User talk:Whywhenwhohow: Difference between revisions

Noticing this edit of Boeing 737 MAX, I came here to question your interpretation of "publisher" versus "work" or "website". It seems I am not the first. The guidelines say not to use the publisher parameter for the name of a work/website/publication, and to omit it when the name of the publisher is substantially the same as the name of the work. That doesn't seem to be what you're doing. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 129.49.72.78 (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your work on the

I know different people have different opinions on this but I find it easier to edit when refs are over a single line rather than over multiple lines. Thanks and keep up the goo work.--

talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

]

2011 Tucson shooting

This user helped promote 2011 Tucson shooting to good article status.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed your notation that "Google AP links should not be used in Wikipedia". I was unaware of this (and selected that source because the layout was cleaner than others).
What's the reason behind this? Is it documented somewhere? (If not, it should be.) Thanks! —

Here is an excerpt from Template:Cite_news

Do not post urls of Google or Yahoo! hosted AP content: that content is transient. Use MSNBC or another provider that keeps AP archives.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This really should be mentioned in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. at

David Levy 03:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your interest in health research topics. I saw what you did to better formate the Sipuleucel-T article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment

You made some very nice copy edits at The Avengers (2012 film), fixing details to make the article more readable. The nonbreaking spaces in titles with numbers, changing curly quotes, which some browsers can't read well, to straight quotes, changing all-caps to upper/lowercase ... all necessary and all-to-often missed. Bravo! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I found a blog post from a top drug coupon website that offers information needed for a citation needed tag but I think I configured the citation wrong. If you take a look?

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you're having edits accepted to this article but thought I'd put in another plug for an External link I proposed here, (deep down in the section). I think it'd be a good addition at least as an external link. (I'd maybe do more with it at some point.) Thanks for your attention. Swliv (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please meet me at

We need to work through individual links. I left a list a few days ago. You have yet to respond.--

WP:FOUR) 04:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You have ingored my discussion request. Sometime soon, I will revert your changes.--

WP:FOUR) 06:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pitch Perfect page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

A peer review is being held at WP:Peer review/Death of Osama bin Laden/archive1 to enhance this article to FA status.Forbidden User (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the edit notice carefully, please do not challenge edits made via reversion, instead discuss this on the talk page. Thanks. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Just noticed this edit of yours on Apple Inc. Wanted to send a short message just letting you know that there is no reason, and perhaps even negative effects, to remove the publisher fields that follow the website parameters in references. It's useful to know what companies own which media publications. I haven't reverted cause it wasn't possible and it would take so long to do it over, but hopefully this message can alert you to keeping them in the future. Have a good day! :) LocalNet (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's

@Doc James:

Excerpt from https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/AboutThisWebsite/WebsitePolicies/default.htm

Unless otherwise noted, the contents of the FDA website (www.fda.gov)—both text and graphics—are not copyrighted. They are in the public domain and may be republished, reprinted and otherwise used freely by anyone without the need to obtain permission from FDA. Credit to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the source is appreciated but not required.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content not by the FDA per [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I stand corrected :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not write book titles in sentence case. See

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all your work on Essential Medicines :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{

Check your last edit. I'm not sure what portal you are trying to add (I'm not very familiar with adding them). You wrote {{portal bar|harmacy and pharmacology|Medicine|Viruses}} (pharmacy is missing the p), but even when I preview a version with pharmacy spelled correctly, I don't see a change that shows in the article. MartinezMD (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any word? MartinezMD (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinezMD: Sorry I missed your earlier message. I was adding the Pharmacy and pharmacology portal. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC) It looks like that portal was deleted. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I couldn't figure it out. It was driving me crazy lol. MartinezMD (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult with @Doc James:, and acquaint yourself with WP:Plagiarism and general academic expectations on this subject. Even if content is in the public domain, it is not acceptable to cut and paste it into another work, with text unaltered (quoting it), without indication that it is being quoted (i.e., with the text being transmitted without alteration from the original). This is true, even if the markup is added to the citation to indicate such use, and it is true even if each sentence is followed by an inline citation. The text must me made your own; the text of others cannot be used, verbatim, without quotation marks. Hence, I am reverting the bulk of your edit at Baloxavir marboxil, until the material can be used correctly, through paraphrasing or blockquoting, as you choose. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from WP:Plagiarism

A public domain source may be summarized and cited in the same manner as for copyrighted material, but the source's text can also be copied verbatim into a Wikipedia article. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It must be summarised. It cannot have text lifted, via cut and paste, and used verbatim. To use the direct text, without alteration, is plagiarism. See the examples that are given at that Plagiarism guidelines article! And please do not edit war. Engage in the discussion at @Doc James: Talk page, until he moves it to the article Talk. Note, I am a former Professor, and I know the ins and outs of this matter. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Plagiarism states public domain source may be summarized and the source text can also be copied verbatim

