Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 80

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

→

Archive 85

Purest advertisement you will find in Wikipedia

I speedied it so hurry on over! Easypod Autoinjector. Just wow. Jytdog (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's also a nice ad for MOS:TMRULES. All the sentences starting with "easypod" in lower case are jarring. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

yes it is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Why delete it rather than fillet it?

This is novel, notable and interesting. Is it also unusual? Such "packaged injectors" are clearly a significant development in home medication, the synthesis of an established treatment and some novel technology to produce a more patient-friendly means of self treatment. Is Easypod a leader in this? If not, we should have an overall article on the group of such available products. If it is, then Easypod stands as a notable article alone.

I would agree the "Purest advertisement you will find" claim, but that's fixable by editing, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I appreciate your take on this.

Jytdog, I am relatively new to the Wikipedia editing community and have been trying hard to follow the rules for posting, including disclosure of the fact that I am working on behalf of a client. That said, this entry has been vetted, edited and approved as a C-Class entry. So, I'm disappointed that you decided to "speedy" it with such delight and no debate based on the merit of the content itself? What exactly do you mean by "Purest" advertisement you will find? That seems to me to be the kind of subjective assessment that Wikipedia seeks to avoid.

Is it unreasonable to ask that this entry be reinstated and that a request for deletion (or changes) be applied that can be reviewed by others? Andy's response alone would indicate that this entry doesn't meet the requirements for Speedy Deletion under G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Medscrib (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I replied at your Talk page, Medscrib. If you can't figure out what I mean, you can reply there and I'll help you ask for a refund from the admin. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment on draft

Your comments on Draft:Young stroke are welcomed. Please use either Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|Your comment here. ~~~~}} directly in the draft. Thank you. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Have commented on the talk page of the draft in question User:Sam Sailor. Article needs a lot of work before it is ready for mainspace. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Server migration today

Ops is doing some planned maintenance, starting about eight and a half hours from now (14:00 UTC). There's more information on Meta. Expect maybe half an hour in which you need to do something other than edit.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We're live again. Welcome back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• so happy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We were locked out for 46 minutes, and then there was a glitch that broke Special:RecentChanges for about another 20 minutes. Other than that, and a couple of things that bother devs more than us, it seems to have gone pretty well. If you've found problems, then please let me know or post at WP:VPT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Effects of pornography

In light of the governor and congress of Utah declaring pornography a danger to public health I took a look at what our articles have to say on the matter. Pornography#Effects, Effects of pornography, and Pornography addiction have quite a few primary sources. It might be worth giving these articles some attention. Effects of pornography could probably be merged back into Pornography. Sizeofint (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• merging those two articles might be best...IMO (as for the addiction article there are several sources [1][2])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Icon for plagiarism

At 22:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC), an icon was added to the article "Dengue fever", indicting that the article had been "published in the peer-reviewed journal Open Medicine". Also, the article is categorized in Category:Wikipedia articles published in peer-reviewed literature.

I propose that there be an icon for articles that have been plagiarized from Wikipedia, and a corresponding category, possibly Category:Wikipedia articles plagiarized in external literature.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

These go on the talk page using Template:Backwardscopy typically. There are lots of these articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I see that Pages that link to "Template:Backwardscopy" can function as a category. Perhaps there is a decision not to make this information prominent for non-editing readers.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not all backwards copies are plagiarism. If you want to make a category for it (which is not a bad idea, even though you've got a good workaround here), then a less judgment-passing cat title would be preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference between "backwards copies" and "plagiarism"? What would be a more appropriate category title?

—Wavelength (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A backwards copy that provides attribution to the original source is not plagiarism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I thank you for your replies. I have not decided not to pursue this any further, but other editors may with to do so.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible undisclosed paid editing

Could someone please check these edits to Isavuconazole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are compliant with WP:MEDRS? I'm concerned that the editor might be an undisclosed paid editor based on their other contributions and the addition of ® makes this more likely. I could be wrong, but would prefer if someone could check. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

left message w/ editor[3]..(blocked[4])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for taking a look. My suspicions were correct and they were evading a previous block so I have reverted back to the previous version per WP:BLOCKEVASION. SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes the amount of paid promotional editing is getting concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"Pictures of myself on beaches" guy back

• File:Mooddisorder.jpg
• File:20160416- DSC5229.jpg

Look at File:20160416-_DSC5229.jpg... who was this guy that we had a while ago who was trying to place as many pictures of himself on beaches in as many articles he could? He's back, at Mood disorder. Zad68 18:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

See documentation on meta for past discussions about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Then Catuccij1 should be blocked, either for 1) copyright infringement, as they claim to have uploaded the photo as an original work, or 2) sockpuppetry. Zad68 18:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Specialtoyoutoyou. I understand stock-like images can be useful but the contributor needs to do it 'above-board' and without trying to do it against consensus when others feel the images aren't an improvement. Zad68 18:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are you thinking socking? There's no rule against creating a new account when you haven't edited for months – or, for that matter, no rule against just losing your password, which happens all the time (and the old account has no e-mail address, so no method for recovering the password). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully they will come and comment here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing actually I'm finding out this morning that this guy wasn't just annoying, he's actually site-banned from Wikipedia. Whatever AGF might have been available for him is long since burned up, by his own actions. Zad68 12:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rasputinfa/Archive. Zad68 12:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the old history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Stuff's going to break in April

If you have written or use any user scripts (for example, if you have anything in User:Example/common.js, User:Example/vector.js, and User:Example/monobook.js), then you need to know about Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Breaking change: wikibits.

The main thing to do is to look for the word importScript. If it's there (and it's currently present in User:WhatamIdoing/common.js), then that bit is going to break soon. Don't forget to check your version of m:User:WhatamIdoing/global.js or scripts that you may have set up at other wikis.

There is some information about how to repair your userscripts in the VPT thread. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

will check, thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For those who learn from examples, here's one I prepared earlier. For example, change:

• importScript('User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js');

to:

• mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

That sort of change should work for javascripts (.js) loaded by importScript from other editors' userspace, and is likely to be the commonest alteration needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we get a bot to do this in bulk, before the breaking change is deployed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That was suggested at the original discussion (now at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 145 #Breaking change: wikibits), but it didn't gain much traction. As I understand it, we actually have until November 2016 before importScript is removed completely, so perhaps it's worth asking at Bot Approvals if anybody intends offering to do the fixes? --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

seems like a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, on a related note, if you try the ContentTranslation extension and you get a blank page (except for your name at the top, which shows that you're logged in), then it's probably due to a user script or gadget that expects all pages on wiki to contain "content". Let me know if you encounter it; I might be able to help you find people to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Strimvelis

just created this. pls feel free to review and fix. thanks. Am really unsure what that article should be called; i don't think there is an INN for it. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we get this into WP:DYK? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

article looks good,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Disturbed"

The usage and primary topic of Disturbed is under discussion, see talk:Disturbed (band) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Inflammation

this article needs an editor(s) to look over the [5] primary sources being used, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

870k views for Pfeiffer syndrome

I generate the weekly reports at User:West.andrew.g/Popular_medical_pages and usually they aren't very remarkable.

I thought I'd call out the 870k views that Pfeiffer syndrome got last week, due to the fact that Prince's son died of it. I was one of the visitor's myself, but I gotta say, the number is all the more impressive given how far into Prince's page that the wikilink occurs (although external sources might also be significant contributors).

West.andrew.g (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

[6]seems to be getting coverage--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Gluten and ADHD

A few weeks ago some names I recognize from here were engaging on Talk:ADHD#Gluten and ADHD. I don't see consensus, but the edits still stand and the talkpage seems to have slowed down to only me and BallenaBlanca. I think we could use some outside input in this new thread. PermStrump(talk) 13:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not exact, Doc James is talking [7], reviewing and editing, and he has made the latest edition: [8] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It was exact when I said it and his user page said he was on vacation. PermStrump(talk) 16:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

[9] --BallenaBlanca (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been rather busy so I wasn't able to discuss things after my edit was reverted. I finally went over the new talk page comments, and my impression is that Permstrump's approach is exactly what we need in this article (and they've done a fantastic job going through the research), and BallenaBlanca is just being disruptive (WP:DISRUPT, especially WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) at this point. Looking at the current revision of the article, I'm amazed that anyone could have ever thought that it was a good idea to say "However, untreated celiac disease often present with mild or absent gastrointestinal complaint and could predispose to ADHD-like symptoms. These may be improved with a gluten-free diet."... This is straying into dangerous territory. For one, you're flat-out recommending a gluten-free diet, something that your source does NOT support. What should be recommended is screening for celiac disease, with the disclaimer that gluten-free diets should not be tried first, and that screening should only be done if certain physical symptoms indicative of celiac disease are present. And honestly, I don't even think that much belongs in the article. There are a HUGE number of conditions that can mimic ADHD, and CD is WAYYYY down on that list. Ideally, just the sentence summarizing the review should be kept. Garzfoth (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Garzfoth When you have more time, look closely and you will see that we are dialoguing, and that I have into account the concerns of other users [10] and trying to find the balance [11] I will also consider the concerns you are exposing here. Let's continue talking on the ADHD talk page. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

yes there does seem to be dialogue[12] (at reviews)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Conservative care is a redlink

