:::::Your condescension aside, I can appreciate what you are saying here. However, my arguments come not from a poor understanding of the differences between scientific and encyclopedic writing styles. I suppose the main problem I see here is a generalization of credibility issues as they pertain to primary sources outside of peer-reviewed, or at least, biomedically peer-reviewed literature. The irony is that in biomedical research/literature, what makes a secondary source publication reputable (i.e. a "review", held in such high regard by wikipedia) is its inclusion of primary sources because it is at the level of the primary source where the most scrutiny is placed, not the secondary sources. Nonetheless, I can see I'm fighting a losing battle here, not only by your responses, but by the clear dogma present throughout the wikipedia links you have pointed me to.
:::::Your condescension aside, I can appreciate what you are saying here. However, my arguments come not from a poor understanding of the differences between scientific and encyclopedic writing styles. I suppose the main problem I see here is a generalization of credibility issues as they pertain to primary sources outside of peer-reviewed, or at least, biomedically peer-reviewed literature. The irony is that in biomedical research/literature, what makes a secondary source publication reputable (i.e. a "review", held in such high regard by wikipedia) is its inclusion of primary sources because it is at the level of the primary source where the most scrutiny is placed, not the secondary sources. Nonetheless, I can see I'm fighting a losing battle here, not only by your responses, but by the clear dogma present throughout the wikipedia links you have pointed me to.
:::::A secondary concern that I've had throughout this is the fact that Doc James' edits of what I contributed have, in a way, misquoted me. I would appreciate this as a difference of opinion in a discussion, but it is clear from his blanket omissions of the content followed immediately by primary source citations that very broad strokes were taken in his editing process, not actually vetting the material closely. From my expertise on the topic, I believe that the content was already weighted poorly, and now, the weighting is still off, but in a different manner. @Doc James, I've deleted a sentence that I initially added (prior to having a username) that, following your edits, you left in (re: Parkinson's). If you were to know the literature as I do, I'm sure you would agree that this argument standing alone,itoffers too much weight to the argument of cotinine as a therapeutic agent for this disease, which has not yet been validated in preclinical studies.[[User:Agrizz|Agrizz]] ([[User talk:Agrizz|talk]]) 20:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::A secondary concern that I've had throughout this is the fact that Doc James' edits of what I contributed have, in a way, misquoted me. I would appreciate this as a difference of opinion in a discussion, but it is clear from his blanket omissions of the content followed immediately by primary source citations that very broad strokes were taken in his editing process, not actually vetting the material closely. From my expertise on the topic, I believe that the content was already weighted poorly, and now, the weighting is still off, but in a different manner. @Doc James, I've deleted a sentence that I initially added (prior to having a username) that, following your edits, you left in (re: Parkinson's). If you were to know the literature as I do, I'm sure you would agree that this argument standing alone may offer too much weight to the argument that cotinine may be a therapeutic agent for this disease, which has not yet been validated in preclinical studies. In the context it was originally written, Parkinson's was the last of other, more concrete evidence and Parkinson's inclusion is based off of the successes seen in those studies.[[User:Agrizz|Agrizz]] ([[User talk:Agrizz|talk]]) 20:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:09, 26 April 2015
Doc James is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
Our professor has not created a class page. We were instructed to create Wikipedia accounts and edit/create our respective pages.LithiumCHM333 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I started looking through histories of pages related to the list above and, with some detective work, did manage to find the class, CHM333 at the University of Toronto Mississauga. I'm going to reach out to the instructor via email and will go over WikiEdu, support, class pages, and all the usual information. But I think what would help a lot is a phone call to go over MEDRS/MEDMOS and/or some of the specific issues students are running into. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed), but also @Doc James if this is one WikiMed would be into supporting. PS: I stopped going through articles when I figured out which class it was, but these are also student articles: Chromium(III) picolinate, User:CHM333five/sandbox, and Gold Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryan (Wiki Ed):@Ian (Wiki Ed): Any news on the CHM333 class and their plans for these articles? One of them was sent to AfD, which I userfied as it seems best not to handle these contributions piecemeal, but the ones I've come across really aren't suitable for mainspace as written. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard anything yet, but it hasn't really been that long. Thanks for userfying that page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: I haven't heard back either, sorry to say. I will be sure to update here when/if I do (and if Doc continues not to mind using this space :) ). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More than welcome to continue this here. They are beginning to drop their assignments into Wikipedia per Zinc in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Not really excited about "marking" these papers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. I feel bad for these kids; they're doing a lot of work on topics that are not all really going to be viable standalone articles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just comment one more time before this thread is archived: Never received a response from the prof, sorry to say. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you had contributed at some length to the the TFD, arguing for keep on the grounds of transparency (sort of my argument too), you might be interested to read that it was closed a few hours ago based on what seems like a very sketchy reading of the discussion. If you are interested, a discussion of the close has been stated on the closing admin's talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes consensus was to delete it. I see this as unfortunate. I would support the creation of a new one. But agree getting consensus for this will be difficult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of our editors works sometimes on health topics, so it is better to keep the sw-discussion on our page. Else please see here at your sw-site- I did some work. Kipala (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain why you reverted my edit. I have put it back again, as I still believe that it is vague and needs clarification.
