User talk:Pgcudahy

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

A Fan For You![edit]

Floor fan.jpg Fan!

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a Fan! Fans are good for two reasons: They blow air and allow hot wikipedians to cool off, and also cheer them on when they need it, Just like a fan of a football or basketball team. Cool off, and enjoy the cheering and the breeze. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread "WikiLove" and "wikicheers" by giving someone else some a fan, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or someone who just needs a some fan to cheer them on and/or a good, refreshing breeze.

To spread the goodness of fans, you can add {{subst:fan}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or enjoy the breeze or cheering on the giver's talk page with {{subst:Breeze}}!


Spidersmilk (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Experts in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Pgcugahy. On the internet no one knows you are a dog; WIkipedia is built from the ground up assuming anonymous, uncredentialled experts. There are lots of reasons for this, but the bottom line is that is how this "game" is set up; if you want to play this game, you need to follow this games rules. Period.

That said we love experts - they are invaluable in many ways (when they really understand and follow the rules here)- they are great for identifying places where WP:WEIGHT has gone awry (where we have holes or too much content (WP:UNDUE) in places; they are have the literature (the review literature) at their fingertips and can cite and summarize it accurately and swiftly.

There is a helpful essay for experts to help them get grounded in how this place works and how it is different from pretty much any other knowledge-reporting locus - see WP:EXPERT.

In the past the community allowed itself to slip into believing how people represent themselves here - see WP:ESSJAY for a pretty remarkable scandal, that the community has never forgotten. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


About this, please read and follow WP:RELTIME and WP:NOTNEWS. We are not here to record the blow by blow of things. Try to add content to WP that will be encyclopedic 10 years from now. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether there is an effective vaccine on the horizon matters. This is not trivia, it will effect trade and tourism on a global scale. I wish you would contribute with the same energy with which you criticize. Pgcudahy (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I add shitloads of content to WP. Of course it matters if there is a vaccine. There isn't one, and there may never be one (there is no HIV vaccine yet, for instance). The content that existed before you added that stuff made it clear it was being worked on; the two refs you brought were reviews/high quality medical news which was great (thanks for that) but we don't need to dig down into trivia that won't matter in 10 years. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; please focus on the long term and write encyclopedic content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If you don't know the difference between why there is no vaccine for a retrovirus like HIV and a flavivirus like Zika you shouldn't be editing this section. The whole point of my edit was to show that a vaccine is likely, and probably with record speed. Having neutralizing antibodies in animal studies with three different vectors is a big deal. Having phase 1 studies already enrolling is a big deal. People come to encyclopedias to answer their questions, and whether they can expect a vaccine is important. Those people are reading this article now, not in 10 years. Plus your weird past tense editing makes it sound like Uatu wrote this article. Pgcudahy (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Question for you. Per MEDMOS, articles about drugs/vaccines have a history section. We could create the Zika virus vaccine article and work together (with who ever else comes around of course) to document the history in the History section as it happens, using sources like the ones you brought today. That is where detail like what you want would go. What do you say? (about past tense, again please read WP:RELTIME - really, please read it) Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Crazier thought, why don't we write a section within a larger article, say on Zika fever, and then when it gets mature enough, can be broken out as its own page. That is, if it doesn't get deleted within literally 5 minutes of being written. Pgcudahy (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It is too much detail for the main article. I am really interested in how things drugs and devices actually get developed and get to market so I will probably go to work on this with or without you. It will be interesting and there is encyclopedic value in it when it is done right. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Look Goldilocks, it can't both be "trivial" that "won't matter in 10 years" but also "interesting" and "encyclopedic." Just because the scope isn't quite to your liking doesn't mean you get to delete my work on a whim. Your mastery of arcane wikipedia bureaucracy does not entitle you to that arbitrary power. Pgcudahy (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll remind you to be civil - speak to me like you would speak to a colleague face to face. That is how we operate here. About "trivia". The dose makes the poison; things have a place and time. Too much detail in the wrong place becomes trivia. In any case this discussion appears to have reached its end. Good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Pgcudahy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

this kind of comment is going to sink you, if you keep being disruptive to the point that the community needs to take action to make you stop. (see WP:BATTLEGROUND).

If you edit using MEDRS sources, neutrally summarizing them, you will have few problems in WP. It is pretty simple. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)