The term-of-art conservative care appears a lot in our articles, but we don't have an article Conservative care, which would be very useful to provide a definition and context about what is meant when that term is used. Anybody up for that? Zad68 01:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

agree, plenty of sources [13][14] as examples--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Could also be called conservative treatment. But good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

we do have Watchful waiting Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

not to mention the somehow british-humoured Waiting in healthcare Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Is "conservative care" also a synonym with "usual care"? Zad68 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The American College of Physicians has a term called "high value care" which means doing things backed by evidence-based medicine and avoiding unnecessary health care or what they call "low value care". There are not really terms for "good treatment" or "bad treatment" or "treatment benefits" or "treatment drawbacks". At Talk:Iatrogenesis#Merge_of_Iatrogenesis_and_medical_error I came to realize how complicated this is. I would like to find a good source which lists all the abstract concepts of health care and health care outcomes which are considered good and bad. I thought that a survey organization somewhere might have tried to define these concepts but have been unable to identify anything. I work with a project called Choosing Wisely which provides examples of what is and is not conservative, but still, I am not aware of any solidly established definition of "conservative care". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Conservative treatment" + "conservative care" show hundreds of thousands of Gscholar hits... there has to be something somewhere that defines what is meant by that. Might end up as a Wiktionary link instead of an article here.... Zad68 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry a good source that may help you is here: [15]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, "conservative" care is the opposite of "aggressive" care. It generally emphasizes non-invasive or less-invasive treatments. For example, for back pain, conservative care would be NSAIDs and exercise; aggressive care would be surgery.

Therapy#Levels of care might be an appropriate place to start. Since it's part of a continuum, it will be simplest to discuss it in contrast with the related concepts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is the understanding I have of the term. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If someone finds a source with a definition and starts a talk somewhere then I will join. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've created an article Conservative management as a brief stub. Definitely something notable that we should have here. I think it's a notable enough concept to have its own article rather than be discussed as a "level" of care. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Redlink in Template:Orthopedic examination

I am no medicus and am therefore not knowable enough to edit medical related pages. But I was wondering is the Patella tap the same thing as the tap for the Patellar reflex? the Patella tap is mentioned in Template:Orthopedic examination, If they are the same can a more medical knowledgable editor, redirect or replace Patella tap so that redlink can disappear or if they are not the same thing add Patellar reflex to the template. WillemienH (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Knee examination#Palpation ([16] useful)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor either, but I might be able to help. The Template:Orthopedic examination has Patella tap in the section linking to Knee examination. The section of the article that Ozzie supplied links to Patellar tap (note the difference) in the context of knee effusion - what we would call "water-on-the knee". This is unrelated to patellar reflex which is a neurological test, not an orthopedic one. The patella tap is quite well described in e.g. http://patient.info/doctor/knee-assessment:

extend the knee and empty the suprapatellar pouch by applying pressure from the palm of your hand above the knee. This will push fluid underneath the patella, lifting it. Maintain this pressure. Next, press down on the patella with the fingers of the other hand and the patella will be felt to move down and touch ('tap') the underlying bone if an effusion is present.

So there should be no problem in writing at least a stub for Patellar tap (which most Google hits seem to use). In the meantime, I'll change the link in Knee examination #Palpation from Effusion to Knee effusion as the former really isn't relevant; and I'll change the redlink in Template:Orthopedic examination to Patellar with an 'r' to fit the sources I found.. --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've created Patellar tap as a stub using that single source. I'd appreciate it if somebody with real medical expertise would check it when they have a spare moment. Maybe there's a better source out there than the Patient.info website. I've also created Patella tap as a plausible redirect. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Cooking in aluminium foil causes leaching?

Aluminium_foil#Cooking might need some help, as there has been a recent publication from a peer-reviewed journal linking the use of foil in cooking to large amounts of aluminium in the finished product - according to the author, "above the permissible limit set by the World Health Organisation". Thank you. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks to be a primary source in a low quality OS journal [17] so I'm doubting if it is suitable for medical statements. Better quality reviews that exist appear inconclusive [18] so it might take some effort to dig up enough information to write something that was acceptable/justifiable from the best quality secondary sources. It seems to me that this could unnecessarily be fearmongering without a clear consensus in the science so would not support the inclusion of this phrase without considerable effort looking into the detail of the reviews. JMWt (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the OP had already added content citing the primary source. I've removed it. "Leaching of aluminium from cookwares -- a review" doesn't examine aluminium foil, only cookware. Trip database has no secondary sources relevant to aluminium/aluminum foil, and PubMed returns no reviews with "aluminium foil" or "aluminum foil" in the title. I can't find anything to say on the matter. --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, @JMWt: and @RexxS:. Will have to have a think regarding Aluminium#Health_concerns - there seems to be a lot of text on cookware attributed to one source that isn't in that source: Slanina, P.; French, W; Ekström, LG; Lööf, L; Slorach, S; Cedergren, A (1986). "Dietary citric acid enhances absorption of aluminum in antacids". Clinical Chemistry (American Association for Clinical Chemistry) 32 (3): 539–541. PMID 3948402. Perhaps the 1997 study could be used to bolster the cookware claim. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Both of those sources are from the previous century. If possible, it's usually better to cite papers or books that were published during the last five or ten years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That's why I brought it up - there was a recent publication about aluminium foil going on about the WHO guidelines and so I wanted to know what the situation was. The segment in the aluminium article about health concerns doesn't seem to be adequately sourced, even by the standards of 'the stuff in the article comes from the source just after it'. I was hoping to attract some specialist attention. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Science from 20 to 30 years ago doesn't stop being science. However, in a field where there's plenty of research, it can often be superseded by newer work. The difference here is that there's doesn't seem to be enough research to trigger even one recent review that I can find on the health implications of using aluminium foil when cooking. That's usually a sign that whatever research is being done isn't producing any new reliable results. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Have update this section here [19]. The aluminium hypothesis is around 50 years old and is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Doc James:. I think Aluminium#Health_concerns needs looking at too, because it doesn't seem like some of the text in the article is supported by the source next to it. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Translational glycobiology

Hello everyone! I recently came across the article translational glycobiology while patrolling newly created pages. At the time I encountered it, the only content contained therein was a reiteration of the title and a WP:CSD#A3 tag for the lack of content. Out of curiosity, I did some Googling and found a few papers on the subject, so I decided to try to save the page. Thus far I've been the only contributor to the article. However, it is not my area of expertise, so I submitted the article for peer review in an effort to receive feedback for how to further improve it. Shortly thereafter, I was invited by Bluerasberry to comment here. I would be very appreciative to any users willing to take a moment to look over and critique the article. You have my thanks in advance! ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 21:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

article looks good(in terms of references #7 needs to be Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine))--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor Ozzie10aaaa: Okay! Thank you for the feedback! I've just removed it. Reference #7 was the author's presentation corresponding to the content of the paper cited for reference #6. I initially included it because it explained the very same more readily in lay terms. ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 15:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you for a very good article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you know about the "laysummary" (and related) parameters in Template:Cite journal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor WhatamIdoing: No, I did not! Per your comment, I just filled in those parameters so that they would link to the PDF contained in the previously removed reference. Thank you for the tip! ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 17:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! We need to use those more often. There is often decent journalism or well-written lay summaries (e.g., the "plain language summaries" from Cochrane) on significant recent publications, and we often don't take the time to add them. (I wonder if a bot could do the Cochrane ones. That's something for a more technical person to think about.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over assertion that the penis and vagina are homologous

Comments are needed on the following matter: Talk:Human penis#The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• please give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Urgency

I've just raised an issue at Talk:Meningitis#Urgency that on second thought may have wider implications. In discussing diseases where the urgency of intervention is a factor, it seems to me that information should find its way into the lede. When we do not convey such urgency, lay readers may spend critical time on reading, or even engage in ineffective DIY interventions when they should be getting professional help. Views? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The content currently in the lead of the article makes the urgency perfectly clear. More is not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Dental students edit

This article about dental students editing Wikipedia overall looks promising, but there might be a few newby-related problems with their project. May I ask you folks, who know more than I do about dentistry, to keep an eye on it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Laser-assisted new attachment procedure--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Overall, our dentistry articles have been in such poor condition that they are unlikely to make things worse. Even adding a primary source to the literature (a common "mistake") is likely to be an improvement. I think we have just one very active editor working in that area, and the tide of information and touts is strong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Am trying to reach out to them to provide some guidance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User requests comment on medical categories at WP:Philosophy

In Vitro Infidelium requests comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Medical_Controversies_.E2.80.93_principles_for_category_inclusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

commented at[20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Help needed at Water fluoridation

Hi folks, we could sure use a few more eyes over at Water fluoridation. This is an important, frequently-read article about a global health issue... it's currently listed as one of WP:MED's few "FA" articles. Please have a quick look at the history and drop by Talk:Water fluoridation#April 28, 2016 to share your thoughts. Thanks! (Hat tip to Anna Frodesiak for the original note they posted at several other relevant Wiki-projects.) Zad68 13:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Zad68 the link Talk:Water fluoridation#April 28, 2016 is archived...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the pointer Ozzie, restored now. Zad68 12:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Persistent infection

curious if there should be a standalone article?...[21]...(chronic infection currently redirects to Chronic_condition) comment at Talk:Chronic condition#Persistent infection, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

MDMA RFC (again)

MDMA

Please contribute to the RFC on the MDMA talk page. It concerns the whether or not some content asked for in various manuals of style, including this project's, may be undue for inclusion in the article lead. Talk:MDMA#Chirality and drug class in lead Sizeofint (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This WikiProject does not have a style guide. WP:MEDMOS is part of the community-wide WP:MOS, with the same standing as, and the same lack of direct control by any single WikiProject as, WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT and other sub-pages of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

When a topic area perfectly overlaps with a project scope, it's essentially a project MOS. There's no point in creating a project style advice page when the MOS guideline itself would be the place to go for a discussion and providing style advice (in the form of a guideline). Semi-related point: I've changed MOS:CHEM/Structure in accordance with a discussion that took place at WT:CHEM WT:CHEMISTRY (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing workgroup/Archive 1#Racemates). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it would be pointless for us to create a separate MOS – or for any of the several other WikiProjects whose scope significantly overlaps, including WikiProject Health, WikiProject Alternative medicine, and WikiProject First aid, to name just three.

