Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doc James (talk | contribs) at 05:21, 18 November 2013 (→‎Pageviews). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

List of archives

WikiProject Medicine


Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance


"Coordinators"? "Bureaucracy"? "Organization"? Pride. Motivation. Incentives.

Hello all. I have been a bit disconnected from the raw editing of content lately, for better or for worse. But I've wondered for a while now if WP:MED might benefit from the structure that is used over at WP:MILHIST, which uses coordinators to help provide some "direction"/"leadership" to the project. My opinion is that, as I've done over at WP:Neutrality cabal it would help create a more sustainable online community if we did so. Why? Because when you have your name associated with a project publicly, it adds to the sense of one's responsibility, in a good way, I would argue. I think this is similar to the way getting a green plus sign or a bronze star on an article helps add a sense of pride over one's contributions. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are still a small number. Not sure if adding coordinators is needed until such time as we become larger. What are you thinking of? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I haven't studied the military history example yet. I'd rather see what they say first, to see how it worked for their project. I just wanted to get the idea down at first I guess. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Agree that we don't have enough members who are actively engaged. However, Biosthmors, something I feel this project lacks and would be very useful, is a pathway of small, incremental steps to bring a select group of articles to a higher quality. I feel that's one thing which distinguishes the MilHist project. Surfing through their project page it feels much easier to contribute a small amount in a significant way. Would you be so kind as to tax yourself for a week or two and think about how we might integrate such a thing into this Wiki project? I think the place to start would be to identify what we want to achieve (ie bring the quality of top-class articles up). LT910001 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, a regular (fortnightly or monthly) newsletter noting: contributors; major published secondary reviews during that period (could spur some edits); COTM and/or peer reviews or articles seeking help, might be very useful in spurring development. I also really liked how the MilHist had an editorial every month about how to improve an aspect of the project. LT910001 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newsletter or update sounds interesting. I proposed something like this for progress in goals here. Update of progress of goals could of course be included in a short newsletter. Maybe monthly is too frequent... Bi monthly? Lesion (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bimonthly would be good. If it included some recently-released reviews or meta-analyses, we could spur editing on relevant pages. LT910001 (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LT910001, please see my question in #Publishing articles below. and a lowercase U when notifying didn't work for me above — thanks WMF... Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely want to radically reform the WP:MED page. I think you're spot on! That's why I submitted a grant (also because I want things I learn to dramatically catalyze all other WikiProjects). But I'm going to have to withdraw it because I'm too busy with other things at the moment. Maybe I can pick it back up on a volunteer basis in December, but January is looking more likely... =( Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Biosthmors, if your complaint is that this edit didn't ping you, then you should report it at WT:Echo. I'm certain that the software is case insensitive, but it might not be prepared to cope with multiple signatures in the same edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WAID and done. WhatamIdoing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a test to replicate the "bug", if it's real. Were you notified? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not notified: no little red numbers for me this morning. I just scanned the list of bugs open on Echo, and I didn't see one that was obviously relevant. You may have discovered a new bug today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! We better contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology just to be sure =D. LT910001 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. That's good to hear WhatamIdoing. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, Biosthmors, I think a 'coordinator' would be a great idea. Should be a voluntary designation given to willing users with 6+ months participation. I think the role could be defined as with the aim to recruit and retain WP:Med editors and some responsibilities might include updating the COTM; publishing a little monthly newsletter with information on goals, GA promotions issues this month and major secondary reviews published during the period; and shepherding new users whilst they learn the ropes (just discovered {{Welcome to Wikipedia}}). Ping to Wouterstomp, who posted something similar I saw on your talk page whilst scrolling. LT910001 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ocaasi is working on the newletter for WPMEDF. Maybe we could combine it with this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bad idea. WikiProject Medicine at the English Wikipedia and Wiki Project Med Foundation are not the same organization, even if some people belong to both groups and both groups have some general goals in common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While different things no reason collaboration could not occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WhatamIdoing. I also don't think we have active enough membership to even consider, at this stage, having a "coordinator". There are rather substantial differences between WPMED and MILHIST, where the coordinator model works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. No opposition here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of new medical BLPs need eyes

This is too much for one editor to handle.

See these articles created by User:Jinkinson. They came to my attention because two of them were recently at DYK: Paul Ashwood (version before and version after I edited) and Max Wiznitzer (minor cleanup, not too bad). A press release was used as the source for the DYK hook (that is, not MEDRS-compliant) at Paul Ashwood, and the article uses original research to draw conclusions about Ashwood's connection to Andrew Wakefield (as odious as Wakefield may be, Wikipedia needs to let secondary sources make the connection, and they need to be attributed).

The BLPs sometimes use independent secondary sources to discuss the physician's accomplishments, research, statement in the text, etc, but they too often are original research based on primary sources, with the author of the articles (Jinkinson) drawing conclusions or making statements about the subjects of the bio by citing only the subject's own journal articles (primary sources), rather than using Independent secondary sources who discuss the bio subjects. (Jinkinson does that correctly many times, but there are enough misses that I'm afraid there is a cleanup task ahead.)

I don't know where to begin. There is also uncited text in BLPs (I cited a few I found, but it is bad practice to create BLPs with uncited text), and I've found examples of text that doesn't accurately represent sources. They also have "Select publications" lists where it's hard to see what is the selection criteria. As an example, see this version of Michael Pichichero before I edited, and my changes.

I am assuming that the new notification will ping Jinkinson to this discussion, but will also ping his talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun cleaning up from the top of the list (worked through about the first 10, some are fairly good with few problems, others are riddled with problems of all types), found many more issues including too-close-paraphrasing, but need help getting through all of these. I'm hoping Jinkinson will weigh in and receive some guidance on writing BLPs on Wikipedia, and correct sourcing. Also, none of his articles are wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this name sound familiar? Lesion (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a strange mixture of by-the-book strictness, and exposure of some decidedly fringe ideas and iffy sourcing, with a lean in the direction of material on controversial autism causes. I had raised Jose G. Dorea at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is nice, insofar as people are actually noticing my work. I acknowledge that the articles I have created probably need more sources, and that I should make it clear that statements in articles are "according to" certain people (e.g. Brian Deer) rather than flatly stating that the statement is true. Thanks for your advice SandyGeorgia. Jinkinson talk to me 15:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure all these persons are notable enough for a stand alone article? Lesion (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. However, I think most of them probably are, since they have published a number of highly cited papers. E.g. for Palmer see here, and for Pichichero see here. But determining whether they are or not is what AFD is for. Jinkinson talk to me 15:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about notability on several of them, and a whole lot more. Jinkinson, I'm glad you've responded here, and I want to impress upon you that the particular combination of a biography of a living person and a medical topic requires some care, consideration and expertise, and I wish you would slow down, as every one of your BLPs needs attention in a serious way. The way you synthesized about Wakefield and Ashwood is as bad as it gets (I'm very happy to know that someone at MIND Institute was affiliated with Wakefield and hence may be a charlatan, which shows that you did a fine job of possibly impugning an innocent man, displayed on the mainpage of a top website via DYK, since nothing in your sources tells me anything more than he might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and got paid for giving testimony, which sure isn't a crime).

Publishing a number of highly cited papers is not how we determine notability. Please stop creating BLPs unless you run a few of them by others on this talk page, and please help in the cleanup of all of your past editing, since these articles are more of a burden than we can all take on. I am very concerned that you don't understand the correct use of sources, either for BLPs, or for medical topics, and certainly not for the combination of the two. And your statement about determining whether these articles meet notability is what AFD is for is very troubling; it seems to indicate that you don't mind creating all of this work for other editors.

In case you will find these samples helpful, Donald J. Cohen and James F. Leckman are two medical bios about top researchers in TS-- note the use of secondary sources. I am troubled by the work you have created, and troubled by the cavalier attitude your response above shows, to the extent that if you create another BLP like those you've created so far, something will need to happen. You can convince me otherwise by helping cleanup the 100 articles you have already created, and countless others you may have edited.

