand them beyond the lead, even if the references are not so useful for the readers.
So, when it comes to articles that will sometimes only have their lead translated, I would argue that the references in the lead are not unnecessary, and play a valuable role in the dissemination of knowledge beyond just the English Wikipedia. HTH --RexxS (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Well, I wasn't really commenting about the cites themselves, i was commenting about the use of the first source 22 times in a row (in the lead) in that edit. Abequinn14 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases it might be necessary to use the comment function to show which content is based on which source without heavy citation use. I thought that was okay. JFW | T@lk 08:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes one can comment them out. But they should be left in place. If text is moved around it than remains clear which ref supports what content.
Without the references present people will often add citation needed tags or other references. As the one who does a significant portion of the review of our medical content having clear citations make this way easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Hello, I've never dealt with copyright issues on Wikipedia before, but I recently came across some text on Nasal fracture that I believe to be copy and pasted from a book. I see you redacted one version but the text in question still exists in 911524494,911628162 and 911628492 as it was only here that I removed it. If you view one of the old revisions, the text in question is the first two paragraphs under Chevallet Fracture and Jarjavay Fracture, when I google in quotation marks the text, It leads me to "Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery" on google books e.g here under class 2 fractures. Also your revert to your last edit brought back Usual onset Young males to the medical condition infobox, I would argue that "usual onset" is a purely temporal parameter and while different typical ages of onset could be specified for each gender, the current phrasing does not seem to match the parameter. I would also question the utility and semantics of specifying a usual onset for an acute injury's infobox. However I don't feel that strongly about it and I'm fine with it staying. Thanks. - Scio c (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As friendly advice, you have made an error with your editing. You have, presumably in good faith, reverted my edit regarding allopurinol. It is not allopurinol per se which can cause changes in uric acid levels, but urate lowering drugs which can cause the change, of which Allopurinol is an example but, crucially, not the only one. Leaving the wording specific to one drug, rather than generic as to a class of drugs misleads the casual reader. Thus, I have changed it back again. Your brief, and rather unhelpful 'edit summary' queries references for my added part that 'changing the dose' of ULT can lead to rapid changes in uric acid levels. The 'starting or stopping' wording was already there. There is a NICE summary on this, so I will change the wording back to my edit and reference it when I get the time to find the guidance. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - it is a relatively poor-quality reference, 12 years old in a not particularly noteworthy journal. I will update the reference to something more current which supports my edit. Thanks. Fortnum (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done - updated with NICE guidance (last reviewed Feb 2018) - a much better source than the rather flimsy original one. There's a fair few other issues with the article, again centring around poor sources, outdated information and a non-world view. I'll get to dealing with these shortly. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc James, what do you mean by "close connection" or "relation" ? I work in the field, I read journals about ophthalmology, I attend scientific meetings, I know the man and the method.--George G Milford (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing makes it appear like you have a connection with some of the people you write about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion
Hi Doc, hope you are well. I just wondered why some years ago you deleted the Analysys Mason page. There are a lot of other companies in our sector on Wikipedia and there are possible cross references to Datatec (current majority owner) and David Cleevely (founder) amongst others. Thanks Bram — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMoerman (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a little more care to read the sources provided for edits properly before summarily and hastily reverting edits. You incorrectly reverted my edit twice because you hadn't taken the time to read the source properly. I have reverted both of your 'reverts'. It would help us both not to waste each other's time like this. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Please look first and then when you're sure they can't be found revert, rather than overly-hasty reversion which I have to undo because you've not read closely enough. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the point. By the way, it's usual when you've made a mistake to apologise, rather than hubristically attempt to pull rank. I repeat: please take more care to read references properly before incorrectly reverting editors' changes. You should know this, and certainly shouldn't need reminding of it by someone like me, with 250 mainspace edits. You might also want to revisit WP:OWNERSHIPFortnum (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fortnum, you are way out of line, bordering on a personal attack. Go back to Talk:Gout#cks.nice.org.uk and calmly make your case using direct quotes from the source. Yelling at someone on his talk page for his good-faith efforts to follow WP:V and WP:MEDRS is inappropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 'out of line', as you put it, for asking for someone to read more carefully before reverting edits. My case has already been made by using the sources properly and changing the article accordingly. It was, in fact, Doc James who incorrectly reverted an edit because he thought it the correct policy to 'revert first, read second'. As you can easily see by the edit summary, if you bother to look properly. 'Good faith efforts' do not involve knee-jerk reversion of edits before actually reading the source properly. 'Good faith efforts' also don't involve thinking you have the authority to 'tell someone off' about the formatting of references. And you also probably still wonder why the pool of regular wikipedia editors shrinks...
I have no doubt that Doc James is big enough to fight his own battles without needing you to go into bat for him. As for accusing me of 'yelling' - stop being so melodramatic. I'm not going to enter into any further discussion about this: I have more pressing things to do. And so should you. Fortnum (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,
or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;
'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."