However, my main point is that a WP:WikiProject advice page is just a group-written essay. MEDMOS is an accepted, community-wide guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• more opinions please(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Opioid_use_disorder#Merge.2Fredirect_of_Opioid_replacement_therapy

opinions welcome; just getting started. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Emery–Dreifuss muscular dystrophy and Myotonic dystrophy

any editor(s) who have time, the above articles could use some help, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:White_coat#Requested_move_29_April_2016

Please weigh in, doctor's coats are not lab-coats. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 05:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

methicillin >> meticillin

Apparently the WHO has dropped the "h"? Discussion ongoing here: Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus‎#Use of Spelling: 'Methicillin' Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• [22]WHO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Medical nutrition

Your comments on Draft:Medical nutrition are welcomed.

• Gert Folkerts; Johan Garssen (8 July 2014). Pharma-Nutrition: An Overview. Springer. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-3-319-06151-1. says that

Medical nutrition is perhaps the most confusing category, subject to different interpretations between, as well as within, geographical regions. Terms include medical nutrition, clinical nutrition, medical foods, enteral ...

We already have Medical nutrition therapy in main space.

Please use either Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{Afc comment|Your comment here. ~~~~}} directly in the draft. Thank you. --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• the Medical_nutrition_therapy (as you pointed out) already exists...an option would be to simply add additional information(or sections) to the existing article, as opposed to creating a new article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with User:Ozzie10aaaa Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ozzie10aaaa, Doc James: I'm not unwilling to return to these "Comment on Draft" threads I post, see what you have said, and post it back into the draft, but would it not be easier if you posted directly in the draft? Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply)

Thank User:Sam Sailor done this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about a journal

Here is a hard thing. There is something called the International Society of Sports Nutrition. They publish a journal predictably named "Journal of the (name)". Here is the society's "about us" page. (please read)

What called my attention to them is the following review, offered up in very good faith on the Talk page of beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid, which has been subject to a bunch of promotional editing from dietary supplement people.

• Wilson JM, Fitschen PJ, Campbell B, Wilson GJ, Zanchi N, Taylor L, Wilborn C, Kalman DS, Stout JR, Hoffman JR, Ziegenfuss TN, Lopez HL, Kreider RB, Smith-Ryan AE, Antonio J (February 2013). "International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB)". J. Int. Soc. Sports. Nutr. 10 (1): 6. doi:10.1186/1550-2783-10-6. PMC 3568064. PMID 23374455.

That in my view, is a very bad review article - the conclusions they draw based on the tiny clinical trials that have been conducted, are nothing like what we would draw for a drug. That review actually says: "Panton et al. [20] followed up with a large cohort of 41 subjects....". That 41 is "large" says a lot about what they count as "good evidence." They have a bunch of these "position stand" reviews (see here) and they are as bad. They do have limits; there is stuff they say "no" to. So thank goodness for that.

What to do with these "position stands"? Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Weak studies with conclusions and a position stand based on inference. They wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of a rigorous clinical journal and don't pass MEDRS. Such limited sports studies (almost never) are conducted with the experimental design, unbiased PIs, hospital protocols and subject numbers of a clinical trial. Accordingly, we shouldn't be persuaded by a sports organization publishing a low-value position stand. --Zefr (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What to do with these "position stands"? Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason they probably use that language is that, in contrast to FDA approval for prescription drugs which involves the massive financial hurdle of sponsoring a stage 3 clinical trial before approval, there's no economic incentive to conduct studies with large patient populations with dietary supplements. The trial design appears to be the same in the reviews I skimmed over; I didn't really take a good look at that one though. It is worth pointing out that another review that I cited on the talk page about PEDs cited that review (see quote) and appeared to comment in a way that it was notable. I would not expect to see anything close to the patient populations in phase 2 or 3 clinical trials with dietary supplements. Probably the best you can hope to expect is meta-analysis of high quality trials to approach those sample sizes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Just to make it clear, these sample sizes are consistent in all 6 (review, systematic review, or meta-analytic systematic review) sources from different journals on the talk page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Which is kind of my point. What this field counts as "Good evidence" is a very, very low standard. Great for shilling dietary supplements, horrible for trying to figure out what is "accepted knowledge" - what we actually know about what these supplements do and don't do. I am really upset by this. The dietary supplement industry abuses the shit out of science to sell stuff and makes like $3B/year doing that. I am very unhappy at the thought of this journal being used to support garbage claims in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to say to that. This is essentially the socioeconomic environment that result from the regulatory conditions that the FDA and associated FDA-like regulatory agencies from other countries set for dietary supplements. That sample size does allow a statistician to accurately conclude an effect exists, but the precision of the effect size will tend to suck compared to a much larger sample (it generally scales by the square root of the sample size - larger samples are used to find significance in smaller clinical effects). The best structured review on the talk page reflects this (it isn't questioning the accuracy of the findings from the relatively small sample sizes because the language is not cautious: Beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate supplementation contributed to preservation of muscle mass in older adults.).
We could ignore dietary supplements simply because the regulatory environment doesn't require evidence for these compounds to be on par with Rx drugs, but I'd point out that people will simply refer to alternative sources which may use shittier evidence than we do (i.e., preclinical or primary clinical sources) to make their assertions on which readers will base their economic decisions. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Agree with Jytdog. Supplement companies and sports nutrition organizations don't play in the big leagues of acquiring rigorous science because they don't have the financial strength or patience to endure the term and uncertainty of clinical trials. Besides, supplements can make billions for their manufacturers from a gullible public. For Wikipedia, the standard should be equal to what science expects for proof of drug efficacy per MEDRS. This is why we work to keep health claims about plant foods, extracts, diets and folk medicine out of the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Supplement companies and sports nutrition organizations don't play in the big leagues of acquiring rigorous science because they don't have the financial strength or patience to endure the term and uncertainty of clinical trials. No, it's simple economics. There is absolutely no need to incur a massive fixed cost before marketing something which is in a much more lenient regulatory class than a prescription drug; the lack of sample and term in these trials is simply a consequence of regulation. Pharmaceutical companies would do the same and avoid costly/lengthy trials if they could because it is economically sound for them if able to do so - they're not society's moral paragons. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This is why we work to keep health claims about plant foods, extracts, diets and folk medicine out of the encyclopedia. And consequently we send them to places like Examine.com instead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Accepted knowledge" and "actually proven to be correct according to scientific evidence" are not the same thing. It's "accepted knowledge" that drinking a glass of water on an empty stomach four hours before surgery increases everyone's risk of vomiting under anesthesia. It's not what most people call "true", but it's "accepted" by the relevant professionals.

As much as it galls our evidence-oriented editors, if this field (not just the one organization) normally treats 41 subjects as a "large" study, then the results actually do constitute "accepted knowledge". You can use WP:Editorial discretion to omit any given source or to downplay it, but when the most relevant subject-matter experts accept it, then that's "accepted knowledge".

Also – there have been drugs approved by the FDA with fewer than 100 patients studied in total (in all studies combined, not just in one study). The absolute number isn't the only factor that matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WAID, Yes. Orphan drugs can get approved on clinical trials that small. Those are all conditions where trials are extremely highly powered and blah blah blah. If you actually read the paper above you will see that these are tiny clinical trials, often not double blinded, on athletes or everyday people with fuzzy endpoints that actually need high power. Anyone outside of the shilling circle who reads these things would burn them. It is garbage science. I am thinking there may be grounds per WP:INDY to discount these. What do you think about that? Jytdog (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: These don't need high power because they're not trying to find a small clinical effect. What you're talking about isn't power (this is analogous to a measure of precision), it's systematic error/bias from improper trial design - that's something that skews accuracy, not limits precision. I can't say that I actually see that in this case though because these findings are not unique to this review. Every review on the talk page and others which I haven't added there yet corroborate the findings that this compound attenuates skeletal muscle damage based upon RCTs. I could omit the medical claims of this source altogether - that's not really a problem - but the conclusions of that review are not unique to that review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Not an expert in statistics but I am talking about trying to draw generalizations from clinical trials; I don't think you can confidently tell if an intervention like this doesn't work with such a small number of subjects. As for what you write about other reviews - part of what i am struggling with this here is the willingness of others in this field to affirm hypotheses on the basis of such small trials. I've re-read the 2013 review and at least they say it "appears to speed recovery from high-intensity exercise", so we have that going for us. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll upload several of these papers when I get more of them from WP:RX and we can go over their findings. I only have 1 of the paywalled ones at the moment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have all the refs...can send them to you if you like. just email me at jytdog at gmail.com Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Sent the email. I need PMID 20857835 PMID 24057808 PMID 26169182 PMID 27106402. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

sent them all, just in case. let me know if you don't get. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Again: if the experts say that this is a large trial, then it's not "such a small number of subjects". That's what MEDRS is talking about when it says not to do a peer review yourself: it's not any editor's job to second-guess whether the subject-matter experts are correct in drawing conclusions from the evidence they have. Don't let yourself get hung up on the number of subjects. After all, it wouldn't take many subjects to determine whether parachutes work better than nothing.

