User talk:Doc James/Archive 147

Draft:Rockwell Scharer Profile you just deleted

Dear Doc James

I am a new Wiki Editor and was working on my first draft, UNPUBLISHED. You removed all my work. I'm learning here. How does one learn if you are so quick to remove ---and not tag--- so we can learn? I would appreciate any help you can provide here. I recently discovered I am not supposed to use websites that can be construed as personal profiles despite there were derived from public information, like www.rockwellscharer.com. So I didn't get a chance to remove it yesterday as I was working all day. Please help me resurrect this draft (unpublished) profile and allow me time to remove my mistakes.

I believed Wiki was a safe place to learn, make a living as an UNPAID editor, and flourish. Allow me to make the corrections and work with me. I see you are a rock star. Help me.

Kismet0224 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismet0224 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

ADDITION:

Doc,

I have all day to correct my mistakes today. Please revert the removal and allow me to fix all my mistakes. This is my first profile. I assure you I found this person's notability and am not being paid. I have not had a chance to include all my citations. Once I'm done I assure you, there will be zero reason to tag or remove. Please. Give me the chance to succeed here on my first Wiki article.

Kis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismet0224 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It was a copyright issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please revert and allow corrections

Hi Doc,

This is a more formal request for you to revert the deletion of the bio profile Rockwell Scharer III. As an unpaid and new editor I failed to go through the TeaHouse materials and I don't want Mr. Scharer to suffer my shortcomings. Please revert the page, allow me to correct the issues and allow this profile with about a dozen citations I have yet to put into the article.

Please re-consider and revert the page. We can fix this page in one day.

Thanks,

Kismet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismet0224 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I asked this editor a question about paid editing on their talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bri Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing Paid Editing on Ran Neu-Ner

Hi Doc James,

I previously asked you to clarify this heading for paid editing on an article I created. Please help me to remove these edits. Ramonthomas (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It was worked on by paid editors. Someone independent needs to review. Have asked someone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

NIH ODS Vitamin Fact Sheets

I recently got a notice that the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements updated all of the vitamin Fact Sheets for healthcare professionals between August 2018 and February 2019. The URLs remain the same, so this will not disable references in the vitamin articles. I intend to go through those articles to review content attributed to the Fact Sheets, to be sure that the content reflects the most recent versions of the Fact Sheets. David notMD (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

broken citation template

https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi

generates an error, so I've been attempting to use an alternate tool or do manually. What do you suggest I use instead of the wmflabs tool, since this has been broken for several days?

WP:MEDHOW runs through a few other methods of formating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

sulfasalazine - Line 43

This edit is a direct quote from the citation. Actually, the whole sentence should be omitted as it is completely false. Methotrexate is the first line of treatment for RA by all board certified rheumatologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.196.66 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The WHO says "Sulfasalazine has a beneficial anti-inflammatory effect and is considered by some rheumatologists to be a first-line DMARD, but it is poorly tolerated by about 25% of patients." So nothing wrong with the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You deserve this

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Doc James, thank you for the pleasant cooperation on Osteoarthritis. I made a change, you reverted, then we had a discuss on the talk page and the final edit was a wonderful result. Sthubbar (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Sthubbar. Likewise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Current Drug Targets Osteoarthritis

I don't think that one is predatory. What's your basis for thinking it is here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm copying the below form my talk page so we can discuss in one place.

Both MDPI and Betham are listed as predatory. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Where? As I understand the Beall list is removed and even at that 1 out of 5 of the organizations on that list are falsely accused.Sthubbar (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems a unreasonable to categorize all 300 publications of MDPI as predatory. In particular International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences has an impact factor of 3.687, which according to this page seems to put it in the top 20% of journals. Can you provide specific evidence that this particular publication is predatory?Sthubbar (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Beall listed Bentham Open, not Bentham in general. Likewise MDPI was delisted as 'borderline'. Not saying these particular journal are any good, but your underlying assumptions are off about what Beall listed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect to MDPI we also have "The publisher has been downgraded to level 0, the lowest level, in the Norwegian Scientific Index from 2019" so no not a great source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect to the Betham source "Two animal studies, two combinations of animal and in vitro studies, three in vitro studies and one human study were included in this review. All the studies reported positive effects of pomegranate extract or juice on osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis." How does an in vitro study find "positive results" in a condition in humans?

