User talk:Doc James/Archive 168

I understand

Now blocked user

...that you are a leader in the Wikiproject Medicine effort. But do not common rules of courtesy apply? When an {{in use}} tag appears, is it not still common courtesy, to allow the working editor to finish? I would assume this applies to all editors, not just the foot-soldiers like me. 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC) What you are doing is way over tagging. Please stop doing this at fever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Okay It appears you answer is you will not... [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Let's just say that when a leader of an effort carte blanche rejects the notion that the rules of WP apply to their work, that WP:VERIFY is an option rather than a principle, I do not share much in common with that editor, however important they might be. The rules of WP should apply to all editors, and to all articles, in all Wikiprojects. The Fever article was in abysmal shape before I arrived, and you appear to wish it to remain so, and to not be known for its shortcomings. There is no rationale in keeping with WP:VER that says the Pathophysiology section, and the article as a whole, do not need refimprove tags. It remains awful, with full subsection after full subsection needing them. And when a citation appears at end of section or paragraph but does not cover material appearing ahead of it—after its being checked and found unsupported—sentence tags are needed. Or how does one editing later know that the end-of-block citation is not sufficient? So, you have your way, there will be no edit warring. You do not need, like the rest of us, to honor the "in use" flag, or to ask for a consensus before changes that are clearly contrary to rules. The Fever article is yours, you can make it as pretty as you wish. But it is lipstick on a pig, and our students know it. By the way, in your prettifying efforts, you removed the mention in the citation of the chapter from Harrison's (a citation which I completed, for the first time, apparently in a decade) which covers fever of unknown origin. So, the citation of Harrison's next to that wikilink, sourcing that sentence, is no longer a valid citation. Remove it, if you haven't already; let it stand as it did before, based just on the wikilink (WP:VER notwithstanding). 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC) That you added {{cn}} to every sentence and than a banner to the top of the sections repeatedly is disruptive.[2] Do one or the other, not both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC) You want the ref to be? "Dinarello CA, Porat R (2018). "Chapter 15: Fever". Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. Vol. 1–2 (20th edition ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. ASIN B07FND1DYH. ISBN 9781259644030. Retrieved 31 March 2020. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help) In this source, see also "Chapter 16: Fever and Rash" (by ET Kaye & KM Kaye), and "Chapter 17: Fever of Unknown Origin" (by CP Bleeker-Rovers CP & JWM van der Meer). See also this source, for access to the actual digital content cited. Note, because this citation does not present a page number, each appearance of it in the text should be followed by a superscripted page number, separated from the citation superscript by a colon (:)." No thanks. We do not need the link to amazon.com. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC) User:Doc James, you removed both—the section and article tags, and (earlier), the individual line tags—which as I explained above, serve different purposes. Without sentences being tagged, a paragraph cannot be worked on, because editors coming in do not know what that one added citation actually truly covers. (Even my students understand the different functions.) And while you may not like the second URL, there was nothing wrong with the "In this source, see also..." sentence that you removed. (Removal of that sentence destroyed the utility of that citation to support sentences that mention fever of unknown origin. But that's fine I guess, because it was the status quo before I arrived (no citation, only wikilink for those sentences), even if it does violate WP:VER. As for the Amazon, note: the Harrison's google books citation contains nothing in terms of real content. The Amazon link was placed as secondary, because it actually presents the information being cited in the article—all of it in fact. So, in following that rule religiously, while ignoring others, you did readers another disservice. But as I say, have at it. I expressed AGF in letting you finish, you did not in interrupting the "in use" tag. So it is yours. We just won't use it, as long as it remains deceptively clean in its presentation, and bad in its sourcing. 