If (approximately) all of the subject-matter experts say something, then Wikipedia can and should say that, too. A neutral article leaves the reader with the same overall impression that the reader would get from reading the reliable sources. In this case, that appears to mean leaving the reader with the impression that this dietary supplement might give them some effect other than expensive urine. It's okay to say that, when the expert sources agree with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

if those experts are in a bubble outside the usual scientific process that is an issue. You are the one who really called my attention to WP:INDY and I have come to really value that. And the folks who work on dietary supplements for performance enchancement are in la la land. You would get laughed out of the room if you drew conclusions this strong from such weak clinical trials in medicine. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPOV failed, remember? The idea that editors could or should decide that there's good science behind a claim in a reliable source, and write the article based upon the editors' beliefs about whether there's good scientific evidence behind it, is anti-policy. WP:NPOV requires editors to write articles that fairly reflect the reliable sources, even if any given editor believes that the reliable sources would be laughed out of the room in another field. If you can't edit according to the policy, then you need to leave that article for someone who can.

INDY's not going to help you when the review was written by someone who is not in the direct pay (or similarly direct control) of the manufacturer. Being a subject-matter expert or working in a particular area alone is not sufficient to make you non-independent. Also, be careful what you wish for: Whatever the rules, whatever the game, the rules are the same for both sides. We cannot say with any sort of fairness that reviews written by independent authors based on trials run or paid for by Big Pharma are fine, but reviews written by equally independent authors based on trials run or paid for by the dietary supplement division of Big Pharma are not – and such a rule would make it impossible to write about most prescription drugs (including all new ones). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying and how what I am writing here could be distorted. I mean the heart of WP:INDY though. The background in my mind here is that we don't use "Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies" for acupuncture stuff. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that "Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies" is one of the more significant journals for the field, then you probably should be using it – not uncritically, but to present POVs from people in the field. WP:YESPOV and WP:BIASED support using sources like that. I realize that our pro-science POV pushers at the Fringe noticeboard loathe such sources, but the policy is pretty clear on this point. Editors don't get to reject sources on grounds of POV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think attributing things like this is not unreasonable. That is kind of what I am after here with this "sports nutrition" stuff. It's not the same quality of science that we generally allow when we put things in WP's voice.Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Fat burner?

A running news story has led me to wonder whether there might be a suitable redirect for "fat burners" ( ugh... ) 81.129.188.21 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This would be a bunch of substances I imagine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirected Fat burner and Fat burners to Weight loss#Techniques for now (this page's section is best-suited as a redirect because it mentions dietary supplements). Garzfoth (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems sensible (I'll post on the talk page). From PMID 21951331 [full text accessible via Google Scholar], they seem to be a rather heterogeous group of substances, with little evidence of efficacy in humans. 81.129.188.21 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There might be some utility to PMID 26602570 or to PMID 24967272, though they use different language ;-) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

[23]seems better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

New malaria drug (for us anyway), and broader question

I stumbled over this today: Arterolane which was pretty stubby. I started poking and lo, it was approved in India in 2012 and in a bunch of african countries in 2014, and we had nothing on that. I am going to expand it more, but here is the question.

The actual product is arterolane/piperaquine. So should I leave Arterolane stubby and create Arterolane/piperaquine and expand there, or just create the combination article and redirect it to the main molecule and expand that? Folks have created lots of (what i think are dumb) articles like Dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine as you can see in this template: Template:Chromalveolate_antiparasitics (if you look at Dihydroartemisinin you can see that all the action is there, and the combo article is just bleh/obvious). Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is good practice to go with the INN. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So you mean we should delete the articles on the combination products? INN doesn't name them separately per Drug_nomenclature#Combination_drug_products. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You should follow the model used for Septra. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So that would appear to be the opposite of Doc James' thoughts on the matter - leave Arterolane stubby and flesh out the article on the combination drug. hm Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that is inline with what I said. This is a combination of the two INN names trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. I think we should continue this practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

agree, seems reasonable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Dietary supplement NOAEL?

As a matter of general guidance for articles on dietary supplements with vague human health value, are actual data in mg/kg/day from rat studies needed for no-observed-adverse-effect level and lethal dose? This impresses as fringe information on a non-notable extract for an olive-derived supplement product at the early stages of basic and human research. See "Safety" section and talk for hydroxytyrosol. --Zefr (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to you to judge the notability, importance, or value of the substance, which may be subject to change anyway. In the case of hydroxytyrosol, there basically exist published human studies for it.[24][25] This is a distraction from the point that a NOAEL, as per its very definition, helps separate a safe dose from an unsafe dose (once scaled for human metabolism). It is what is used when a TDI or ADI is unavailable. Hydroxytyrosol wouldn't be the first article on Wikipedia in which a NOAEL was specified, and it also won't be the last. --Hyperforin (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Lots of unreliable/primary sources in that article (and hence undue weight and the risk of WP:OR). Have trimmed a bit. Alexbrn (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Article on "basic symptoms"

I am creating an article on the "basic symptoms", referring to the subjective symptoms that precede a psychotic break; schizophrenia gets much focus here. I have not seen an article deal with this specifically, except the self-disorder and the early intervention in psychosis pages. I think it meets the standards for notability because in 2015 the European Psychiatric Association issued guidelines, backed by meta-analysis, recommending one of the subscales, the Cognitive Disturbances scale (COGDIS), in the early detection of psychosis. Another review article (free) goes over the basic symptom concept.

I would be happy to receive any feedback on this.

References

--Beneficii (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: According to the 2nd source, basic symptoms precede a psychotic break, are present during psychosis, and tend to remain after psychosis abates.--Beneficii (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The article has been created at basic symptoms.--Beneficii (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been moved to a more specific name, basic symptoms of schizophrenia. Is that reasonably accurate?

I wonder whether it should be mentioned/linked in Symptom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. And yes, that name is accurate. Thank you.--Beneficii (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ebola virus disease

though not MEDRS (it is Nature), may be useful in article[26] if any editor is interested, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Cervical spine disorder

This article has lots of problems. More eyes needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Watchlisted... there's a connected contributor editor Jytdog and I encountered, their edits related to back pain and treatment have been concerning. Related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Detensor_Method. Zad68 12:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This user https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Menalkhan92 wrote most of it and they are using refs from the inside net of the U of T. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

[27][28]might be useful (update- have added on 5/9)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

ICD-10 and Zika

CDC map of active Zika virus transmission

Hi, all. I noticed over at the article about Zika fever that {{ICD-10}} links to the 2015 version of ICD. I'm not sure if the template needs to be updated to 2016 or not, but there's a real difference in nomenclature for Zika. The 2015 version goes to Emergency use of U06.9. In the 2016 version, U06.9 is Zika virus disease, unspecified, whereas plain U06 is Zika virus disease. It seems to me that the 2016 ICD-10 code U06 should be used in the infobox. These codes are all foreign territory to me (my background is in the physical sciences), so I thought I'd better ask here before I make any changes. — Gorthian (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to see it updated to the 2016 version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and update the whole template? Or just put in the 2016 link manually in the one article? I'm not going to touch the ICD-9-CM (though it looks even more out of date) because that one just baffles me. — Gorthian (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

do not see why not...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Medical pre-conference on Jun 22nd 2016 at Wikimania

Can people please indicate if they are planning to attend here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_7#Category:Medical_outbreaks

It is proposed to rename: Category:Medical outbreaks to Category:Disease outbreaks. Please comment there. Also Outbreak looked very dire to me (so much so I altered the lead). Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Erowid as a reliable source

I've noted here before that it appears to me that an increasing number of folks are coming to Wikipedia to add content about how to make and use designer drugs.

Erowid is a pretty frequently cited source by these folks and used as an EL.

Here is what Erowid says about how they get the information on their website. Here is where they talk about how they handle other people's copyrights; they say they use stuff under fair use a lot.

I'd like to have a careful discussion about the reliability of Erowid for various kinds of content.

In my view this site:

• is not a MEDRS source for biomedical content; so citing this to support content about health effects, toxicity, psychoactive activity, etc is not reliable
• For pharmacology stuff where we often allow primary sources published in the biomedical literature, I would also say not reliable.
• For other content about legal status, history, etc I am less certain. I have taken a look at how they source stuff and some of it is pretty dicey to me - see their page on Ketamine deaths for example.
• As an EL, due to concerns about WP:ELNEVER, I would say no.

I'll note that there have been prior discussions:

• on this board here back in 2009. (not MEDRS)
• at RSN here in 2009; not much response but it was suggested "OK with attribution"
• at RSN here in Dec 2012 where the reaction was negative, one argument for it, and concerns were raised about WP:ELNEVER/hosting copyvio content
• at RSN here in Jan 2013 where some arguments for it, generally negative; again WP:ELNEVER was raised
• at RSN here in June 2014, only one response, a blanket no.