Here is an excerpt from the FDA website

Unless otherwise noted, the contents of the FDA website (www.fda.gov) — both text and graphics — are not copyrighted. They are in the public domain and may be republished, reprinted and otherwise used freely by anyone without the need to obtain permission from FDA. Credit to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the source is appreciated but not required.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The matter remains the same—at Wikipedia, and in general, the use of material, with representation of it as your own composition—that is, cut and paste, and verbatim use of text—is considered plagiarism. See the second prohibited example at WP:Plagiarism, in the subsection, "Avoiding plagiarism", which presents as prohibited the exact thing that you did. The fact that permission is given at the FDA site to reproduce the material is not the same as you mis-representing the material as original editorial content of this encyclopedia. If the material is reproduced, it must appear in quotes. In all academic and writing contexts, it is a matter of intellectual honesty, that if the content composed by another is used verbatim, it must be quoted. Alternatively, the content can be retained via paraphrase—look to see what I did with your introductory sentence on the two studies. Note, all of this is hiding the fact that I think your contribution was in an excellent direction. The article needed clear content on the clinical trials. It simply needs to be in your words, and not the words of FDA Staff (or, if in their words, that it be presented as a quote). Cheers. Thanks for engaging. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full credit to the source was provided by the citations and the PD-notice template added further clarification. You are mistaken about the use of public domain text in Wikipedia. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a faculty member that taught, wrote, published, and edited for many years, I can tell you, though practices other than what I describe may be widespread here, any use of a text, verbatim, that does not acknowledge that the contributing, posting, or submitting author is not the author that composed the text is considered, generally, and widely, to be plagiarism, regardless of whether the source is placed in (or appears by virtue of passed time in) the public domain. Otherwise, entire books past a certain age could be copy and pasted, in toto, into Wikipedia, without use of blockquotes or paraphrases. And while I agree that you did better than many here in placing a citation at the end of each sentence, as noted by Example 2 in the WP:Plagiarism article, it is the failure to restate the source content, instead relying on the original author's words, that make this the plagiarism that it is. Bottom line, even though it is widely done at WP (see the many cut and pastes, without even citation, from the old Britannica version), it violates its own rules and normative academic standards—because it does not matter how old a source is, or how charitable we perceive it to be, it is never proper to cut and paste text from sources without paraphrasing or quoting. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has its own guidelines that have been worked out over time.

Adding open license text to Wikipedia

Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?

Public-domain sources

Here are some archives of discussions for the WP:Plagiarism page

Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_10#Complete_article_plagiarism_of_public_domain

Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_8#Policy_on_copy/pasting_a_whole_public_domain_article_with_attribution?

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding one can use PD material verbatim without quotes. Generally it is not in an encyclopedic format and thus I generally paraphrase due to that reason, rather than because of copy and paste concerns. User:Diannaa is the expert and I generally go with what she says :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whywhenwhohow

Thank you for creating

This is a great redirect. I modified the rcat slightly to {{

Archer

. :)

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dmehus}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Doug Mehus T·C 00:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: {{

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whywhenwhohow, Okay, fair enough. My apologies. Carry on. Nevertheless, I marked it as reviewed. Good work! :) Doug Mehus T·C 05:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, though, I prefer to use

Archer personally because (a) it's easier and (b) it's got a whole bunch of specific categories at your fingertips. Doug Mehus T·C 05:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Please restore color-coded world map of Coronavirus cases that was located in the epidemiology section of 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak page. This is a core component of the article and any issues with it should be discussed first with the community before attempting to remove it. Thank you. History DMZ (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision history info: 08:30, 24 February 2020‎ | Whywhenwhohow | 356,632 bytes | -2,449‎ | update and consolidate refs

Hi there,

You recently made an edit to

My inclination is to restore the links (substituting publisher's sites for the third-party one where applicable), but I wanted to check with you first.

Thanks, Stephen Hui (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Hui:

The DOI is a permanent identifier so the URL is not needed. The URL may become stale over time. The semanticscholar URLs are confusing since they don't link to the articles. There are plans to make the semanticscholar links available via a new parameter. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create the redirect after creating the target article, not before. We can’t have redirects pointing to non-existent pages like you did at

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has now moved to this document https://www.msh.org/sites/default/files/msh-2015-international-medical-products-price-guide.pdf

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question has been posed at Niacin by Doc James as to whether the two info boxes can be combined. I understand the issue is niacin being a nutrient and a prescription drug. David notMD (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, please continue to review, suggest, edit Niacin. My intentions are to improve the article to the point it can be nominated for Good Article. David notMD (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just bring to you attention that when you change citations from |first= and |last= to |vauthors= as you did here, you change the style that the author list is rendered from a Chicago-like style (Last, First;) to a Vancouver-like style (Last Initial,) which may be a breach of

@RexxS: The citation style in the article is predominantly vancouver. The remaining citations were updated to use a consistent style by this edit.

cc: Boghog, Doc James Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CITEMED use the Vancouver system. cc: Boghog, Doc James Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:CITEVAR

doesn't use "predominantly vancouver" (or predominantly anything) as a criterion. It says : "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change ... it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved ... If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article".

