Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65

New disease, very worrisome - motivational deficiency disorder

Outbreaks of this disease are projected to worsen for the next day or so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

nice--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
What the one you get from THC? Yes per here it appears to cause this condition. Appears to be a chemical imbalance involving dopamine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No wait that one is called amotivational syndrome. Not really a spoof when it is already a described syndrome? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The spoof part is that it's fatal (due to respiratory failure/lack of "motivation to breathe"). One can cut out the nucleus accumbens of a rat and it will have no motivation to do anything, but still survive; however, breathing is governed by the respiratory centers, which belong to the medulla oblongata and pons. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
not nice--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this in the revision history - not really relevant to anything in this thread but April 1st - this is the most laughable cluebot fail I've ever seen. That revert was made on the April 1st mainpage-linked featured article (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2015). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

AfC STOP Bang Questionnaire

See Draft:STOP_Bang_Questionnaire Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a reasonable article. (We already have "Epworth Sleepiness Scale".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
its tagged with COI, besides AXL is right we do have Epworth Sleepiness Scale why bother--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a very strange attitude, Ozzie! I note some of the ref papers specifically compare this to the Epworth and other "established" scales. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
on second thought, your correct (however initially it did have a COI [1])...the #1, #6, references are not within 5 year review per MEDRS. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
(P.S. upon looking at PubMed I found very few reviews...after looking at some of the references in the draft, I found some are not reviews, I was unable (due to time) to check them all, however it would be best to see if any are MEDRS compliant)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
updated link as article has been moved to draft space. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
it does have a COI tag; i put it there. the article was created by postdoc in the lab that created the questionnaire. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
references I,2,3,4,7,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,18,19,20,and 21 are primary sources (references 5 and 6 are reviews,8, 9,22 abstract/summary only) and #17 ref is a dead link....I took the liberty of searching and found [2] which is a review and might help the article.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for taking the time to look over the article. I took a look at MEDRS and I realized my understanding of primary and secondary sources was incorrect. I have a question regarding editing now that the article is under review and since I have a close connection to the lab. If I find more secondary sources (review papers), should I just go ahead and put them into the article or should I write here instead? Lambbchops (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions, 1. any references would go on the article, not here,if the article is ready? 2. what do you mean by close connection ,to the lab?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ozzie10aaaa, sorry I'm not too sure I understand your first question/statement? I have a close connection because I created the article and I am a research assistant for the professor that created the questionnaire. Lambbchops (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
any new review journals (references), go to the article, as for the second question (you already declared COI, I reread the draft) so that's OK, good luck--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Psychopuncture

Claims to be a form of 'treatment' - looks more like a form of complete and utter bollocks to me (and to WP:FTN regulars [3]). Since 'treatment' would appear to fall within the scope of WP:MEDRS, I'd be interested to know what WikiProject Medicine has to say on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

right so references #1 to #21 are non MEDRS compliant,the #14 reference is in a foreign language (bing translator isn't working/cannot ascertain if primary/secondary)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Google trans seems to handle #14 in small chunks, but anyhow, the journal is Review of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology (2012) No 3. as found at this NLM entry. Looks like a fairly mainstream psych review journal venturing into "integrative" topics. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
the link says "1992"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
That's when the journal was started, 2012 is the date shown on the paper. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
your correct, I had to go to Bekhterev_Review_of_Psychiatry_and_Medical_Psychology (ill be using Google translator from now on)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Note, this article has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Psychopuncture. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Faith healing

The article on Faith healing is in need of some work to bring the representation of the mainstream scientific and academic consensus to prominence and proportional representation as due per NPOV. Also some work is needed to bring MEDRS quality sources on the subject where it deals with biomedical information. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

the article seems well distributed in terms of sections, subsections ,etc., however I don't believe such an article would be remotely regulated by MEDRS or MEDMOS (perhaps im wrong) therefore I would not be able to advise on references (except to say you seem to have a citation error on #71, it seems "date" related--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I would think any article which presents information on healing or cures for diseases and conditions would have content that falls under MEDRS. Thanks for your input, given what you have said I will not currently advocate any substantial restructuring. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
on the talk page of the article in question it seems to indicate "alternative medicine" Wikipedia:WikiProject_Alternative_medicine --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Health claims need high quality sourcing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The presence or absence of a WikiProject tag is meaningless for this purpose. "Faith healing" covers prayer (which is not biomedical) and fraud (which is not supposed to be medical, despite the occasional scandal). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Any statement about the effectiveness of faith healing at healing would count as medical. Statements about faith healing as a manifestation of religion would not fall under the rubric of MEDRS. Looie496 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
OK...if we take what seems to be a section "Scientific Investigation", and go into refs #51 to #66 and then see it as MEDRS (even though it is written in such a way as to be interwoven with non-scientific statements) then references #51 to #66 would be non-MEDRS compliant, not only because there not reviews but because they miss "the 5 year or so" mark for a review by alot--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Applying WP:Neutral appropriately at the Abstinence-only sex education article

More opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Abstinence-only sex education#Applying WP:Neutral appropriately. Medical editors are there trying to get another editor to understand how to appropriately apply the WP:Neutral policy, and are failing at it. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

interesting discussion (give opinion)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy and paste detection bot

The new and improved version of the copy and detection bot that we at WP:MED have been using for nearly a year here is nearly ready to be expanded to other topic areas.

It can be found here [4]. If you install the common.js code it will give you buttons to click to indicate follow up of concerns. Additionally one can sort the edits in question by WikiProject. We are working to set up auto-archiving such that once concerns are dealt with they will be removed from the main list.

We also want to have automatic compilation of data such as the frequency of true positives and false positives generated by the bot. A blacklist of sites that are know mirrors of Wikipedia is here [5]. As this list is improved / expanded the accuracy of the bot will improve. Many thanks to User:ערן for his amazing work.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to understand, is User:EranBot a complement to User:CorenSearchBot, where the former scans new material added to existing articles while the later scan only newly created articles? Semantically, isn't the blacklist is really a whitelist (sites that have copied from Wikipedia and therefore would produce false positives)? Also is there any effort to detect material that might be in the public domain (e.g., {{NLM content}})? CorenSearchBot maintains a whitelist of sites that have a permissive license. Finally User:EranBot is currently down (as with a lot of other bots that run from the tool server) and it needs to be restarted. Boghog (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is a completement to CorenSearchBot. This looks at individual edits rather than new pages.
Yes it is technically a whitelist.
Yes we could add NLM simply by adding it to the whitelist. Not all NLM content is public domain though as they host stuff like ADAM that is copyrighted.
Will tell Eran to restart. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
the new bot will be very useful --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
If it is time to expand scope from the pilot to something broader then it is time to have some documentation on Wikipedia. Here are the places where this is currently being discussed:
Here some places where this has been discussed in the past:
I might help with documentation of precedent. What is the name of this project, or what do we want everyone on Wikipedia to call this? I think that all historical discussion should be put on one project page which explains the bot, describes how it works, then centralizes discussion about it.
Potential names:
  • Copy and Paste Detection Tool, which is what James has been calling it
  • Turnitin tool, after the commercial service providing the reference library for detection
  • Eranbot, which is the name of the bot doing content review
  • CorenSearchBot, which is the bot that spiders Wikipedia articles to find new content to check
  • Copypasta bot, Copypasta Blaster or some new Internetty name
  • Plagiarism Tool, in case we want to start calling all these violations plagiarism instead of sugar coating it
  • Something else?
The name is going to have to condense into a single word so that [[WP:WHATEVER]] will link to the project page when it is invoked. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
right, with time it could become a useful tool (perhaps in the editing process/or maybe in some other useful form)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It is already a useful tool :-) "Copy and Paste Detection Bot" describes what it is. So I like that name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
your correct...and the name is perfect, however in the future it might evolve further and not erroneously detect "mirrors" or "false positives" just actual copy/paste violations....IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone want to add some sources for me?

VisualEditor has a new automagic citation filling tool now. I've done a bit of testing with Google Books (a temporary problem there was fixed yesterday) and PubMed (if you get a URL that has the PMID number at the end of it), and I've had good success. DOIs seem to depend on the journal: sometimes it works, sometimes it gives you a {{cite web}} template to "dx.doi.org", which is pretty useless.

My not-so-secret primary goal for this tool is to make it work for WPMED folk. So I'd really appreciate it if some of you would try it out and give me a list of URLs or DOIs for MEDRS-compliant sources that you'd like to be citing, but they aren't working. Here's the process:

  1. Take ten seconds opting in to VisualEditor, if you haven't already. I know that a lot of you have already done this.
  2. Open a page in VisualEditor. See this huge list for hundreds of under-sourced WPMED articles if you need help finding one.
  3. Look in the toolbar for the 'book with bookmark' icon. Click that icon (not the drop-down menu next to it, which is where the other citation options are hiding).
  4. Paste a URL into the box and click 'Lookup'.
  5. If you like the results it gives you, click the "Insert" button and save the page. If it needs tweaked, click the 'Edit' button next to the citation. If you don't like what you see, send me the URL so I can complain about it. (You can also use the drop-down menu next to it, to fill in the blanks correctly or to write a completely manual/no template citation.)