Normal procedure would be to delete it/edit it. I trust medical articles to be very well self-policed, so was amazed to even see that in the lead, and so decided to simpoly cl-span it for a more knowledgeable person to fix. As you should be well aware, usage of "some say" is amateur.
If it was an oversight (using TW), then fine at least try and fix the problem before reverting me again :)
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
Please read this notification carefully: A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes. The details of these sanctions are described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Well, I'm a bit hurt. I'm a reasonable man with a long history of editing the encyclopaedia in a non-disruptive way. Are you willing to consider the possibility that the reason I want the article to be tagged is because it's so badly-written?—S MarshallT/C 21:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a highly contentious topic. Adding 3 tags to the top solves little / nothing. They appear to be added to warn readers.
Maybe I am simply much less of a fan of tags than you. We now have them for nearly everything. I use them almost never. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is a contentious topic. Adding the tags by itself solves nothing; but I hope to attract the attention of other editors, which is badly needed. At the moment the article reads roughly as QuackGuru wants it to read ---- but the reason it reads like that is because QuackGuru's so active. He hasn't persuaded the other side, he's simply exhausted them. More eyes will help solve that.
I suspect you're happy with the state of the article and would like it to continue, but it's not unreasonable to put a maintenance tag on an article that reads like that, is it?—S MarshallT/C 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not happy with the state of the article. However, at least it is mostly supported by high quality refs so better than many. Putting a bunch of maintenance tags on it solves nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, noticed that you are active at the moment - can you protect the above article as it is currently under attack. Regards Denisarona (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc. Marasmus and Wasting at face value appear to say a lot of the same things. As an example, the one says it is "severe malnutrion", the other "acute malnutrition", which comes to the same thing. If these are very different, is there a way of emphasising the differences? Then I also see that Atrophy says it is a form of Wasting. Is it not rather a form of Stunting? The picture of the two mice to me says "stunting", not "wasting". Thanks, as always. Regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wasting appears to be due to a disease and marasmus due to a lack of nutrition. Will look further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I typically update pages about academics who have published books with us with bibliographical data of their newly published books. I also make some other edits where it seems appropriate i.e. my changes the "further reading" lists that you reverted.
Is there any problem with this? Thank you. Posted by User:Sigismondo.
Sigismondo, you can start with mine, as I do quite a lot of this. It is entirely appropriate and desirable to add books to the article for a published author notable for his publications--for an academic in a field where books are important, we normally try to list all their books written or co-written. The book should be added in the format of other books on the list, in standard bibliographic format. It should be referenced, with the reference going not to the publisher or Amazon or a bookdealer of any sort , but to WorldCat or LC or a similar national library or by using the {{ISBN}} template. If there are books listed without full publication information and a reference, that information should be added. Ideally if one is doing that,one should do it for all the books that need fuller information, not just those from a particular publisher. . But we do not include a link to an excerpt from the book on the publishers site, i.e., we do not add something like ''Invisible: The Dangerous Allure of the Unseen'' (2015), ISBN 978-0-226-23889-0 Read an [http://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2015/Ball_Invisible.html excerpt]." That counts as advertising. The policy is WP:EL.
I am going through your past additions, and been removing such links, while keeping the bibliographic information.
Whether to include a book other than in a list of books as being of particular importance, or saying anything about the book other that the plain facts of publication--that must not be done by someone with WP:Conflict of Interest, such as the publisher. What can be done is to suggest the addition on the talk page of the article.