Whether something is useful is not done by counting the number of published supporting trials. The impact factor is actually 0.91 per not themselves.[1] These are extraordinary claims without good evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The MDPI source says "Pomegranate Clinical effects Not reported" So no there is not even tentative evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not saying those are great or even appropriate sources, but the reason isn't because they're predatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

They are not good sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Makes sense. Sthubbar (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Restless legs syndrome article

Thanks for the link about adding citations, I'll use that method next time. Why is WebMD not a reliable source? If so, shouldn't the rest of the sentence (which also cites WebMD) also be deleted? jej1997 (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Your welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Paid editing

See: this. The link has been sent to me by a friend who actually has no time for Wikipedia and rarely even reads it. In the normal run of things I would make a big article out of it for The Signpost but of course now that some of The Signpost's biggest detractors and antagonists are going to be part of a new editorial team, I won't be having anything to do with The Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is an active thread at WP:COIN ☆ Bri (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Bri, due to personal reasons I have not been watching my watchlist very closey for several weeks. I am still surprised however, that when discussing paid editing few Wikipedians mention the blatant exploitation for money of the encyclopedia that is created and maintained by unpaid volunteers. I'ts really time to make a move to outlaw all paid editing, even if it means some if it goes underground - it would be the policy that counts and it would make the work at COIN a lot easier. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kudpung and it is only the tip of the iceberg. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Frank Fitzpatrick

Hi Doc James. Thanks for the unblock. Much appreciated, and I hope to continue to make constructive edits to WP. I'm constantly amazed when I see your contributions and am baffled by how much time you dedicate to the site. I wish I had as much time. I wanted to ask your permission to continue editing Frank Fitzpatrick. I know we agreed that I would stop editing any pages that I've been paid for, and I have removed all pages I was paid for from my watchlist and will no longer be accepting contracts and spurning contact with those people in question. However, I really feel like I have unfinished business with the Frank Fitzpatrick page, and I believe - given that I have already been paid and there is absolutely nothing in it for me - I can make some good faith edits to improve the quality of the page, remove any dud links and clean it up a little. The fact that I'm coming at it from a NPOV should allow me to better analyse the mistakes I made and fix them. Obviously, this is entirely up to you, as you're the moderator in charge of my block, but I can guarantee that this is the only project I plan to do anything with. You can continue to check my Upwork profile to ensure I'm not receiving any additional payment for the page. Do let me know, and thanks again for the hard work. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

As you were paid for that article before and as you are not to be involved in anything that has or had involved paid editing, your unblock agreement included an agreement not to edit it. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I was hoping we could make one small exception, but it's your call. Thanks anyway. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Alopecia areata

Hello. I think clinicaltrials.gov is a valid source. As a matter of fact, the first paragraph of "Research" section is based on a clinicaltrials.gov link. Should it be mentioned otherwise? Also iatriki magazine (medicine in Greek) of betamedarts is the official scientific magazine of the Greek company of medical studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dia1 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Dia1 clinicaltrials.gov is just protocols for published trials. We generally want sources per WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Leprosy

Hi James, would you mind checking on the image that I just added? Hope that your week is going well.! Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JenOttawa very nice :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Photoshop images

James, I drew some detailed diagrams in Photoshop for a number of articles on the inner ear. They were removed because I didn't give Wikipedia appropriate licensing permissions. Could you direct me to where I need to go to give these permissions? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Were did you upload them? Did you make them from scratch User:I enjoy sandwiches? Or were they build on others work? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I made them from scratch. I uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons. I went back and looked into it ([2]), apparently I needed to give licensing permission via OTRS and I never followed up. Is it required for us to release our real name to Wikipedia to give licensing permission for an image? Also, by way of explanation, when you read the discussion, it's going to say permission to use the image on Wikipedia was not given because some website in Iran had the image in a slideshow. The individual in that link who published that talk actually took the image from Wikipedia without permission. When I originally put it in the temporal bone article in 2016 it stayed up for several months I believe. The date of his talk, February 11, 2017 is 8 months after I uploaded it to Wikipedia [3]. It is slide #14 in the powerpoint where he pirated my image--that individual is not me. I drew the image myself with Photoshop and have the original .psd files as verification. I know this is kind of complicated, but I did spend a great deal of time on those images and think they might contribute something of meaning. Is there a specific forum where I can have this looked in to, or is this within the scope of things I could consult you about? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:I enjoy sandwiches upload it here to EN WP directly. User:Jameslwoodward, User:Yann, and User:Jcb this source is basically a collection of other peoples work.[4]

Saying that you found sandwhiches work in it is not a reason for removal. This commons discussion is rather strange.[5]

If one looks at their claimed source one sees a bunch of it is from WP such as [6] for slide 16. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please understand that on Commons we get numerous liars and forgers who will say anything to have Commons keep an image that is actually a copyright violation. Also please understand that we get around 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 2,000 of them, mostly for reasons similar to this one. At the moment we are short of volunteers and the backlog is almost two months. That is why policy is firm that when an image has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, we require that the copyright holder send a free license using OTRS. That enables an OTRS volunteer to make a judgement with whatever evidence he believes necessary. If I enjoy sandwiches had done this in September, 2017, the image would have been restored long ago. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jim, I will make sure to keep this in mind with future submissions. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Jameslwoodward someone needs to show that a copy of the image existed before the person uploaded it. The ppt is not only full of WP images but was published after sandwiches upload. I do a fair bit of copyright work and would be happy to help more on the backload if there was interest.