The toolbar looks like this:

The 'book with bookmark' icon is in between the link icon and the bullet list menu. If you have brilliant ideas about how to fix this split design, then please share those, too. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WAID
It works but it is slow.
If we have a PMID we do not need a url, we also do not need an access date
I like that it also fills in the doi which the other one didn't
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
very useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I just made an edit. The ease of use, fast-working interface, intuitive design, and attractive presentation of a citation derived from a URL make me skeptical of the WMF's intentions in offering the VisualEditor, and fearful that this is some kind of bait to lead the Wikimedia community into an ambush to suppress editors and good will. Other than that it worked quite nicely, and maybe I will try using it more often. Definitely would recommend to new users A+ would freak out again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been using it for non-template edits and, other than the doi thing (which is easily remedied by using a pubmed URL), it works very very well. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I gave it a try in my sandbox. Nice job! (Even from someone who still uses LaTeX for everything...) A few things, though:
  • It retrieves the DOI given a PMID, which is great. But it puts the DOI link in the url field as well as the doi field.
  • I don't think we need access dates for journal articles; it's just another thing to sit there getting out of date.
  • Slow. Sloooooooooow.
  • Is this rollout also responsible for the change in the reftoolbar appearance yesterday? Using the traditional interface, the reftoolbar cite popups suddenly have enormous fonts. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
it is a bit slowish I think the access date is good, as is DOI, (all in all id say an A-) BTW I did Acute Lung Injury --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, that means I can now do probably >95% of my editing with the visual editor. Contrary to other editors, I haven't found it slow, lookup so far never took more than a second or so for me. Sometimes the date is not parsed right, and you get something like "date = 2012-6" which gives an error at least with the cite journal template. Furthermore, also appreciating that the overall speed of the visual editor has suddenly increased dramatically in the recent past. --WS (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

yes I found the date issue as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS enforcement a sure fire sign of COI?

I don't know how the essay system works, but I found this new essay interesting. Apparently quoting MEDRS is now a surefire sign of Conflict of Interest and even undisclosed paid editing.

  • "How to identify a COI Duck: "the edit summaries that revert your edits sound more like frenzied quacking...revert,quack revert,quack not a RS,quack violates MEDRS,quack blatant BLP violation, quack..."
  • "COI ducks will abuse PAG, particularly MEDRS and FRINGE guidelines if they believe they can gain advantage by preventing negative material from being included in the article."
  • "A few common criticisms in edit summary reverts by advocates include 'unsourced or poorly sourced, see MEDRS', 'unproven, need RS', and 'not supported by source'"

Sadly, we may have to take a much closer look at @Doc James: :>).

Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 23:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What an appalling essay. It might as well be replaced with the simple statement, "Anyone who wants articles to follow Wikipedia policy is an industry shill." -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
very appalling and disturbing ( its senseless)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup maybe it should be nominated for deletion. Maybe best to just ignore it though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, already pulled the trigger on that. If someone could checkl to make sure I did it right, I'd appreciate it. Not real good with HTML. Nomination for deletion is here. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 02:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The author of this essay has been sympathetic to conspiracy theories about amygdalin at G. Edward Griffin (it cures cancer, don't you know, but the government hushes this up at the behest of Big Pharma) where policy has been invoked to keep the fringeiness in check. I think trying to get this essay deleted wil only fuel the suspicions of the pitchfork brigade (see, look hapens when one speaks Truth to Power at Wikipedia!). And of course any vote to !delete the essay will be taken as a "tell" of a COI. Alexbrn (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not an essay. QuackGuru (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Formerly 98 I voted to delete ( I wonder how they had the nerve to put that "essay" up)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, there are a bunch of them, and as the essay instructs, they are being successful in making the discussion all about me without discussing the issues I raised. I'm not actually clear on which way this will go. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 11:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
the only reason they would direct their attack towards you, is to distract attention from the essay itself ( the real issue) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the intended message was COI editors can twist WP:PG to silence other views. Also, the reference to the "…like a duck" proverb implies a pattern of behavior. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 15:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As there is now an ongoing discussion of this essay at MfD, probably best that we terminate the discussion here. Thanks. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

CDC/ebola

Center For Disease Control; Francois Wilson (2014). CDC Guidance on Ebola Virus (EVD): 2014 Edition. International Publications Media Group. ISBN 978-1-63267-011-3.....released recently...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the status of Wikipedia's "No Medical Advice" policy

An RFC which may affect the status of Wikipedia's "No Medical Advice" policy is located here. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

once again I am astounded as to how this issue can even come up, what part of no medical advice is it that's so hard to understand ,(this should be something that is not open for discussion}...
Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine.[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
These debates have been kicking around for months. This is really about editors' behavior at the Reference Desk, and the real question appears to be more like "People keep asking questions that relate to medicine. How shall we respond, and what if I think we should take a harsh line and you think we should take a gentle one?" In particular, how do you respond to the questions that could be taken either way? If someone posts, "I am caring for a child with Type 1 diabetes. Exactly how many units of insulin should I inject at mealtime?" then it's pretty easy. The other end of the spectrum is also easy: "I'm writing a paper for school about this disease that I've never heard of. Please tell me about it."
But when someone posts, "I've got a bad cough. Does that cough syrup from the grocery store actually work?", then you could read it either way. Is that person looking for medical advice, or is that person just curious? What responses can you give that provide medical information but not medical advice? Some editors might benefit from some education on the distinction between the two, perhaps similar to the explanation given here.
(One thing I haven't seen in these discussions is that "go see a doctor" can be medical advice, as it orders an individual person to take a specific step to correct or maintain his or her health. That's why we don't write "If you have chest pain, go to the hospital" in articles, but instead write something like "Chest pain with shortness of breath is normally considered a medical emergency".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand your point, and its quite human to help when one thinks its OK. However, to be safe, it would be better there be no gray area...perhaps the medical disclaimer needs to be displayed much more often at the Reference Desk...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The only way to have no gray area is to have no people. No matter where you draw the line, reasonable people will disagree about whether Question X or Answer Y is on this side or that side of the line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
sometimes i just love what you write, WAID. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
im not suggesting there be no people however, for obvious reasons we would want to minimize any risk, to ourselves, invariably I guess mistakes will happen--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliability for medical students

Following this discussion, I have prepared a draft for the Wikimedia Newsletter. Feel free to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Not very newsy in style. You should explain more about what the research did & concluded before getting the scalpel out. We should also say that WP is not intended to be a textbook for medical students. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Axl , you dissected that paper (in your response) with logic and objectivity very well done!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
John, thank you for your suggestions. I have added a couple of paragraphs at the beginning to describe the paper's findings. I also added my own opinion about students' use of Wikipedia at the end.
Ozzie, thank you for your endorsement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's much better, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


I found the link [7] There is no acknowledgement that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Several of the DISCERN tool's questions are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. DISCERN questions such as "Does it describe how each treatment works?" and "Does it describe the risks of each treatment?" would be answered on other Wikipedia pages, not on the disease article's page. The author makes an a priori assumption that the medical textbooks used for comparison are perfect sources. The author does not assess those textbooks with the DISCERN tool... awesome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Safety of genetically modified foods

Groupuscule has an extensive critique of the statement "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" at his own research page.

This user is requesting comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Questionable_food_safety_claims_at_several_genetic_engineering_articles on the accuracy of that statement. At this point, I think the goal is to workshop just that one sentence summary of scientific consensus, since it appears in so many popular articles.

I agree that this is an important sentence. Groupuscule, you have put a lot of thought into this, but I do not see a counterproposal from you, other than perhaps to remove that sentence and say nothing. I note that you do have recommendations. Would you be willing to propose an alternative to that one sentence which summarizes what scientists are saying? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

so this review article [8] seems to back-up that statement, however this does not mean that there may exist research findings to the contrary.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
yes, that has been there too long. Tried to have it deleted but no go. It is a tour de force of post-modern literary criticism, which is not what we do here.. Most importantly, there was an RfC on the statement of the scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed food that took groupuscule's lit crit into account. The RfC is here. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I was unaware of this prior RfC,Jytdog thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no basis in reliable sources for changing the current content. There is a social media/PR campaign going on specifically attacking the notion that there is a scientific consensus (see here for example) and we have had to deal with people bringing that PR crap at the GM-related articles. But nothing has changed scientifically since the RfC was held. We follow the reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Greetings BlueRasberry, thanks for noticing the post. Yes, removing the erroneous sentence, from the multiple pages where it appears, is step one.
An encapsulation of research up to 2008 can be gleaned from Malatesta et. al. (2008) in Histochemistry and Cell Biology:

Diet is considered one of the most important environmental factors affecting lifespan. Genetically modifed (GM) crops, in which new genes have been inserted into the original genome, are nowadays distributed all over the world, thus frequently becoming part of human and animal diets (Sanvido et al. 2007). The fact that GM food may affect human or animal health is debated: actually, no consensus exists neither on the test designs nor on the criteria to be assumed for assessing the presence of possible pathological signs (Doull et al. 2007; Séralini et al. 2007). However, it cannot be ignored that some scientific reports have described structural and molecular modifcations in different organs and tissues of GM-fed animals (e.g. Ewen and Pustzai 1999; Malatesta et al. 2002a, b, 2003a, 2005, Vecchio et al. 2004; Tudisco et al. 2006; Trabalza-Marinucci et al. (2008). These observations suggest that the risk of genetically modifed crops cannot be ignored and deserves further investigations in order to identify possible long-term effects, if any, of GM food consumption that might help in the post market surveillance (Kuiper et al. 2004).