And if you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it on your user page, and, preferably, in the edit summary, according to our Terms of Use, particularly those with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The {{cite book}} template is an easy way to create a properly formatted bibliographic listing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic. What if someone else came and added everything from University of Illinois Press' catalog, someone else came and added everything from Yale University Press' catalog, etc etc to articles? We would just be a link farm. I left a SPA / COI notice on the user's page and asked if they work for U Chicago Press. I have come across editors who were here to do the same thing with regard to other publishers; I asked them about COI, and they disclosed that they worked for a publisher, and stopped doing this. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone added every academic book from university presses to people where we already have an article as a notable academic--which is by no means the entire catalog of most academic publishers-- our content would be much improved. It's exactly the same as why articles on novelists list all their novels in a bibliography, and why articles on film actors list all their roles in a filmography. What we do not normally include for academics is book chapters, non-peer reviewed journal articles, conference presentations, reports, book reviews they write, and even all but their most important peer-reviewed articles if in fields where it's journal articles that show notability. I always remove such content whenever I encounter it. But as for adding all the books, I've always meant to start doing that myself. The reason it isnt problematic is that it's routine updating.
What would be wrong, besides the sort of improper links I've indicated above, is if publishers added articles on their new books, or on their authors. The usual sort of spam from publishers is when they add references to their newly published book in articles on the subject of the book--, but they can suggest on the talk page. It doesn't happen often, but I've been removing it for years now when it shows up.
i guess we disagree there. what if every publisher dumped their catalog into WP? (real question) Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I forgot to mention that we doremove such content fro mthe wp page of publishers. The real question is why would happen if every notable author had all their books listed, and why should it matter who helped us do this? But this question actually arose because the manner it wa being done was improper, adding links to the publisher's site, not just adding the listing of the books. That was not correct, & I assume now thecontributor knows, it will not continue. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, a matter for your attention please
I have left a note at User_talk:Mikael_Häggström#Respectfully.2C_please_note regarding the two very large tables that appear at the Pathogenic bacteria article. As an ID discovery guy, I love to see such content, but the fact that it is take wholesale from 21 pages in the indicated Lippincott medical text—essentially no other sources for the two large tables—indicates to me that by formal definition it is plagiarised (too much factual content directly transferred to be in compliance with fair use). I call this to your attention as one who has already queried this editor regarding his too weakly paraphrasing text from a primary source, and as one very experienced with the limits of what is permissible here. I thought it best to deal with this before Lippincott discovers and weighs in. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, I know you are not a fan of tags, and ask that you not revert before a solution is found to the important questions asked about this information. Placing the tags was a lessor intrusion into the article, than removing the tables carte blanche after comparing them to the source text and seeing the correspondence. I understand that it is your personal view that tags are generally unhelpful, but this cannot override the long earlier consensus at WP to have them, and to allow their use by other experienced editors. Not meaning to be contentious, just not wishing this table information transfer problem to be ignored. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Travelling and internet poor. Thus it is difficult. I will try. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary sources should generally not be used for health related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable - any given primary source may be contradicted by another, and the Wikipedia community relies on the guidance of expert reviews, and statements of major medical and scientific bodies, to provide guidance on any given issue. The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see: Wikipedia:No original research)."
I understand that there are certain cases where primary sources can be used if certain requirements are met.
"A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field—especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments—is that they are often not replicable[2][3] and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable content about health."
This is not the case. This is not an in vitro test nor a drug experiment.
"Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. They contain a mixture of primary and secondary sources."
"International Journal of Sleep Disorders and Therapy editorial office policy requires that each manuscript be reviewed by individuals who are highly experienced and recognized in the particular field of the submitted manuscript."