• 23 December 2005: "Maggon, Krishan. 'Best-selling human medicines 2002-2004 (editorial)". 2005. Drug Discovery Today, 10(11):739-742'

It looks to me like the first style used in the article was the Chicago-like author string, not the Vancouver style, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, I didn't ask you to revert your unwarranted change to the citation style; I asked you to restore the information you removed, author's first names. That is part of the metadata emitted by the template and it is helpful to identify authors. Knowing first name would help distinguish between multiple authors with the same initial and surname, such as Xin Su, Xiao Su, Xingguang Su, XM Su, Xin Zhuan Su, Xiaoping Su, and so on. It's particularly important for Chinese names where the number of surnames is relatively small. Let's try and make Wikipedia better, not worse, please. --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: The predominant citation style used in that article has been Vancouver. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I generally just use whatever the ref toolbar gives me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference was added used Vancouver style and many of the subsequent citations were added using Diberri's template filler which also follows this style. Hence Vancouver became predominate relatively early in the article's history. Concerning citation metadata, Wikipedia is not a reliable source since error can creep in. Safer to harvest an identifier like doi and regenerate the citation from scratch using citoid or similar tool. Finally the advantage of |vauthors= over |first1=, |last1=, ... is that vauthors is much more compact and enforces consistency. |first= will accept almost anything (spelled out first names or initials with or without periods or for that matter almost anything else including "!@#$%" gibberish). Boghog (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whywhenwhohow: The style of citation for an article is not determined by what the predominant style is. I've shown you what the guidance is, and if you want to change it, get consensus at CITEVAR.

@Boghog: I understand the limitations of the automatic tool. When it used Chicago as its style, that grew in popularity, now it's changed and Vancouver is becoming more popular. But CITEVAR doesn't say "use what's most popular" or "use what your automatic tool currently uses". This is not a paper encyclopedia and we're not short of space in references, so "compact" is not an advantage; it's just throwing information away. When you're writing tools to scrape author info, you're not going to be thanking anyone for forcing you to make an external call to a doi just to help disambiguate an author, when the information was already available before being thrown out. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is debatable whether an editor that added a single citation is the first major contributor to the citation style.
• No one is throwing information away. Full first author names can easily be recaptured more reliably from external databases like
  citoid that uses identifiers to retrieve citaitons is used far more frequently than reference management software such as Zotero
  that harvest metadata to generate citation templates.
• Compactness not only applies to the rendered citation, but also the imbedded template. Inclusion of first1, last1, ... parameter bloats the size of the template so that they start to overwhelm the surrounding prose.
• Wiki linking of authors starts far more often with the author page than the target page. Searching for "Smith JS" is far more reliable than searching for a complex regular expression for some combination of firstn, lastn, Smith, J*S* that still may fail since |firstn= and |lastn= can occur in any arbitrary order.
• I do not buy that including spelled out first author names is essential to understanding a citation. In rough order of decreasing importance are title, date, journal name, author last name, and author first names. More important than author first names are the author affiliations which are not normally included. Including spelled out first author names obscures more important data like title and falls under the category of
  don't hype the authors (I realize that this applies primarily to prose, but by extension, it also applies to excessive detail in the citations). Boghog (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Boghog: when you remove authors' first names and replace them with initials you are literally throwing the information away. Please feel free to demonstrate how PubMed can help anyone distinguish between Xin Su, Xiao Su, Xingguang Su, XM Su, Xin Zhuan Su, Xiaoping Su - all of whom are authors on PubMed. Now you've thrown away what the initial X stands for, how are you going to work out which of those is the author of pmid:26905361? PubMed certainly isn't going to tell you.
    The solution to wikitext being overwhelmed by citation templates is Help:List-defined references, not truncating the information. You can have clean wikitext with just {{r}} and {{sfn}} to embed your citations if you choose to do so. I always do.
    Nobody with any sense uses wikitext to search for author names. It is so much simpler to search the rendered html, which is perfectly predictable for "Smith, JS" even using something as simple as a Google search. The 104 results from Google seem a little more comprehensive than your 39, don't you agree?
    You're the one who's introducing the idea of "essential to understanding a citation", not me. What I'm concerned about is third-parties scraping metadata from Wikidata and your discarding of existing information making it more difficult for them to collect works on a particular topic by a unique author. Why make life more difficult for others when you don't have to? --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lower prority information that is being thrown away can rapidly be retrieved from PubMed. Why should Wikipedia try to replicate data that is already stored in a more reliable and convenient form?
    • I like
      list defined references
      , but many others like Doc James strongly object.
    • The Google search also produced a significant number of false positives.
    • When academics mine Wikpedia citation data, they unusually extract identifiers like ISBNs, DOIs, and PMIDs and not author first names. Anyone who scrapes Wikipedia for citation data that already exists in external databases is a fool. Wikipedia itself (e.g., Citation bot, Citoid, etc.) does not do that. Life is made more difficult by scraping citations from Wikipedia that is riddled with errors. Better to stick with identifiers that point to entries in reliable databases like PubMed and WorldCat. Obscure citations that are not indexed in these databases is another matter, but that is not what we are talking about here. Boghog (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the edit. Show me how I can recover the information |last=Su |first=Xiaole |last2=Zhang |first2=Lu |last3=Lv |first3=Jicheng |last4=Wang |first4=Jinwei |last5=Hou |first5=Wanyin |last6=Xie |first6=Xinfang |last7=Zhang |first7=Hong from PubMed, please. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @RexxS: The PMID and DOI are in the citation. The DOI is also in PubMed. The DOI provides a permanent link to the article which contains the full author list. See here or here.
        • As you wrote above,
          WP:CITESTYLE states "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. The recent changes update the few non-consistent citations to be consistent by using the Vancouver reference style. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • So we don't use PubMed to recover "data that is already stored in a more reliable and convenient form", right? We follow the doi from Wikipedia to the original document, which is less convenient than Wikipedia directly (what I was complaining about as an machine-unfriendly means of retrieving information that we were supplying in the first place).
            What you should have done was find the earliest use of citations that identified a style and made that the consistent style. That's what CITEVAR tells you to do. It tells you not to just change citations to the style you prefer. If you want CITEVAR to say "make the article consistent to the style most commonly used", then go and get consensus for it at CITEVAR. In the meantime, why do you think CITEVAR in its current state should not apply to your edits? --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One can quickly and easily regenerate |last=Su |first=Xiaole | ... by inserting 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.01.016 into WP:RefToolbar.
• What citevar says is to defer to the citation style of the first major contributor. The first citation added did not have authors. The second citation added used full author names. The third citation added used Vancouver style. The fourth citation added used Vancouver style. The first cite journal templates added used Vancouver style. It is a stretch to argue that the editor who added the second citation is the first major contributor to this article. Boghog (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As a compromise, we could replace |vauthors= with |last=Su |first=Xiaole | ... | name-list-format = vanc in that one citation. That way, the rendering will be consistent with the rest of the citations in that article while the template will emit full authors name metadata. Boghog (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that added the third citation removed the previous citations. Using name-list-format=vanc seems like a good option. It is used in other citations in the article. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have trimmed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=27748179 as this is potentially predatory. Plus homocysteine is not a great maker as vitamins that decrease it did not result in improvement. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I am constantly amazed about how many of my watchlist entries come from your edits. Thanks for all the good work you are doing here! ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war. If you take it to the talk page instead of arguing through edit summaries, you give other editors the opportunity the add their opinion. That is far more likely to resolve the disagreement. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on? El_C 20:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