Certainly the debate has continued since this time and more articles suggesting health risks of genetically engineered foods have been published. In a more recent literature review published in Environment International, Domingo & Bordonaba (2011) put the scientists on each side of the issue at "equilibrium" ("a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed") and noting that "most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants."
I might summarize the material as, "Scientists continue to debate the safety of genetically engineered food; some researchers have raised concerns that eating such food may pose health risks." This is a minimalist statement but it's accurate and a start. Maybe others can do do better. An honest assessment would probably also include the information about biotechnology companies and studies promoting their products. aloha, groupuscule (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Someone might also reasonably summarize that first source as "Seven years ago, at least one source said that the primary literature (which is highly variable in quality) showed some differences". For the second source, it's important to remember that "equilibrium" doesn't mean even numbers, but rather that the proportion of pro vs con has reached a steady state—even if that steady state is 99 to 1.
The challenge with a subject like this is that we need to summarize the views put forth by thousands of sources, of variable quality. Picking one or two isn't going to give you a complete picture, and figuring out how to pick sources is unusually complicated in a field known for POV-pushing and paid advocacy on all sides. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
that was thoughtful, WAID, thanks. I proposed on the Controversies page, trying to be more explicit about mainstream (food from current GM crops is as risky as food from conventional crops)/"significant minority" (food from GM crops may be more risky than food from conventional crops) / FRINGE (food from GM crops is way (WAY) riskier than food from conventional crops) views on the issue, as I understand them. But boy is it hard to source the middle one. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

from the above cite.. Malatesta et. al. (2008)] in Histochemistry and Cell Biology Journal from User:Groupuscule . In the period here revised,October 2006–August 2010, a few reviews on health risks of GM foods/plants have been also published (Dona and Arvanitoyannis, 2009; Magaña-Gómez and de la Barca, 2009; Key et al.,2008). In general terms, all these authors agree in remarking that more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public. Especially critical is the recent review by Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009), who remarked that results of most studies with GM foods would indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects, and might alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. These authors also concluded that the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which, in turn, may promote cancer. ... IGF-1 has more than a few possible problems as per [9] .--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • A grain of salt is needed for this question. In the climate change literature, there are fringe publications trying to claim that climate change isn't happening, there isn't scientific consensus, etc. Folks trying to support that idea will focus only on those publications to make it seem like there's solidly not consensus as well. We do need to be wary of that WP:FRINGE aspect here as well, and it looks like when you weigh what all the sources say, most seem to be saying that more testing is welcome but that there isn't evidence for inherent safety problems. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you this is an interesting topic, not just scientifically, but as opposed to other topics which may not have "monetary interests" this one apparently does (climate change at the level of governments,of course, has the interest of production lost if the countries in question were to comply with certain changes to control climate change)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The monetary interest thing actually does get thrown around in the "skeptic" circles too claiming the scientists have an interest in pushing claims to make sure there's more funding for them or to protect their interests. Similar arguments are something to be wary about here since fringe groups will try to interject that scientists have been bought off, etc. That's all real world stuff that is probably always going to spill over here, but we should be fine if we're following MEDRS and focusing more on independent reputable sources, which we have plenty of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Achieving "international fame" is also a requirement for academic advancement in some university systems. Making a media-friendly stink is a way for some people to get a promotion and a hefty pay raise.
I'm not sure that I understand the significance of "the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals". Mostly, my confusion is this: if the question is whether genetically modified foods are safe to eat per se, then what is the relevance of growth hormone? Does someone really think that eating food that contains recombinant GH is going to be less safe than eating the same amount in a "natural" copy of the hormone? Or is this the usual muddling of GM-the-tool with GM-how-it-might-be-used, in which we imply that the tool itself is inherently safe because someone might use the tool to do things that would be dangerous regardless of the method?
I have never seen any credible source that says using GM techniques is any more or less safe than using old-fashioned hybridization efforts to produce the same end product. If you've got a white flower, and you want to turn it pink, then in safety terms, it just doesn't matter whether you do that through crossing it with a red one and producing several generations of seeds until you find a stable line, or if you insert a gene using GM techniques. Want to turn your flower tetraploid so you can find out if that gives it ruffly edges? Go ahead. It doesn't matter how you do that. The end products are identical (the budget is not, but that's not a safety issue unless your budget manager has a weak heart). GM-the-tool is generally recognized as safe, and we ought to say that: the technique itself is safe.
The health concern is the changes themselves, which would be worrisome no matter what method was used to produce them. For example, meat with a hundred times' normal amount of growth hormone would be worrisome no matter how that massive hormone increase was produced. In other cases, we don't know what the effects are. For example, changing a single gene should make humans produce Vitamin C. We could eliminate scurvy. But what other effects might it have? Maybe it would make us super-smart or super-dumb, double our lifespans or halve them. We just don't know. We ought to say that, too: this technique could be used to produce dangerous things.
I guess what I would like is for readers of the article to understand that there are two different safety questions here, and that one is broadly settled, and that the other depends on the details for the specific application. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, you are entitled to your opinion, but it does not reflect the secondary literature. The idea that genetic engineering is equivalent, for safety purposes, to conventional hybridization, is an industry talking point floated in 1992 which has been categorically denied by abundant research since 1997. See User:Groupuscule/GMO#Engineering Creates Unpredictable Changes to DNA if you are unfamiliar with this evidence. For example: "Despite the paucity of publicly accessible data and lack of monitoring of commercial transgenic crop varieties, commercial (ie, approved) transgenic plants have also been observed with unintended traits." (Latham, Wilson, & Steinbrecher, "The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation", J Biomed Biotechnol. 2006.) shalom, groupuscule (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If there are differences (e.g., due to sloppy technique or poor choice of sequence), then it wouldn't be the same. However, you will note that I specified that it prouces the same product.
  • "Conventional" methods are all about getting as many uncontrollable, 'unintended' traits as possible, and then breeding more of the ones that you like. Conventional hybridization is notoriously messy and unpredictable, and the conventional methods of producing mutants (which then mostly die or get thrown out) usually involves teratogens and radiation. Let's not pretend that it's a natural or error-free process, or that even if it were "natural", that "naturalness" has anything to do with safety. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Just spitballing here.... There are a great many legitimate concerns with GM technologies, including safety, biowarfare arms proliferation, concentration of wealth, corporate monopoly control of key foods, pollen drift polluting adjacent crops, effective indentured servitude of farmers by genetic licensing, extinction of insect pollinators, etc. Each of these reasons has, of course, a flip side, and each has been examined at length in the literature. Mostly, those djinii have gotten out of their bottles anyhow, with little indication that they can be put back in. So far as I can tell, though, we have no MEDRS saying that a specific GMO food is dangerous to eat. Given that the profit motive underlies the development of these GMO foods, it would seem unlikely that a developer wants their product to be seen as dangerous. (b.t.w., do we have RS grounds to say that a dangerous product would be caught by surveilllance or regulatory mechanisms before reaching market?) LeadSongDog come howl! 22:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh LSD... just oh. i won't address most of what you write there but yes, GM crops (and soon, perhaps, fish) are tested (either by, or at the expense of, companies that bring them) and those tests are reviewed by regulators (EPA for environmental effects; USDA for safety of produce/flesh to feed animals; FDA for safety of produce/flesh to feed people) before the GM crops or fish are released into the environment and subsequently enter the food supply. in the US this process is "voluntary" (which freaks some people out) but every company goes through it anyway. yes, there are sources for that.Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
We have no good reason to claim that a dangerous product would be caught. Mistakes happen, and some of the FDA's biggest successes were really just mistakes. But we might be able to find enough reliable sources to justify a statement that they probably would be caught. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 ? not sure what you mean WAID. i took LSD's question to mean "reasonably" caught, the same way harmful or not-useful-enough drugs are reasonably caught. anybody who thinks anything is 100% safe is out to lunch. (and going back to where all this started, is that the scientific consensus statement is not "food from GMOs is safe" it is a) limited to currently marketed food from GM crops, and b) is relative to conventional foods (which are not perfectly safe) - so: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no such "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMO food. This is a narrative created by the GMO proponents. It is quite disturbing that Wikipedia has adopted the PR narrative uncritically and states the industry position unilaterally on numerous GMO articles as if it were TRUTH, misapplying MEDRS to make that happen and without consideration for information that strongly disputes that claim:
Jytdog has already disputed some of the above articles as coming from "advocacy" sites in the full discussion of this here. Apparently, if an organization is not affiliated with the GMO advocates, then they are "anti-GMO" and deserve no voice in the GMO controversy, in defiance of Wikipedia guidelines on controversial articles.
The RfC on the "scientific consensus" of the safety of GMO's is oft cited as if it were some "law" that cannot be changed without new evidence. I disagree that past RfCs that create statements in an article have a free pass if they violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedians who supported the statement at the time could easily have made a mistake or had insufficient information to make their decision. Many of the articles I provided above were not published at the time of the RfC and I do not think any of them were taken into consideration at that time. And even if they were, a mistake is a mistaken and should be corrected, not allowed to stand simply because an RfC was held that created the mistake. I will not in this comment say much about the problems with "RS" used to justify the bogus "scientific consensus" statement that are in the articles, other than to say the "RS" cited is primarily WP:OR, quotations of individual authors, from single studies (rather than reviews), or a statement of value of the author that is an opinion rather than a fact. Safety is not an easily measurable observable testable physical phenomenon like the age of the earth, the rate of temperature rise, etc. David Tornheim (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This argument strongly reminds me of the arguments that there is no scientific consensus on global warming or evolution, which is patent nonsense. When one side has a bunch of advocacy websites, and the other side has the AAAS, it is clear which side the scientific consensus is. Yobol (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No. For evolution, the AAAS and AMA are not alone making such claims. Evolution has widespread academic and scientific support: This page lists probably 50 or more scientific orgs from around the world that agree with evolution. The same for global warming here. There is no such support for claims about GMO safety. Only in the U.S. do you hear such ridiculous claims.
Ironically, the evolution controversy article where the scientists do have a clear consensus is far better NPOV balanced (especially the lede), and those few scientists who dispute the consensus actually have a voice; the same is true of the Global warming controversy article's lede.David Tornheim (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course, the AMA and AAAS are not alone in stating GMOs are safe for consumption. And there is of course Genetically modified food controversies which is equally as balanced. Please do not take my commentary as a desire to debate this topic here; it is not the correct venue, nor do I find it a good use of my time to "debate" a True BelieverTM. Yobol (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yobol: I agree, debating a "True believer" in GMOs like yourself with the idea of changing their mind is a waste of time indeed. I was only responding to help Blue Rasberry (talk) and others with an open mind who are interested in the facts to see what is really going on here. As for the orgs on that short list, many do not subscribe to the view that GMO's are "safe", which would be apparent, if one looks at the articles I provided or the materials provided by Groupuscle. The BMA and EC are good examples. This is why the "scientific consensus" statement needs to be corrected. And in answer to Blue Rasberry (talk)'s question, the way to do that is to say that the "consensus" is something that comes from proponents and then say that GMO critics disagree that there is a consensus and cite one of the articles I provided as proof of that. That is NPOV, which we do not have in the GMO articles.David Tornheim (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
that could be a "way" unfortunately it seems the debate will continue (one way or another)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It has been useful to have views & evidence aired on this page. Thanks everybody. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FWIW I was involved when the disputed sentence was proposed and just noticed a link here from the GM controversies page. In hindsight I would probably propose removing the word "broad" as unnecessary, but as it stands the sentence accurately portrays the scientific consensus at this time. From looking at some of the links above it seems there is confusion between scientific consensus and general or other consensus's. I would agree that the public, media, political etc consensus is far from fixed in either direction with regards to GMO safety. However, the vast majority of scientists involved and the publications produced suggest that current GM food is no more dangerous than any other food. Also there doesn't need to be unanimity for a consensus to exist and the only real evidence of harmful health affects comes from a 1999 paper summerised at Pusztai affair. To be honest you could easily go the other way and say that GM food is safer than conventional food as it is much more regulated. AIRcorn (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
in so far as your assertion, that there is no true evidence...then how does one answer The NATO science for peace and security programme , [10] page 174 (perhaps I misread it)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I should have been clearer that I meant to human health. The four points brought up there are environmental so don't really apply. No one is trying to say that there is consensus that GM food does not affect the environment. In any case I would question the reliability of that source. The sentence structure is poor suggesting it has not been competently edited or reviewed. To top it off Ermakova is not the best source for GM related critique (see [11] and the response [12]) AIRcorn (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
invariably... its obviously a subject, that will bring many POV,(objective and subjective) in the end I suppose a common middle-ground is best on all GMO effects/non-effects, you are correct about the above source (to an extent)...however having said that one wonders what is the difference between environment and people? how can it effect one and not the other?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
hi ozzie, i noticed you've been tweaking your question above which signals to me that you would like an answer. ok... so the issues involved in human health on the one hand, and the environment, are different. there are multiple levels to this.
* let's take Bt. Bt is a delta endotoxin made by some bacteria that has a crazy mechanism of action. It is made by the bacteria as a kind of crystal protein, in spores that the bacteria form at the end of their life cycle. the spores are formed on plants. when certain caterpillars eat the spores (with the plant) the crystal denatures some in the alkaline environment of the bug's gut. An enzyme present in the bug's gut, can then cleave a now-exposed domain of the semi-denatured protein. Once that is cleaved, the protein is active, and it binds to a receptor in the interior wall of the bug's gut, that forms a pore. The alkaline content of the bug's gut spills into the rest of the bugs interior, and kills it from inside. the spores then turn back into bacteria and start replicating, feeding on the dead bug. When all that is done, the bacteria turn back into spores. Pretty. So... our stomachs are acidic, not alkaline, and do not denature Bt. Even if they did, we don't have the enzyme that cleaves the domain off. And even if we did, we don't have the receptor in our gut walls, for the activated protein to bind to in order to form a pore. You can eat Bt and be just fine.. and you do it everyday, as cornmeal from Bt corn is widely used in food (any time you see "corn flour" or "corn meal" in an ingredient list, or even on a bag of the actual stuff, it is probably from bt corn, unless it is organic. And Bt used widely in organic gardening... externally applied, of course! So bt corn kills some kinds of caterpillars but not humans. There are a couple of levels there, showing the difference b/n possible environmental effects and possible human effects.
* environmental effects are more complicated, b/c the environment is... well the whole connected ecosystem, so questions arise about off-target effects (direct, or indirect) on other species. an example of this. back in the late 1990s, a research paper was publishing showing that Bt corn could directly kill monarch butterflies (which do have caterpillars, so it was not an insane idea) Tremendous controversy... so much, that the gov't funded a big field study which showed it wasn't true, and even later it was shown that monarch caterpillars don't convert Bt crystal proteins. So no direct effect. BUT. it is is clear that monarch populations have declined, and it is becoming clear that this is because the food monarchs like to eat, milkweed ( a weed) is finally being effectively controllled in North America, and mostly by glyphosate... which is used in conjunction with GM crops that are resistant to glyphosate. In this example, neither the GM crops nor with glyphosate are killing monarchs... but rather, the way they are used, and on a wide scale, is the problem. What is the right answer - banning GM crops and glyphosate? having the government buy land and plant stands of milkweed so monarchs can eat or maybe intentionally starting to use easements by highways or railroads etc to plant milkweed? passing regulation requiring farmers to maintain a stand of milkweed? i don't know, but those questions have nothing to do with the technologies per se. and all that has nothing to do with direct effects on human health.
so... you see how issues of human health, and the environment, are different? Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if Curie knew the dangers when she was doing the experiments?...your response is well placed, but to assume nature and man are separate entities may be a stretch, whatsmore given time[13] Cancer risks, which may appear because GM crops have higher pesticide residues than non-GM ones and the main ingredient of some pesticides,glyphosate, has been linked to increases in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (22). For example, in 1996,the US National Academy of Sciences concluded that allowable pesticide residues, on US foods would cause a million premature, fatal cancers in the next 75 years ...(BTW its a review (within 5years or so)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
ozzie, i answered your question as directly as i could. humans are different species from caterpillars and even caterpillars differ - Bt doesn't kill all caterpillars. everything i wrote above is based on biology and research, not handwavy generalizations. if you want to come edit the GM articles and work through specific issues, please feel free. of course! Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks aircorn, i would be open to taking the "broad" out. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