Our rule is that it is up to the uploader to prove that the image is OK, not the other way around. In an ideal world, a Commons Admin might investigate the timing. In the world as it is, with thousands of Deletion Requests open, we do not. Your help with the backlog would be welcome. In order to help, you would have to become a Commons Administrator, but given your Admin on WP:EN and your 4,600 edits on Commons, that should not be hard..     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jameslwoodward will give the application for admin another try sometime. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

User:I enjoy sandwiches you do not need to send OTRS permission as long as you created the image entirely yourself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

For Commons, the safest thing to do would be to send a free license sing OTRS and then tell me -- I can expedite its restoration past the usual OTRS backlog. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Doc James and Jim, it unfortunately seems the issue is not entirely resolved. Just received this on my talk page. Could you guys please advise? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronhjones you needs to come forwards with evidence that this was not created by User:I enjoy sandwiches. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Image on Borderline Personality Disorder article

Hi there,

Was there reasoning for changing the image on the borderline personality disorder article? I'm only cursorily familiar with Munch's work and I'm not an art historian but I thought that the Brooch captured the disorder quite well. I can see how the painting of his doctor "idealizes" him in a very basic sense, with the exaggerated stature, but the Brooch captured the conflict and is more in line with Munch's work and the disorder's connection to romantic relationships. The black void surrounding the face which is looking away was more affective. It's also much more likely that he experienced those emotions from Eva Mudocci than from his doctor. The new one seems a bit sterile and oversimplified, which I'd normally think is preferable but not for something like a personality disorder. Unless you had other reasons?

Thanks, —Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:1A7F:C720:60FD:127F:4749:79CB (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It all depends on finding a reference to support the picture in question. I am happy with either one. Just found a source for the new one. If you have a source for the old one happy to see it return. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada

Good day, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to [7]. To send messages to the list, write to general{{at}}discussions.wikimedia.ca. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful thank you JP Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolving some of Jytdog's unresolved work

I am trying to resurrect a discussion that I began with Jytdog nearly a year ago and was never resolved. In November 2018 Jytdog put out a request on WT:MED to resolve a request I had made to revert an incorrect edit. You weighed in, but nothing happened. As you know, Jytdog is now gone. Would you be able to take up the mantle? If the original merge can be reverted (i.e. if the multisystem proteinopathy content can be pulled back out into its own page rather than being merged into "hereditary inclusion body myopathy" -- a merge that I argue should not have been made) I can make any additional edits to the MSP page that are deemed appropriate.

If you are not the right person to help, can you direct me to another forum where this discussion can continue? I feel like I have been speaking into the void for months. Thanks. 192.55.208.11 (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello 192.55.208.11. It appears you may be an expert and you would be a good person for editors to collaborate with. When doing so, it would be helpful if you would WP:REGISTER an account. Already your contributions have been split because you've been using two different IPs. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks very much for supporting McMaster's BHSc students as they work so hard to create a solid article about L1 syndrome. You're suggestions and kind guidance has been incredibly beneficial for them as new editors and as learners.--Mcbrarian (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Copypatrol bot has stopped

Hi Doc James. Sorry to have to bother you but I don't know what else to do. The copypatrol bot stopped on Thursday March 21 and no new entries have been posted since. I posted at Niharika Kohli's talk page at Meta – she is our contact person when we have issues – but so far have received no reply. I don't know if anyone is working on trying to restore service, or even if any techs are aware there's an issue. I would appreciate it if you could try to get some information as to what is happening. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Diannaa thanks for the heads up. Will look into it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a ticket here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! New reports are now starting to come in. Hopefully these fixes will hold us for a while. Looks like posting here was the right thing to do, as it attracted the attention of someone who knew what to do. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear it is up and running again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

CHIVA Method

Hi Doc James Thanks for your last edits. Would you agree to condider removing the first 2 tags regarding the points of view neutrality ? As you have noticed, the links refer to high level international medical articles and high quality clinical tests. I leave it to you to decide if the content. of the article has its place in Wikipedia as an additional objective information regarding the various treatments of vaicose veins.--Geiss (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting on you to disclose your relation to the topic in question. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Paid editors linked to a paid editing website?

Hello, User:Doc James, I would like your opinion on these three users, who I suspect are linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAIDLIST#Wikipediawriters.com. The three editors in question are User:RichardMills65, User:CesareAngelotti and User:Bernie44 (already blocked for being a paid editor and violating NPOV, but I think he's connected to it and it would be useful to have it as an example of what that group's editors are like).