MOS:PRESENT. Sorry for the noise. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

That seems fine. Thanks. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just reverted my removal of the category from Nicorette. Don't you realise that we have an article on Nicotine replacement therapy, which is the appropriate article for the category? The gum (as polacrilex) and patches are not the proprietary product trademarked as Nicorette. The product Nicorette is not on the EML. Please revert yourself. --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with some knowledge I'm sure you could find a reference for my edit about about Prednisolone rather than lazily deleting it. You would find that there is very little peer reviewed work on the coronavirus - most of the work is relying on preprints. Given the potential seriousness of the topic a little thought might not come amiss Chevin (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Please see

Discretionary_sanctions_on_the_use_of_preprints. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Shouldn't Glutamine be OTC in the Drugbox? I buy it at Walmart... Stephen Lafleur (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is correct since it is a dietary supplement and it is not an OTC drug. The infobox is about the drug. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whywhenwhohow, The change I made is to what I believe is the preferred way of incorporating citations. It allows newcomers to add the reference materials to the body of text and experienced users to add a reference nickname (e.g.<ref name "This article">) to the body of text and the full reference to the reference list. It makes it easier to see the text you are editing. Otherwise, the full reference descriptions break up and overwhelm the text of the article so much it is hard to add material or edit. Newcomers' citations can easily be moved to the reference section by more experienced users. I plan to slowly move citations from the body of the article to the reference list, leaving their nicknames in the actual text in the article. That is how the "Hydraulic Fracturing" page organizes references. Check it out. Please check with an admin before reverting again. Thanks. Stoney1976 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CITEMED -- "If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing" Whywhenwhohow (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Moving the references to the end is objectively an improvement to the article. Why should we respect the wishes of some hypothetical editor who may want them embedded in the text? And if someone did the hard work of moving the references to the end, reverting the change would be vandalism...
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, is there a tool or something you're using that's adding the spaces after/before <!-- tags open or close? The article keeps going back and forth with some people adding the spaces and others removing them, and I don't really care which it is, but it's very annoying for trying to track the changes on the page, so it ought to be standardized. I'm not too familiar with this area so I'd appreciate help figuring out what's happening and where the place would be to sort it out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who decided that "External links" must come after "References"?
It does not make sense. No one reads through the References section; readers get there by clicking links on the anchors in the text. That section could even be a separate page, that only appears on that occasion. (And the popup that appears when one hovers over the anchor already makes that section superfluous). In contrast, there is no way to get to the External Links except by reading through that section.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:PHARMMOS Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, manuals of style are just the opinions of a handful of editors who like writing rules for other editors, and agree on whatever ends up written there. Editors who disagree with the three guys who want a Pink Elephant section will eventually get tired of fighting and just leave, and that section will be added to the MOS. (I am not guessing; I did look into the histories of some such decisions.) So, everyone is free to respect the MOSes in their own edits, but they cannot demand that other editors do.
And articles do not "belong" to WikiProjects. Thus WikiProjects don't have the "right" to write style rules specific for "their" articles.
(In fact, WikiProjects are one of the many "cancers" that grew in Wikipedia over the years. A group of like-minded editors coordinating to impose their views on some topic used to be considered an attack on Wikipedia...)
But hey, all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. But I fully agree that the External Links section should be kept to a minimum, or even deleted outright -- with the good entries turned into refs and anchored at some appropriate point in the text, even if it at the end of the definition paragraph.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