I conclude that modifying the text, it is acceptable editing. See my new edit, please, and tell me if it's ok: 19:02, 15 April 2015. Thanks!--Raihop (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a very recent single patient case study. there is WP:NODEADLINE here and there is no reason to not wait until this is discussed in a secondary source. WP would be filled with all kinds of nonsense if we did as you suggest, Raihop. if you don't already know why an N of 1 is really meaningless there is not much I can do to help, but perhaps an essay i am drafting will help you - please see Why MEDRS?Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded on article talk, and besides the policy-based reasons of MEDRS, NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, etc, the other factor in any Tourette's situation is that *anything* that increases stress can increase tics, so naturally reducing any dietary issues might reduce tics ... and the link to causality is a long ways off from that. I have *never* encountered mention of a celiac or gluten connection to TS. If you have a secondary review, that's another matter. Also, please review WP:OWN#Featured articles (and the very prominent edit notice displayed when you edited this Featured article); FAs require strong sourcing. It might also be helpful for Raihop to review WP:BRD and WP:3RR-- several months between edits doesn't remove this from being edit warring, when there was not even a discussion of the proposed edit on article talk before reinstating it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should be bolding Primary sources should generally not be used for health related content If something is significant we can find a secondary source that discusses it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, do you think this phrase "Lemons provide 100% percent of the daily value of the vitamin C" is correct? 5.12.159.83 (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes appears one lemon is enough, but need to find a ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the phrase didn't say one lemon, or two lemons, or ten lemons. Let me put the question differently: "Lemons provide 16% percent of the daily value of the vitamin C." <- Is that correct? (irrespective of what TylerDurden8823 says, bear with me a little, we might be getting somewhere) 5.12.159.83 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, you needn't waste time on engaging this IP user. He/she wants to argue semantics. It's all irrelevant to the fact that they're a sock disruptively evading a block anyway. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi protected the article in question. If you provide me a diff I can look at it. It should likely say one lemon or a lemon if that is the claim Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody wants to disrupt the article, so there was no point in protecting it. It's fine now (at least part that was disputed). And here's the part that was disputed . It doesn't mention what amount of Chia seeds might provide >20% or 10% of the vitamins. TylerDurden8823 tried yesterday to keep that version (for a while). 5.12.159.83 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5's comments are ridiculous and have zero credibility coming from a sock. His behavior has been nothing BUT disruptive. Most of his edit have been associated with unnecessary personal attacks (violating WP:NPA) and he or she shows zero remorse (hasn't even denied it) about the block evasion. I think an indefinite block may be in order. Also, the whole "lemon" concept the user is bringing up above has nothing to do with actual lemons, he's just making a simplified (and flawed) analogy since if one lemon does have 100% DV Vitamin C, then it can be logically inferred that multiple lemons would provide more than that (discounting variation in lemon size of course ;) ) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This [6] is the edit I did not take kindly to. In this diff you will see that the IP user in question did not attempt to specify that 100 grams is the serving size needed for the discussed %DV. Additionally, in the following diffs you will see that Plantsurfer initially wholesale reverted here with a vague explanation of "meaningless quantitative statements" and added an unnecessary citation needed template (since this information is right in the standard nutrition chart on the right) [7] and then reverted later with a more specific reason (stating it was not readily apparent that the DV values mentioned, i.e., >20% DV) corresponded to the 100 gram serving specified in the nutrition chart (fair enough now that a specific criticism is raised in a civil manner though I counseled him to just fix it himself in the future instead of wholesale reverting/edit warring) [8]. 5 is now stating after hurling personal attacks that this was his rationale (not crediting Plantsurfer's) and continued to hurl personal attacks this morning after the changed he apparently wanted to see in the article was made [9]. Same user yesterday attempted to make Wikipedia threats in addition to the personal attacks, i.e., [10]. This person has zero credibility, just made reverts and attempted to insult/personally attack me (instead of fixing the problem himself/herself), and after the fact is trying to construct a coherent semantics argument based on a flawed analogy in order to divert attention from the obvious block evasion. Verbose comment now over. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's bizarre is that there was zero explanation for the purpose of the edits, only personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, if you feel inclined in discussing/pursuing this further, see my last comment on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.155.176 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look. Probably worth an article, but I'm concerned with the misleading impression given by the emphasis on the diseases for which it has not yet been clinically tested. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
question for you and any watchers, and you too DGG. do you know any good sources for information about old drugs, and especially about abandoned drugs? I came across Imolamine and Oxolamine (and there are a bunch of others) in various ways, that i cannot find sources for. i am not sure these drugs are even used or not. using the electronic resources of a medical college library and my friend google (including google books) i find almost nothing on these. ditto searching FDA, WHO, EMEA..
what sources do you know of, that have good information on very old drugs, and especially on abandoned (not necessarily withdrawn for safety) drugs? more generally, i know lots about how drugs come to market but know so little about how they leave it, and am always looking for the stories of drugs' demises. (i have worked on List of withdrawn drugs which is also interesting to me) Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Oxolamine's entry in Meyler's Side Effects of Psychiatric Drugs. Also see previous versions of the British National Formulary for old drugs approved in the UK. -A1candidate 20:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks some of this was helpful! A1 thanks for the Meyers - the hallucinagenic stuff was covered elsewhere. (thanks for the link, ozzie!). I would love to get access to the British Formulary but my library doesn't get MedicinesComplete. A1 how do you access old versions of the formulary?