While most scientists do support the claim that GMO food is safe for human consumption, we're lying to our readership if we say terms like "broad consensus" because that's not true whatsoever. For NPOV's sake, we need to mention critical scientists and their claims. There are critical scientific bodies, especially, in the EU and Russia and to some degree in China. I tried slapping a systemic bias tag on the article when editors wanted to only use Anglo-centric sources to back up the claim "broad scientific consensus" and that didn't even last. When even tags get quickly taken off an article, with no discussion, we have an ownership problem. LesVegas (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that point, if you will look above I cited such a source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
it is true that there is broad scientific consensus, despite the anti-GMO advocates claim that there is not. I am willing to ditch "broad" to see if that will allay some of the flaming that we keep getting, not because it is not true. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea, Jytdog. After all, while some might believe "broad consensus" is a proper term to use, other editors feel it's too strong because it makes it sound like there is no scientific debate going on, whatsoever. As a rule, I think we should avoid terms like "broad" in scientific articles, except in the most extreme Flat-Earth-esque cases, where those terms are not only appropriate, but where we'll also have very little pushback from supporters of those theories. GMO, as you said, isn't the case at all. Anyway, much thanks to you for listening! LesVegas (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

revive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_61#excoriation_disorder i made a response to ozzie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatadoshu (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

i say , since the DSM-5, excoriation disorder is classified as L98.1 ICD code . (before this DSM-5 it was classified F63 ICD code). i think it need to be change in the article...

Vatadoshu I believe you are correct,(je parle un peu français, any question you have just ask)thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

CKS, a service of NICE

i posted a message there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence#clinical_knowledge_summaries
please, note that i make suggestions (in my messages) and i will not modificate "en.wikipedia.org". my english is too confuse. Vatadoshu (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Vatadoshu I think your first suggestion is better...CKS is a service of NICE. "NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries: Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations." http://web.archive.org/web/20140111035349/http://cks[dot]nice[dot]org[dot]uk/ ...is O.K.

@Ozzie10aaaa: ok. je sais que la source est ok. j'ai mis un webcache parce que "hors angleterre" il est impossible de s'y connecter (et je suis en France).
ma question n'est pas de savoir si la source est correcte ou non.
je ne modifie pas sur votre wikipedia (en). j'ai déjà du mal à me faire comprendre, alors je ne vais pas insérer des phrases dans les articles.
de plus, le wikicode n'est pas le même, et je ne le connais pas ici, et je suis incapable de me renseigner sur le wikicode, je comprends rien aux pages d'aide anglaises.
j'aurai donc souhaité:
j'espère que ton niveau de français sera suffisant pour que tu me comprenne.
Vatadoshufrench 09:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK in regards to the Wikicode [14] I think this link should help, if not we can find another, therefore these three points you bring up...
  • you insert a sentence in the article on the CKS National_Institute_for_Health_and_Care_Excellence with the link.
  • you insert a phrase on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the article National_Health_Service.
  • you change the classification of excoriation disorder in the section in "Classification and external resources" and can be explained this change in the article.
now then these [15] [16] [17] are links to the same page above with instructions, however its translated to French, see if this helps, it should ,if not we will try something else, good luck, let me know--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
si je le fait, ça va être moche (et il y a une chance sur deux que je me fasse réverter). mais puisque tu insiste, je le ferai. et je te mettrai les diffs(tu pourra améliorer/reformuler). (j'ai été réverté plusieurs fois et ça m'a refroidi, en partie à cause de la langue et du wikicode). Vatadoshufrench 11:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
one diff: HERE and the wikicode don't work:
the REF-> [1] .
the citation is not empty, look wikicode ; and i put an accessdate
j'ai mis les deux sites pour que ceux qui sont à l'extérieur de grande bretagne puissent aussi y avoir accès. Vatadoshufrench 11:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
ok I put in request,(I have to wait for answer)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

okVatadoshufrench 12:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


OK ...Moxy is over at that article helping with the wikicode--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Est tous ok maintenant???