guideline that enjoys project-wide consensus. If you want to change the guidance, you'll need to raise the issue and get consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Until that happens, you are expected to respect the current consensus, and it is perfectly reasonable to demand that you do so. I agree with you about Wikiprojects, but the placement of "External links" after "References" isn't a matter for any Wikiproject; it has been a guideline since 2002, well before Wikiprojects were invented. --RexxS (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said, I will not fight Whywhenwhohow's changes to the articles. But "consensus" among the authors of a manual of style is not enough to oblige other editors to respect those authors's opinion. I could tell you the story of how the editorial tag "This article needs more references" got approved and its placement rules were defined...
And there is somewhere an explicit "style meta-rule" that says "feel free to ignore style rules if you have a good reason to do so".
In 2002 there still was no <ref>...</ref> or <ref name=.../> facility to access the "References" section. (In fact, many articles did not even have a "References" section, just "External links".) So the "References" section was just like today's "Further reading" -- the reader would only see the entries by reading through them. Hence it made total sense to put "References" before "External links". That is no longer the case.
I am totally not a "talk page stalker". I visited this talk page yesterday to complain about that edit, and happened to see an entry about another subject that I feel very strongly about...
Anyway, thanks to Whywhenwhohow for all his good work, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only added the {{

tps

}} to alert you to the fact that someone else was joining the conversation. Remind me not to extend you the courtesy in future.

But "consensus" among the authors of a manual of style is not enough to oblige other editors to respect those authors's opinion. - You can denigrate the consensus process with scare quotes, but it's still project-wide consensus, and it is not optional at any editor's whim to ignore it. In 2002 there was this version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout and that was the example showing the order of sections. External links followed References and, of course, full citations were place in that section because that was the original citation style. The order of those sections hasn't changed in the past 18 years, and you're going to need something more than hand-waving about "ignore all rules" to justify breaking that "rule" simply because you don't like it. That really isn't "a good reason to do so". --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the pricing from the lede before I got to it! I will follow your example and cite MEDMOS2020, if I remove prices in the future. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: FYI, watch out for deleting references used elsewhere. For example see

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Activated_charcoal_(medication)&diff=966414142&oldid=960620708

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Activated_charcoal_(medication)&diff=966414871&oldid=966414142

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, so sorry. Will check back through my recent edits. I forget how things work, sometimes, between my yearly editing sessions. Thanks for the reminder, and for correcting my mistake. I won't make it again. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update---checked recent edits, no other broken cites, other than the one you fixed. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was too hasty there. I clicked through on the copyright statement and the bottom of the EMA page, and discovered that they do indeed appear to license it for use elsewhere. I've restored the page. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Lonquex. Thanks. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Whywhenwhohow, done GirthSummit _(blether) 15:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Please restore Talk:Lipegfilgrastim too. Thanks. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whywhenwhohow, I'm not very good at this restoring game, am I!? Will do... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whywhenwhohow,

Thank you for creating Dapagliflozin/saxagliptin/metformin.

Has the issues which I tagged it for but IMO meets wp:notability and I'm markng it as reviewed.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

North8000 (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whywhenwhohow,

Thank you for creating Dapagliflozin/saxagliptin.

Heavy on use of primary and tertiary sources but I think meets wp:notability and I'm marking it as reviewed.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

North8000 (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The overriding principle in determining which version of spelling to use is not the number of each variant when mixed spelling versions are present. If you have a look at

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick:

Text from the EMA has previously been found to be acceptable. cc: Diannaa.

See Talk:Insulin_degludec/insulin_aspart#Copyright

~~----

Unfortunately that's not clear-cut. The page is clearly "© 1995-2020 European Medicines Agency" and the European Medicines Agency copyright and limited reproduction notices only state

Information and documents made available on the Agency's webpages are public and may be reproduced and/or distributed, totally or in part, irrespective of the means and/or the formats used, for non-commercial and commercial purposes, provided that the Agency is always acknowledged as the source of the material. Such acknowledgement must be included in each copy of the material.