Formerly the Kefauver-Harris stuff is on the money but what got published of that is buried in the federal register which is really hard to work with (and they never published the work that the NAS committees produced which is ... just crazy). All that was published were summaries and decisions, in the Federal Register. And old federal registers are not indexed that i can find anywhere... you have to find a lead and look for clues in it about the next thing to go find, like i used to do research in the pre-computer era. But yes there is great stuff in that work product. (Check out Stanozolol#History which i built by digging through old federal registers from the internet archive.) I wonder if all the work got collected anywhere. That is part of what prompted my question. I wonder if there is a "Book of Abandoned Drugs" or the like that tells all the stories. That would be an amazing reference work ( to me anyway) Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jytdog Do you know anyone who works at the NHS? They should be able to help you access the older versions. I only have copies of newer versions released after 2007. -A1candidate 16:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nope, but thanks for answering! Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me a link where I could find a review article for this study? and thanks for responding to my question John D. Rockerduck (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a high quality review which should have taken that paper into account [12]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, DocJames -- just curious about your edit with remarks of "Poorly Reffed Content" in regards to the cite from Neuromodulation, which is the pre-eminent publication on Clinical Neurology. What is the issue at-hand for inclusion of relevant articles from that publication in particular?
Nicotine just fits the definition of a pro-vitamin and, as such, I edited the article on Nicotine to emphasize the fact. I did it after mentioning the fact in the Talk section, first. It was edited out. Was it because of the political incorrectness of the statement/observation?
I'm not a doctor, but, it seems to me that nicotine is actually good for people. All the bad stuff about smoking is, as far as I can tell, caused by smoke inhalation.
Since e-cigs are becoming so popular, maybe it's not such a bad idea to make the distinction between nicotine and the rest of the stuff in cigarettes! Don't you agree?
Should you feel like replying to this note, could you, please, reply to danleonida@yahoo.com since I am an infrequent visitor of the wiki talk sections (daily visitor of wiki articles, though!) I regard Wikipedia not as another good website, but as an actual human achievement! We'll probably agree on that one, so let's not spoil it!
you cannot just write what you think in Wikipedia. that is what we call "original research", which is not allowed here. Instead, information added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. For things related to health, the guideline for what counts as a reliable source is this: WP:MEDRS. For content outside of health, the guideline is here: WP:RS. These policies and guidelines (and editors following them, together) are what Wikipedia the achievement that it is. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Danleonida if you have a high quality ref that says it all is good. That is the foundation of Wikipedia. If we use the best avaliable sources we may end up with the best avaliable content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Which references did not support the content in question? Please let me know so I can fix them. It was not made by a spam bot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Bloome (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
^Zoe E CH (1998). "Polycystic ovarian syndrome: the metabolic syndrome comes to gynaecology". BMJ. 317 (7154): 329–32. PMID9685283. {{cite journal}}: Vancouver style error: suffix in name 1 (help)
Job board take down accounts?
I've found some people on Elance and oDesk infringing the Terms of Service. What do I do? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Doc (and @Jytdog:@Zad68:); see Saffron#Biomedical research. I've listed some sources at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Saffron/archive1 that need to be looked at, but I don't have full text. I've seen in the past that lower quality journals are sometimes used to cite this kind of text, so also wish someone could take a closer look at what is there now. Saffron was once an excellent FA, but the main writer moved on years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My previous edit to the article 'condom'.
Is the source i cited a reliable one, since it appears to be a primary source?Joey13952 alternate account (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
your opinion/stance/position etc. on sources known to have an an agenda or bias?
First off, thanks for the hints and suggestions on how I can become a better editor, they are appreciated.