Thoughts? Am cross-posting at RSN. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of content on Erowid is self-published so I would generally avoid using it as a source. Sizeofint (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Not reliable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What's your ELNEVER concern? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently they host copies of copyright articles, and are pretty loose with their application of "fair use" in quoting papers. That is what I gather from the prior discussions linked above. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

They sound like a crowd sourcing platform so agree with others we should be using more reputable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the site is using copyrighted material without permission? Erowid is a 501(c)(3) educational organisation, their site is hosted on Unitedlayer's servers in San Francisco and has been online longer than WP, it's not some rogue website hosted in Azerbaijan, out of reach of copyright holders. Prevalence 00:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not heard elsewhere that they are hosting files without permission. Many papers in the Erowid library are not publicly accessible for copyright reasons. I infer that the content they do have publicly available they are hosting with permission. Sizeofint (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD/Prenatal and perinatal psychology

People might be interested in this AFD for the article Prenatal and perinatal psychology. The article is basically an arbitrary mix of statements related to prenatal or perinatal something, so it's hard to tell if there is actually a unified subject worth talking about. I think there might be a fringe group, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough for an article as the terms are so broad that it's hard to google. PermStrump(talk) 22:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh. I'd have expected that to be "psychology of pregnant women", with a special emphasis on postpartum depression, identity crises, and similarly mainstream things, but the article seems to be talking about the psychology of the baby (both before and after birth). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think "fetal psychology" would have been a more appropriate title, but I suppose they picked something that could be easily conflated with other things. They had me for a minute. I got there from clicking a link in the "see also section" on the child development article, so originally I thought it was supposed to be an expansion of the developmental psychology article or something, but that it had attracted a lot of fringe. I finally realized it's just straight up fringe. They also have their own definition of perinatal, which I don't think anyone else in the medical community shares. I've always heard it used to refer to the few weeks before and after birth. They consider perinatal to start at labor and last through childbirth until "establishing breastfeeding." I wonder if they consider the perinatal period indefinite for people who aren't breastfed. PermStrump(talk) 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge Chiropractic technique articles?

There is currently discussion concerning a merge of different very short stub articles on chiropractic techniques. The articles have included non-MEDRS-compliant material as well as giving light to only one side (pro-chiropractic) — thus falling under WP:POV. The rationale for merging is that they would be more manageable.

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#General_Discussion_of_Above_Chiropractic_Articles

Please comment. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 14:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Move of High-Importance Article

I have recently suggested the move of high-importance article for this project, the West African Ebola virus epidemic to a new name. If anyone wants to look at the proposed move, it is at Talk:West_African_Ebola_virus_epidemic#Requested_move_9_May_2016. Just wanted to let this project know in case they have any discussion to add. Thanks, Gluons12 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC).

• more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets

Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets is a tool which calls all sorts of Wikimedia data and places it into Google Sheets. Using Google Chrome and Google Sheets in Google Drive is required for using the tool. It is made by User:Tomayac.

I have not yet been able to manipulate the data in the way that I want, but I like that this tool gives me some way to ask questions and collect some data to answer questions that I have about Wikipedia articles and how editors and readers engage with them. I am trying to learn how to make monthly traffic reports for sets of articles - the tool seems set up to make traffic reports, but still I am having a little trouble. If there is anyone else interested in reports, I would join in discussing any part of the tool at meta:Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

might help[29][30]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Tomayac the most interesting bit for me is pageviews. Is it possible to get pageviews per month rather than day out of it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

How does this project define abuse, misuse, self-medication, recreational and medical treatment when dealing with substance use?

Is there a consensus on how the words above are to be used in articles that fall under this project's authority? Is it purely from a legal and regulatory perspective? For example, a substance being banned means it can only be referred to as abused? If that is the case then what countries and territories take prominence? --Lo te xendo (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

We have been going with substance use disorder. Substance abuse should likely be merged into it. We use the medical terminology which has changed over time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question. Is there any distinction made between substance use and substance use that is harmful?--Lo te xendo (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you found Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware that this has been discussed or determined and there is nothing in WP:MEDMOS about this (there was in a very early version, that was deleted early). I guess we can use this an informal poll. I tend to use "abuse" for illegal use or harmful use (e.g. alcohol abuse).

Let me ask you something - there seems to be an influx of recreational chemists and ...enthusiasts for nootropics and other drugs. Do you know where this is coming from? Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Why should it be termed abuse by fiat? And how would you describe non-harmful and conditionally legal substance use, as in the case of União do Vegetal and Church of the Holy Light of the Queen with DMT and the Native American Church with peyote? Abuse should be based on harm in my opinion, as little weight as that'll carry here.

You should be happy to see the influx of recreational chemists and and other enthusiasts! Wikipedia could use more balance in this area. I don't think I'd describe , "using illegal substances is abuse" as a neutral point of view. This is especially the case given the emergence and legitimization of the transhumanist, entheogenic, psychedelic therapy and harm reduction/responsible drug use communities.--Lo te xendo (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I tend to use "use" and just say "illicit use" or similar when necessary. Sizeofint (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lo te xendo would you please answer my question? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog I don't understand what you mean. Are you asking if there is an organized brigade of Walter Whites going on; or are you asking where this is coming from generally? I really doubt there is a brigade going on. And like I said it's probably just the people from the communities I mentioned "coming out of the closet". --Lo te xendo (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Way to spout incoherent gibberish without answering the question of whether this is relevant or not. Has it ever come up in any discussion? Carl Fredik 💌 📧 19:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

We would likely follow DSM-V/ICD-10. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 10:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

So I see you're chuckingWP:GOODFAITH, WP:EQ, andWP:BITE out of the window all at the same time. I know I'm new here and I may be stepping on toes, but I'm just trying to understand whatever consensus there is. Try to be a little gentile dude. Remember I'm just a squishy little human like you are! --Lo te xendo (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Lo te xendo you appear to have come to argue rather than simply talk. Please know that Wikipedia isn't a place for righting great wrongs nor for advocacy nor for use as a how-to manual. If you have any authentic questions or want to talk, I would be happy to, but I won't be participating further here for now. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog,please don't wikilaywer at me. Nothing I've wrote so far can be described asrighting great wrongs, and neither advocacy, nor making ahow-to manual. I haven't even edited an actual article yet for Pete's sake. I just want to understand what the consensus is and if there is not I'd like to come to consensus [discussion]. --Lo te xendo (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you believe it is credible to state you are new — and in the next post link 5 essays/policies — and to mention wikilawyering? Carl Fredik 💌 📧 06:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely Carl, I've been lurking for a long while. I have a general idea of the policies and essays (I even have them bookmarked). And I'm also aware of how the social interactions play out on the talk pages: Someone waves a bunch a wikijargon at the n00bs to scare them away from mucking up their precious. That's why I mentioned wikilawyering. I'm informed enough to know that those policy links can be misapplied. You should be happy that a newbie actually bothered to read the rules before posting. 😊--Lo te xendo (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not lawyering anything; I am talking about the heart of what we are about here. If you are willing to tone it down and just talk simply I would be happy to talk. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: I don't know if this completely answers your questions, but this came up on my watchlist the other day: WT:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs#Task force: Inducing Altered States of Consciousness. I have no idea if it's related to your question, but it caught my attention because the first comment starts with, "We're a group of ~7 people interested in methods to induce altered states of consciousness..." PermStrump(talk) 21:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That is super helpful Permstrump. I will check that out. I have been noticing this and it is somewhat troubling I had no idea that Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs even existed. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

JytdogI don't think my tone has been overly soapboxy or anything. I'm just concerned that you and other people here find it troubling that Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs exists. That doesn't sound like neutral point of view. --Lo te xendo (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe that Jytdog means that it's troubling that he didn't know about this tiny WikiProject. It might only be that he didn't notice the name change last year. (It's the old "WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants".) It ought to be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine#Links.