That does not seem to grant the right to "Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." which is required for a CC-BY-SA licence. A release that is effectively CC-BY-ND is not compatible with Wikipedia. There may be arguments that the release might allow derivatives, but the absence of a structured licence on the site makes that a judgement call. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa has found the use of EMA text to be acceptable. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another editor has not. What's the basis of your argument? --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion has been that the phrase "totally or in part" is enough to consider derivative works an acceptable use. A judgement call on my part. — Diannaa (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: I'm not sure which text was concerning to you but it appears that you reverted all six of my edits including the ones that are unrelated to the EMA URL you mentioned. Would you please review your deletion? Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whywhenwhohow, The reason all six edits were reverted is that it is accepted practice when encountering a copyright issue to do a rollback which undoes all consecutive edits of the editor involved in the problematic edit. As is noted by @RexxS:, the material is clearly marked with a copyright notice, and the explanation of the copyright could be construed as being broad enough to be acceptable. It is unfortunate that the European Medicines Agency has chosen to go this route. There are clearly acceptable CC licenses recognized around the world. It is incomprehensible that they are unfamiliar with such licenses, which strongly suggests that they have chosen to do something other than a CC license. While the language sounds acceptable, our legal staff has explicitly cleared CC licenses and not, to my knowledge, this specific language. I think it sounds acceptable but it's a major red flag that the organization has chosen to do something about than a CC license. I would also urge someone interested in using language such as this to reach out to the European Medicines Agency, as this is likely to be a continuing problem. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, you make a convincing argument.— Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The exact stumbling block for me is the absence of the word "use" from their "... may be reproduced and/or distributed, totally or in part ...", when compared with the example at

WP:Attribution licences which contains the three elements I always look for: "You may use, copy, or distribute this work ...". --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that you have recently spear-headed some edits on which version of "typically the (not) recommended long acting insulin" was correct, so I'd like to point out that everyone seems to have missed that this same information is duplicated (and conflicting) in the opening paragraph of the article. I am of the opinion that it doesn't belong up there, and certainly not if it is inconsistent with actual facts, but I am just a casual passer-by where I see you have done a lot of research on this, so I wanted to defer to your thinking here. NipokNek (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overlooked updating the WHO refs. I shall be more cautious in future, and also check my recent edits, within 24 hrs. Thanks. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: No rush. By the way, thanks for the Amoxicillin edit. That text seems to be for the wrong audience even if it was cited. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help with Amoxicillin. As you say, wrong audience, wrong article. Asking for a source allowed me to dodge the issue, as it was late at night...Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Checked all WHO refs, in my recent edits.) A further note. After reverting at Amoxicillin, as noted above, I later discovered the exact same edit at Ampicillin: “Like all antibiotics, it is not useful for the treatment of viral infections.“ which I removed from Ampicillin @ 28 September. (See history) The phrase was added to the first paragraph of the lede of Ampicillin, not sure when, or by whom. Something to watch out for...However, the Amoxicillin edit was done by someone named Minisini. Just a note, so you can keep an eye out for similar edits. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Whywhenwhohow,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Spheroids of human autologous matrix-associated chondrocytes for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your attending to the infobox for Folate. Would you consider looking at the infoboxes of other vitamins that are also Good Articles? List is Vitamin C, Vitamin B12, Niacin, Pantothenic acid, and currently in the process of Good Article nomination for Vitamin K. David notMD (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: I took a look a couple of them and will try to look at the others. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reverted some edits here, in the Medication section, and have tried to correct the grammar/prose in this section. However, I don’t have the medical knowledge to property assess the section, and my good faith grammar/prose corrections may be wrong. Would you please review the section? Thanks so much! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: I took a quick look and will review again. FYI, the article needs more citations. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish I could be of further service to the article, but it is over my head. You added a daunting number of cn tags, and quite obviously (yikes!) with good reason. I respect and value your medical-article expertise. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-reverted your revert to the Remdesivir article that removed my addition of a category. My rationale is that, regardless of whether it's an already-existing compound, it is being "developed" for use as a COVID-19 drug. See sentence beginning "Remdesivir is being tested as a treatment for COVID‑19," in the article's intro. Please let me know if you disagree, and if so, if you think there is a better way of categorizing this other than simply deleting the category. -- The Anome (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: I don't think of testing as being developing. There is an article about COVID-19 drug repurposing research so a category named COVID-19 drug repurposing might be more suitable for drugs like remdesivir and dexamethasone. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Whywhenwhohow. I am having trouble finding the part of

Whywhenwhohow, since you have continued to edit for several days without further explaining your revert, I do not believe that your action was supported under

WP:MEDRS as you claimed. Please do not revert the contributions of others without a valid reason. In addition, if you do decide to revert someone else's actions, as a best practice, you should be willing to discussion and explain your actions when asked to do so. Mkdw ^talk 17:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

MEDMOS that recommends using citations in the lead. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The specific section

MOS:CITELEAD

. MEDELEAD expressly states:

It is sometimes useful to include citations in the lead, but they are not obligatory.