My query relates to the whole e-cig safety drama that seems to be an ongoing train wreck of bias and lack of WP:NPOV. I have noted that there are sources cited from "Tobacco control" related journals with authors that have been found by their peers to be less than rigorous when it comes to faithfully reporting the outcomes of their own research. In what is often referred to as the "Grana 2014" study the bulk of the citations relate to health effects of smoking. 12/126 are from a combination of the authors previous studies, there are "opinion" pieces cited and reports or "statements" that at least one of the study authors contributed to.
When the sources cited are taken into account the "Grana 2014" study begins to look more and more like a case of confirmatory bias. Most prople interested in the subject of e-cigarettes are aware of the authors known for this behaviour and cherry picking. It seems that QG knows, but as his agenda reflects those of Glantz, Grana, Daube, Goniewicz et al s/he defends the citing of their studies until all other editors give up in disgust.
Sorry for the rant, frustrated and annoyed. Time to walk away.
Thanks for reading Lancer2K (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is an exceedingly controversial topic. One of the most controversial on all of Wikipedia. Thus one needs to edit with care. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WHO
Doc, do you really want generally to use WHO? [16] Because that will turn Tourette into "Combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder [de la Tourette]", which is used by practically ... no one. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have one question is it right to add information from any sources(exp. blog) by typing in own words
2. how to become an admintsrator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are dealing with medical content sources needs to be of high quality per WP:MEDRS. Blogs are typically not suitable. Becoming an admin is hard. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Links to Wikidata
I am inserting wikidata links at the ends of articles because it facilitates corroboration between the different language wikis. It will eventually be a location where articles on the same topic can all be compared, references shared, information exchanged. It can only result in better articles and access to more information on a topic that is published in another language. Please don't remove the Wikidata links, I'm part of the project and trying to improve its content. Removing the wikidata links will not help accomplish the information sharing. With the Very Best of Regards, Bfpage |leave a message 00:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We often put them in the sister links section. All the languages are already on the left. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
facial esthetics.
the book is in prepublication—it's a collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians and researchers being compiled by len tolstunov, dds, ddmd, who's an oral and maxillofacial surgeon and asst clinical prof at hop/ucsf schools of dentistry. i can also site this article,
O. Bahat, et al, Lifelong Craniofacial Growth and the Implications for Osseointegrated Implants, Intl Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 2013,
199.188.193.216 (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
facial esthetics
please replace the text with the new article cited. thank you.199.188.193.216 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things.
1) We generally only use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS
Just curious what the rationale is to delete contributions and thus omit facts that were cited from peer-reviewed scientific articles published in reputable scientific journals? The argument for their deletion was apparently that they were not "highly reputable". Furthermore, numerous citations of this kind were already present and remain on the nicotine and cotinine pages, among hundreds if not thousands of others. Wikipedia stands to lose quite a bit of credibility if modern day findings can no longer be cited unless or until they are in a review. Even more credibility is lost when a experienced scientist on a topic cannot contribute to the edits based on arbitrary and misguided policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrizz (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The number of contribs is irrelevant, and I've read the link provided. Moreover, my question speaks to the rationalization that some primary sources remain while mine were removed. The link (WP:MEDRS) does say to cite primary sources (peer-reviewed) with caution, and "generally" secondary sources are preferred. From the link: "edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge." In the case of my edits, all of this was done but the additions (only those citing primary sources) were removed without vetting the conclusions added. Nonetheless, all arguments that were made and cited with primary sources have also been supported in review articles that have also been cited. The inclusion of primary sources in that regard simply adds credibility to the argument, particularly given their sources.Agrizz (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only commented on your contribs, because you are making strong statements before you understand how things work here. It is very true that articles are uneven and we are constantly working to improve them - that's one of the key things you will find yourself doing if you become a regular editor. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is one of our kind of humorous essays that addresses the kind of argument you are making, which new editors make pretty frequently. If you want your content to "stick", please do find a secondary source that supports it. thanks! (if you want some insight into why MEDRS calls for secondary sources, please have a look at the intro (and more if you want, but the intro gets you there) to this essay i am drafting -- Why MEDRS? Hopefully that will help you make sense of why we care so much about secondary sources for content related to health) Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you have given this a lot of time and effort. In a similar manor, I (and I assume many other editors that "go away", per the intro to your essay in progress) give our science a lot of time and effort as well. It is surprising to be told that the processes that go into obtaining a grant (the ultimate peer-review) on a topic, then publishing a paper through the rigor of peer-review yet again do not make a primary source at least somewhat credible in the eyes of wikipedia editors. Not that I'm picking a fight but rather a respectful discussion: a fallacy that I fear may be at play is that of seniority (genetic fallacy). You quickly dismiss mine and other contributors arguments because "we don't know how stuff is done here". I fundamentally understand that there is a need to vet sources and be sure that arguments are not "cherry picked". However, I feel that to omit contributions without first vetting them by simplified statements of conclusion (as the aforementioned link implies they would be) on the basis they come from primary sources is simply to adhere to old ways and, in effect, run off any willing contributors looking to better the information age by sharing otherwise esoteric information. Nonetheless, as stated in my last comment, all the content that I added came from secondary sources, I just included primary sources to enhance the credibility. Anything that was followed by a primary source was deleted and those that were followed by secondary sources were not. The irony is that I could rewrite the entire contribution, citing only the reviews, and I assume the edits would have been accepted. Agrizz (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oh you are a scientist! yes scientists have a hard time sometimes, when they first come here. there is a genre-confusion. this is an encyclopedia, not a place to essentially write a review article. really different genre. what we do here, is read the the most recent, independent, secondary sources on a topic we can get our hands on, consider what the mainstream view in the field is, and then summarize that in the wikipedia article. The mission of this place is to present all of human knowledge, for the general public. (crazy i know). For any article, we look to the relevant field and and as you know, reviews are where fields sort themselves out; where the productive paths are laid out. you know as well as i do that the basic literature is littered with stuff that turned out to be dead ends. there are so many reasons to not cite the basic literature.
please keep in mind that what we do and say, has to go for everybody, so we can be consistent. you wouldn't believe how often we have to deal with crazy people who have some pet theory that a given field gives no credence to, but who finds primary sources supporting that theory (you can find primary sources to support almost any idea in the biomedical literature) and pounds away, trying to jam that into WP. You can see that, right? relying on secondary sources, is how we are able to tamp down that sort of POV-pushing, as we call it. (This place attracts people who are advocates of all kinds of WP:FRINGE views)
Finally, you may want to have a look at WP:EXPERT which is advice for people like you. also, i don't know what field you work in, but there are all kinds of WikiProjects that focus on various things (WP:WikiProject Medicine (Doc James is one of the leaders of that), WP:WikiProject Pharmacology, WP:WikiProject Chemistry, WP:WikiProject Molecular Biology and others) that work together to improve and maintain the quality of articles in those fields) we always are looking for more experts to get involved - who know the field and know all the literature (especially the reviews) and can deploy them efficiently, and quickly see if WP:WEIGHT has gotten skewed in a given article and can fix it, or can identify holes that somehow never got covered, and fill them. there is so much work to do, and so little time. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your condescension aside, I can appreciate what you are saying here. However, my arguments come not from a poor understanding of the differences between scientific and encyclopedic writing styles. I suppose the main problem I see here is a generalization of credibility issues as they pertain to primary sources outside of peer-reviewed, or at least, biomedically peer-reviewed literature. The irony is that in biomedical research/literature, what makes a secondary source publication reputable (i.e. a "review", held in such high regard by wikipedia) is its inclusion of primary sources because it is at the level of the primary source where the most scrutiny is placed, not the secondary sources. Nonetheless, I can see I'm fighting a losing battle here, not only by your responses, but by the clear dogma present throughout the wikipedia links you have pointed me to.
A secondary concern that I've had throughout this is the fact that Doc James' edits of what I contributed have, in a way, misquoted me. I would appreciate this as a difference of opinion in a discussion, but it is clear from his blanket omissions of the content followed immediately by primary source citations that very broad strokes were taken in his editing process, not actually vetting the material closely. From my expertise on the topic, I believe that the content was already weighted poorly, and now, the weighting is still off, but in a different manner. @Doc James, I've deleted a sentence that I initially added (prior to having a username) that, following your edits, you left in (re: Parkinson's). If you were to know the literature as I do, I'm sure you would agree that this argument standing alone may offer too much weight to the argument that cotinine may be a therapeutic agent for this disease, which has not yet been validated in preclinical studies. In the context it was originally written, Parkinson's was the last of other, more concrete evidence and Parkinson's inclusion is based off of the successes seen in those studies.Agrizz (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