2601:246:C700:19D:FDCE:2831:1D8A:B7CC (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Looking at this edit[3], no I removed the "cn" and left the refimprove and the asin link is still there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Closing statement You either are not self-aware, or you do not retain memory of the edits that you make. Here, numbered, are the specific edits you made that support the harsh critique I made above. (I neither dissemble, nor do I exaggerate, even when I am passionate in my statements.) Please note, we have resolved several, but not all of the new issues you created (by re-editing things you mucked up), so the article as it stands is not as bad as you would have left it. But we did not fix everything you mucked, because, frankly, we've lost heart with you (see closing). Please note, in each of the following numbered points, the link to the "diff" that shows an edit from your session today. In dealing with our edits, You disresectfully ignored the "in use" tag we had placed while we were working, thus creating an edit conflict unnecessarily, which WP etiquette (for those following the rules) dictates that oncoming editors wait to begin editing—and in fact you went so far as to delete the "in use" tag; You failed in the overall arc of your edits to inform readers (or accurately represent the state of the article), instead, only accomplished beautifying the article, by removing both high-level tags (article and section), as well as inline tags, for the very large parts of this article that violate WP:VERIFY: removing all section refimprove tags over these edits, removing the article refimprove tag from head of article in this edit; and removing essentially all inline tags, throughout this source-bereft article, including here, and here, etc. As I said above, we have put some of the section tags back in. But as the edit summaries show, it is not because you left them in place, originally. Taken together with the previous two bullets, you removed essentially all evidence of the systemic and specific issue of WP:VERIFY violations and so evidence of the the poor quality of the article, warnings on which student readers rely. Hence your statement about inline versus higher order tags, above, Do one or the other, not both, is disingenuous; you removed them all. 3. You mucked up sourcing for statements discussing fever of unknown origin by removing the good "In this source. see also..." sentence, here, then argued that the likewise useful Amazon content (which shows the Harrison chapters, all three, while the google URL does not show any) justified the gross deletion; 4. You also removed the following good content, paragraph beginning "Various patterns of measured patient temperatures... [through] ...[[Brucellosis]]{{cn}}, regarding names given to three particular types of fever (which I have since added back, though, like the bulk of the article, it still needs sourcing): Extended content Various patterns of measured patient temperatures have been observed, some of which may be indicative of a particular medical diagnosis: Continuous fever, where temperature remains above normal throughout the day and does not fluctuate more than 1 °C in 24 hours (e.g. in lobar pneumonia, typhoid, meningitis, urinary tract infection, or typhus); Intermittent fever, where the temperature elevation is present only for a certain period, later cycling back to normal (e.g., in malaria, leishmaniasis, pyaemia, or sepsis); Remittent fever, where the temperature remains above normal throughout the day and fluctuates more than 1 °C in 24 hours (e.g., in infective endocarditis, or brucellosis). 5. You returned to the article a one-sentence section, on epidemiology, reversing my attempt to eliminate such bad writing and article structure (by incorporating it in another section). You need't have agreed with this placement, but you also did not need to revert this wisely intentioned edit. 6. In utterly awful medical science, you removed further work, purely constructive, and in so doing, confounded two markedly different medical statistics, turning distinct observations for adult (92.8%) and for pediatric (43.9%) observations—clearly reported by the source—into a combined statistic (89%) that completely obfuscates an important epidemiological observation. 