It quotes MOS citation which repeats the same information noting it is discretionary. The addition to the lead correctly summarized a significant and well cited section of the article. If your argument that a repeated citation would have been "useful", not required by guideline, a number of other options such as tags, stating it was your personal editorial preference for a citation to be included, or simply adding the reference available from the relevant section would have been a more suitable option than reverting, especially edits in good-faith appear to attempt to improve an article. Mkdw ^talk 04:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 ( page-specific restrictions , when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions . If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you reverted my (factually correct) edit to the exenatide article? In the absence of an explanation, I will undo your revertion.FredV (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading the article I see I have duplicated information already included in another place. It would be nice if your revert had noted this!

My strong impression is that we are dealing with a reverting robot, an automaton. Mazarin07 (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you a reverting robot? Why is so bad if people searching for Xeter will find the relevant article? I have the impression that you are just sabotaging Wikipedia. Mazarin07 (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

?--Oblio4 (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It took me about an hour – actually, thanks for the excuse to practice my two-windows-open clipboard skills – anyway ...

Tip: to the right of "Publish changes" are "Show preview" and "Show changes"; our bestest buddy is "Cancel".--Oblio4 (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblio4: I'm sorry about clobbering your edit and your time involved to fix it. Somehow I missed it and didn't realize it at the time. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen COVID‑19 and COVID‑19 vice COVID-19, but ... ?--Oblio4 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the deletion you have made of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. It is one thing for these countries to accept the authorization (as their own) of the European Union and another for them to belong to the European Union!. Since the list item (and of course) says "European Union" and not "Countries that accept the European Union authorizations". Can you correct it? --Jmarchn (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Hope you're doing well. I'm a journalist, and I'm working on a story about Wikipedia pages with COVID vaccine information. I'd love to find time to talk, if you're willing. Feel free to shoot me a note here, or email me at [email protected]. For reference, here's another story I've written about Wikipedia: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/02/04/when-the-capitol-was-attacked-wikipedia-went-to-work/ Spelunkerr (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused why you added a CN tag to the lead in this edit given that it's well cited that countries suspended the vaccine in the body - I intentionally didn't add a cite to the lead given it's cited in the body. If I'm mistaken I apologize, but I don't think the citation should be in the lead because it's well cited in the body that countries suspended the use in the body. Regardless, thanks for your help on the article. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Esiymbro (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RS. Please discuss on the article talk page before changing again. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, there is an edit request at Primary hyperoxaluria, which you made two edits to last year. Would you be interested in taking a look? As the request is long and technical nobody has responded so far. TSventon (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: A discussion was started at Primary hyperoxaluria and another at Edit request on Talk:Primary hyperoxaluria. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of those, I asked you because you seem to be the major contributor to the article who is still an active editor. Obviously it is fine if you have other priorities. TSventon (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering why you reverted here. It was studied for both in the drug trial. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. The indication doesn't specify or limit the application area. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whywhenwhohow, The indication does not specify or limit it, but I think it deserves a mention since the drug is unique in that it has been studied and tested specifically for the treatment of truncal acne compared to Acne vulgaris in general, whereas most other acne drugs are not.

By the way, can you ping me on reply? Thanks!

Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 03:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowrvn728: I found that the indications for Canada and Australia specify it and added it to the Medical Uses section. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like this could be added:

"Aklief, a Trifarotene cream, is the first topical treatment specifically studied and proven to treat both facial acne and truncal acne" (This is copied and pasted from Drugs.com with some stuff substituted, so just as an example)

using the following sources that show this is true:

[3] [4]

From the sources:

"Trifarotene is the first topical retinoid with robust evidence from large-scale, randomized, vehicle-controlled phase III studies, supporting its use as a first-line acne treatment for both the face and trunk"

"A variety of treatment options are currently available for [Acne Vulgaris], but they have not been rigorously studied in truncal disease."

"Trifarotene 50 μg/g cream is a new selective retinoic acid receptor (RAR)-γ (RARγ) topical retinoid and is unique in that its clinical development program included evaluation of performance in both moderate facial and truncal acne."

"There is sparse literature for the prevalence and treatment of chest and back acne despite it being a very common condition."

"Few studies have evaluated drugs in the treatment of truncal acne and there are no well-designed comparative studies. Most studies have been small in scale and not rigorously controlled."

"A review of the sparse evidence of the treatment outcomes of acne located in different anatomic regions has shown varying responses to systemic therapy when the face and trunk are involved."

Let me know what you think. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 00:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowrvn728: I suggest discussing it on the article's talk page instead of here. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki member, I hope you are well.