Are you being paid to create these articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separate discussion on h-indexes refactored to new section below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paid to create articles. I can't believe what I am reading. The answer is no. I just do this because I want to contribute to something constructively (evidently I am not being as successful as I had hoped). Thank you once again for advising me as to my behavior on this site (i.e. telling me to be less "cavalier"). Also thank you for telling me not to use the h-indices from the Google Scholar pages of certain academics. I sincerely hope this can be resolved, and you and the rest of editors who agree with you can regain faith in me. Jinkinson talk to me 03:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your civil reply, Jinkinson. I'd like to ask SandyGeorgia if you've made any incivil remarks that have warranted these accusations? Sandy's made some legitimate remarks about citing and paraphrasing, but I would remark that we can't keep scaring away new editors with extremely strong language just because their editing is suboptimal! This is not conducive to a good atmosphere for current or prospective editors, and if Wikimed is to expand (and Wikipedia in general) then we will have to accept that editors come in lots of shapes and sizes and not go trolloping over all and sundry. LT910001 (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LT in principle, but I am uncomfortable with the statement "I am not sure if these articles are all notable, that is what AfD is for" (paraphrase). I do not think that is not what AfD is for. AfD is a last resort for things which have fallen through the net. Please carefully consider the notability of the individual before creating a bio article. If there are doubts, dare I suggest that you utilize AfC for more opinions? Lesion (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jinkinson, I am sorry for the delay in responding, and am finally catching up here. Because we have an unusual situation on this page with limiting the table of contents, if you don't mind, I will refactor this discussion to separate out the h-index discussion, as it has gotten no attention (probably because we have a messed-up TOC situation here where separate topics are missed, and we can't add third-level headings for separate discussions). Then I will respond separately on each. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back after refactoring out separate h-index discussion, to account for no third-level headings. Jinkinson, I am relieved to hear that you are not paid to edit, and sorry that question had to be raised; your response about AFD (which I characterized as "cavalier" but could be a reflection only of your newness) led me to wonder.

You have made numerous constructive and quite good contributions, but the troublesome BLPs triggered my long-standing concern about inadequate review at DYK, and I sincerely apologize to you that my concern about DYK resulted in coming down too hard on you. DYK is infamous for letting problems through, putting articles on the mainpage that breach core policies like BLP and COPYVIO and guidelines like MEDRS, so that new editors get the wrong impression about Wikipedia policies, and go on to do much more of same, with problems not being detected until after hundreds of articles not compliant with our policies are created by DYK regulars.

I did not tell you not to use h-indices: I don't know if they are user-inputted (hence unreliable) and am asking other editors for help and feedback on h-indices in google scholar profiles. I've refactored that to a separate discussion below.

As to "regaining faith in you", we were all new once, and we're all always on a learning curve in here; if Ashwood is the worst mistake you make in here, you're in good shape!!! I haven't "lost faith" in you, but neither have I seen you cleaning up the BLPs that have problems. We are all overworked in here. If you will go back and clean those up, you will find that I will be one of your biggest fans and cheerleaders. It would be helpful if other editors here would give some guidance on the cleanup needed, mostly related to how you use sources. Please check every BLP you created, and please don't leave them in that shape. If I can be of assistance to you in any way, just ask, but on issues like the h-index, I don't know the answer (yet)! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For review

I have compiled an incomplete list of all the medical BLPs I have created. I have worked on most of them a little bit to try to add more reliable sources. However, it would be awesome if one of you would be so kind as to specify which ones need the most work with regard to sourcing and whatnot. The list is as follows:

Jinkinson talk to me 01:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've wikilinked your list so we can begin checking them. I don't see Jose G. Dorea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond F. Palmer and Thomas W. Clarkson

Raymond F. Palmer and Thomas W. Clarkson

OK, I've looked at the two most recent to pop on my watchlist. I appreciate User:Jinkinson's ongoing efforts to clean up these BLPs, but we still have issues that could use more feedback.

These are the changes I just made to the article, subsequent to Jinkinson's cleanup.

  1. The infobox contained uncited text (referring to "controversial" research)
  2. The lead states that he is a prof, but the institution's website does not list him, and the source used is from archive.org
    Fixed, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The sources are news accounts of two or three journal-published primary sources. I cannot discern that this fellow even meets notability, per WP:PROF.

Feedback from others would be helpful before continuing.

Jinkinson cleaned up Clarkson; does Clarkson meet notability?

By the way, I also found this inappropriate use of a primary source in another article (that was not added by Jinkinson, although the link to Palmer was). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H-index

Refactored from section above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a separate question on how Jinkinson is using the h-index in BLPs (example Jose G. Dorea). Our article indicates that

Harzing's Publish or Perish program calculates the h-index based on Google Scholar entries. In July 2011 Google trialled a tool which allows scholars to keep track of their own citations and also produces an h-index and an i10-index.

Does this mean the "scholars" are inputting that data themselves? I cannot find any way of locating these h-indexes on google scholar of physicians and researchers known by me to be top in their field, so I don't know if this is user-input data (not a reliable source) or original research or what, and I'm unsure we should be adding this to articles unless the h-index is mentioned in a secondary (independent) source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if these h-indexes on Google scholar profiles are user-inputted (not reliable)? I am unable to find them on most researchers I am familiar with, and do not know where the data is coming from. If the users themselves are calculating and entering them on a Google Scholar profile, that would not be a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article at h-index also says that:

The h-index can be manipulated through self-citations ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Google Scholar allows a scholar to tell Google which articles actually belong to them. Basically, you could figure out J. Smith's h-index, but it isn't going to mean much. There are tools out there that allow you to say, these are all the articles that belong to this particular J. Smith, what is the h-index? So, the list of citations is likely user generated at some level. And pretty much all citation measures can be inflated by self-citation, but most authour's will cite their previous works because they are working in the same field. Canada Hky (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone able to answer this question? Are h-indexes from Google Scholar user-sourced (hence not reliable)? Should we not be referencing H-index in BLPs unless a secondary reliable source does so ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback; perhaps User:DGG can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student editing alert

Please browse topics at

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This last course, with the point structure, has quite an appealing way of marking that (I hope) will increase the quality of submissions. LT910001 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Education Program:Case Western Reserve University/ANTH 302 Darwinian Medicine (Fall 2013)#Summary_and_students targets high-profile medical articles, and the course syllabus earlier suggested editing with a POV (a Darwinian perspective). The students have begun adding text from sandbox to articles. There are occasionally good sources, but more often there are not; there are sources I can't locate on Google Scholar or PubMed, and even when there is potentially one or two sentences that can be gleaned from a good source according to due weight, the text sometimes strays off-topic. Also, the students rarely link their sandboxes on talk, and don't always engage talk, so you have to browse the contribs of each student if you don't find the sandbox on article talk.

    As university term-end approaches, these articles (and classes listed above) will need attention! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We won't be done with these til the term ends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Calling a bluff

@SandyGeorgia: recently claimed, at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Another plea for review and accountability, that "many editors at Wikiproject Medicine are available to help-- you only need ask". As DYK has a perennial backlog that makes pride impractical, below is a list of medical related nominations that could use a timely review:

Those with limited exposure to DYK can find the criteria against which nominations are reviewed at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules with additional explanations, clarifications, and interpretations available at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. --Allen3 talk 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list (you might want to adjust your heading). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: Deep dermatophytosis could be a nice medical DYK if anyone has the opportunity to expand it sufficiently within the next few days. --WS (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone able to look at those not done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfluorooctanoic acid

There is a discussion on the Talk page of this article about whether WP:MEDRS applies to content (a lot of of content, many thousands of bytes worth) describing the relationship between this chemical and human health. More eyes would be very welcome. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a list of secondary sources has been supplied on talk. Alexbrn, should this section be archived now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not happy with the state of the article in respect of human health claims, but encountering push back on my removal of what looked like poorly-sourced biomedical content I'd given it up as a bad case (at least for now). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing articles