7. You removed the definition of the word "febrile", a standard, Latin-derived medical term in use in the U.S., at least, and a term appearing repeatedly in this article text, from its place of being defined in the lead; 8. And finally, you removed the beginning of an edit process to ensure that the lead summarises the article, by checking lead against article, and copying lead-only, non-summary material into the main body, and at the same time, adding to the lead further similar and important summary statements, while at same time moving citations into the main body where, per WP guidance, they mostly belong. Any one of these, alone, might constitute a scholarly difference of opinion. Taken together, from your ignoring the "in use" tag to your removing all traces showing the poor state of the article, to your repeatedly throwing good edits out so that the article would return to what you had it looking like, before—what you have done through it all is to skirt both general collegial respect and deeper, constructive scholarly thought about this content, all, seemingly for the aim of returning the article to a form familiar to you, and a form that bears no hint of systematic quality issues. We will not argue with you further. In your position of power and responsibility, here, there is nothing we can do about your approach. But be clear, by editing as if no one can get it right besides you, and as if a clean, pretty pretty appearance of an article is more important than honestly representing it to readers, you disinvite thoughtful, careful, rule-following academics from working on your articles, and in your Wikiproject. That is all. We have wasted enough time on a poor quality work. We will not be back. 2601:246:C700:19D:DC18:A173:C6E3:3CFB (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC) There are still at least 37 "citation needed" templates in the article. 13 verification needed templates. 8 page needed. 4 better source needed, a needs update. And a banner remains. A bunch of them you put both inside and outside the reference template. A better analysis would begin by asking, how many statements currently appear that are without a source? I would guess, from that vantage point, that much less than 20% of all unsourced content is currently annotated. Otherwise, a call for an update is just that—is that one placed in error? And the verification annotations were added when we could not access a source to verify a statement—is this not the use for which that tool was intended? Likewise for page number calls, etc. No, Doctor, the real issue is the state of the article. We began trying to check all of the statements attributed to Harrison's (where the editors were confounded as authors, and Fauci seemed to be a popular stated author of the Fever chapter, lol). It was only after finding how much a mess the sourcing was, after dealing with that one source, that we thought the encyclopedia might appreciate an extended effort, and so we began marking paragraphs so we could look for sources. But, we were wrong, and we know that now. All the best to you and your team. Me olemme valmiit. Please see the "Good night... best wishes..." below. 2601:246:C700:19D:DC18:A173:C6E3:3CFB (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC) As I said above, you removed them all, and we put some back in. We were beginning to work our way through paragraphs when you removed them all. The point of marking paragraphs is so that one sentence at a time can be sourced, without losing ones place. But as I said, we have no desire to work in your space any more. You do not accept collegial participation, and seem unable to accept valid criticisms of your actions. As I said above, we will not be working again in your Wikiproject. 2601:246:C700:19D:DC18:A173:C6E3:3CFB (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC) That is simple incorrect. And who is this "we" you speak of? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Your removals are clearly documented above, and the fact that we returned some is clear by looking at the article as it stands. (Critical note, some but not all appearing inline "cn" tags are due to our editing; there were at least two groups of dated inline "cn" tags that existed before we began. Look back to the editing before we began our sessions this last couple of days, to see what was already in place.) Otherwise, when we work with groups of students at an article, sometimes with more than one faculty member, the purpose is to teach them how to do scholarly work, specifically, generating text that does nothing more than summarize a given source. We have generally enjoyed doing so here because of the strong rules that Wikipedia has regarding the need for sourcing, and for the quality of sources (secondary over primary, etc.). Our chagrine, today, is over the apparent lack of a commitment to those rules, at this article. Good night, Doctor, and best wishes, if you, as we, are doing other important things in this time. 2601:246:C700:19D:DC18:A173:C6E3:3CFB (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC) And this is despite me removing probably a good 100 or more other tags and banners. User:Leprof 7272 if you do not see this as disruptive I do not know what to say. Expecially since you are topic banned from tagging article for this exact reason.[4][5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC) User:Ivanvector you were the closing admin on the topic ban. We may need a range block here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'd like to hear your opinion on this poll