I am reaching out regarding my latest contribution to the cladribine Wikipedia page. I have declared my COI and intended changes on the Talk page prior to initiating the page edit directly. I was hoping to hear from editors to ensure a smooth edit vetted by the Wikipedia community. It has now been 3 weeks and I have not received any feedback. I can see that you are quite active on other MS molecules (your contribution on the ocrelizumab, alemtuzumab or fingolimod pages for example). I was wondering if you could please advise whether it would be acceptable for me to proceed with the edits. To provide further clarification, I have suggested further unbiased detail to the current page, and have proposed some edits, all of which I have included citations for. I invite you to consult my post here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cladribine#2021_Page_factual_update

I would greatly appreciate your feedback. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Samer FahmySamerFahmy (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology § ATC for new drugs. Petersam (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whywhenwhohow,

We keep ping-ponging changes to a reference. Not sure why this is happening. Could you explain?

I just changed it back to what it should be in curprev 07:09, 6 July 2021‎ Wikiscienceguru talk contribs‎ m 366,572 bytes +37‎ Fix citation again undo

You made a change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine

Single dose interim use is under consideration to extend vaccination to as many people as possible until vaccine availability improves.[6][7][8][9]

curprev 16:42, 5 July 2021‎ Whywhenwhohow talk contribs‎ 366,505 bytes +79‎ update refs undothank curprev 16:29, 5 July 2021‎ Whywhenwhohow talk contribs‎ 366,426 bytes −22‎ removed Category:Vaccines using HotCat remove parent category undothank

@Wikiscienceguru: There are different citation style templates to use depending on the source. The source is SSRN which is not a journal. In addition, the citations in the article use Vancouver format. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the important change I made is to include the DOI. If this is not done, metrics tools like PlumX and Altmetric do not find the reference in Wikipedia which prevents people from finding wikipedia articles that reference a given article. While SSRN is technically not a journal, it does have what it calls "eJournals" which include content based on editorial staff selection criteria. The referenced article is in an eJournal. But again, most importantly, the DOI must appear in the reference (not as a link) to be captured by PlumX and Altmetric. References by PlumX and Altmetric steer traffic to wikipedia via those references. SSRN functions as a Journal so perhaps it's best to use that citation style. Somehow, the DOI must appear in the reference as directly visible text, not hidden within a link.

I'm concerned about the information bias on the Ivermectin page and can't edit because I have too few edits. I'm reaching out to see if you be willing to see this large research paper that substantiates the effectiveness of Ivermectin as a medicine for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19, which is a peer-reviewed Meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/.

In Wikipedia, the medicine is listed as a parasite treatment in spite of its use over many years in anti-inflammation & anti-viral applications for which it has been used to combat Dengue, Zika, West Nile, etc with literally billions of doses.

This research clarifies Ivermectin's efficacy and appropriateness for preventing and treating Covid-19, though understandably and industry that is making $billions off new drugs would not be interested in an off-patent medicine.Thanks for considering this correction/update to a site that appears to be managed to meet a political preference rather than facts.

Levinas2021 (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting a source. Unfortunately, the problems with that paper are not obvious. In the context of COVID-19, it has been discussed at length, and editors eventually concluded that it was better to rely on other sources for the time being. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article about a phenomenon where repeat withdrawals from GABAergic drugs paradoxically produce worse and worse withdrawals. The article is, "Kindling (sedative–hypnotic withdrawal)." I am not familiar with how to propose an article be deleted, etc., so I was looking for help as this article, I believe, is misleading anyone who uses GABAergics such as alcohol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentinoids.

You can find my complaint in the talk page of the article under the header "Original Research." I'll give a summary here though. I can't find any scientific articles about kindling, and the cited studies are on random topics like alcohol withdrawal in adolescents, which I assume were all cherrypicked from, using original research to create the article. The entire introductory paragraphs have ZERO citations despite being the place in the article with the strongest statements about kindling. The rest of the article seems to discuss random things withdrawal from a GABAergic can cause. All citations lack "kindling" in their titles. If this were a true phenomenon, with how common alcohol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentinoids are, I'd expect there to be reviews on the topic, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, and meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Damn, this article includes the buzzword sensitization right next to kindling.

Please, pick a section and read it, looking at the ridiculous sources used. For example, under the "Pathophysiology -Benzodiazepine" section, you should notice it's talking about how GABA and glutamate are changed in people with physical dependence to benzodiazepines, getting information from "Neuroadaptive processes in GABAergic and glutamatergic systems in benzodiazepine dependence." It's a study about GABAergic and glutamatergic systems in people physically dependent on benzodiazepines.

I propose shifting some of these findings to the appropriate topic e.g. seeing if that claimed source and explanation of physical dependence might fit somewhere in the benzodiazepine page. If you can find an actual source claiming kindling is real, you can also add in the credible source and remove all the ones unrelated to kindling that appear to be using original research.

I replied to the IP's original question at Talk:Kindling (sedative–hypnotic withdrawal)#Original Research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James and myself have noticed you do great editing, we were wondering if you'd stop by https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page , we basically do similar health related articles to wikipedia, except we add NC. ND images, cost of med, dosage, videos and more (Whispyhistory is there as well) we'd love you to join, thanks! Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. I will take a look. -- Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're one of the top 10 contributors to this article, can you comment on the move request? Thanks — Omegatron (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]