If people are interested in the idea of getting our medical articles published in the medical literature then please see User_talk:Alexbrn#By_the_way, where I raise some specific issues about the details of how to do this. I'm not sure how we should proceed. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This project has a lot of work to do in terms of improving many articles rather than publishing the few articles of GA or FA status that exist. If these articles were published, there is the secondary problem in 5-10 years that a variety of sources will use which cite the original Wikipedia article. There is the additional problem of attribution in such publication. I think we may need to step carefully on this one.LT910001 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you against the idea of volunteers coming together to create a pipeline for other volunteers who might wish to volunteer in this way? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not! I think it's great that there are lots of different ideas that are being tried, but I don't think it should be made a goal (central or minor) of WPMed. LT910001 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LT91 string of numbers. We have much more necessary work to do in here than getting a few articles published, that may or may not even be good articles (regardless of internal assessment-- several of our FAs are already out of date), and I am against the idea, period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I just think establishing a new incentive structure could get more people involved to help. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia welcomes new medical editors

[1] Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is our friend user:Stefan2, international expert on photographic copyright/ medicolegal law and official Wikipedia welcoming ambassador. Lesion (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the rules (WP:IOWN) are very simple: if an image was published outside Wikipedia before it was uploaded here, then the uploader needs to provide an OTRS ticket. The notifications on the uploader's talk page provide information on how to do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am unhappy with the impersonal and aggressive treatment you have enacted on this new user, and the level of help you have offered (i.e. none), when I directed you to where the user in question had attempted to provide more detail of the origin of the images (which you appeared to have ignored and instead continued to send deletion notifications to their talk page). In your desire to rigidly follow an arbitrary set of rules you are harming the encyclopedia by deterring new members, in this case one with apparent skills that are very much needed. Lesion (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the copyright office around Wikipedia/Commons is getting a little out of control. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesion, I understand where you are coming from, but I would have probably worded it much more softly. Like this: "I am unhappy with the impersonal and aggressive treatment you have enacted on this new user, and the level of help you have offered (i.e. none), when I directed you to where the user in question had attempted to provide more detail of the origin of the images (which you appeared to have ignored and instead continued to send deletion notifications to their talk page). I think it would have been more welcoming and helpful of you to leave a personalized message that offered assistance instead of all the templates over and over. In your desire to rigidly follow an arbitrary set of rules you are harming the encyclopedia by deterring new members, in this case one with apparent skills that are very much needed. In my opinion, it is not in Wikipedia's best interest to adopt the style you have chosen. We should instead try to attract this type of content contributor as much as possible. Might you perhaps try instead to use a friendlier and more human-like strategy? Best regards." Anyhow, Stefan2, I think that was the gist of it. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan2 is one of the leading anti-medical image editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O my, I'm going to assume good faith and hope that's not true... =( Do you have any links to help me learn more about Stefan's editing behavior? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re phrasing, I don't think my (second) attempt at this was overly harsh. Tonality is hard to convey in text. In the context of the struck first comment the tone may have been altered though.
There are have been a few long threads on this page not to long ago. Most of it is on Commons I suspect. Stefan2 aka Stephan4 appears to be waging a crusade against medical images such as clinical photographs, x-rays, CTs and other imaging, making leaps of logic like "The company who manufactures the x-ray machine holds the copyright" and other nonsense. Lesion (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The company who manufactures the x-ray machine holds the copyright" - is this claim actually backed up by law or something? Do we have a specific policy regarding this? Because I don't really follow. Wouldn't that also mean that all photographs taken with a Canon EOS 5D camera belong to Canon Inc., and any music played on a Yamaha piano belongs to Yamaha Corporation? --benlisquareT•C•E 22:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So as to nip this in the bud, we had a rather long discussion not long ago about this topic (see probably Archive 37 or 38). The conclusion was that there is not only no specific policy, but also no legal precedent, and that we can't act on an absence of evidence and therefore assume they are illegal, and we we ought to assume WP:Good faith in that consent was gained by the uploader. Might be useful to add a section to MEDMOS on this for future reference. A Wikimedia analysis on use of X-rays exists here, in Wikimedia: ([2]). LT910001 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LT agree with your crossed out text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Benlisquare:, no, I don't think there is any evidence for this statement. See link posted above by LT. I think James was also working on a advisory document on these issues, which I can't find now. Lesion (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has any idea the copyright of X-rays or even if they are copyrightable. And than if they are copyrightable does the license go to the ordering physician, the radiologist reading it, the patient, the X-ray tech or the hospital? And does this vary depending on the country the image is taken in? Than are the images held to the copyright of were the images are hosted (the USA) or the country were the images are taken? It seems each edit on Commons makes up their own version of what they think the law is and than begins trying to delete X-ray images from there. It is a huge waste of time for those of us trying to build an encyclopedia having to deal with those who are trying to destroy one.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biosthmors: there was a long discussion here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Axl. I haven't yet read this, but I'll note that I've seen someone else lodge a complaint against this user's approach to copyright... Perhaps they are a troll? I don't know what to make of it. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you should label him a "troll". I believe that it is a genuine good-faith attempt to enforce Wikimedia's regulations. However I believe that the approach is misguided. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Trolls live under bridges. This user just wants to build a bypass... --LT910001 (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To give the end to this tale: several of the images were now deleted. It is clear that the user is the copyright holder of the images and has even attempted to accommodate us by jumping through these arbitrary hoops [3]. Lesion (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for paying attention to this Lesion (looks like you didn't sign). I really hope user:Stefan2 rethinks his approach. These automated messages need to be used carefully and the folks at Wikimedia focusing on Editor engagement experiments (see the Growth for details) and in particular Template A/B testing, although note that the results page says that a template is often better than no information at all (and short welcome messages are generally better). II | (t - c) 22:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm mainly involved in this because the editor in question seemed to be from the same specialty as me, but in general I do think this is a problem. As suggested by LT, let's all try and give new medical editors a "core service" greeting of either a quick personalized message or a friendly template like MedWelcome, (which WAID mentioned is available in TW... haven't tried this yet) before any avalanche of templates or newbie biting occurs. Lesion (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Otto_Placik

There is only one user who would remove a COI tag from a plastic surgery article and also edit Philistinism from a Chicago IP.[4] Is WP:SPI the appropriate venue for this, or is there something better for an obvious circumvention of an indef block and topic ban?--Taylornate (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to jump to conclusions, Chicago is a big place. If it is, I would suggest that it might be called delusional to equate being a plastic surgeon to being an intellectual or culturally superior. Some would say, it is more likely to equate to moral bankruptcy, ego, and an over-privileged background. Whilst a degree of Tall poppy syndrome may have been at play during this user's block, I would think the main reason they were blocked was persistent perversion of the neutrality of wikipedia articles for personal gain. Lesion (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Xanthogranulomatous Process (Xanthogranulomatous Inflammation)

Dear medical experts: This Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Should we let it go? The reviewer seemed to think it was less important than it appeared. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Anne Delong. This article has a useful place under Xanthogranulomatous Inflammation, and it's clear there are several articles already that refer to this form of inflammation. I'd be happy to accept it, but it appears to already have been declined. What to do? LT910001 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LT910001. Since this is an old abandoned article, you can adopt it. just click on the "resubmit" button and it will be submitted again. Then you can accept it. I hope that you will read it over first to see if there are any places where medical jargon can be replaced with plain language without decreasing the accuracy of the information; people who aren't doctors may want to read about this. Thanks for taking one more article out of AfC. There are about 43,000 more of these old drafts to be dealt with. (You can see them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue.) —Anne Delong (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done and dusted. LT910001 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! —Anne Delong (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stem Cell Therapy needs significant reworking

This article has become very heavy with edits from individuals that are promoting a particular study (citing primary literature or a University press release) such that minor topics are prominantly discussed but the broad consensus in the field is hard to discern. I don't have time to deal with it, but perhaps WikiProject Medicine would consider tackling it for a collaboration of the month? Biolprof (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a lot easier to do if we knew of some good (ideally free/online) sources about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible suggestions: There are some open access articles in the 29 Aug 2013 special issue of Stem Cell Research & Therapy on "Clinical Applications of Stem Cells" (http://stemcellres.com/series/clinical). Also an open source book called StemBook on Pubmed books (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27044/). Biolprof (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Biolprof. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOMER

GOMER could use some work. I remember a book I read saying it was more applied to the lonely who had lost their "humanness" and just came to the ER for human attention. I forget what book it was, but it might have been the one by Robert Martensen (RIP). Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation

One of everything-- hard to know where to start. Many primary sources, might be promotional, loads of uncited text, how-to, and I'm off for the morning and haven't had time to check for copyvio. New editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found one review, I cleaned out all primary sources, but I do not have journal access to the review. Could someone else access that review and finish cleanup? We have a new editor focused on a product that got FDA approval early this year, company Brainsway, SPI, potential COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pharmaceutical article

Hello Truebreath and welcome to Wikipedia. What drives your interest in dabigatran? I worked on the deep vein thrombosis article, and I have an interest in that disease. What brings you to Wikipedia? Welcome. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all the discussion about this talk page being too long, premature archiving, elimination of third-level headings, etc ... why is this post here instead of on a (new user's) talk page? I hope we're not expecting a new user to understand how the new notification system works. Bios, if you are worried about this user's work and want more eyes, spell it out; otherwise, this belongs on his/her talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have systemic problem with non-neutral pharmaceutical article edits, but I don't think implying a conflict-of-interest in a welcoming message is advisable. Any ideas? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erlotinib

See notes on my talk page (section "Pingie pongie"). I'm concerned that depressingly sad facts about this drug's limited abilities are being suppressed in a recent edit that was discussed at Wikipediocracy. That forum, the writer said "The drug is in fact highly effective about 60% of the time for certain otherwise fatal types of lung cancer" -- so we've got an editor who is claiming a 60% cure rate for nasty lung cancers. Could editors here research the current guidelines/evidence surrounding this drug (e.g. NICE, etc) and inject a little reality, even if it is depressing. Colin°Talk 22:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent review, free full text available, not cited in our article:
  • Chen X, Liu Y, Røe OD; et al. (2013). "Gefitinib or erlotinib as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review". PLoS ONE. 8 (3): e59314. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059314. PMC 3605444. PMID 23555654. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
I am not a Dr., and I don't even watch TV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. This paper does not state how much it extends life in months... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, those Wikipediocracy commentators are rather cynical. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few primary sources and the whole article needs a bit of clean-up. I have added a couple of references, including this one. There are several end-points of relevance when describing chemotherapy outcomes. Qi's paper describes improvement (better than standard second-line chemotherapy) in one of these outcome measures: overall response rate (ORR). ORR is really detected on x-ray/CT scan and is not directly related to an improvement in the patient's health. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Chemotherapy ought to list some of these ways of measuring outcomes. I've just started a new section ==Efficacy== in the hope that someone who knows something about this will list and define some terms like overall response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response criteria vary a bit by disease. The RECIST criteria are probably the most widely used for solid tumors; the revised IWG criteria are often used for lymphoma; and so on. These criteria define terms like "complete response" and "partial response", and "overall response" is typically complete + partial responses. I'll try to take a look at the chemotherapy article in the near future and work on clarifying this. MastCell Talk 22:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reviews:

  • Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.05.001, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.05.001 instead.
  • Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 23594426, please use {{cite journal}} with |pmid=23594426 instead.

Jinkinson talk to me 14:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome for new editors

I have created a template, in keeping with some previous discussions, that can be posted on the pages of new users. I created this so that we can inform new users about what I feel we agree as the three main things: (1) welcoming them, notifying them we exist; (2) informing about the user of sources, and (3) informing about the need to discuss some changes.

The template is accessible here: {{WPMED welcome}}. (here: {{WPMED welcome}}) It needs to be signed when you post it (I don't know how to make that automatic). I would recommend you use {{subst:WPMED welcome}} so that the plain text is visible. Please drop this on the talk pages of new users before they're warned about something, so that at least the first interaction with WPMed is a positive one.

I hope we all find this useful! Ping to Biosthmors, who mentioned this idea earlier. LT910001 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Example is here (heading deprecated by one):

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine!

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine! We're a group of interested editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles, and it's great to have a new interested editor on board! In your wiki-travels, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

  • Firstly, thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time here (talk page), or if interested, join the project yourself! (participant list). We are always interested in improving the quality of articles and collaborating, so feel free to give us a shout if you have any problems, suggestions, would like some review, need some more articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • Secondly, us Wikiproject:Medicine editors are vigilant about using sources, particularly for medical articles. For an introduction to sources, and a guideline for medical sources can be found here: WP:MEDRS. We almost always try and use recent secondary sources to support information. We almost never use primary sources, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
  • Thirdly, Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of Wikipedia:WikiFauna, including trolls (WP:TROLL), hardened knights (WP:Knight) and other horrible megafauna. We all manage to get along, but this is only through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on WP:Med for help here (talk page).

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wikitravels!

Commentary



I like it. Made a small change to the wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for improved templates, so thank you for making this! Feel free to use it whenever you'd like. As for me, I still prefer personalized messages. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! I hope this is used often. {{WPMED welcome}} can be put in the userbox of new users without having to re-write the same information (about sources, participation etc) again and again, and followed by a personalised greeting. LT910001 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That third point doesn't make wikipedia look like a very attractive environment to work in. I would just keep it at: "If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on WP:Med for help here (talk page)." Maybe a short note about the WP:MEDMOS before that for general guidance. --WS (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with WS on that small point, otherwise great job and I think this will be a better way of greeting new editors. Especially agree with the sentiment: ."try to ensure this template appears on the talk page before any warnings." Lesion (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, well to some extent I don't think Wikipedia is very welcoming for new users. My general feeling is that new users cop criticism and acronyms for a period of months until they either stop editing or grow a thicker skin. I would rather be somewhat harsher up front, so at least this new editor knows what they are dealing with, and can adjust their behavior accordingly. LT910001 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please don't start using this template until it has been properly copyedited and worked over; the tone is off, it has grammatical errors, and we shouldn't throw acronyms at newcomers. I will get around to looking at it later today, and will also ask User:Colin (one of WPMED's better copyeditors) to have a look. It is not ready for primetime (and it should always be subst'd). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: started tweaking this template here: [5]. I think it is going to be hard to find any consensus on this kind of thing because everyone will have their own idea of how best to welcome new editors. As long as they get some kind of friendly message is the main thing, this version or others, or a custom message per Biosthmors' comment above. Lesion (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belittle LT910001's work or anything but I think a template like this already existed: Template:WPMED-welcome Jinkinson talk to me 17:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was only aware of the text-based one. LT910001 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are now 3 of these templates to be honest. However, I like this approach more. Image looks good, more friendly. Lesion (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we need to be clear. We cannot use a template that throws all kinds of negative language and acronyms at newcomers. Compare the version linked by Jinkinson to LT's proposal. Is this Project dying or turning in to a comedy of errors? Let's get this sorted out. I'll copyedit later as I find time ... for now, I haven't gotten yet through my morning unpaid unwanted TA duties for the Education Program, I haven't yet responded to Jinkinson (which I've owed him for several days), and I haven't yet gotten through my watchlist. Maybe by the time I've done all of that, someone will have gotten around to making LT's version look more friendly and less acronym-filled like the version linked by Jinkinson. The problem with that version is that it is not aimed at new editors-- it is aimed at editors who have signed up for the project. Which means it really isn't needed. We should ditch LT's version (which isn't very friendly, isn't well worded, and included too many acronyms rather than real English), and rework the version linked by Jinkinson to include a broader audience ... that is, any new editor editing medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's nice to have this edited collaboratively, but I do feel this has been mischaracterised. There was only one acronym before (a link to MEDRS), and now there are 6. I think fair enough to post your own point of view about the template's quality, but it's difficult to accept criticism that's not based on fact. LT910001 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked it; sorry, but it was daunting, negative, and a wall of text and acronyms. It should be subst'd like this:

  • {{subst:WPMED welcome}} ~~~~

I also think the other is better:

  • {{subst:WPMED-welcome}} ~~~~

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits, this template has been developed to welcome new users only, and there is no need to use this template if you don't want to. LT910001 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to thick skin, this isn't just needed by newcomers, the longer one is here the thicker there skin must because. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 and Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism is helpful. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today I'll teach medical students about using Wikipedia and I always struggle which first page/entry to show them when they register. Well, here is the solution. Thank you! NCurse work 08:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Research Hack-a-thon: Did anybody attend?

