Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 154

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 150←Archive 152Archive 153Archive 154Archive 155Archive 156→Archive 160

UPE & ORES

Since ORES was implemented on Special:NewPagesFeed, it's proving itself to be very useful. Where we already know what the hallmarks are of paid editing, some of it is so subtle that less experienced patrollers may not always recognise it. would it be possible to train ORES to recognise them based on these criteria and flag new articles as such in the feed? (FYI: Bluerasberry). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: The short answer is yes. I am Wikimedian in a school of data science, so that is influencing my thinking. I am planning to clean up this research report meta:University of Virginia/Automatic Detection of Online Abuse to present such work and to start discussion through The Signpost. In January 2020 I am expecting to start research just as you are describing in collaboration with Doc James. My own research is part time with data science student researchers. As I look ahead, I see likely three parts to all this:
  1. Probably instead of expensive top down research, the solution to this problem should have a foundation in 20+ student projects at various universities. All of this probably is not one big problem, but many small ones.
  2. We need some Mediawiki development to have a moderation interface. All this prediction will do not good if we do not integrate parts of it into wiki's own processes.
  3. This research raises a huge amount of complicated social issues. I would favor getting student research responses for each of these too, as probably the right solution is a mix of journalism, community conversations, and collection of case studies.
I just published Wikipedia:Automated moderation to advance the general conversation about all this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I read that page already Lane, and I found it very good. That's why I came here. I'm looking to see if we can speed up the process for the New Pages Feed. The main hallmarks of paid editing are quite simple and as a linguist I was working on algorythms for semantic searching as long ago as 1999. Our problem is that New Page Patrollers see such an immaculate page and pass it without thinking. With the effort now being expended by the WMF to address the improvement of the bits and pieces of Curation, now would be a good time to look into it. Maybe Barkeep49 knows more about what the devs are actually working on right now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
While I'm aware of some work WMF is sponsoring about ORES out of Harvard, which has already produced one paper, I am not aware of any active development work. This isn't to say there isn't any just that I am unaware of what it might be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
We have this phab ticket from 2015 for this effort.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Measles vaccine new graph

Hello.

Sorry if I am bothering you, feel free to completely ignore this.

I am trying to improve the measles vaccine page ( seen you help a lot there so that's why I thought of contacting you ) by adding more data ( deaths on top of just cases ) to the graph, and also re-doing the graph using a more modern method ( Wikipedia template, which was what I was advised to do on the IRC channel ).

I present the new graph ( it is fully sourced, both with links and the raw data I had to hand-type ) on the talk page for the vaccine : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Measles_vaccine#Adding_more_data_for_deaths

If you could give your opinion on this modification, how to do it, why it'd be a bad idea, anything I can do to improve things, etc, I would very very much appreciate your time.

Thanks a lot ! --Arthurwolf~enwiki (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid edit summaries that cast aspersions

Doc, this is a problematic edit [[2]]. First, the edit summary is very questionable and can be read as bad faith. I've been very clear that there isn't consensus for inclusion. Since this is a new picture WP:consensus says that in absence of consensus the change is overturned. Your repeated statements that there isn't consensus for removal doesn't matter since that isn't what policy says. Second, if an editor raises policy/guideline related objections a "I disagree" statement carries no weight in refuting that argument. It has no substance. Per wp:consensus this isn't just a vote, quality of arguments matter. You have made none. Springee (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah? My comment was "appears this is just a user agreeing with themselves"... Ie I just see you raising concerns with this image. You can try a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and you haven't addressed them. So far we have two editors who explicitly endorse the picture, you and T72. We have one who has explicitly rejected it, me. Only one who has put up actual policy based arguments for/against, again me. As an admin you should know that consensus, which is needed for inclusion in this case, includes addressing legitimate policy based concerns. I think NPOVN is more appropriate in this case since no one supporting inclusion can offer a policy/guideline reason why it's appropriate and not a NPOV violation. Springee (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)–
I do not consider the policy concerns you raise to be appropriate. One does not need an explicit policy to add to Wikipedia. If you decide not to try a RfC that is your call. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
That is fair but you haven't raised any objections on the article talk page. You haven't said why you think my concerns aren't correct. My frustration with this so far is not that we disagree. It's that an admin is reverting (or my correctly restoring new material) without engaging in the discussion of the objections to that new material. You reasons for objecting may be 100% correct but this far they don't exist on the talk page. Springee (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes editorial judgement applies. The image fits well in the section in question.
I am not using admin tools in this discussion. Whether I am an admin is thus neither here nor there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree you aren't using admin tools but I do expect admins to be more adherent to the process vs typical editors. In this case you say the picture fits the section. I don't agree. The picture is clearly very negative with respect to the NRA. However, the data (the polls covered in the article) are not as negative. They show that the NRA's public image is roughly balanced between positive and negative. Thus the picture shows 0% while the text says 50%. As was discussed in the text, we could balance that part out with an image that showed support. That would address the NPOV issue. The second question is if the image actually adds understanding or if it's just used as eye candy. So long as it's not balanced by a support image it doesn't enhance the understanding of the text in question. Thus we have a MOS issue as well. If we can't address these concerns then we haven't addressed legitimate objections and we don't have consensus. Springee (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
It gives a clear indications that some people are actively opposing the organization. This is more of a commitment than simple commenting on a phone survey. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Where is that RS'ed? What you are suggesting is OR just as it would be OR to say the number of people donating money to the NRA is a clear indication that many are committed to the NRA. Springee (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah we present the financials. So if the public support is about 50/50 depending on the polls does this mean that the article as a whole should have half "positive" and half "negative" images? Right now it appears unbalanced towards the positive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
They are typically described and there is a clear consensus to discuss them. It's typical to discuss the financials of NFPs as well as companies. The idea that this photo is a summary of public sentiment and thus should be included is OR. As for 50/50 for the whole article, no as the whole article isn't about public perception. This one section is. Furthermore, it's not our job to try to present a negative image of an organization. That's not encyclopedic and it would violate MOS images.
BTW, thank you for engaging in this discussion. Even if we don't agree in the end at least we will have a better understanding of the other's POV. Springee (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no concerns with you finding and adding an image of a march in support of the NRA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Sciatica Physical Therapy section

