Jump to content

User talk:Seraphimblade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Belledoll (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 4 April 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Please do be nice.

Please read before posting

  • Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.


  • If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
  • If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
  • If you are here to discuss edits made to an article, please use the article talk page, not this talk page, to discuss them. If I made the edit and the question is specifically directed at me, you are welcome to ping me.
  • If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
  • If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
  • While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
  • I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with this

In the United States, it costs about US$10 to 20 per month since patent protection ended.[1][2]

Indepth discussion in a textbook... Your edit is not inline with the RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, this is the exact issue brought up with the RfC. The discussion of the monthly price is a sentence. The discussion of the effect of the drug being substantially cheaper than an alternative is what is the subject of extensive discussion. I would have no problem with the article discussing the latter, but it does not and only lists the former. We should contextualize things like that, not just drop a number. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is that it extensively discusses price, which it does, not that it must extensively discuss the monthly price. It is not like it was talking about something else and than mentions this is passing. We have lots of sources discussing the price of this medication now. It was contextualized in that it was after patent protection expired. Could be useful to also find a source on the cost before it expired. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By "contextualize", I mean rather than just dropping a number, something to the effect that "An estimate by $SOURCE indicates that if Foo was used in place of Bar when appropriate, $X would be saved annually in United States medical costs." The monthly price is a factoid; the prose contextualizes it and shows why it matters. In that context, I wouldn't even have a problem saying that a month of Foo costs $X as opposed to a month of Bar costing $Y, but again, that would be in context of why that number matters rather than just the factoid. If the sources contextualize it that way, we should too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The price before it went generic was $1200 a year in the USA. So we compare before 1200 to after 120 to 240. I personally think it is very interesting how much medications decrease in price when they go generic.
In 2006 sure one could compare with atorvastatin which did not go generic for years later.
Much more interesting than say "Simvastatin had been shown to interact with lipid-lowering transcription factor PPAR-alpha [31] and that interaction might control the neurotrophic action of the drug" whose inclusion in the article appears non controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These compares the various statins.[1][2] [3] But such comparisons are more complicated. But basically the bigger story is that statins were once expensive and now they are relatively inexpensive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This right here is an excellent illustration of why we don't include prices. The article stated that the price of a monthly treatment ranges from $9 to $20. However, one of the sources you just cited ([4]), states that the average cost for a month's treatment with generic simvastatin averages $71, but it can sometimes be had for as low as $3.33 per month ($10 per three months) via various membership-type deals. But the monthly treatment cost can't both be between $10 and $20 and average $71 (and that wasn't listed as a maximum, just an average). This is the very reason we should not be including prices. Which reference do we use? Is it from $3.33 to (somewhere above $71), or is it $10 to $20? How do we choose which one to put in the article? This, right here, is why I'm against the practice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No different than the question of does the USA have 164,253 cases of COVID19,[5] 164,603 cases of COVID19,[6] 164,669 cases of COVID19[7] or 140,904 cases of COVID19 now.[8]
One reason why relatively inexpensive is useful. But it also does not mean one should not have a number of COVID19 cases just because 4 sources do not agree perfectly.
For medications it also depends on do you want the branded version or the generic version. Many just present the of the generic version rather than the branded version as many places have auto subsitution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not similar situations. The coronavirus is known to be rapidly evolving, so it is entirely expected that numbers should differ somewhat. (Even then, it would probably be better to provide an approximation rather than an exact number down to six significant digits; there is no way we can keep such an exact figure updated frequently enough to actually be accurate, and as you say, sources aren't even going to agree to that much precision). However, even at that, the high figure of 164,669 differs from the low figure of 140,904 only by about 14%. Conversely, in the case of the pricing information, the minimum price ($10 vs. $3.33) diverges by 67%, and even if the $71 were a maximum rather than an average, that would diverge from the $20 maximum by over 350%! And the reference explicitly states the $71 average is for generic only; the average it states for branded (Zocor) is $229. It also introduces additional complicating factors, such as that a doctor may order pills at double the prescribed dose and instruct the patient to cut them in half. So, this is very much an illustration of why we shouldn't be picking numbers and putting them in the article as "the price". Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is more complicated than that. These are "confirmed" rather than actual numbers. Confirmed numbers are simple a proxy for actual numbers. Some people want actual numbers but those do not exist. Plus their is plenty of concerns regarding certain countries messaging the numbers and not having the same testing capacity to confirm the disease even if it is present (so they are not even directly comparable). So like everything in life numbers are fuzzy and some people want them to be exact even though that is impossible. So we provide approximates. Lots of similarities to prices, prices are approximates (the numbers we provide may not include the taxes in your jurisdiction for example or discountrs etc, etc). So instead we provide the numbers from reliable sources such as WHO.
But just because our numbers for the confirmed cases do not represent the actual number of cases and different sources come to different conclusions for the confirmed numbers of cases does not mean that the numbers are useless or that we should remove them all. Instead we add hatnotes listing some of the imperfections present. We could have the same blow up over these numbers if we wanted and use many of the same arguments. For example this source[9] does not provide extensive coverage of how they arrived at each countries number. Or provide extensive discussion of their meaning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comment

I would kindly like to know why you deleted my edits on John Merrill's page. The American Politician one. He was the first married SGA President at the University of Alabama and you have his wedding date off by two years. This significant. Why, on God's green earth, would you take out my edit that was linked to their wedding announcement, to revert to an incorrect date? Please, I am a research librarian at the university level, I find worthy and valuable information. If you wish for wikipedia to keep false information on their pages, that's your purview I suppose. But this is a living person and the information should be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belledoll (talk • contribs)

Firstly, Belledoll, please use some amount of care in your edits. You not only placed your comment in the wrong place, but removed the section at the top of my talk page which explains how to place it properly. That aside, I already explained to you why. Copy and pasting from other sources is not permitted, regardless of accuracy, and when I find that at least part of a series of edits has had that happen, I will generally revert the lot to be certain. Regarding the marriage date, you are correct that the secretary of state biography doesn't confirm the year of his marriage, but your source doesn't either, so I removed the year entirely. Your source only states when the wedding was announced and planned, not when it actually happened, and the biography page says he's been married "33 years" but doesn't say 33 years as of when. So until a reference is found confirming that the wedding did happen (not was planned to happen) on a certain date, it should be omitted entirely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read some of the other edits you so wrongly took down. They refer ro him being married as SGA President. Belledoll (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what you stupidly reveryed to makes it sound like he is currently running for the Senate. He is not. If you had heeded my edits you would know that he has suspended his campaign. Belledoll (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be in his honor that John Merrill and his wife of 29 years, the former Cindy Benford of Phil Campbell - and the current principal at That comes from this article from six years ago. https://www.al.com/living/2014/11/doing_what_he_has_always_wante.html To spell it out for you, 29 plus 6 equals 35. Making the date I listed correct. Belledoll (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Understanding Health Care Reform: Bridging the Gap Between Myth and Reality. CRC Press. 2011. p. 142. ISBN 978-1-4665-1679-3.
  2. ^ "Simvastatin Prices, Coupons & Patient Assistance Programs". Drugs.com. Retrieved 30 March 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade&oldid=949018412"