Does anyone know anything about what happened at meta:Research:Labs2/Hackathons/November_9th,_2013? Will there be another one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Heeschen

Dear medical experts: This abandoned submission at AfC appears to have references, but needs some inline citations. Can someone who understands the subject help to improve it? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong, sorry, but I don't typically work at AFC, so don't understand how it works. The article is created on a talk page, so where do we make comments? Or do we just edit what's there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the article's citations. It contains 14 inline citations. The only thing it doesn't do is happen to use the (absolutely not required) <ref> tags to mark the inline citations. This problem is called out as item #2 under "Avoid the following errors" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions.
This was tagged as not containing inline citations by a poorly coded bot, which is obviously unable to apply any judgment to the task. Fortunately, the bot has been inactive for over a year. We can only hope that nobody has copied the code and continued to inflict this kind of sloppy tagging on AFC users since then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but if I'm going to work on it, the first thing I will do is clean up the citations so I can see if there is any salvageable, well sourced text. Not an AFC reviewer, don't plan to become one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my understanding, biographies of living people do need citations for certain types of information, but WhatamIdoing is correct that ref tags are not required. However, they do make it easier to renumber when new references are added, so thanks for offering to fix these up, SandyGeorgia. There's no need to be an Afc reviewer; when you are done, you can click on the submit button, or if you don't want to deal with it, just leave a message for me and I will do it. The bot that left the original message doesn't appear to be operating any more, perhaps because of this problem. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Anne Delong for pinging us and for the work you are doing there, but that article is a mess. Many of the citations are to self (Heeschen's own website or lab), I don't read German, and there is inappropriate use of primary sources (that is, original research from citing to his articles indexed in PubMed). I have a hard time finding motivation to work on something that looks pretty bad on the surface. Someone should figure out first if the fellow is notable, but German language may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't stress SandyGeorgia! I misunderstood your previous message to mean that you wanted to fix it. There are always more articles needing improvement than there are willing editors, and editing Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, so please don't feel that you have to do anything about this one. Sorry. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worked further on this (not much there, inappropriate use of primary sources), but now it needs someone who speaks German. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further opinions

We have a user who is unhappy with the position of the CDC, FDA and WHO here [6]. They wish to go with the position of ASH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Started a RfC here [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So others won't have to sort through a long list of acronyms, ASH refers to a UK non-profit, Action on Smoking and Health. [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTMED mainpage, Goals

Who, where, how and why was the "Goals" section of this page set up? There is pretty much a nil chance that this project can generate 200 FAs, so why is that there? Nothing against this project, but that is not a doable goal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My idea. I was thinking it could be a 5 year goal. Would you rather it be 100? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We won't make 200 in five years, and we probably won't make 100 either. ever. We should be focusing instead on cleaning up REALLY bad articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's goal 4. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we don't start calling it the five year plan (still, better than the four year plan). There has been recent discussion on User talk:Biosthmors about adjusting the FA goal to a more realistic target. On a side note, I had a suspicion that few WPMED editors were aware of the goals, and rarely frequent the project page. If you haven't visited it before, check it out as there is a lot of helpful stuff there. Lesion (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What became of the template where we used to track FAC, FAR, GA and PR submissions? If I ever find a few free moments, I'll go looking for it-- but perhaps the person who removed it will speak up before I get there. And then maybe I'll find time to respond to Jinkinson on his BLP list ... notice that I'm feeling like the mainpage and talk page here have spun a bit outta control?  :/  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts?
Sorry to hear that you finding the mainpage and talk page are out of control ... request more specific feedback so these concerns can be addressed. Lesion (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not the template I was referencing, but that one will do the job (I think-- assuming it flags FACs, FARs, etc). I see now that template is hidden on our mainpage here. I believe I have been addressing specifics :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure what template you are talking about then ... I don't remember any other template which fits this description. My suggestion would be to look here (but this assumes the template you talk of is tagged as WPMED ... not all of them are unfortunately). Project page and appearance of this talk page should be considered a work in progress, everything is still too messy imo. Please anyone feel free to leave feedback. Lesion (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW over at User:Biosthmors/Things I have {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine}}, which might be useful. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WTMED mainpage, Welcome templates

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Welcome templates RFC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have five welcome templates? Consolidation needed:

  • Welcome messages (all of these substituted onto a user's talk page):

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=D I guess the answer to that Q is difficult to pin down exactly. Some of these templates were not tagged with WPMED, and each of them is so uncommonly used that it may have lead the various parties to believe that no such previous template existed before, and to take it upon themselves to be helpful and create one. Now that the true situation has been uncovered, we probably should not need 5 of these templates ... Lesion (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see these are all listed on the WP:MED project page. Hmm... Lesion (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Considering the concerns about length of this page, I've started a sub-page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Welcome templates RFC where we can hopefully resolve this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some are short, some are long. I guess it depends on the situation; sometimes a user just needs a brief welcome, and sometimes they might need something different. I'm all fine for consolidation, but there should at least be some kind of variety for how detailed each welcome is. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than one image in the lead

There are efforts to add more than one image to the leads of a number of articles [9] [10]. I am unhappy with this as it makes the infobox too big. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I'm concerned that argument may have been justified on Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as the image added was very large. On the other hand the header is very small and does not give any real insight for a layman (who honestly wouldn't by virtue of the image alone tell that they're seeing a lung). CFCF (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jmh; the clutter is off-putting. To avoid another infobox war, where is the general discussion? The two additions given as examples are awful; where does it end? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the conclusions of the "infobox wars" was that the primary editor of the article gets an extra say with respect to formatting of the infobox. And the same with respect to reference style. This of course need to take into account general consensus and efforts for consistency across a subject area and within an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my read on the Infobox conclusions. An RFC was recommended, has been put off 'til the New Year, and IMO, and those findings and remedies you mention were only to deal with the disruptive users who were identified (there are more). Whether WikiProjects have broader input on infoboxes has not been determined, because there hasn't been an RFC. So, at our level (WPMED), and at any level (WikiWide), I am opposed to long infoboxes, and see no reason at all for two images in an infobox, ever. CDCF, I believe you are using infoboxes inappropriately, and you should discuss on each article's talk page which image should be in the lead, and which belongs better in the body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone should attempt to issue a blanket ban on dual images. I also think it's worth remembering that images can be placed in the lead but outside the infobox, even when an infobox is present.
I don't think that WPMED has any special say in this: it's up to the editors at each article, not people here. That said, this is often a good place to get extra eyes if the editors at the specific article in question are unable to resolve the question on their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Caps when referring to people with health problems

There is a RfC here [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged leprosy image

The image File:Victim of Leprosy.JPG was added to Leprosy and Poverty in India around August. It states that the person is a victim of leprosy, however an IP said "incorrect this is just a guy with hand severed" on the image description. I'd like to know what you think (the IP proposition seems at least equally plausible to me), and if we should remove the image from leprosy and possibly rename it. Cenarium (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note for the uploader to see whether he can tell us more about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to be sure from the photo. The left hand appears relatively normal. If this is leprosy, this would be a severe deformity (amputation) of the right hand, which would be unusual with a normal left hand. This makes me more inclined to think that it is more likely to be traumatic amputation of the right hand. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since we can't know for sure if the person is affected and on balance an amputation for reasons other than leprosy seems at least equally probable, I think we should then be prudent and remove the image from the article. Cenarium (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't noticed, Cenarium, a similar matter is being discussed in the #Image of narcolepsy? See the Narcolepsy article section below; how that has been handled and what has been stated with regard to it is relevant to the leprosy matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's an important difference: this picture doesn't exactly look like a (reasonably) typical person with leprosy. Even if we could prove that he really, truly had leprosy, it still wouldn't be an ideal illustration for the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary versus secondary sources