Poll: 102,000,000 or 1.02 million Thanks! Feelthhis (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for your vote! Feelthhis (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree makes sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Simvastatin#Clarification_of_RfC

we're going to need one of these...Wondering if we need one at atorvastatin too?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yah. Will let the first one finish. I imagine we may have a fair number of RfC on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Started another here Talk:Ethosuximide#RfC. It would be nice if editors would engage with wording / finding sources if they are unhappy with the current ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome

Extra spaces

I routinely add blank lines (which by the way are completely invisible to the reader and therefore irrelevant to MOS) because they might be useful at some point to some editor—or so I've been told, via my talk page and by email. If there's a policy or guideline indicating they should be removed (or consensus that I should stop), please share. --Brogo13 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC) p.s.

User:Brogo13 they are not completely invisible to the reader is the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please sort Epidemiology table by Deaths and not Cases

Hi James,

In the Epidemiology section (on the Covid-19 pandemic page), can you please request to re-arrange the columns so that #Deaths is primary (and sorted on primary) and #Cases is secondary ?

The rationale is that Cases is not an equivalent metric across countries and there is a wide divergence, whilst although #Deaths is also likely to not be 100% accurate, it is likely to be MUCH more accurate. A note also explaining this would help, as many people (Doctors included) are coming to incorrect conclusions about death rates (CFR) etc plus also using current Case data which is an earlier measure compared to the #deaths.

Thanks for all your contributions,

Martin Ireland 86.40.64.114 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No evidence that deaths are completely accurate either (death certificates are complicated). Plus cases go up before deaths (by about 8 days) and thus are an earlier indication of the badness to come for a country. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying James. The problem with the Cases values is that they are VERY inaccurate and NOT comparable across countries. Yes, in normal circumstances they are a leading indicator of measuring a disease, but due to the way that countries have operated testing in different ways and with such variance of methods, and indeed lots of countries have been short on tests, the #Cases values CANNOT be relied upon. They should come with dare I say a health warning! I fully agree that Death values also have their vagaries, but #Deaths alas is solely the most accurate data points we have at this point in time during the pandemic. So for the sake of scientific accuracy (and I wish WHO would do likewise), the #Deaths values are de facto the most reflective (accurate) of what has happened in any given country at any point in time. Have a think about it ...

Martin, Ireland 86.40.64.114 (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The map is sortable so people can adjust to sort by deaths. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi again James,

Yes, the No. of Death's column is sortable - but No. of Cases column is also sortable and will be if the table is edited so that Cases is a Secondary column and Deaths is the primary column. If you cant see the scientific merit in what I am suggesting as in Cases values are nearly as good as useless (as they are apples and oranges) and that Deaths values, despite inadequacies too, are all we have really got, then I will just have to give up my persuading! Stay healthy, and thanks for your continuing efforts and input on Wikipedia.

Martin, Ireland. 86.40.64.114 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm just going to put in my 2 cents here before fading back into the aether. We have footnotes on some (if not most) COVID-19 article charts stating that they are only for reported confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries. It should always be assumed that there are more unreported cases and deaths out there; recoveries are generally reliable as it shows that countries are making progress. I don't think either total number of cases or deaths are wholly reliable, for example, with China's dubious numbers [6] [7]. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 04:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu, yes, totally agree that figures cant be accurate but there are wholesale omissions being made on Cases so that it is the most unreliable of the 3 data sets being reported. Recoveries is also not classified the same way in all countries from what I understand. Alas, we are not dealing with lab conditions and data is in scientific terms incomplete. We do have to take at 'face value' what each health authority is reporting, but we can make a scientific judgement call that if we think Deaths is the most accurate, then that should be our key focus to measure virus impact. My 2 cents too, and I am back off into the ether as well. :-)

Martin, Ireland. 86.40.64.114 (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure which is most reliable. You need to be both diagnosed and to be confirmed dead to be diagnosed as having died from this condition obviously. For cases you just need the one to have occurred. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me for chiming in uninvited, but I do concur with the notion that the numbers of deaths should be the default. The number of cases directly correlates to the number of people tested, and how they were selected for testing. Without speculating too much, I would assume a lot higher percentage of patients deceased have been tested than the general population which least to me would be a sign of better accuracy. Respectfully BP OMowe (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings from Swedish Wikipedia