Hi, I saw that you recently undid all of the information I added to the page on Sciatica regarding Physical Therapy as a form of management. As the entire section was adapted from something written in an academic setting, I can understand your initial edit to consolidate information, albeit harsh. However, you followed that again with a complete wash of the section and instead wrote "The evidence for physical therapy in sciatica is unclear". Everything written was well sourced. How can you completely dismiss this? --Rsrdaman 16:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Rsrdaman, claims of efficacy in these areas shall be always sourced to secondary sources or tertiary sources, as detailed over WP:MEDDEF. ∯WBGconverse 18:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Per User:Winged Blades of Godric, i replaced the primary sources with high quality secondary ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. Furthermore not all of my sources were primary sources. Yet you still deleted them all anyway. One of them was even used in other areas of the page. And you did not replace any sources with "high quality" anything. You cut and pasted a chunk of the introductory paragraph on Management into "Physical activity", namely with a source that is NOT relevant to management via Physical Therapy. --Rsrdaman 00:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I added "The evidence for physical therapy in sciatica is unclear though such programs appear safe.[1] The exact quote "The benefits of physical therapy and various exercise regimens are difficult to determine, and the superiority of any one program has not been established, although most appear to be safe." Physical therapy is commonly used.[1]"

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NEJM2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Based on a review in the NEJM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Oh! ( your edition ), I will not use any other reference from Oxford University Press (only reviews articles), thanks a lot! --Jimmy Olano (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Olano OUP does publish review articles. Feel free to use those. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Anorexia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anorexia. Since you had some involvement with the Anorexia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magic9mushroom (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Magic9mushroom Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Amphetamine#Initial comments

In the event you didn't get an echo notification, can you give me your input re: my {{ping}} there? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Hey, thanks for the message and respectful reverse of my edition.

I've looked up a bit on the medicine sourcing guidelines, and what i did understand (correct me if i'm wrong) is that animal studies and case reports are of little value, while clinical guidelines and meta analysis are the most valued resources with RCT's kind of in the middle, right?

If that's the case, i'll try to do my best to comply with it, but imo, if it's that strict, it will leave a lot of useful information and recent advancements outside of the wikipedia.

That and the use of outdated information.

Example: In the case of pregabalin, there's no clinical guideline for the management of sudden or gradual withdrawal, and it's still considered basically only a α2δ subunit inhibitor with little risk of dependency in a lot of literature.

Anyway, that's just my opinion and i'll go slow on my editions to see how this works. Again, thanks. CesareBonaparte (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

User:CesareBonaparte yes review articles, guidelines, and positions of major medical organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Suicide

Hi. Could you check your edit to this article, please? Either some words got left in that aren't supposed to be there, or some words got left out that were. I've made a change, but, obviously, correct it to what you intended to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken thanks. That is indeed what I meant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You need to know about this

In your BoT role, you need to be aware of the discussions at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#"The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded". and Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#"...tensions might emerge...". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing. Were the statements from the WMF or Board worth the bits they were printed on? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The board and senior staff will be meeting in person soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Destiny's Road section

Re: User talk:Doc James/Archive 153#"In popular culture" references in medical articles?