There are a number of tools available to help with citation placement and formatting, some of which are internal tools and scripts while others are available from external sites. For example reFill and Reflinks edit references by adding basic information to bare URLs in citations. Another example is Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books that converts a long Google Books URL into a filled-out {{cite book}} template ready to be pasted into an article. -- Moxy (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Templates are edited individually at each Wikipedia language and often have different parameters and rules if a template even exists at two languages. There is often documentation on the template page like Template:Cite web. English months are written in upper case and templates may check for this in accessdate. The English equivalent of fr:Modèle:Citation is {{Quote}} but its formatting is not suited for placement inside a reference. However. {{Cite web}} has a quote parameter, and also archive-url and archivedate. This works: [2] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Moxy has removed what i had put: diff why not just adding his références, why remove mine that are the webcite of the CKS of the NICE juste see the url i had posted: http://'''cks[.]nice.org'''.uk
ok i will compare to see my errors (i don't have understand all what you said, but a part yes).

the rules are not the same , the modeles are not the same. yes it is difficult ok not the modele quote but juste "|quote=" inside the cite web modele. "upper case"?? accessdate didn't work just because of this March? - (in french wikipedia with the visual editor, it is not possible to put a quote in the modèle web cite or article or book, the quote need to be another modele, with the modele "citation" or "citation bloc") - even if the visual editor seem to be the same, all is different.

thanksVatadoshufrench 15:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I have added the lowercase month issue to the page linked in the error message for "27 march 2015".[18]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Better to use a medical publication by a third party to confirm what National Institute....no good to sources all back to the organization (Mieux vaut utiliser une publication médicale par un tiers pour confirmer ce que dit l'Institut national .... pas bon de haver toutes les sources de l'organisation).-- Moxy (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"Mieux vaut utiliser une publication médicale par un tiers pour confirmer ce que dit l'Institut national"
@Moxy: "Mieux vaut utiliser une publication médicale par un tiers pour confirmer ce que dit l'Institut national" je suis d'accord moxy, néanmoins tu aurait pu ajouter sans enlever. l'article CKS n'existe pas, donc je ne peux pas mettre le "lien de l'organisme" en "lien externe" . le mettre en référence permet aussi d'avoir le site de l'organisme. (même si "il dit des conneries"). Vatadoshufrench 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I could not ....I did not feel right using a source or quoting something I can't see (Je ne pouvais pas .... Je ne me sentais pas bonnes sources ou citant quelque chose que je ne peux pas voir) -- Moxy (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy:"quoting something I can't see"-> you can see with [.nice.org.uk/ webarchive].
also there is google "cache" to see the actual website if you prefere: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vZImLsrJAlsJ:cks[.]nice.org.uk/+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=fr
j'avais mis le lien webarchive dans l'article, mais si tu préfère l'enlever c'est ok, je comprends ta position. Vatadoshufrench 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
All I see is "

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z" -- Moxy (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy: yes it is normal. in this link http://web.archive.org/web/20140111035349/http://cks[.]nice.org.uk/, if you clic on the letters, you have on the right the diseases and disorders. the lettres C you have candida, carbon... you first clic on the letter, then you clic on the disorder, then you have the webpage. all the page of this webcite have not been archived. but some yes. exemple: A-> acne vulgaris-> [.nice.org.uk/acne-vulgaris#azTab acne vulgaris full page]->and then on the left you can clic diagnostic/management/summary/references/etc... if you clic on letters using the link "google cache" it will not work, only the link webarchive works. -> [.nice.org.uk/ web archive] Vatadoshufrench 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) [.nice.org.uk/ re-web archive] ->this works. under the letters there is this quote: "Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations. The service is being regularly maintained and upgraded as and when significant new evidence emerges and up to 10 new topics will be added each year.". the service is just a database.Vatadoshufrench 08:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Moxy:; @Ozzie10aaaa:; @PrimeHunter: hey and now WTF :
"Since the DSM-5 (2013), excoriation disorder is classified as "L98.1 Excoriation (skin-picking) disorder" in ICD-10;[3] and is no longer classified in "Impulse control disorder" (f63)"." i have put this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excoriation_disorder#Classification.
i have done the same you show me, where is my error? the reference show bad. Vatadoshufrench 13:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

(I have added the lowercase month issue to the page linked in the error message for "27 march 2015".[19]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC))...Prime Hunter answered this yesterday...did it make any difference, did it help?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

if for any reason , this doesn't help the last option is the village pump, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) they take care of all types of technical issues (bonne chance, si ils ne peuvent pas aider juste revenir ici et nous allons trouver une autre solution)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Vatadoshu: Your reference code ends |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf -> full texte for verification}}. I'm not sure of your intention but the comment syntax is <!-- ... --> and not <!-- ... ->. Adding the missing - in --> will still produce an error because there will be an unnamed parameter with value "full texte for verification". Maybe you meant the whole thing to be a comment and should have ended: |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf full texte for verification -->}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa:@PrimeHunter:@Moxy:hey it was that , a - was missing. now it look good. it's ok. thanks.

(the original with visual editor was |<!-- https://psicovalero.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/dsm-v-ingles-manual-diagnc3b3stico-y-estadc3adstico-de-los-trastornos-mentales.pdf -> full texte for verification-->}} but it seem there was a bug). i am happy that you seem to understand me well.

"(I have added the lowercase month issue to the page linked in the error message for "27 march 2015". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC))...Prime Hunter answered this yesterday...did it make any difference, " ok i have understand that, but here i have put no date, so it was another thing.Vatadoshufrench 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • before living, if you don't have the DSM-5 you could download the pdf here 1 -> mais des carrés apparaissent en fin de ligne ou des caractères bizarres s'affichent

ou here 2 to download, clic on "CkayaTb" (russe/russian) in green (en haut à droite/up and right)-> this one is better.

Vatadoshufrench 16:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • if the invisible comment is inside the model you can't see the invisible comment, but if the comment is outside model(but in référence) you see an exclamation mark when editing with visual editor(the exclamation mark appears in références and when clic on the number reference to open the reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vatadoshu/b1 (you can test here)
so i think putting the invisible comment outside the model (but inside reference) is better. don't you? Vatadoshufrench 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

yes I do believe it is better ,bonne chance...Vatadoshu , let me know if everything went fine with wikidata? thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
les contributions passées ont été résolues. je n'ai pas recontribué sur votre wikipédia anglais, je suis occupé sur le wikipédia français. donc plus de problème à signaler pour l'instant. a+ Vatadoshufrench 18:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

well, yes French Wikipedia is a little easier than English (but they are generally the same), but the important thing is we resolved the wikidata problem, if your ever interested I was looking at Acute lung injury it needs references, I have put in some so if you have time I would recommend that article for editing (on English Wikipedia /wikiproject med)...let me know...( Eh bien, oui Français Wikipedia est le même que l'anglais, mais la chose importante est nous avons réglé le problème de Wikidata, si votre jamais intéressé je regardais syndrome respiratoire aigu, il a besoin de références, je ai mis en quelque sorte si vous avez le temps je recommande que l'article pour l'édition (sur l'anglais Wikipedia / wikiproject med) ... laissez-moi savoir)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries". Retrieved 27 march 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)"NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries". Retrieved 27 march 2015. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)
  2. ^ "NICE Clinical Knowledge Summaries". Archived from the original on 11 January 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2015. Welcome to the NICE CKS service which provides primary care practitioners with a readily accessible summary of the current evidence base and practical guidance on best practice in respect of over 300 common and/or significant primary care presentations.
  3. ^ Donald W. Black, M.D., Jon E. Grant, M.D., M.P.H., J.D (2014). DSM-5 Guidebook: The Essential Companion to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. American Psychiatric Pub. pp. page 870. ISBN 1585624659. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

correlation between climate (rainy/dry season)/ebola(west Africa)

at the behest of a colleague I am asking if this [20] should be enough to warrant a reference to climate factors (rainy season/short dry season) and its effect on viral spread at [[21]] ? thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure maybe one sentence. It was before the West Africa outbreak though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
that is true --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there a traditional season for hunting bats? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't come across that information (however the source above suggest longer drier seasons might be involved--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I found http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323830/ which looks promising. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
interesting study--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Acute lung injury

recently , (Visual editor/whatamidoing section above) I came across this article I did some cleanup, added a reference or two, if anyone can help, what it needs most are references (reviews or Google books). thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be merged with ARDS. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
it could be merged, if that's the consensus --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I think a merge would be appropriate. Term no longer used, now called mild ARDS, seems to belong in ARDS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Open access surgery textbook

This open access surgery textbook was just published by the world bank.

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/21568/9781464803468.pdf?sequence=5

It is under a CC BY license

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

very useful (downloaded pdf, very informative for appropriate articles)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review for Peripheral artery disease

Thought about requesting a formal peer review for Peripheral artery disease, but thought I'd ask here first. From people not too involved, what needs work? I think this might be a B-class article. Would like to bring it to GA, as is High importance. BakerStMD 03:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

in terms of references, 12,21,22,23,25-29,30,32,34,35,37-40,42,43,47,48 are non-MEDRS compliant (they are well beyond five years for a review), you might want to look for newer reviews for those...references #20, #33, are both primary sources and should be replaced with reviews. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Images of healthcare in the developing world

I know we are short of basic healthcare images. There are 1175 released by the UK overseas aid ministry at Commons:Category:Images_from_Department_for_International_Development. Lots about health, as well as disasters, politicians, Bill Gates & Angelina Jolie. No doubt not very fully categorized. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

these images can only enhance wikiproject med--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Autoimmune ganglionic neuropathy

Dear medical experts: Here's a small draft article that will soon be deleted unless someone cares to improve it. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

the second reference is actually a good review, however there's little else...information-wise...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa , is there another more general article to which this could be added, with the reference? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Autoimmune_autonomic_ganglionopathy ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Silver Nanoparticles are breakthrough cancer-fighting agent! ...?