What sparked my suspicion was that when I was browsing articles, I checked CesareAngeletti's article creations and the first batch seem similar to what User:FoCuSandLeArN, connected to that website and banned for being a paid editor, created when he wasn't creating paid-for articles. Additionally, FoCuSandLeArN and CesareAngeletti have the same edit summary for creating an article in general, namely "created article". It's the same with Bernie44 as well. I also noticed that when RichardMills65 created an article on a music producer, within a month FoCuSandLeArN added an infobox to it, in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dolphin_(music_producer)&diff=629968625&oldid=629641876 and that RichardMills65's articles generally looked like PR pieces.

CesareAngeletti and RichardMills65 haven't edited since 2016, but I suspect there are more sockpuppets out there. I think that User:Branpedia could be a sock of Bernie44. Same edit summaries when creating articles, he's obviously an UPE, and they've both edited the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewy_(company) article, a somewhat obscure online retailer of petfood.

On a different note, I'm pretty sure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hungchiri is a sockpuppet of hilumeoka2000/Boskit190, found the evidence on freelancer.com. Thank you so much for reading this and I hope I haven't wasted your time with any of this. 92.21.156.125 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably best to post at WP:COIN. I am currently away at meetings and thus a bit less time for Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

copyright tag on photo for cancer video

James - can you take a look at this image copyright problem. I've used it in the cancer video. The original file is vector format which the video player doesn't like. So I saved a copy as .jpg, with appropriate sourcing. The copyright, however is in OTRS and I can't figure out how to mark it to stop a copyright deletion. Could you look? Ian Furst (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

​I've added the license for you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this is solved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor

• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

• In the media: Women's history month

• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

• Featured content: Out of this world

• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37

• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Setswana medical terms for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Setswana medical terms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Setswana medical terms until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Natureium (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay moved to Wikiversity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much,

Thank you very much,

the learning I had with your letter is priceless; I will use your guidance in the writing of my PhD article. As for the quality of my journal's magazine, it's not really Nature, but you see, it allowed me to spread a scientific thesis that could help a lot of people. If this thesis is true, the use of intravenous B complex (a measure more than cheap and safe) would have a significant public health impact. On the other hand, the renowned magazines did not try very hard to counter the arguments presented. I am not affectionate to victimhood but this may have a name perhaps prejudice or "Argumentum ad hominem" I do not know, I only know that I learned a lot in this process and I am grateful for the learning, it is not every day that this occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joartur (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The key is using high quality secondary sources. Yes intravenous B complex is inexpensive and safe. One would need an RCT to show it is useful though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

excellent

• [8]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ozzie10aaaa. Yes exciting results. We have brought down the complexity of our leads of our medical articles from grade 15 to grade 12.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Status Labs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Status Labs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status Labs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The World's Signature (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

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

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Alopecia areata - Mexis

Hello. On March, I 've added two references on the Research section of the Alopecia Areata article, about a mentioned medication, MEXIS/M6S. One was of clinical trials.gov, which you explained why it can't stand alone as a reference, and a link from betamedarts.gr containing the publishment of the clinical trial analysis for the specific medication. Betamedarts's link contains a secondary source. It still can't stand as a reference?

Nevertheless, I would like your help on that. This is a medication that is shown to be helpful against Alopecia areata. The results have been shown to be important and I would like to ask, what's the best way to have it on the article? Sure, it can be on Research section but shouldn't it be added on Treatment too as it might be used instead of corticosteroid treatments? What separates Treatment from Research?

I'm asking your advice before editing to avoid errors and misunderstandings as I am not that experienced on it. Thank you in advance. Dia1 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Dia1 sourcing requirements for medical content is discussed at WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Movember Foundation - Questions

Because the Movember Foundation is an organization very near and dear to my heart, I decided to update its Wikipedia page since it was wildly scant and outdated when I came across it last week. Admittedly, I do not edit Wikipedia often, so I am not as familiar with the rules and guidelines as you may be. In fact, a lot of your edits and subsequent explanations make a lot of sense to me. And frankly, as a lawyer and writer, I do tend to write in a somewhat verbose and formal tone (so I understand the "advertisement" language concern). However, everything that I contributed was pulled directly from the Foundation's website and external sources.

I am confused as to why you continue to flag the article even after it has been thoroughly edited to remove the issues. Not only does it insinuate that my motives are not pure and that I have been paid to edit it (which I have not), but you continue to remove info that is seemingly relevant to the organization. For example, I don't understand why the "Movember in Pop Culture" was significantly cut down? You offered no explanation for that or why you left some and removed others. I am just looking for a little clarity so that we can have this page clean and within the Wiki guidelines, terms, and conditions.

Any insight you could provide me here would be helpful. Thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RpL2144 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:RpL2144 The concerns regarding COI were by an earlier account.

You need to use independent high quality sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)