WP:MEDMOS says The term drug abuse is vague and carries negative connotations. In a medical context, it generally refers to recreational use that carries serious risk of physical harm or addiction. However, others use it to refer to any illegal drug use. The best accepted term for non-medical use is "recreational use". That last sentence probably answers part of your questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WAID that was helpful on both counts. Don't know how I missed that when I searched MEDMOS before. ack. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the section has almost no organization or logic to it. Your choices are either to read every single word, to have read every single word in the past (and now remember at least some of them), or to get lucky with your keyword search. And I say that as one of the editors who has worked on that section without even attempting to address its problems. If anyone's got a brilliant idea, then please "be bold". (Hmm, maybe using bold-face formatting on some of the keywords would help make it more scannable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally you're all welcome to join the project! I initiated the name change last year but the project has mostly remained dormant. I'm letting the Altered States group work out of the project for now since very little else is going on. Sizeofint (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of the current language was added to MEDMOS here in March 2007. That's a long time. The last bit about "he best accepted term for non-medical use is "recreational use." was added here in Feb 2014. The guideline was under active discussion at that time and this was not discussed one way or the other. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog What's your opinion on how it should be worded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lo te xendo (talk • contribs) 03:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important that we do not fall prey to the idea that the ordinary medical use of the word is "not neutral". While this is an arguably important discussion to have — neutrality does not come into it. Using the word "abuse" to refer to any illicit or illegal use is completely fine — and entirely neutral. That said it may not be the most preferable phrasing, but we should at least get the facts straight and not give fringe views undue prominence. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 06:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Illegal" is maybe not the precise concept, either. When we speak of an "illegal drug", we mean a drug that is generally illegal for anyone to possess or sell, e.g., heroin. But it's also illegal in most of the developed world to give a prescription pill to someone who has a legitimate medical need for it. So, for example, if you have a couple of Zofran pills, and someone in your family develops nausea in the middle of the night, then it's usually illegal to give your leftover pill to your family member. The "legal" action (for lay people, at least) is to let your family member suffer until the pharmacy opens in the morning. This isn't generally considered "drug abuse" despite the illegality of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Slow your roll Carl. You haven't bothered to look at the sources you said we should follow. The ICD-10 doesn't define the use of illegal substances as abuse. It does however define Harmful use/Psychoactive substance abuse as: A pattern of psychoactive substance use that is causing damage to health. The damage may be physical (as in cases of hepatitis from the self-administration of injected psychoactive substances) or mental (e.g. episodes of depressive disorder secondary to heavy consumption of alcohol).Lo te xendo (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually not arguing for the position — only maintaining that it is not faulty on the grounds of neutrality. The points you make WhatamIdoing are valid and are conducive to a mature discussion — rather than dismissing a relevant view.

But to complicate the example you make — there are most assuredly those who would categorize the non-prescription use of any drug as abuse. It isn't sufficient to wait until the pharmacy opens as Zofran is a prescription-only drug (at least in many locales).

I for one would definitely call the non-prescribed use of antibiotics abuse, and that position is supported by a number of health agencies. (See: [Antibiotic misuse]) Carl Fredik 💌 📧 09:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 

References

I disagree with you on the neutrality issue Carl. Substances are not universally legal or illegal in all areas and in some cases substances are conditionally legal. This is the case with Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and Church of the Holy Light of the Queen and Native American Church. But for some reason you called my use of them as an example "incoherent gibberish". I don't think I'm the one dismissing a relevant view here. I'm just seeking consensus and making sure that a neutral point of view is applied with due weight to all sides. --Lo te xendo (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That was primarily directed at the brigade comment — as for sanctioned use, while it is a pretty controversial issue it also falls within the realm of legality — thus making the topic moot.

But to address the core of your argument — harm is far more difficult to define than legality. Harm is also hard to assess on a both personal and professional level, and there are very few methods which can claim to do so well.

I've had patients who when probed about their drug use say:

I don't have any problem with drugs!

While at the same time being admitted to the psychiatric ward because they assaulted people in a state of drug-induced psychosis.

Carl Fredik 💌 📧 12:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As for the neutrality issue — we have to remember that the entire dialogue and what we perceive as neutral and biased is affected by our cultural norms and values:

If we had this discussion in the 1920s it would have covered calling any use of alcohol misuse. I don't think we can say that it is possible to have a fully neutral stance when it comes to value-judgements. The only possibility we have of being neutral is to gleam all available positions and then make the case for which language is to be used within which context. While the discussion is worth having I don't think it can result in any policy document, because any time we mention use/abuse it will have to rely on context with a weighing of legality, harm and any number of other relevant factors. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 12:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a really good conversation to be having because I agree with the statement in the current wording of MEDMOS: "drug abuse is vague." I think we should avoid saying "drug abuse" and "drug misuse" where possible, because I've read the same exact disagreements on several talkpages that basically boiled down to misunderstandings, either between people from the UK vs US, or because editors couldn't get on the same page about whether the term was being used in a medical vs colloquial way. They are the kind of disagreements where an outsider reading in retrospect can see that they actually agree with each other, but they're both unaware of the other person's connotation with the same word. For example, in the UK, "misuse" is basically synonymous with the old DSM-IV diagnosis of "substance abuse" (substance use disorder—mild, in the DSM-5) and I've seen a couple of times where American editors changed "misuse" to "abuse" because they thought misuse sounded like it was minimizing what the source said. One of the reasons the DSM-5 got rid of the words abuse and dependence because those words have several commonly used meanings outside of their medical definition, so they changed it to avoid confusion. In practice and in research, a lot of people stopped using "abuse" and "dependence" and started using "substance use disorder" years before the DSM-5 came out for the same reason. IMHO we should avoid those terms in WP articles for the same exact reasons. I think when the source is talking about problematic use, "substance use disorder" is the best way to go (and I'd leave out mild, moderate, severe, unless that was explicitly pertinent for a particular topic). "Use" or "recreational use" seem fine to me as a more casual way to talk about using substances without implying that all recreational drug use automatically meets criteria for a clinical diagnosis. PermStrump(talk) 18:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the delights of Wikipedia is learning something new every day. I'd have guessed that "drug misuse" meant failing to follow the directions on the label, e.g., taking a double dose of an NSAID in the hope that your headache would go away faster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding a primary source

Which has an author who has the same name as their user name.[31] Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

COI[32](and MEDRS)...also marks all edirs minor?[33]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There's quite a pattern of the same behavior at contributions. AFAICT every contrib is the insertion of a wp:SELFCITE to a primary source, and all the edits are marked as minor. Also rather troubling are earlier IP edits such as this, presumably from the same named author, at a now-blocked IPEdu. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted all of their self-cites and left the editor a clear warning that WP is not a vehicle for promotion. I suggest a block the next time they self-cite. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Berkson's paradox.

Berkson's paradox may be within the scope of this project. The current article doesn't explain or even state the actual paradox, and seems based on a flawed interpretation of Berkson's paper. See Talk:Berkson's_paradox. Prevalence 18:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• may help[34][35]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Decubitus

An article that you have been involved in editing—Decubitus—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Aucassin (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Infectious disease (athletes)

Not sure what to make of this page. Reads more like a how-to page currently, though I suppose that infections related to athletes certainly could be a reasonable encyclopedic topic. Would it benefit from some pruning and a new title? Yobol (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree this has potential but needs work. A variety of titles could be considered, including "sports hygiene", "infectious diseases in athletes", etc. Searching one global sports organization for "hygiene" reveals that they titled a chapter, "Infections Associated with Sports" (for what that's worth). — soupvector (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Infections Associated with Sports, could work as a title--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Fetal tissue implant and Fetal Tissue Transplantation

I am way out of my depth on this one. Could some subject-matter experts please evaluate the two articles Fetal tissue implant and Fetal Tissue Transplantation, with respect to the proper name for the concept, duplication of content, and style? I am a new editor and in no way knowledgeable about this area, and I just thought some extra eyes would help the project. MisterRandomized (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

there same, best to merge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirect one to the other. And moved the new content to the persons talk page as it needs more work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

New account

This user is making strange edits. They keep adding a category to this article as seen here and adding caps [36] which are not needed. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Spam account trying to get auto-confirmed? Sizeofint (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be dealt with. Not a spam account. I am not sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Obesity-associated morbidity

I've been bold, but it needs some more attention and updates from pros. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

most of it is covered at Obesity subsection morbidity, which is GA (though not in detail)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is a subpage of the obesity article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, James, it was you who copied Obesity#Morbidity to the Obesity-associated morbidity subpage back on 14 Jan 2009, but then you left the table in place at Obesity#Morbidity. Perhaps that was an oversight, or you were interrupted? Anyhow, it seems a bit excessive to leave in place, and many of the refs in that section are getting stale (2006-7 time frame). Time to trim the now-redundant original back? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The table sort of gives an overview. I have no strong feeling whether or not it should be moved to the subpage aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just trim it to identify 8-10 affected major systems and leave the details to the subpage.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagnostic test

I notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagnostic test was never delsorted. Yesterday it was NACed as Merge to Medical test, despite some good Keep arguments made by Mark viking, Bearian, DeVerm, and Zefr. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam Sailor. I thought it was my Keep vote that triggered the deletion! --Zefr (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Cardiac Research Institute at Masonic Medical Research Laboratory - ready for mainspace?

A few months ago I brought this draft to the attention of the editors here, and WhatamIdoing and Blueboar responded that the draft was about a notable topic but needed better sources. I have added some news reports and other items that I found on the web, changed the "Education" section to paragraph form, rewritten some of the point form into sentences, and changed the title to Masonic Medical Research Laboratory since this seems to be what it is commonly called. The "Scientific achievements" was sourced back to articles by the lab's research staff, so I moved these to a "Selected publications" section. This leaves the section mostly unsourced, but I don't have the medical knowledge to add sources. I did find [Inborn Genetic Diseases: Advances in Research and Treatment: 2011 Edition. ScholarlyEditions. 9 January 2012. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-1-4649-2829-1. this].