We have users wanting to use primary sources. Wondering if others can comment. Talk:Suicide#Social_Networking_Sites Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this topic at WP:AN

Most of what User:DrMicro has added to Wikipedia is copyright infringement as per here [12]. I have blocked the user in question as they edit extensively and we need less to clean up. Am bringing it to AN. They have made 19,722 edits to 1742 articles since 2006. 18,542 have occurred in article space.[13] I have block this editor as an emergency measure and am bringing the case to WP:AN. Should have caught this sooner :-( What do we do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list of his top 50 articles [14] and his last 500 edits have occurred in less than 3 months [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the 20 or so random edits I have looked at or more or less copy and pasted from the source. What do we do now? Any suggestions? Could a bot revert all his edits? Do we simply delete his most edited articles? Revert back to before his first edits which occurred often year ago? Give up? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User even had copyright concerns flagged on their talk page in 2010 [16] and again in 2012 [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool that can list all articles that this user has edited? If ten of us each take 170, we could sort this out. Big job though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some edits that were not plagiarised. The other issue is that he extensively uses primary sources. For example his most edited article has 648 refs Plasmodium_falciparum_biology. And most are primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the discussion be centralised in one place, preferably at AN (see hatnote). This may become very confusing. -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I may suggest the opposite - AN is well-equipped with deciding what to do with the editor, but I suspect that in particular in this specific field of expertise, many of the WP:CCI regulars may shy away from the cleanup effort, both for a potential lack of access to some of the sources (medical publications behind a paywall for instance) and a lack of expertise to fix the problems. If this indeed proves to be systemic and widespread, WP:MED support would be invaluable with cleaning up the mess without severely crippling medical articles. MLauba (Talk) 12:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCI opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DrMicro. MER-C 12:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggestions on how to deal with it, am awaiting a response from DocJames, think it should be dealt with on the AN thread (as we will need broad consensus and the help of the CCI folk); the first thing we need to know is if the copyvios come from text behind paywall, as that dramatically changes the cleanup effort. Most of them I have checked are not behind paywall, and most of his edits are to new stubs created by him, so my recommendation at AN is likely to be that everything created by him should be mass AFD'd, and everything else reverted. But first want to know how much of his text comes from behind paywall, and how much can be checked by people without journal access. I'd also like to point out that many of his edits are biological, as he was identified as a med editor on my talk page: I have never interacted on an article with this editor. And, I do not think we should be dividing up this work to fix it: we have an equally big problem with student editing from sources behind paywall or textbooks, so we should have a global way of dealing with these situations-- as in, revert the edits, delete the articles. We don't have the resources to be checking this amount of copyvio, especially not when we know it is as huge as DrMicro's, especially not when we are already stretched too thin, especially not when we have huge amounts of copyvio coming in from students whose sources are behind paywall. So, please, let's get a global approach to this at AN, my recommendation, depending on what DocJames says, is likely to be a mass AFD any article created by DrMicro (unless someone shows a reason not to). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is very possible mass rollback may be warranted. but I hope we try to engage the editor. I glanced at the talk page, and I see hints that it may not be simply a disregarding of the rules, but a misunderstanding that we have a more stringent guideline for fair use than the law requires. If the editor accepts that, the editor may be inclined to help with the cleanup, which would be very useful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed three articles:

  1. History of malaria I concluded there were problems, and manually rolled it back.
  2. Bimodal distribution I thought sure there would be problems, but haven't identified any in the first few edits I reviewed.
  3. Plasmodium vacuolatum Can't be sure without journal access, but it might survive.

Too small a sample to draw definitive conclusions, but we need to do a little more looking. There seem to be articles in both biology and math. If, for example, the math articles were fine, while the biology articles mostly copy-paste, we might take a different approach than if we find pervasive copy-paste problems. The editor acknowledges copy-pasting guidelines, but argues it is OK. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just pointing out that we need to be cautious about broad-brush solutions. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get more data, then, but the idea of all of us dividing up this amount of work-- not on, at least not for me! Mass solution will be needed-- agree with SPhilbrick that we should look at a sample to see what that might be, but still say AFD all of his stubs, because we have other things to do with our time. Like keep up with the huge number of students creating the same problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I started working on a subsection of the CCI page, and reviewed a number of his plasmodium stubs. They were all extremely short—plasmodium vacuolatum, mentioned above, is typical, with only 6 sentences of actual text—and I found no significant copyvio in those. The non-stubs are another story. Maralia (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also reviewed Staphylococcus nepalensis. Review write-up on Talk:Staphylococcus nepalensis. That looks to me like it should be nuked. Were it a one-off, I'd urge a rewrite, but if there are hundreds like this, they should be removed, and let someone start over. I haven't carried out the deletion, so that others can weigh in, both on this specific articles, and on the general approach.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of cleanup, cases like this are exactly why policy has this line: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." Before the sports article cleanup referenced earlier, there was the gastropod cleanup - not the first mass-copyright cleanup we had done, but the proximate inspiration for creating WP:CCI. Sometimes, the atomic remedy is the only one that makes sense. I have not had a chance to look at this contributor's work myself yet, but if that's the pattern we're finding in the non-stubs, we have the option of rolling back to an earlier version or reducing to stubs immediately, and we even have a template for it: {{CCI}}. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a significant proportion of a significant majority of medical articles affected, I would be interested in becoming involved in a cleanup effort. Suggest that we prioritise by (if possible) providing a list of top/high importance med articles affected. We can then work through those articles by either rewriting or removing. For this subset, I worry that the nuclear option may leave a big gap in these articles, and would prefer to deal with this now rather than wait a few years for the gap to fill. No requirement for other Wikipedians to participate in this effort. --LT910001 (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what is worth, I just reviewed two articles about Hepatitis for issues (which I found). As a complete layperson, those articles are totally hermetic to me. As a general encyclopedia, if all is made of the same cloth, it's perhaps worth asking whether losing articles incomprehensible to the average reader is really a loss. MLauba (Talk) 12:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article lists all the articles he has significantly edited or which there are more than 500 [Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/DrMicro] Most of his major work thankfully was on malaria related issues. And most of his copy and pasting seems to be from the abstract so that anyone can address it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table of contents

So why does the table of contents at WP:MED create whitespace before the goals section shows? Is it because of something in Template:Wikiproject Medicine Header? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine on my screen, so I have difficulty figuring out the problem for you =( Lesion (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tried a work around: NOTOC. See if layout improved without TOC. Again looks fine on my screen with no whitespace. Lesion (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want a table of contents. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except for a single white line (regular height or less), I see no whitespace below the TOC. (Firefox atop WinXP). -DePiep (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind I just meant to the right of the TOC but I guess this is unavoidable. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delphian Lymph Node

Dear medical experts: When this Afc submission was declined last year, it was recommended that the information be added to the article Lymph node. It doesn't look as though that has happened, and the article will be deleted within the next few days. If anyone would like to take this on, now is the time! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "projectify" it and paste it into WikiProject medicine space, kind of like how one can paste into userspace to save things? I don't understand AfC. Why does it exist? Why can't people work in their sandboxes? Was it some poorly executed WP:WMF idea? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think IP users don't have personal sandboxes. Lesion (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people who don't have accounts don't have a personal space to create articles. Afc gives them a way to make articles, and it's also used a lot by editors who have COI and beginners who want to make sure that their articles won't be deleted before they figure out how to make them follow policy. However sometimes these users just dump a first draft in Afc and never come back (or their IP addresses change), or they lose interest, or find editing is too much bother, or whatever, so eventually these are considered abandoned and either are "adopted" by someone else or end up being deleted. In Afc these drafts have a better chance to become articles than if they were left in sandboxes of users who don't edit any more. There have been about 34,000 articles created through Afc so far. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note: If content is merged from an AFC into another page, then I believe that the AFC page has to be kept (permanently) for the history (for license/legal reasons). Does anyone know if this is being handled properly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A case like this came up the other day, and this is what was done: (1) The info was merged into the page (2) the old page was moved to a sub-talk page of the article (so if the article was FOO, the page was moved to Talk:FOO/attribution). (3) The content on the attribution page was blanked and replaced by a notice that the page should be kept because it contained part of the attribution history of FOO. That way, it was no longer in Articles for creation, and so safe from db-g13 deletion. Thanks for bringing this up, WhatamIdoing, because I think that there are a lot of editors who aren't aware of the need to keep history. There are only a few of us checking the old drafts, but I've actually only come across two old Afc drafts so far that were being kept for this purpose; I think the more common thing that was done was to move the page to mainspace with a slightly different article name and then change it to a redirect, which keeps the history. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Our" initiatives ??