Just noticed the creation of Silver Nanoparticles (Chemotherapy). Reading through it, I'm not sure it's centered on mainstream views or avoids "see what great things are coming" language. Would appreciate more eyes on it. Zad68 12:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

will read through and see references--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
the article in question has segments like...This translates into new treatments and potential cures for diseases such as cancer, which remains one of the world's most devastating diseases. Current cancer treatments include surgical intervention, radiation and chemotherapeutic drugs, which often cause toxicity to the patient, and death of healthy cells. The use of nanoparticles is at the forefront of projects in current research with the emerging trend of the NP acting as an anti-cancer agent itself in addition to being a drug carrier.....without a single reference?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It also appears to have WP:POVFORK problems. There ARE some parts of it that are sourced, and might possibly be salvaged but would have to be merged into existing articles. Zad68 14:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
WARNING - Don't read that article ... you'll turn blue if you do! -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Argyria? Don't worry, it's nothing that colloidal silver can't fix...

Now, this article isn't that but does have issues.... Zad68 14:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read this board, but don't contribute to this project much, if at all. I couldn't resist. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yet another contribution from this class, it looks like. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sterility

What happens during Inguinal hernia surgery to cause sterility? 173.224.6.9 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Ed M

what article are you editing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like misinformation, is this in any of our articles?-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Inguinal_hernia Inguinal_hernia_surgery these articles turn up...Patients are encouraged to walk as soon as possible postoperatively, and they can usually resume most normal activities within a week or two of the operation. Complications include chronic pain (varying from 10-50% depending on source), foreign-body sensation, stiffness, ischemic orchitis, testicular atrophy, dysejaculation, anejaculation or painful ejaculation in around 12%. They are often under-reported.[6][7][8][9] Recurrence rate is low, <2%. ...( this [22]review speaks to the issue of infertility, though not the same as sterility or impotent)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Disclose COI at account creation?

just floated a balloon at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Disclosure_of_COI_at_account_creation.3F ... interested in thoughts on it. it may be a dumb idea. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

important topic, give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Unrecognized diseases have a rash of poor sources

It seems that Joni Mitchell believes she has a disease which doesn't really exist, Morgellons. The article is chock full of primary and lay sources and very repetitive. Similarly, another unrecognized disease, Orthorexia nervosa also has a lot of sources which seem to violate WP:MEDRS. Could use trimming. Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Morgellons article-references 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,11.12,13-24,26,27,29,30-33,35-41,45-61 are non MEDRS compliant (due to both source and how old the source in question is) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Orthorexia nervosa - references 1-9, 12,14-17,19,20,22,23,24,29 are non-MEDRS compliant (#25 seems to have a cite error)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't checked every reference listed above, so am just noting that one should be careful not to misapply MEDRS. Only very specific types of content are covered by MEDRS. News reports, opinions, reception, and controversy are not covered by MEDRS, but follow the normal RS rules. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
you are correct ,(however it is always good to see it Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) )...A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations...in regards to the press....The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[20] costs, and risks versus benefits,[21] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[22] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results... this is what we all follow, and therefore makes the articles reliable...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

News reports, opinions, reception, and controversy are not covered by MEDRS, but follow the normal RS rules. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC) That statement makes no sense whatsoever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Good catch. You're right. Just strike that first word. Here's the meaning:
  • Sources for opinions, reception, and controversy are not covered by MEDRS, but follow the normal RS rules.
We are allowed to use non-MEDRS sources (IOW not peer reviewed reviews and metaanalyses) for such content. When dealing with actual statements of medical and scientific fact, then we use MEDRS quality sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
That is still an oversimplification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is. It was just a cautionary note, because there is a tendency to apply MEDRS to subject matter where it does not apply. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

So, since every study shows this Morgellons phenomenon to be, in fact, Delusional parasitosis, why is Morgellons not a redirect to Delusional parasitosis? (And why doesn't the lead of Morgellons say what the cited source says-- it is not a condition at all). The two articles say the same thing. BullRangifer's statements above notwithstanding, why do we have an article on an imaginary condition when there is a real condition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the reason is that it is a notable condition. It's a specific form of delusional parasitosis which has gained notoriety and is well-known, especially in alternative medicine circles. Besides the "notability" justification, the article serves the useful purpose of providing seekers with accurate information which exposes the dubious nature of this condition. This is a very important reason for not burying fringe subjects in larger articles. If they are notable in their own right, policy dictates that they get their own article. There it's possible to even more clearly document the fringe nature of the nonsense.
It's also rather interesting that we regularly have other visitors (sufferers from the condition) to the talk page who clearly demonstrate the psychological nature of the condition. Their behavior and arguments make it even more clear that this is a mental illness. Their thoughts are scattered and illogical, and they can barely spell their own name. It's really tragic. Morgellons is a very real mental condition, just as belief in UFOs carrying little green aliens, and chemtrails killing us, are very real delusions. Misinformation harms people, and we can counteract it by documenting the sources which do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
BullRangifer... I understand your opinion, however I concur with SandyGeorgia it is not a condition at all... The two articles say the same thing it might be best to leave the article with the real condition Delusional parasitosis, and perhaps redirect the other one Morgellons ( and mention in a subsection?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm really puzzled at the line of thought that this "is not a condition at all" or that it is not a "real condition". Surely it's a psychiatric condition, isn't it? Are there MEDRS sources saying that nobody believes they are suffering from Morgellons? Whatever should be done about all this, I hope Morgellons does not end up merely as a mention in a subsection. Thincat (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the proper place for a deletion, move, or redirect discussion. Let's just keep that in mind.

Policy: It's notable in its own right, therefore it deserves its own article. It is already mentioned in a single paragraph in the delusional parasitosis article, as it should be. (The only thing missing is a "main" link, which I'll add right now.) The content in the two articles is definitely not the same, even though there is some overlap. One cannot merge the Morgellons' content into the main article without losing lots of information, sources, and content. We would do our readers a great disservice, as well as violate policy, if we didn't keep the article. To include all the content would create a weight violation, since delusional parasitosis has other forms. Besides that, Morgellons is more about fibers than about parasites.

We are writing an encyclopedia, not a medical textbook. That's one reason why our inclusion criteria are very different. We have lots of articles about things that are "not a condition", "not a real treatment", "a lie", "a deception", "a myth", etc.. Chiropractic subluxations aren't "real". There is no objective method for proving their existence, but its a notable subject. Homeopathy isn't "real", yet we have an article. I could go on.

Even though our inclusion criteria for medical and alternative medicine subjects does not require official recognition, Morgellons does have its own MeSH number. It is officially recognized as a subset of delusional parasitosis. If it were a very small subject, with very little coverage, we might be able to cover it in a few paragraphs, but it's a large subject in the alternative medicine world and it has thus gained enough notoriety for mainstream coverage and CDC investigation. It's definitely fringe and we cover fringe subjects here. We don't hide them.

We don't have a policy which says that we get to hide or minimize articles which document nonsense, conspiracy theories, or delusions. We don't get to minimize or hide things because we don't like them or don't believe in them. That type of thinking is editorial censorship. We don't allow that. I'm a healthcare professional and scientific skeptic who definitely opposes this type of crap in real life. My activism has resulted in death threats to me and my children. It's no fun. Wikipedia is a very valuable source of information, and it serves as a wonderful place to document what is true or not true about these issues. That happens to be a main purpose of the encyclopedia, and we should not undermine that function. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer your dedication was never in any doubt with me...on a final note...Many dermatologists treat Morgellons as delusional parasitosis. After a thorough medical examination to rule out known organic causes for the symptoms, delusional parasitosis patients are typically prescribed one of several typical antipsychotic drugs.[29][30] In the past, pimozide was the drug of choice; in addition to antipsychotic activity, it also has antipruritic activity, meaning it inhibits the sensation of itching.[31] However, pimozide requires frequent electrocardiographic monitoring.[30] Currently, atypical antipsychotics such as olanzapine or risperidone are used as first line treatment.[30] Antipsychotics are effective at treating delusional parasitosis at doses as low as one-fifth to one-tenth the dose typically prescribed for schizophrenia.[30] It is common for patients who believe they have Morgellons to reject a physician's diagnosis of delusional parasitosis. It has been suggested that the term Morgellons should be adopted by dermatologists to enhance their rapport with their patients, allowing them to overcome this resistance.[23]...therefore in a practical type of way doctors find this term useful in overcoming...resistance from patients, therefore after further consideration, I find myself agreeing with you BullRangifer.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not yet entirely convinced this is policy-based, but I can go along with this line of thinking for practicality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Anorexia nervosa article