Doc James, the following pages are in my opinion problematic: Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, MALT lymphoma, Splenic marginal zone lymphoma, and Nodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma. However, all of these lymphomas are classified as marginal zone lymphomas; marginal zone B-cell lymphoma and malt lymphoma are the same disease; and marginal zone B-cell lymphoma correctly describes the disease as comprised of three forms, nodal marginal zone B-cell NHL, extanodal marginal zone B-cell NHL, and splenic marginal zone B-cell NHL but these three forms are now termed nodal marginal zone lymphoma, extanodal marginal lymphoma, and splenic marginal zone lymphoma. It might be better to consolidate these four pages into a single page termed Marginal Zone Lymphomas. I have written the following introductory pagraphs for such a new page:
"In 2016, the World Health Organization classified the marginal zone lymphomas into three different forms. 1) Extranodal marginal zone lymphomas (EMZL, also termed MALT lymphoma) are lymphomas of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), i.e. the mucous membranes that line the surface of the stomach and/or less frequently other sites throughout the body. Cases of EMZL that involve the stomach have also been termed gastric MALT lymphoma[3] and gastric MZL.[1]2) Nodal marginal zone lymphomas (NMZ) are lymphomas that are confined to lymph nodes, bone marrow, and blood.[1]3) Splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL) are lymphomas confined to the spleen, bone marrow and blood..[1] While all of these forms involve the same type of malignant B-cells, they show differences in their pathophysiology, distinctly different tissue involvements and clinical presentations, and somewhat different prognoses and recommended therapeutic treatments.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
"Marginal zone lymphomas represent 5-17% of all Non-Hodgkin lymphomas with the extranodal, nodal, and splenic forms accounting for 50-70%, ~10%, and ~20% of all MZL cases.[3] These lymphomas MZL occur primarily in older patients (median age 65-68 years) and usually are indolent diseases that often can be treated initially by a watchful waiting strategy. However, nodal MZL carries a somewhat worse prognosis[1] and any of the three MZL subtypes may progress to a more aggressive disease at a relatively low rate, e.g. about 3-5% over an extended period of observation.[4] Many cases of extranodal MZL appear to be caused by the chronic simulation of the immune system by chronic inflammation such as that caused by bacteria infections and autoimmune diseases.[5] The associations of gastric malt lymphoma with helicobacter pylori infection of the stomach[5] and extranodal MZL of salivary glands with Sjögren syndrome-related inflammation of these glands[6] are prominent and well-documented examples of this relationship."
References
^ abcdeBron D, Meuleman N (September 2019). "Marginal zone lymphomas: second most common lymphomas in older patients". Current Opinion in Oncology. 31 (5): 386–393. doi:10.1097/CCO.0000000000000554. PMID31246587.
^Thieblemont C, Zucca E (2017). "Clinical aspects and therapy of gastrointestinal MALT lymphoma". Best Practice & Research. Clinical Haematology. 30 (1–2): 109–117. doi:10.1016/j.beha.2017.01.002. PMID28288705.
^ abCheah CY, Opat S, Trotman J, Marlton P (February 2019). "Front-line management of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Australia. Part 2: mantle cell lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma". Internal Medicine Journal. doi:10.1111/imj.14268. PMID30816618.
^Casulo C, Friedberg J (2017). "Transformation of marginal zone lymphoma (and association with other lymphomas)". Best Practice & Research. Clinical Haematology. 30 (1–2): 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.beha.2016.08.029. PMID28288708.
^ abSmedby KE, Ponzoni M (November 2017). "The aetiology of B-cell lymphoid malignancies with a focus on chronic inflammation and infections". Journal of Internal Medicine. 282 (5): 360–370. doi:10.1111/joim.12684. PMID28875507.
^Nocturne G, Pontarini E, Bombardieri M, Mariette X (March 2019). "Lymphomas complicating primary Sjögren's syndrome: from autoimmunity to lymphoma". Rheumatology (Oxford, England). doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kez052. PMID30838413.
Hi. I noticed that you recently edited this article (Borderline personality disorder). Another editor recently edited the article 22 times in a row after your last edit on this article. I noticed that person's last edit was unnecessarily wordy (diff here). The same editor has made a number of other changes (to the article), including what seems to be adding symptoms of BPD that were not previously in the article. Also, another edit changed two wikilinks from "Psychosis" to "Reality" here and here. The editor also changed a wikilink for "Depression (mood)" to "Bipolar disorder|manic depression" here. And so on. There are probably other instances I am not mentioning. I'm wondering if you or, someone else familiar with the topic, could check the accuracy of these edits. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you regularly revert additions to the Baclofen article whenever people make misguided attempts to mention its purported uses wrt alcoholism treatment. Yet when I place in a small reference to the negative findings from the University of Amsterdam (research which is mentioned in the article, as if it is yet to happen) in an attempt to curb this speculation, you hastily revert it as well, bundled in with the other edits? If you don't think the source is high quality enough, advise a better one. Or at least give a good explanation for the revert so I can fix it up. It's absurd to leave a mention of something as if it is yet to happen, when in fact the research took place years ago (yes, I know "yet to occur" things that have already happened lurk all over the Wiki -- and yes, it makes articles look stale and sloppy). As is, it just makes it look like the University of Amsterdam just got a $750,000 windfall and the solution to alcoholism might be right around the corner. It's too optimistic.
Ah now I see the talk page has been debating it for nearly ten years without anybody coming up with a decent workable solution for the article space. You'd think IAR would kick in at some point, and the article could end up giving at least a decent idea of the results. I don't care enough to wade into this one.
User:Peace and Passion good point. It was the mention of its use for drug misuse in the lead that I had concerns with. Have restored the content to the history section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