Who's we? Where's the consensus. How many of "us" have endorsed all of these activities and why are we putting off-en.wikipedia activities as part of WPMED ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the activity related at Talk:Dengue fever or User:Biosthmors/Dengue or User_talk:Alexbrn#By_the_way off-wiki behavior. ;-) If the project wants to oppose this activity then let's start an RfC here? I'm not sure the best way to proceed. Doc James would also be involved. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I want more on-wiki resources to do off-wiki things. I hope to give a talk soon at the WHO about Wikipedia, and I should start looking at preparing for that talk with slides. Can we get a WP:MEDPRES, a list of WP:Presentations about editing medical content page? Could someone be bold and start that, or do we already have one somewhere? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Potential canvassing warning: because I was going to email people involved with m:Wiki Project Med already about these outreach materials, I'll ping them to comment here about the presentations, but I hope that doesn't bias this thread in a pro-meta-wiki kind of way. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is people involved with Wikiproject Medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Am very happy to have an active WikiProject. There is no compulsion for any members to contribute if they don't want. --LT910001 (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it sure used to be active, and I'm beginning to see what happened. It's been taken over by off-Wiki ventures. No wonder nothing is getting answered or addressed in here. Everybody left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no other very active place were they have gone (at least nothing dealing with Wikipedia that I know of). We have some previously very active editors that are much less so now (thinking of User:Jfdwolff, User:Davidruben, User:RexxS and User:Arcadian). This is from what I understand because real life has taken over. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another is User:WLU. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the cabal wants you to think... Lesion (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of narcolepsy? See the Narcolepsy article

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine); meant to post this here instead.

Does this image pass for inclusion solely because the editor who uploaded the image to WP:Commons presents it as an illustration of narcolepsy? By that, I mean are we supposed to take the editor's word for it that this is a narcolepsy image? Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago I remember a lecturer played a video clip of narcoleptic dogs, which was pretty entertaining. I think it might be hard for any photo to successfully depict narcolepsy. At least in a video we can see someone who one moment is awake and the next asleep for a short period. It is questionable how much this image adds to the article as it stands. Lesion (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that image should be removed. There is no way to determine whether the person is asleep, nor whether they have a "chronic neurological disorder". We only know two things about this proposal: (a) there is no track record indicating any related expertise by the editor; and (b) putting a snapshot on narcolepsy of a colleague relaxing during a break would be a great joke. I have reverted the edit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Lesion and John, and thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this approach. Flyer22 asked a specific question: is the photo really narcolepsy? Lesion addressed a completely different question: is the image useful for illustrating the article?
To address Flyer's question: it is, of course, impossible to tell just by looking at the photo. Johnuniq has implied a sensible second step. Look at the user profile and contributions. The username is a new account at Wikimedia Commons, and uploading this photo is his only activity. Therefore the next step should be to discuss the matter with the editor. I have invited him to do so at his talk page.
To Lesion: I think that a photo of a narcoleptic person asleep in a situation where he would be expected to be awake would indeed be a useful addition to the article—more so than no photo at all. If this photo is confirmed as narcolepsy, then the photo would illustrate this point and therefore would be suitable for the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never deal with images, so forgive me if I'm missing something, but isn't there an ethical problem with us saying an identifiable person is suffering a neurological disorder without a really strong reliable source to confirm it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does this depend if it is a public setting? Certainly I would certainly feel more comfortable if we had the express consent from the person in the photograph, which would also strengthen (or not) the credibility that this is narcolepsy. All this would be solved if we had access to a short video clip of narcoleptic dogs, I might point out. Lesion (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Hordaland: (in case he/she has any opinion or anything more suitable...) Lesion (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are cataplexy clips (of humans) on YouTube. Haven't any better suggestion. WhatamIdoing's suggestion below may be useful. Else, perhaps we should have an article on the well-established non-profit organization Narcolepsy Network? And/or, with their permission, use Narcolepsy Network's logo to illustrate the narcolepsy article? Hordaland (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted them via their website to see if they have any more suitable images. I personally would not think their logo would be the best choice though? Lesion (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERTINENCE. The image need not be verifiably a person with the exact condition. Indeed, it need not even be a photo of an actual human. It only needs to be an image that looks like what we're trying to illustrate.
If you are concerned about misidentifying someone as having narcolepsy (and can't find a better image, such as one that doesn't show the sleeping person's face), then try a somewhat different caption, like "A person with narcolepsy may fall asleep in unusual places, such as at work."
And, yes, you can then take the same image to Sleep apnea and give it a new caption: "A person with severe sleep apnea may fall asleep in unusual places, such as at work", and to Sleep deprivation with the caption, "A person who is sleep deprived...", and to Parenting#Newborns_and_infants with the caption, "A person caring for an infant may get so little sleep that..."
The point is what the image looks like, not what the person's actual medical or social history is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:PERTINENCE allows or suggests that we call the image narcolepsy if it is not narcolepsy, any more than I think WP:PERTINENCE allows or suggests that we call an image breast cancer if the image is not of breast cancer; the same goes for images identifying any medical condition (exceptions being drawings or paintings, whether they are hand-drawn or made via digital art).
That stated, I agree with your wording in cases such as these. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Broadly speaking, I question the educational value added by inserting such a photograph in those cases. In case you didn't know what a person sleeping looks like, here's a picture! Sometimes adding a tangentially-relevant stock photo just for the sake of having a picture doesn't make an article appreciably better; it just slows down the page load and eats up bandwidth for mobile device users.
I am also uncomfortable about the potential ethical (BLP etc.) issues that surround making randomly-selected sleeping individuals into poster children for sleep disorders—regardless of whatever disclaimers we add to thumbnail captions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colon cleansing

I am concerned about recent edits to this article which (as I see it) have removed critical content and added poorly-sourced claims for this altmed practice. I have been told the editor in question is "a doctor" so it's all okay (at WP:FT/N where this is also raised). Wider opinions welcome. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will continue helping that user to come up with more reliable/notable sources, I helped her on Wikipedia Help-Desk. And more users contributing to this article would be appreciated. Danger^Mouse (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm going to rant. I know there has been some soul-searching on this noticeboard recently about burning new editors who enter the medical space, but this episode shows the other side of the coin. Editors pushing a POV, especially a POV which embodies bogus health claims, waste an awful lot of time. This editor, who evidently is trying to promote two altmed businesses, obviously has not expended any effort whatsoever to gain familiarity with core WP principles before launching into huge edits and has caused a lot of talk page discussion, two article mergers, and now has two noticeboards involved in trying to pursuing the matter. Things are not improved when other editors, who have apparently insufficient familiarity with core neutrality policies, do not push back on the bad edits. The result now is that, to put it bluntly, this article is a bloody disgrace ... with more work down the track to get it into shape. Makes me wonder if WP is worth the effort: much better maybe to write it off as a serious source of health information and give the quacks their head? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can help. I'm sorry you've had difficulty with this article and editor. It can be pretty lonely out there. I've watchlisted the article and will help you take up some of the slack and make sure it meets our sourcing and accuracy standards. MastCell Talk 18:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"email redacted" Danger^Mouse (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDangerMouse (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crumbs, IDM: could you reformat some of the text above so it's a bit easier to decipher? Sounds like somebody is dropping clumsy heavy-handed hints of legal action against anybody who disputes their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 21:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC) (channeling Penfold)[reply]
Have watched. Ping me if legal attacks on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where Danger^Mouse gets the idea that she is a "doctor". Her clinic's website has this:

"....is a qualified nutritionist and nurse. She is also a trained physical exercise trainer and holds qualification in a number of alternative therapies.