SandyGeorgia is currently doing a good strong cleanup of that article, which has been subject to lots of school projects and crufty edits and has long been in need of love... hooray for Sandy!Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

looks great (though everyone should pitch in)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
After working all morning, I have not made even a tiny dent in all the work that is needed there. There are still tons of primary sources, and worse-- based on the reviews that I've read and added to the "Further reading" section, the article is still woefully inaccurate and outdated, and days, weeks, months of work will be needed to render anything useful. There are many good, full-text reviews available, but it will take a sustained effort to incorporate them and get all the crap replaced by good text. Ugh, what a dreadful, dreadful article. If anyone is interested, pick one of the recent reviews and have at it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Unarchiving to request help ... I have worked on this hunk of junk for countless hours, but the article is a wreck ... affected by years of poor student editing, pushing apparently prof textbooks, usually with no page nos, and now apparently three different courses at work on it as well (typically adding primary sources when scores of free full-text reviews are available). If anyone is able to pick a section, any section, and do minimal improvements, help is appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies[24] (apparently the article has some issues [25] )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's the widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field that gets "stretched" ... with student editing, often to include "my prof's latest book". In any case, we should always evaluate sources, and use the best available when we are able ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather have "my prof's latest book" than a pile of sources from the 1980s and 1990s. I've pulled a few for you, but there's more to go. It's an easy task if someone wants to jump in: look at the date, and if the year starts with "19", it's almost certainly bad and can be easily replaced with a quick trip to PubMed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen sources referred to as "elderly sources" before, LOL. "Old sources," yes. I might give "elderly sources" a try; I like it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

List of diseases causing sudden death

New article by new editor needs attention. Is this a notable topic for a list article? Everymorning talk 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

to begin with there are no references, all it has are external links?...further I fail to see how in its current condition it would be of any use to any reader (having said that, if it were referenced appropriately and expanded into a full article then perhaps an article which details those conditions that could lead to sudden fatality "might" be useful reading, but not like the article is now ( I have gone ahead and tagged it for references and stub content)...BTW 2 of the 4 external links don't seem adequate...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
You mean {{nofootnotes}}, not no references. The original editor was using WP:General references. (The "External links" label was added by someone else in the course of cleaning up a formatting mess.)
The "worst" website (a self-published website by some physician) looks like it will be a great cheatsheet for figuring out what conditions should be considered for inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
(added) for myocardial infarction this [26] could be ref, for bronchial asthma perhaps this [27] , brain stroke [28], epilepsy [29]and acute renal failure[30]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It's super easy to find sources for this subject, isn't it? I'm thinking that we ought to reclaim Sudden death and make it a proper article instead of a disambiguation page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you ( however [31] , their argument is curious, all ailments (disease).. cause death,yet immediate/sudden death...is a much smaller circle...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

vitamin D actions ---> CD4(+) T Cells/ recent review

[32] I believe this to be a good read. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Biofrequency Chip

Cutting edge medical research or undiluted snake oil? I am not sufficiently familiar with the field to tell, except that I know enough physics to see that the "definition" of "frequency" given in the draft is utter nonsense. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

reference 2,3,6,8,9,11,12,13,14 are all primary sources therefore not MEDRS compliant....4 is a dead link....5 is a good review (1 and 14 may not be subject to MEDRS)...now then references #7 and #10 are the same furthermore it comes from a retraction...
DNA Cell Biol. 2013 Mar;32(3):138. doi: 10.1089/dna.2011.1415.retract.
Retraction of: "DNA and cell resonance: magnetic waves enable cell communication," by Konstantin Meyl, DNA Cell Biology (2012;31:422-426).
[No authors listed]
Retraction of
DNA and cell resonance: magnetic waves enable cell communication. [DNA Cell Biol. 2012]
PMID 23461727 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] ....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
See http://www.retractionwatch.com/2013/02/22/way-out-there-paper-claiming-to-merge-physics-and-biology-retracted and http://retractionwatch.com/2013/08/20/author-of-way-out-there-paper-merging-physics-and-biology-has-second-paper-retracted. Looie496 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Looie496 thank you for the links, very interesting,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, one of my links was to the wrong post, now fixed. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks, good info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have copied this conversation to the draft's talk page and declined the submission as a hoax as it is based on junk/pseudo-science. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pubmed comes up with zero sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear reviewers, thank you for your feedback on the drat biofrequency chip. The science surrounding this technology is decades old, but it is now in a novel formulation. Drug companies are beginning to use this technology for patients who are not able to metabolize certain nutrients/drugs or have adverse events from an oral formulation. I did not include the products that are commercialized to avoid the perception that it is promotional, however it is a real technology. People are wanting more information on biofrequenccy chips and it would be nice to find some information on Wikipedia. I have removed the reference that was a problem and corrected the links with others. If there is anything specifically that can be done further to the draft to improve on it's value I would appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aenfinger (talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

right..so you might want to take a look at [[33]] as it will clarify references (also you might want to take a look at Google books [34] )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the attempt, but it is just not believable. If pharmaceutical companies are really using this, it is critical that there be articles in medical journals addressing the issue. Otherwise, it will never get acceptance from us, much less from doctors or regulatory agencies. We cannot publish medical information without citing reliable sources like medical journals, as explained in the link above. Mamyles (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite the draft submission being declined, a Biofrequency Chip article has now been created - with none of the issues addressed above apparently being resolved. I suspect an AfD may be the next step. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I will immediately review the references, this is unusual--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
1, 4, 13,18 are review articles...2,3,6,7,10,11, 15, 16,19,21,22,23,24,25,26 are non MEDRS compliant...(8 , 12, 17 are summaries/abstract) and 9 dead link...this is very unusual to have an article "pop up" without being review? (I have since tagged the article for med reference)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Put up for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biofrequency_Chip Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you Doc James for the link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Drugbox questions

I am working with {{Drugbox}}. I met these questions:

  • Saying "℞ (Prescription only)" as a worldwide legal status? Talk is here
  • PLLR starts next June 30. Little information.

-DePiep (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

give your opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
All talk at the links. This is just a note. -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Scrotal inflation

The scrotal inflation article has become the target of an editor who appears to be (a) providing "how-to" advice for this dangerous procedure, including a "how to" picture, and (b) apparently using the article as a gallery for showcasing what I presume to be his own efforts. I've backed off both. I've backed off the edits, and chosen a relatively boring image at random from the Commons image category to replace the image to frustrate his efforts to use the article as a showcase. Can more editors here please add this article to their watchlists, to help stop this recurring in future? -- The Anome (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've placed it under full protection for three months and added it to my watchlist. I can see that this will need long-term attention as there have already been two advocates contributing to it. I see it as essential that the health effects are drawn attention to, and indeed Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Samsara 10:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also added an edit notice to the article. -- The Anome (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
What about similar articles such as cock and ball torture and those in its "see also" section? Are there any others among them that need more watchful eyes? Samsara 10:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The cock and ball torture article has medical content (mostly nearer the end of the article), so I think it needs more eyes on it. This is definitely a gray area: the BDSM term "cock and ball torture", in spite of its name, actually covers a wide range of activities, from relatively mild manipulation of the genitals that is unlikely to cause harm, to highly risky activities with high risk of harm that most definitely will have medical consequences; and unfortunately the boundaries between the two are sometimes not easily recognized. -- The Anome (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I just made a small edit to avoid this being hidden away at the end of the article; if anyone feels the need to differentiate this more specifically, they can do so. Overall, the situation is not all that different from, let's say, car crash. You can have a fender bender or wrap your vehicle around some unyielding solid object, no pun intended. I'm not sure that practitioners always get exactly what they asked for. Samsara 11:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
though admittedly, not your typical med article...references 1,2,3,4 are all beyond the 5 years or so/review range (per MEDRS)... further for references this is what pubmed.org has [35] and in regards to books [36]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NORN discussion regarding Scrambler therapy

This is a note that there's a discussion open here regarding whether or not some proposed content has WP:OR issues. Zad68 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

important topic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

GMO Inquiry 2015

Information about GMO Inquiry 2015 is available at GMO Bites—Common Ground (February 2015) and GMO Bites: April 2015—Common Ground (April 2015). See also http://gmoinquiry.ca.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

according to this Canada does regulate GMO, (in contrast to what the above sources indicate)... The development and planting of PNTs for research purposes is overseen by the CFIA’s Plant Biosafety Office (PBO). The PBO evaluates applications for confined research field trials and sets out the rules[32] and conditions for how they are to be conducted.[33] These confined research field trials of PNTs are assessed by government scientists to ensure that the trials do not endanger the environment.[34] Stringent conditions are placed prior to conducting a confined research trial and developers are required to provide the government evaluators with “information about the plants (such as where they are being grown and the procedures being used) and must also work with the CFIA both during the field trial and after harvest.”[35]Before a GMO can be released into the environment more generally or sold for human consumption it must go through an authorization process as outlined below. The CFIA is mandated to assess GM plants and authorize their release into the environment. Health Canada, on the other hand, authorizes the sale of GM foods for human consumption. [37]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Try adding any of that into the articles and watch how much opposition you get. From the lead of Genetically modified food controversies, you'd think regulation everywhere is equally rigorous. From reading the articles, it's quite difficult to figure out that the U.S. nearly zero GMO regulation compared to Canada and E.U. David Tornheim (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
David Tornheim I agree... further...Health Canada has the mandate to assess the safety of foods for human consumption, including GMOs in foodstuff, and for authorizing them to be sold in Canada. It does so in accordance with the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations. Health Canada’s process for assessing the safety of GM foods follows a “similar pattern” to the CFIA’s assessment process explained above.[44] According to Division 28 of Part B of the Food and Drugs Regulations (Novel Foods), manufacturers and importers “who wish to sell or advertise a GM food in Canada, must submit data to Health Canada for a pre-market safety assessment.”[45] This safety assessment “provides assurance that the food is safe when prepared or consumed according to its intended use." ...it seems this could be an "avenue" other countries could pursue, in regards to GMO, unfortunately "monetary reasons" are more important to some...IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad science methods