I propose to move the article to mainspace, while tagging that section with "refimprove", and let the medical research community add supporting citations. Was I right to change the title? "Cardiac Research Institute at Masonic Medical Research Laboratory" can always be a redirect title.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with such a move, but (perhaps "because", given your rationale) sourcing of key sections like "Scientific achievemnents" is notably sparse. I've started a discussion over there. — soupvector (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Varicocele

Peoples thoughts here [37]. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Advice to students

I have put together a welcome template specifically for advice for those who appear to be new student edits here Template:Student Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

A few comments. Most significantly, it needs to be clearer early-on that this is targetted to students working in a certain topic-area. It's not a general welcome to student editors, though such a separate template might be useful. Relatedly, you might want to organize the list either in order of significance, or chunked according to content vs sourcing vs formatting. Finally, it should be titled something like {{Welcome student med-article}} or somesuch, to help it correlate with the family of Template:Welcome... templates and clarify/self-document its use. DMacks (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading more closely, most most significantly, it doesn't sound very friendly. While it doesn't violate AGF, it doesn't really welcome them, rather just instructs. Please coordinate with Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates, who have a well-vetted set of templates already. Maybe you could just write a wrapper/clone that enhances a standard one with the WPMED aspects. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

[38]looks good...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DMacks. #2 gets cleaned up by bot, #3 is a minor problem, #4 is technically wrong, etc. I'm especially unhappy with #11, which will be understood as telling new editors not to significantly expand stubs or add missing sections. And the overall feel is "you're going to screw up, and 'The Team at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine' (complete with the capital letters) is in charge here". I recommend not using it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I sort of see the logic Doc James, but I think it is just too long. Nobody is going to be able to digest that lot. Maybe it might be better to write a shorter welcome with a link to some abbreviated version of the WP:MEDMOS for new users. In my experience almost everyone makes mistakes at the beginning, and whilst it is annoying for everyone else to keep correcting the same mistakes, it isn't always altogether obvious what the problem is with any given newbie edit. There must be new user guides for students, presumably a medical version of this would be a better way forward? JMWt (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see WT:ENV#Wiki Education Foundation looking for input on Environmental Science student guidebook (permanent link) for a discussion about a guide for students of environmental science. You might wish to adapt some features of that guide to the guide for medical students.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the content of Template:Student is for medical students specifically, I propose that the page be moved to (renamed as) something specifically referring to medical students in its title.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• It is indeed correct that one cannot see the inside net of most universities libraries so #4 is indeed correct
• 2 and 3 while minor issues are commonly not done. Bots are not that fast in cleaning these up.
• Yes this template is to provide instructions and I am using it in people who are having some of these issues
• Want to keep the name short as it takes less time for me to type it.
• Agree about 11 not being the best and adjusted

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• • 4 is wrong because Wikipedia:Convenience links are permitted.
  • 2 and 3 may be common, but they are unimportant and easily fixed. The template is already so much WP:TLDR.
  • The effect of this long list of instructions is anti-welcoming. It's undeniably true that if everyone else quit (or didn't even start), then I'd spend much less time resolving disputes and cleaning up other people's messes, but I know that's not the result you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Interested. Convenience links is an essay. And is not what I am referencing. I am referring to a bar url to the inside next of a person's library. Basically the only way you can figure out what the ref is, is if you have a user name and password for that library.
    • With respect to the rest we simply disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      • • Yes, that is what you're referencing; you just didn't know it. Including a URL to your university library is simply not prohibited anywhere. It's not the single most useful thing someone could add, but there is no prohibition against it, and it is occasionally better than nothing. (Also, see WP:PGE: it doesn't matter if accurate information is written in an essay. WP:Five pillars is "an essay", too.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    • WhatamIdoing, point 4 is referring to links like this: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=df69463c-4b0b-4154-bbe1-f3e06748e906%40sessionmgr105&vid=1&hid=128 That link takes me to a non-free peer-reviewed article. But it's useless for you or anyone else who's not a Uni of Adelaide student or staff member, as it requires Uni of Adelaide authentication; note the "proxy" and "adelaide.edu.au" in the url. Students often use these kinds of links in references, unaware of the authentication step that is automatically bypassed from university computers. The explanation in the template probably needs clarification. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I know what it is. I'm telling you that, contrary to your expectations, including this kind of URL in a citation is not prohibited. I don't believe that WP:CITE even formally discourages it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• this is not just for med students. it is for any student who wants to work on articles about health - the things in the list are common mistakes that people in these classes make. It would save us a ton of effort if students took them on board. Doc James drafted this because there are actual problems that we deal with over and over. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

On the former item #11 which I added. It was

• Please try to avoid generating a large of block of text to insert in the article. You are used to creating essays for school, but working in Wikipedia is not essay writing. Look at the whole article in terms of the quality of sourcing (how recent, how strong) and in terms of WP:WEIGHT (are all the sections described in WP:MEDMOS present and complete, and is space allocated to each part reasonably?); those are the two key ways most articles need improving.

In my view this is the biggest problem with student work. Students (and teachers) spend their entire academic careers (years and years of training/habituation) working in a model where a student gets an assignment to create some block of writing - an essay, a research paper, whatever - that the student submits under his or her own name and that the teacher grades the student on as the student's own work. That paradigm is completely foreign to what we do here in Wikipedia. Yet every semester we get classes that deluge our articles with these big blocks of content, written with no regard whatsoever for WEIGHT, the existing sources used in the article, etc etc. I wish the Education Program would spend a bit more effort in the training to get teachers and students alike to see that the "essay" paradigm doesn't work well in WP. These students could be adding a ton more value to articles, (and could be learning a lot more about the topic and - with respect to the goal of attracting new editors who stay - getting a much better grasp of how real editing occurs in WP) if they approached the article as a whole and really analyzed them per NPOV and the sourcing guidelines, and work to improve actual flaws in articles (of which there are often many, many), instead of trying to find some little issue to blow up into an essay which almost always gives UNDUE weight to whatever it is about and introduces a host of other problems with content, sourcing etc.

I write this as someone who has dealt with a boatload of student editing, not from an "armchair" as it were. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem. No, this isn't going to solve that problem. (I exclude 'scare away the students' as a solution.)

My personal wish for the Edu programs might be the opposite of yours: Find a disease that doesn't have a ==Prognosis== section, and add a big block of well-sourced text. We've got copyeditors; we don't have very many people who are expanding stubs with important, sourced material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the second time in a short time that you have come at me with this kind of bad faith approach. My goal is not to scare away students. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't intend to imply that you want to scare away students. There are two ways to reduce the burden of class-based editing: make their product better (hard) or make them go away (easier). I'm excluding the latter entirely from the definition of success.

This TLDR template might make some of them go away, but there is no realistic chance that it will actually improve their product. If we want to get them to stop creating enormous, isolated, useless blocks of text, then we need to educate their instructors, not give them a warning against doing something that their instructor rewards. Also, that particular line warned them equally against an activity that is sometimes useful (adding a missing section) and sometimes not (adding two thousands words on a minor detail without noticing that the subject was already covered elsewhere in the article), and there is no chance that they will be able to figure out what was intended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Student guide can have the shortcut WP:MED/SG.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Basically I have seen 100s of student edits. They are typically obvious as they contain a certain repeated set of errors. Each batch of students making similar errors as the last bunch.

When I submit a paper for publication I get a much longer list of things to fix than these 11 (the lists typically run to 25 or 50 pages). And yet if you want to publish in PLOS or JMIR you persist. I do not think we should have way lower standards / expectations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Proactive training

Some of our NIOSH researchers are actively working with university courses that are interested in improving Wikipedia on health topics. I know in my trainings I put a strong emphasis on medical reliable sources. I cannot say for certain that others do as well (I'm not directly involved). To the extent I can make sure our university partners are following best practices, is there anything I should be sure to remind our partners? Thanks, James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I give advice about formatting of references so they match those already in the article. I also tell them of the cool tools to auto format references based on the ISBN and page number or the PMID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

feature comparison pages for consumer medical devices

WP has a number of pages with tables comparing software technologies (both commercial and non-commercial). With the proliferation of medical devices being marketed to consumers, would it be appropriate to develop similar pages to compare features (not prices) for cardiac, glucose, apnea, etc., monitoring. AFAICS, there is no such wiki repository on the web; at best, such tables are rare and not updated. Given the national (and international) health focus, this would seem a most helpful addition. For examples of software comparison pages, see Comparison of open-source operating systems, Comparison of file comparison tools, and many others shown from a WP search for <comparison table software>. Thoughts and guidance welcome. humanengr (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

if such references exist Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) for what your proposing, and is done in an encyclopedic manner..i don't see why not...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

thx, Ozzie10aaaa. The sources here would, in general and as for the software tables, be vendor literature and review articles. I would expect it to be encyclopedic as editors contribute info on devices as they learn about them. I've broached the possibility of a wiki on some fora wrt devices monitoring irregular heartbeats, and have seen some interest there. I think this is at the point where it makes sense to mock up a page in my sandbox. Agree? humanengr (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you should get more opinions on this before going forward (though I don't see an immediate problem)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

thx and understood … FYI, then, there was some preliminary discussion on this at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#WP policy on commercial product comparison pages. humanengr (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Everything in the first list of open-source operating systems is free, so that's kind of different. My first thought is that it sounds like it would become WP:SPAMBAIT, even if that wasn't the original intention. Are there countries where patients get to pick which medical device their doctor uses? I'm wondering how exactly having that information in table form will be helpful/encyclopedic for the general public. PermStrump(talk) 18:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

My focus is on devices sold directly to consumers either in stores or online rather than devices doctors use. Re that latter set, iiuc, in the U.S. at least, folks do ask doctors about particular devices that require prescriptions. So maybe 'devices doctors use' or 'devices requiring prescriptions' would a) not be included; b) be included as a separate table; c) be included with a column to indicate those constraints? Re the 'open-source' list, I shouldn't have included that as an example. But Comparison of file comparison tools does have commercial products and has not been spammed. (That is the case for the other software comparison pages as well.) And I now see that page includes prices for the commercial products. Re utility for the general public; my entire reason for starting down this path is that I found it incredibly difficult, after seeing some devices in my local pharmacy that monitor irregular heartbeats, to identify and get specifications re the full range of such devices. HTH humanengr (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump, the English Wikipedia is agnostic about commercialism. Nothing on Comparison of iOS devices is free. The fact that something costs money does not affect the subject's eligibility for an article at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• One of the key ways we keep promotional garbage out of our articles about health is that the guideline for sourcing content about health is MEDRS; we use reviews published in the biomedical literature or statements by major health organizations to source biomedical content (like how well a device works and whether it is safe). This is where health-related content is really different from video games or consumer products. In those topics editors are open to using low-quality bloggy sources (pushing RS as far toward bottom-scraping as it will go) but for health content we try to raise source quality. So I don't know if you could find enough good enough sources to do what you have in mind. This is probably the most surprising thing editors encounter who enter health topics from other topics within WP.