EDUCATION: Post Graduate
2010 H.Dip in Ebusiness (Post Grad, Level 9), National College of Ireland) (First Class Hons)
2013 ITEC – Anatomy & Physiology
2013 ITEC - Fitness Instruction for Gym based exercise
2013 Fetac - Nutrition
2011 NEBDN – National Certificate In Dental Nursing
2011 Microdermabrasion - BABTEC
2011 Diathermy - Wigmore Medical, Bond Street, London
2010 Biomeridial Body Analysis Testing – Nutri UK
2009 IACT- Certificate in Colonic Hydrotherepy, New York
2009 – Google Adwords Professional (GAP)
2006 – 2D Computer Aided Design, City & Guilds (CAD)
2005 – Adobe Flash Training Certificate – Irish Academy of Computer Training
1996 - 1997 Graphic Design NCVA (Level 6) Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Dreamweaver, Flash
1994 – 1995 Information Technology RSA Certificate (Level 6)

End quote. She has provided this link to her website: http://www.dublinvitalitycenter.com/index.html

I see nothing about "doctor" there, and even the "nurse" part is iffy. Maybe they allow anyone with a short certificate course to call themselves a nurse in Ireland. I don't know. She's also a beginning level colonic practitioner. The I-ACT lists her as "Cert. Level: Foundation Level". So she's no great expert, and has relatively little experience. At least she's had a class in Anatomy & Physiology!

She's in the process of trying to talk for a 3,000 member association using veiled legal threats? She's going to embarrass her profession, especially if RS, like the press, get hold of what she's doing here! If that happens, we could document her actions here. She really needs to be careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the edits and failure to properly source is the real problem here. That is a problem regardless of what qualifications this user may or may not possess in real life. I feel statements made above ("The Association will be making a case "... "They will be taking the matter further ") constitute a legal threat and this should be dealt with accordingly. -LT910001 (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's other stuff here too: I am composing something for ANI. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) See here for the AN/I thread. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I am not taking any sides here, I've told her a number of times, make drafts, and on your sandbox etc... and gave her the chance to edit the article, and I agreed with the revert, and fully supported it, I told her you have issues with quackwatch, come up with better references, and prove this one wrong, then started with the threats, and what not, accusing Alex of having 2 accounts etc... oldest trick in the book what not, told her ask for a check user then, if you feel this way. I have enough of her accusations, accusing me, Alex, and other editors, commenting on the merger, and calling it unethical and unfair, she doesn't want to listen, not my fault, I tried to help her, and I apologized for my action of commenting, calling her "superpretty/pretty as she says sleazy, and apologized for" I have nothing further to add, nor I want a conflict or edit war. Danger^Mouse (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We offer total body detox using the latest colonic irrigation from Harley Street London. And for an additional detox, we provide colonic herbal coffee enemas which allows the liver to release years of toxic matter. This targets dark circles under the eyes"

I had to read this section several times. You would actually need a flow chart to fully explain the many ways in which that is fubar. Lesion (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was ugly, and the interpersonal issues have been dealt with via ANI. MastCell and Doc James have cleaned up the article; does anyone object if we archive this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell did all the work. I deserve no credit. Archive away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New medical editor needs some guidance

Appears to be an ophthalmologist. User:Pardianto Issues [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on archiving threads >5 days

Would like to archive threads > 5 days per consensus previously reached. Talk page is getting unwieldy and slow to load. However will not do this if reverted. Is there still consensus on archiving threads > 5 days? --LT910001 (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of 5 day archiving, but I can see no viable alternative. I would ideally like answered threads to be archived faster, and unanswered threads to stay longer, but the bot doesn't discriminate like this. Lesion (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not that long... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --LT910001 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice a thread that has obviously been firmly resolved, it's OK to cut and paste it into the current archive. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is any bot even archiving at the moment? Most of the archive bots are down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving here has been off. Five days is premature, and open topics are being archived. Install the one step archiver (see my contribs for how to find it), and use it to selectively prune the page of topics that are truly done, or where there is consensus to archive, and let open topics stay longer (say 10 days at least, particularly since the Project has gone moribund and we aren't getting responses on lots of things). The page is NOT that long, and stuff is getting missed. And, this business of no third-level headings is what is making the page a mess. Restore normal talk page headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we make it a point to acknowledge when threads are resolved and signal when they are not?
  • {{Resolved}}
    Resolved
  • {{Unresolved}}
    Unresolved
  • {{done}} Done
  • {{Not done}} Not done
I agree with Sandy - pending topics should stay 10 days at least but things which are revolved could be archived sooner. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will marking a thread resolved/unresolved be recognized by the bot? Lesion (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but it will allow us to One-click manually archive it, which should allow us to a) restore the third-level section headings, and b) keep open threads longer than 5 or 7 seven days (say 14, which is more normal). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll remember to do this. If you want 3rd level headings feel free to restore them.
It doesn't seem like it would be difficult to have a bot which discriminate between sections marked with resolved and those that have not. Since there are bot archiving issues atm, this suggestion probably is best not broached for a while, but I think it would be a good long term goal to aim for. I've noticed that with the current set up, unanswered threads sometimes go unanswered and then disappear into the archives. It would be good to avoid this. Lesion (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read this page almost entirely as diffs, so the presence or absence of some or all of the TOC is really pretty irrelevant to me, as is the overall size of the page. I suspect that I'm not the only one who does this, either.
On a related point, this is one of the problems that WP:Flow is supposed to solve. Active conversations will always move to the top of the page. Inactive ones will always settle to the bottom. And comments that you personally have read can be automagically collapsed, so that you only need to look at new comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick clarification: That setup and plan has changed since the original prototype. Flow will not be changing topic-order, at least in the initial releases - Topics will remain in chronological order of posting.
Additionally, features such as automagic collapsing of "read" comments are something that still needs to be investigated, as it is both database intensive, and potentially very confusing. (I'm walking out the door for a dinnerdate, else I'd hunt down specific FAQ/documentation links. HTH.) –Quiddity (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anybody expects very much from the initial releases. But eventually, these are good ideas, and I hope that they're implemented (if possible without killing the servers, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help over at WP:Anatomy concerning terminology

We're currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Link to terminology undergoing discussion editing a few articles that may be of quite high relevance to you over here. The proposition we have been acting on is to combine articles to a shorter entry on human anatomical terms at Anatomical terminology. A draft for a new article is available at User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology and is a slightly adapted text from [19] which is CC.

The reason I believe this article is relevant to you is that it sums up at least three articles (which also need to be expanded in the near future):

At least this last one is very much up your strasse, and I hope some form of cooperation because all these articles are in dire need of expansion. To help, please proofread User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology and copyedit and expand (do not remove anything major as its better to discuss). Then there is the question of sources on that article, the entire text is pulled from a secondary source, how do you attribute this? Is it by referencing every line??CFCF (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brangifer. As an update, we have moved the article to mainspace here: Anatomical terminology. --LT910001 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues with Pluripotent Stem Cell

This new article contains a few instances of close paraphrasing from http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/other/crystalinks/stemcells.html Duplication Detector Report. It is not so prevalent as to constitute a copyright violation, but this needs to be addressed. The article should also be checked to ensure there are no further instances of close paraphrasing/copying from other texts listed in the references.

The title capitalisation also needs to be changed. However Pluripotent stem cell currently exists as a redirect to Cell potency#Pluripotency and needs an admin to move it over the redirect. Not being a specialist in this area, I am unclear as to whether this should exist as a separate article or should be merged into Cell potency#Pluripotency. - Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the Body article into the Body (disambiguation) page

Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Body#Merge with disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change in citation style affecting medical articles

Discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Reboot: inconsistent citation style due to change in long-standing URL v PMC parameters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews

Our pageviews have been down these last four months Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages. This however may be due to a recent changes in peoples usage of HTTP versus HTTPS rather than a true change in readership per Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-11-13/News_and_notes.

We also see this same drop for other groups of articles using [20]. Even though overall pageviews have increased significantly per [21]. Hopefully this will be fixed soon.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=582158481"