This new article contains some useful material, I think, but it lacks balance. I brought it up at WT:SCIENCE, but as far as I can tell nobody participates there. Any thoughts on the appropriate way to deal with this? Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

right,from a reference standpoint,2,5-10,12,13,14,18,20,25,26,27,33,41,42,44,48,52,54,55,60,63,68,70,74,75,79,86,87,88,90,92 are non-MEDRS compliant (though this does not mean there may not be more, I was short on time)... in regards to the books cited #1, #3, #4, one wonders since they are not academic textbooks, that they might have a non-analytical (subjective) approach in regards to the subject matter?...IMO. Furthermore, Bad science is a term for methods using in scientific publication system for intentional or unintentional fraud and misconduct[1].Some scientists and other people use those methods in order to maintain their position in science society or to obtain grants for their research[2], what leads to contradictions and in some cases, for example in medicine, could be a reason for introduction dangerous drugs or harmful therapies[3]. Also journalists and popular media canals, such science blogs and webpages often misinterpreting results of studies or exaggerate them, what makes them more attractive for publicity[4]. Peer review system does not prevent of misleading publications[5]. Publication bias is one of the most common and most important factor, distorting the research outcome[6].[38] reads in a non-objective POV, even further the references supporting these statements (as I noted above) are both non-MEDRS and non-textbook, one must keep in mind Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This is about science in general, not medicine specifically, so tabulating MEDRS compliance isn't directly relevant here. I don't think "bad science methods" is a meaningful article topic, but the references and cleaned-up text could be parceled out to the relevant articles on reproducibility, replication crisis, publication bias, and so forth. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
yet, out of 92 references, in the article, a high percentage are medically related (journals)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Personally I think a better article along these lines would be very useful, and I expect we already have one (or more) in the forest of mostly very specialized articles in Category:Design of experiments and similar categories. The sort of broader topical subject is exactly the sort of thing WP is weakest at (because they are very difficult to do well), but a title like Problems in scientific research methodologies or something would be better. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Most of the current ongoing discussion about reproducibility is happening among biologists, psychologists, and clinical researchers, broadly construed. That doesn't mean the article is making health-related claims, which are the core of the MEDRS scope. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
yet Publication bias which you mentioned above is under MEDRS, invariably I do agree with you Bad science methods is not a meaningful article topic (in its current condition)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There's some WP:BEANS in collecting all of these errors in one place :) We do have pathological science, but that's a collection of specific incidents, not the same as the publication-bias type of criticism. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That covers deliberate fraud, which is different from the more interesting bits of this one, though there's some overlap. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
bd2412 I agree with you....If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page[39] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Triple antibiotic ointment

Your attention is called to the discussion at Talk:Polysporin, in which one view is to merge with Neosporin, another is to leave the two articles separate, and a third is to merge the two under the generic name in the header above, which now redirects to Polysporin. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

important talk give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Kickstarter Wikipedia health book!

I am a fan of Wikipedia:Crowdfunding projects and for the first time I am seeing one related to health.

I am continually encouraged by the enthusiasm that comes to Wikipedia from the alternative medicine community. Let's all hope for good attention and a good outcome from this project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


for lack of a better word they use curious language....We’re long-time publishers of both print and digital media, so we are familiar with the challenges that accompany good publishing projects. Endless edits, coordinating fulfillment and distribution, digital formatting, organizing a research team, and so on.
With this project, the biggest challenge is scope creep. Wikipedia has been a thorn in the side of so many in the alternative health and healing communities. Everyone will want to be represented in this book. We’ll do our best to represent the fields that we can, and will need to monitor the project so that it doesn’t become too large to deliver well and on time.It will also be important to write this book with the highest level of maturity. The task is to tell the hard truth and do it without ranting. We’ll right the wrongs with integrity.[40]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, WP has been a "thorn in the side" of the alternative health community for a very good reason -- much of what they publish lacks the support of reproducible scientific evidence, which WP is annoyingly persistent about requiring. The movement is also, unfortunately, plagued by a disturbing number of unscrupulous people who ignore facts entirely and simply write what people want to hear -- a good way to sell books, but also a good way to perpetuate mythology. I, for one, would love to see more alternative treatments pan out; it's one of the reasons that I became a doctor in the first place. So far, though, legitimate alternatives have been discouragingly few and far between. If this group can make a convincing case for some of their theories, backed with real data, more power to them; but I've been disappointed too many times by similar efforts in the past, and I'm not holding my breath. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think blogs.naturalnews.com/author/mikebundrant/ [unreliable fringe source?] this] at the hub of nonsense - NaturalNews, tells us what we need to know about the aims of this project. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it's going to be, at best, a book full of "Here's a bunch of cherry-picked primary studies that Wikipedia is hiding from you!" Ho hum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
More coverage here. Apparently neurolinguistic programming is a big thorn in Bundrant's side. Everymorning talk 19:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Orac has hacked my watchlist and reproduced it on his blog. Who should I report it to? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Question? Roxy the dog What is the nature of the problem, and what would you like done in response? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is caused by "Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans" (1 year old this week I believe), but if you look at Orac's blog post linked above, you will see a list of Quack therapies, and it looks just like my watchlist. Ozziesomethingsomething already asked me on my Talk page. I'm sorry to have been the cause of such disruption when trying to inject a little humour. ADDENDUM : You asked what response I want, could we send Orac some flowers? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Roxy the dog No one should have access to your watchlist per Help:Watching_pages#Privacy. Orac got that list from the Kickstarter page, I think, and I expect that it is copied from the watchlist of many people here because alternative medicine might be the single most popular discipline of medicine on Wikipedia and beyond. If you think your account has been breached then check Wikipedia:User account security. I am not sure about flowers, but what about coffee or a kitten from Wikipedia:WikiLove#Templates_to_share? Cheers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The kickstarter says "What this book will NOT do: Attempt to defame or slander anyone associated with Wikipedia.", but a chapter in the book is: The Wikipedia Editing “System” - Good Ole Boys Club? • Paid editors • Corporate shills • Defamation • Hackers. ---> to me, it sounds like you are going to slander the community! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This book sounds like moon-landing conspiracy and space alien books ---> "they won't tell you the truth, so here is the truth, just GIVE me MONEY to learn the truth" ---> yeah right, LOL LOL LOL. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully enough people will see through the nonsense, and even if this is funded it won't amount to anything. It would still be considered self-published so if that is the point of writing it, it still can't be referenced. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

thats right (it cant be referenced)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

New essay

See Wikipedia:Advocacy quacks‎. I request input. QuackGuru (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

oh quack you are POINTYest of the quackfighters. this is just as bad as the one it mocks; please self-nominate for speedy deletion. Jytdog (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have speedy-deleted it as a substantial re-creation of a page that was deleted via MFD. Zad68 12:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thank you Zad68--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Cite journal filler not working

For me, at least, when I click on the "cite" button at the top of the edit window, then the templates button, then "cite journal", and enter a pmid or doi, it doesn't automatically fill in the template anymore. Is anyone else having this problem? Everymorning talk 01:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

http://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi
http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py
Try these two. QuackGuru (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
or use Visual editor...VisualEditor is a new, "visual" way of editing Wikipedia that allows people to contribute without having to learn wikimarkup. It was made available as an opt-in release on the English-language Wikipedia back in December 2012, in 14 other languages in April 2013, and in most other languages at the beginning of June 2013. Deployments began in July 2013. The Wikimedia Foundation developers expect to make it available to almost all Wikimedia Foundation projects by the end of 2014. As of May 2014, it is available by default to users of about 60% of the language editions of Wikipedias and as an opt-in beta feature to the rest, along with a handful of non-Wikipedia projects.[41]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I use this when all the Wikipedia based on break http://librepathology.org/cite-gen/ Unfortunately this happens on a fairly regular basis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It varies by browser, in complicated ways I don't understand. The different wiki tools give slightly different results, also in complicated ways I don't understand. All a big puzzle. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ozzie's right, VisualEditor's fill-in tool works very nicely for PMID URLs. Much better than the wikitext one, imo. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

essay relaunched

so this happened: Wikipedia:Advocacy and COI ducks. I've asked the admin who closed Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks to have a look. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

very prudent--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
should be deleted per G4, like Quackguru's was, per this. I won't tag it, but that is what should happen. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
someone already did, (I was considering it)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence Aid

Info Box. I have built a Page for Evidence Aid in my sandbox and would like to provide and info box, Are there any tutorials for this? AmyEBHC (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

this one Help:Infobox or perhaps this one [42] ...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! Could I ask for help to make sure this is ready to submit? It is my first page:-) I tried to follow the guidelines and apply feedback. It is in my sandbox AmyEBHC (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd move it to articlespace now. It does need some work, but is more likely to get help once it goes live. Personally I'd skip the AFC process. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks, AmyEBHC (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am having problems with someone called Huddsblue who slapped a no neutrality dispute on this page staing he has reasons to believe I have close ties with this company. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evidence_Aid&action=history No evidence just accusations. What do I do? There is no COI, I admire their work, think they make a difference and feel the information they share could make a difference for people in LMIC countries facing a disaster.AmyEBHC (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
AmyEBHC, I have defended you on the article talk page and your talk page. Let's see what happens. It's a serious personal attack. Since you have already gone public with the article, the sandbox should probably be emptied (don't formally delete the page). We don't want confusion created by editing at both places. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, how do I empty the sandbox? AmyEBHC (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Just delete the content (not the whole page) and save it. You can always recover or restore the content using the history. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Huddsblue sent a nice email to my talk page and another editor offered to help him with future COI. I think it would be frustrating for WP to deal with COI when good articles are needed and COI hurts everyone...it was quite an entry for my first page:-) Really appreciate the help and encouragement.AmyEBHC (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

AmyEBHC bring any questions here, and well work them out--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_62&oldid=1149837498"