I added the "In popular culture" section to Hypokalemia. What are your thoughts on it? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Not familiar with the sources. Is there a book review in a major newspaper? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as a science fiction novel, it is unlikely to be so honored, at least in enough detail. I can dig up reviews from notables within the genre (e.g., John Clute's, reprinted here), but reviews in The New York Times (here), the San Francisco Chronicle (here), and general book-trade publications (e.g. Publishers Weekly (review) and Kirkus Reviews (review) don't mention potassium, at least not specifically. Nor does The AV Club (review). I found no review in Booklist, Bookmarks, Books+Publishing, January Magazine, or the Los Angeles Review of Books, and I have gone through all of the likely looking candidates in Category:Book review websites and Category:Book review magazines‎. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
No strong feelings either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

ADHD management section

Why do the edits keep getting deleted. I used primary sources from high quality journals.

I am a researcher in this field. Secondary sources are poor resources. There are no errors in what I wrote. I have grants in this area. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsultan1984 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rsultan1984, and welcome to Wikipedia.
The English Wikipedia prefers secondary sources such as review articles, grad-school textbooks, and meta-analyses for most WP:Biomedical information because we think editors are less likely to screw up the content if an expert has already decided which primary sources to review.
Of course, as a subject-matter expert, you probably already know that every type of source has its own place. You want a meta-analysis to find out whether a drug really produces a given side effect, but you want a good reference book for the proper definition of something, and an original report to know what happened in a given experiment.
But on Wikipedia, we can't assume that any editor – including the editors who may change what you've written – can tell the difference between a good study and a bad one. So we try to steer everyone towards the sources that are the least likely to get them in trouble, and the least likely to be cherry-picked (a particular problem in articles about alt-med products – someone will find the one study out of a hundred that happened to show a statistically significant improvement for it, and claim that "it works!"). If you can find a secondary source that says basically the same thing as the primary sources, then citing that is considered better for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

cure?

Good supportive care also reduces the mortality rate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that we have specific treatments now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Citations

Hello.

In 2017, you made an edit to Botulism (this one) that added a bunch of cites to the first source in the article to the lead. I believe that the citations are unnecessary. What's your reason for the cites? Thanks, Abequinn14 (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Abequinn14: Many medical articles, especially concerning diseases, contain vital knowledge and James has been championing their translation into a lot of other languages for many years. The job of producing good translations into lesser-known languages is difficult, and yet the speakers of those languages are often those most in need of the information that our articles contain – think of the huge number of sub-Saharan languages that exist, for example. One of the ways of making the translations manageable is to start by just translating the lead, and ensuring that the lead contains all of the most vital information. That means that medical articles tend to have references added to the lead to verify the information, which will allow bilingual editors of the articles in the other languages to expand them beyond the lead, even if the references are not so useful for the readers.
So, when it comes to articles that will sometimes only have their lead translated, I would argue that the references in the lead are not unnecessary, and play a valuable role in the dissemination of knowledge beyond just the English Wikipedia. HTH --RexxS (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: Well, I wasn't really commenting about the cites themselves, i was commenting about the use of the first source 22 times in a row (in the lead) in that edit. Abequinn14 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
In some cases it might be necessary to use the comment function to show which content is based on which source without heavy citation use. I thought that was okay. JFW | T@lk 08:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes one can comment them out. But they should be left in place. If text is moved around it than remains clear which ref supports what content.
Without the references present people will often add citation needed tags or other references. As the one who does a significant portion of the review of our medical content having clear citations make this way easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Videowiki

Periodontal disease
Other namesGum disease, pyorrhea, periodontitis
Pronunciation
SymptomsRed, swollen, painful, bleeding gums, loose teeth, bad breath[1]
ComplicationsTooth loss, gum abscess[1][2]
CausesBacteria related plaque build up[1]
Risk factorsSmoking, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, certain medications[1]
Diagnostic methodDental examination, X-rays[1]
TreatmentGood oral hygiene, regular professional cleaning[3]
Frequency538 million (2015)[4]

The problem is that the image syntax for {{Infobox}} was designed for images, using the standard image syntax. You can abuse that by declaring the video to be a thumbnail, but as you saw, that puts it inside a box, the same as happens with any thumbnail.

What you want to do is to either accept the standard way that we put images into infoboxes (so there's no thumbtime) and put the display image at 0:00 in the video; or we have to modify the standard infobox syntax (that's 3,000,000 articles we affect) to cater for videos by adding a thumbtime parameter. That will require some consensus.

Any other solution will put the video lower down on the page and isn't good for mobile views.