Also as you acknowledge the work would be WP:OR. We summarize accepted knowledge here, we don't create it. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTCATALOG. Finally, this would become an absolute magnet for spammers. We can't even list the brand name of a drug with out spammers from generic companies around the world wanting to come and add the brand for their version of a drug.

I don't think this is a good thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• • Thx for the feedback, Jytdog. You raise a number of good QA issues. Re MEDRS: Presumably, as marketed devices have gained regulatory approval, wouldn't that cover at least some minimal standard of "how well a device works or whether it is safe"? Wrt the concern of MEDRS re "primary sources … often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials", not-yet-approved devices could either not be included or so marked. Re reviews: A key initial source for info on cardiac monitors would be the reviews Prof. James W. Grier has kindly put online (https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~grier/Comparison-handheld-ECG-EKG.html, http://www.favoriteplus.com/prodimages/reviews/ecg-comparison.pdf). (The former was commended at http://a-fib.com/guide-to-diy-heart-rate-monitors-handheld-ecg-monitors.) But 1) there are other devices that are on the market (presumably passing regulatory criteria) not in his reviews, 2) those pages and others similar would benefit from a tabular, user-friendly, front-end. That would seem to support argument for a wiki table online somewhere for that purpose. Re WP:NOTHOWTO: This would not be a 'how to', though the reviews cited might contain some such info. Re WP:NOTCATALOG: This is more than a catalog; it would compare specifications. Reviews cited might have links to such embedded but that would not generally be included directly. Re generics: Is that an issue wrt devices as it is for drugs? Re the WP:OR issue: How do manufacturer's user manuals rank wrt that criteria? They are often the only source directly or indirectly published that clearly indicates specifications. humanengr (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The things posted by that professor are exactly the kind of bloggy garbage sources that are not OK here but that are just fine over there in software/gadget land. A "review" is a Literature review/systematic review/meta-analysis - academic papers published in the biomedical literature. Not somebody's blog "reviewing" products. Please actually read WP:MEDRS before you reply again. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS does not address product design specifications; it addresses product performance. humanengr (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That is true but claiming that that any design element (or lack thereof) has some better safety or efficacy does require MEDRS sourcing. Unclear to me how much you will be able to say that is meaningful. What I am saying here is my own take on things, of course. Others may differ. In general (in my view again) our coverage of medical devices needs a lot of work; I am just not happy about product guides in WP in general for the WP:OR. WP:NOTHOWTO aspect of them. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the points Jytdog raised. It sounds like something that might be on Consumer Reports, but I'm failing to see the encyclopedic value and I there are several sections of What Wikipedia is not that probably apply. Besides what people have already said, I'll add WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To be blunt, it sounds like it would quickly turn into an indiscriminate collection of linkspam. PermStrump(talk) 02:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of Consumer Reports: Bluerasberry, do you have any thoughts about this idea?

Also, Jytdog, I'm not seeing anything up there that sounds like "you acknowledge the work would be WP:OR". It sounds like the goal is to include only information that is actually verifiable in a suitable source. For example, presumably there no MEDRS issues at all in saying "only runs on Windows boxes", but that is informative. As a someone accustomed to a Microsoft-free computing environment, I would need that information if I ever had to deal with a medical device. An investor might look at a long string of "Windows-only devices" and see a market for an Android-oriented device, since there are more Android devices than Windows desktop computers in the world. I don't see any reason why this type of non-biomedical information needs to be supported by the ideal sources for WP:Biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• I see two issues being discussed here. One is the value on Wikipedia of comparison articles, and the other is whether WP:MEDRS should guide a comparison article on consumer medical devices.

About comparison articles - there are many comparison articles listed at Category:Software comparisons. My personal opinion of these is that most or all of these deviate from typical Wikipedia practice of providing citations to verify content. The current practice is that these charts are made without matching their information with references. I advocate that all content in Wikipedia be matched with citations to sources, and since these sorts of articles include more original research than is allowed in other sorts of Wikipedia articles, I do not recommend this model of presentation. If somehow someone committed to making one of these comparison articles and had citations for every entry in the table, then I think that would be great. If these kinds of comparison articles could in the future be generated from information in Wikidata, then I think that would be best.

About considering consumer medical devices on par with traditional medical devices - Consumer Reports has not published deep opinions on the matter. Different staff in-house have raised this issue every week for months. Personal medical devices are sold as a consumer novelty, and come with instructions that they should not be used to guide medical decisions. At the same time, the consumer perception of the devices is that they do provide health data for guiding health care decisions, and even health care providers make decisions based on data reported by these consumer devices. There is a disconnect between how activity trackers and home testing kits are overtly marketed and how consumers perceive that marketing and respond. I would love for Wikipedia to provide clear information on the matter, but I am not aware of any organization which has published white papers or taken clear positions for consumers about what to expect of these devices. The best information that I have to offer from Consumer Reports on the matter is Better Healthcare: Your Medical Data, which is an introduction to the concept that consumer devices might produce data that can be used to influence health care decisions. Even the basics in this field are controversial and uncertain. It is difficult to know where to begin in discussing these things. If there is a discussion on this, then I expect that the sources cited would not come from medical journals, but rather from product review organizations. Those would not be MEDRS sources of the sort typically used here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Would it suffice for such tables to include a caption, footnote, or field for regulatory approval and caveats? Maybe something like: "The manufacturer has provided reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness [as per FDA]; regulatory approval does not indicate satisfaction of any specific quality standards; and (unless otherwise indicated) entries do not satisfy WP:MEDRS criteria."? Also, FWIW, Prof. Grier’s link (cited above) does broach regulatory approval issues with links to further discussion. As I now see that Prof. Grier still intends to construct a summary table, I’ll wait before proceeding further. I trust the above foray will prove helpful more generally. Thank you all for the feedback. humanengr (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

category for early psychosis

I wonder if we can create a category for early psychosis, which would be a sub-category of psychosis, to organize at least 3 articles: at-risk mental state, early intervention in psychosis, and basic symptoms of schizophrenia. These articles all relate to the early detection of psychosis, so it may useful to have a category for them.--Beneficii (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

What would be the purpose? Carl Fredik 💌 📧 09:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

To create an organized category on early psychosis from which people can access the relevant articles.--Beneficii (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I created the category, called Early psychosis.--Beneficii (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

List of youngest birth mothers article -- defining the teenage age range.

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:List of youngest birth mothers#Teenage category. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion also concerns the Teenage pregnancy article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

need opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Medical app

Our offline medical app now has 5,000 to 10,000 downloads [39]. We have ZIMs in other languages now as listed here [40] Hope to figure out how to allow them to be added to the app soon.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

impressive[41]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Have put together a notice to inform our readers about this here Things of maybe putting it on a dozen or so pages. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

People get really emotional about non-content banners on article content - as we just saw with the "research" template. Seems OK to trial it on a few of the more highly trafficked medical articles (Zika maybe?) but be ready for blowback. Before a broader Phase II test an RfC would be good, and hopefully you are gathering data from this pilot that you can use to sell the Phase II.... Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes agree that may occur. How about 6 banners that rotate around our medical content with there not being more than 6 instances? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem seems to be that we basically have only an on/of solution and what we need is probably something smarter able do show/hide the banner depending on visitor characteristics (languages, country, etc...). I would be interested if we have had in the past discussion/trials/researches to try to provide such a system. Kelson (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Count me in if I can offer any technical help. We obviously can't use server-side solutions like we do for QRpedia - although we could test them at WMUK - but I've been looking at language detection in browsers for another project. It's probably just the language we need to know, rather than the country, I guess.

If we are going to put banners on pages as a pilot, please consider trialling them on article talk pages in the first instance. I know it will be mainly reaching editors rather than readers, but considering the blow-back the WMF got from the research project appearing on article pages, I'd recommend getting as much testing done as possible on non-article pages. Only then would it be sensible to argue for a time-limited trial on article pages, and that would need a very well advertised RfC. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

We know that they are EN readers as they are on EN Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Although the banner says it's an offline version, it also says "access all this content when there is internet". As I understand it, after downloading the offline content is by definition accessible without internet, so probably the wording should be fixed. Brandmeister^talk 17:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)