We have a bit of a problem with the interwiki links. In Swedish, the term "smittskydd" refers to all prophylactic measures against infectious diseases described in the English articles Infection control and Public health, but is not limited to health care nor does it go beyond the scope of infections. Would you know of a corresponding term in English, or who to ask about this? Respectfully BP OMowe (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

User:BP OMowe I would go with Infection control as that also applies to areas outside of healthcare like restaurants etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, as well as correcting my other edit. As there are no internal vulvae, there of course is no need to point out that the picture showed the exterior. BP OMowe (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Hipal. We have multiple discussions ongoing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep. The editing of anything remotely contentious should have stopped a long time ago, and the focus should have switched to discussing the concerns. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything within medicine is exceedingly contentious. That is why I have been moving from not just providing references for every sentence but references and the exact quote form the source.

I actually think what you restored is better in this edit.[8]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

[9] --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay and? It is unclear why you are removing the fact that the medication is generic or its relative price? We already have a RfC ongoing about the issue at Talk:Simvastatin#Clarification_of_RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You're taking your edit-warring across articles, and asking that an open RfC for one article overrule policy and the closed RfC specifically about this topic?! I'm more stunned than when I first reached out to you in September [[10]]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We have an arbcom case open plus two RfC. The prior RfC was only the first of a few. And I do not think it says what you think it says.

WP:PRICES says "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." Obviously in this case their is both independent sources and justification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I already responded to that same statement from you. No response from you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

Why was my source removed when there are people Asymptomatic to the virus? This has been reported by CNN and others.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a good source.[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a better source and I added it instead User:Fruitloop11 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

ICD-11

Hello Doctor James! You might want to know that I've created ICD-11, {{ICD-11 MMS}}, and Chapter 1. I've also created an alternative version of {{ICD11}}, which you created, called {{ICD11 WP}}.

I've posted on WT:MED as well (link). Cheers! Manifestation (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Manifestation :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Link to Evidence stage

"A tool to silence unwanted pings"

Regarding a tool to silence unwanted pings, I […] fully support the development of such a tool, you don't need a separate tool; this functionality is already built into Mediawiki (albeit badly publicised). Just go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, scroll down to the "muted users" section at the bottom, and you'll no longer see thanks or mentions from anyone you add to the list, unless their edit was to your own usertalk page. (It's why we insist that formal notifications be delivered in writing to the user's talkpage and that pings don't count as notification; we have no way of knowing who has muted whom.) ‑ Iridescent 10:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Iridescent. I remember hearing about it being built but did not realize that this had been rolled out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

reverts

Im getting several reverts from [12] IP and [13]Yamalgo?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa People are allowed to remove others comments from their talk pages. It does verify that they have seen them.

With respect to this [14] because it is already in an Ebola subcategory, my understanding is that it does not need to go in the main category. But I am no expect in this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Relationship - coronary artery disease genetics section

Dear Doc James, I have no relationship with the cardiogramplusc4d.org consortium. I just expanded the heritability section and gave some numbers from the van dar Haarst paper which was already referenced (by you perhaps?). I thought my edit was not contentious. Batsman2 (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay I am not sure how linking to [15] nor the link to UK Biobank adds anything? The first link does not bring up anything about the study... We do not do this for other studies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. The reason of linking cardiogramplusc4d and UK Biobank was that if someone wants to know more about CAD genetics, these 2 sources are the best places to get some more information. The other point I wanted to make was on heritability status explained as of now. There is still some missing heritability which suggests some more discovery is yet to be made.

Batsman2 (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay and links to both of those are in the reference itself... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Mask

File:Glasgow. "Fear and Love".Graffiti by The Rebel Bear.DSC 1676..JPG

Glasgow. Fear and Love .Graffiti in the time of pandemic COVID-19.