I still think you ought to be asking for a new class for the video so that mobile view can display it as the first thing on the page. However, that will also require building some consensus. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Basically we have this line in the template {{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{image|}}}|size={{{image_size|{{{width|}}}}}}|sizedefault=frameless|upright=1.36|alt={{{alt|}}}}}
We are wanting to add thumbtime to this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually figured out a work around. All we need to use is "frameless" and put the time in seconds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference NIH2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Gum Disease Complications". nhs.uk. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference CDC2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference GBD2015Pre was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Fun fact

Fun fact: The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005, but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting, has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall. I just updated WP:CANCER with WMF financials from 2017-2018. Enjoy! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We are lucky to have the ability to have paid staff working on as many issues as we do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
In one way I agree. It's not like the WMF is wasting money right and left; most of what we do is really worth spending money on. And so far we have avoided the kind of high-visibility screw-up that results in a huge drop in donations.
On the other hand, did we not have paid staff working on many of these same issues ten years ago? Yes, they are clearly doing more now, but how much more?
From 2007-2008 to 2017-2018 donations went from $5,032,981.00 USD to $104,505,783.00 USD -- 20.76 times higher.
From 2007-2008 to 2017-2018 spending went from $3,540,724.00 USD to $81,442,265.00 USD -- 23 times higher.
In 2008 Wikipedia had over 5 million registered editors, 250 language editions, and 7.5 million articles. Wikipedia.org was the 10th-busiest website in the world. We had already started Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikiversity and Wikispecies, we had already opened chapters in multiple countries, and we had already moved from Florida to San Fransisco.
I was here in 2008. I did not notice any pressing needs that were not funded because we were spending 4.3% of what we are spending now. What, exactly, are we doing now that we were not doing ten years ago that justifies us spending twenty three times as much money? Are we really doing twenty three times as much now as we were doing then?
I have a dream. My dream is that the WMF simply spends the same next year as they spent this year, that the extra money goes into the endowment, and that in a year or two we replace the huge banners begging for more donations with a simple "donate" link, because the existing amount of donations is enough and because we could keep Wikipedia running forever off the endowment even if nobody ever gave a penny again.
I think that donations would still keep increasing, and that we would still be able to expand every year -- just not quite as fast as we have been expanding. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Back in 2008 we were way under spending on security and site stability (and were mostly lucky that no major problems occurred). We are now in a significantly better position on both those issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Five or even ten times higher spending on those things wouldn't bother me. It would take a lot of convincing to persuade me that improving spending on security and site stability accounts for a $78 Million jump from $3.5 Million to $81.5 million. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:CAPTAIN RAJU :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Nasal fracture

Hello, I've never dealt with copyright issues on Wikipedia before, but I recently came across some text on Nasal fracture that I believe to be copy and pasted from a book. I see you redacted one version but the text in question still exists in 911524494,911628162 and 911628492 as it was only here that I removed it. If you view one of the old revisions, the text in question is the first two paragraphs under Chevallet Fracture and Jarjavay Fracture, when I google in quotation marks the text, It leads me to "Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery" on google books e.g here under class 2 fractures. Also your revert to your last edit brought back Usual onset Young males to the medical condition infobox, I would argue that "usual onset" is a purely temporal parameter and while different typical ages of onset could be specified for each gender, the current phrasing does not seem to match the parameter. I would also question the utility and semantics of specifying a usual onset for an acute injury's infobox. However I don't feel that strongly about it and I'm fine with it staying. Thanks. - Scio c (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay I think I have it now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

New section

Hi Doc James, what do you mean by "close connection" or "relation" ? I work in the field, I read journals about ophthalmology, I attend scientific meetings, I know the man and the method.--George G Milford (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Your editing makes it appear like you have a connection with some of the people you write about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi Doc, hope you are well. I just wondered why some years ago you deleted the Analysys Mason page. There are a lot of other companies in our sector on Wikipedia and there are possible cross references to Datatec (current majority owner) and David Cleevely (founder) amongst others. Thanks Bram — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMoerman (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing using sock puppets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Gout

As friendly advice, you have made an error with your editing. You have, presumably in good faith, reverted my edit regarding allopurinol. It is not allopurinol per se which can cause changes in uric acid levels, but urate lowering drugs which can cause the change, of which Allopurinol is an example but, crucially, not the only one. Leaving the wording specific to one drug, rather than generic as to a class of drugs misleads the casual reader. Thus, I have changed it back again. Your brief, and rather unhelpful 'edit summary' queries references for my added part that 'changing the dose' of ULT can lead to rapid changes in uric acid levels. The 'starting or stopping' wording was already there. There is a NICE summary on this, so I will change the wording back to my edit and reference it when I get the time to find the guidance. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Fortnum I change it to what the ref supports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed - it is a relatively poor-quality reference, 12 years old in a not particularly noteworthy journal. I will update the reference to something more current which supports my edit. Thanks. Fortnum (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Done - updated with NICE guidance (last reviewed Feb 2018) - a much better source than the rather flimsy original one. There's a fair few other issues with the article, again centring around poor sources, outdated information and a non-world view. I'll get to dealing with these shortly. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
NICE is an excellent source, so thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_154&oldid=913137011"