Hi. Maybe not this section, it's not only about the masks, but it's a valuable image of coronavirus in art,street art a human reaction to hard times. Daniel Naczk. --Daniel Naczk (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Does not belong in that section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them.) WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
2. Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
3. For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
4. For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seven Pandas (talk • contribs)

You will notice I added a source to WHO. Plus started a discussion on the talk page. Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#First_identified Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Please suggest me

https://www.republicworld.com/lifestyle/books/end-of-days-predictions-and-prophecies-predicted-spread-of-covid-19.html

What the author said in the above page IN 2008, which was really happened in 2010 and 2020 , the author mentioned exact years and diseases. First paragraph and second paragraph both are really mysterious things in the world.

The first paragraph says about "Flush eating disease and 2nd paragraph says about Corona virus" . https://apic.org/monthly_alerts/get-the-facts-about-necrotizing-fasciitis-the-flesh-eating-disease/

https://www.indiatoday.in/trending-news/story/this-book-predicted-2020-coronavirus-outbreak-12-years-ago-trending-now-1652433-2020-03-04

If you accept please try to enter in to our Wikipedia Corona virus page .

Its a mystery at my opinion, i need your suggession.

(Yshari (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

A severe pneumonia like illness spreads around the globe ever year (seasonal influenza). This is like predicting winter is going to occur again this year. Mystery solved! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply , how she expected "Flush eating disease" will be in 2010 ? , it was happened in 2010 in USA , i am very much curiosity about this , i am working as emergency physician , I need your suggestion as an expert https://apic.org/monthly_alerts/get-the-facts-about-necrotizing-fasciitis-the-flesh-eating-disease/(Yshari (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

Flesh eating disease occurs every year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanq for your bright reply ,

Sorry for interception ,again i studied more

"In around 2020 a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the globe, attacking the lungs and bronchial tubes resisting all known treatments,"

Influenza (flu) Symptoms :

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/index.html

Really Influenza attack lungs and bronchial tubes ?

Really Influenza resisting all known treatment?

Really Influenza causing a severe pneumonia-like illness?

(Yshari (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)) (Yshari (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

The discussion is very interesting

In 2008 The author said in her book : 1st paragraph

1. A bacterial infection resembling the flesh eating disease of several years ago will arrive in 2010 transmitted to Humans”

https://www.cdc.gov/groupastrep/diseases-public/necrotizing-fasciitis.html

CDC report :

CDC tracks necrotizing fasciitis caused by group A strep with a special system called Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs).Since 2010, approximately 700 to 1200 cases occur each year in the United States. This is likely an underestimate. According to ABCs data, the number of annual group A strep necrotizing fasciitis infections reported to ABCs does not appear to be rising. The word Since 2010 is important in this discussion , the author in her book mentioned about this year 2010 , approximately 700 to 1200 cases occur each year in the United States.

In 2008 ,The author said in her book : 2nd paragraph :

1. In around 2020 a severe pneumonia-like illness will spread throughout the globe, attacking the lungs and bronchial tubes resisting all known treatments

No doubt in this , the author said about "Covid-19" spread throughout the globe in 2020 ,attacking the lungs and bronchial tubes resisting all known

treatments, exactly the author said about "Covid-19" in her book in 2008

 https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/clinical-management-of-novel-cov.pdf

(Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC))

More Million Awards

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Psoriasis (estimated annual readership: 1,800,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

	The Half Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Acne (estimated annual readership: 520,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

While checking these for TylerDurden8823, I found that you were a major contributor who assisted and felt that you were deserving to receive these as well. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:TylerDurden8823 by far did the majority of the work... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about health section in geographic articles

Firstly, CONGRATULATIONS!! Those million awards are impressive to say the least.

Secondly - what is WP's position on including/maintaining a health section in geographic articles about cities, metropolitan areas, and other types of places (world-wide)? See Sargodha#Health which is simply a list of hospitals. I'm concerned that our articles will become more of what we're trying to avoid per WP:NOT. I was also wondering if such a section would fall more in a political category than a health-related category. Thanks in advance! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Atsme I think including such details are perfectly reasonable. More notable than the sports teams within a town IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)