Wikipedia

User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 37

< User talk:Jfdwolff
Latest comment: 5 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 30 August 2018

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

2.147.231.28 (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

From Mansour

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I guess it iworks. just like me, with this secondary progressive Multiple Sclerosis, just Ido acupuncture and have good and healthy foods and praying. Concentration is important too. Mansour jourabchian Esfahani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjesfahani (talk • contribs) 06:42, 29 June 2015‎

@Mjesfahani: Not sure what discussion you are referring to. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Our body has reconstruction system but it takes long! I'm patient. there no cure in immune suppressant. talk with a good doctor because i'm not. MansourJE (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mjesfahani: In some situations the repair systems don't work. JFW | T@lk 11:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

hello, that is an idea. in my idea in all humans it is the same. manzsour j. esfahani MansourJE (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Peer review invitation

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Jacob.

I'm editor-in-chief of a project in Wikiversity under development called Wikiversity Journal of Medicine (more information at Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/About).

I'd like to invite you to perform a peer review of a work that was submitted by James Heilman: Wikiversity:Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. This is essentially a shortened version of the corresponding Wikipedia article, in own words.

The peer review is preferably written in the corresponding talk page, and should include a declaration of any conflicts of interests. In this case I understand that it could include that you've been working together with James on other Wikimedia projects. Comments should be constructive, include both strengths and areas for improvement, and be referenced whenever possible. Otherwise, the journal has no strict rules regarding the structure and length of a peer review. Still, more guidelines for peer reviewers can be found at: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Peer reviewers.

Best regards,

Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Mikael Häggström I'm not sure if I can offer expert review on the subject you suggested. JFW | T@lk 14:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure your review would do good, but I will now seek other potential peer reviewers. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Mikael Häggström Okay, I might be able to have a look but I am not entirely sure about the format. It looks like a shortened Wikipedia article, but shouldn't it be a bit like a review article? Or is it deliberately written as a "vignette" or paragraph in a textbook? JFW | T@lk 18:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I've started a description at Wikiversity:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Publishing#Short vignettes, but the truth is that this form of publication is experimental in itself. The creation of summaries follows similar ideas as described for the Essentialpedia and Minipedia proposals. However, I don't deny that publication of such shorts also provides a faster way to reach the amount of 40 articles that are needed to get the journal included in PubMed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yet, that latter part is a minor factor. The main purpose is to encourage the creation of summaries which can be used in introduction sections, such as this one in Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do you have access

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

To this [1]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: Yes, there is free access (perhaps not outside Europe). Will email you a copy. JFW | T@lk 18:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Found another review that supports the lactate usage that I have added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guillain–Barré syndrome

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guillain–Barré syndrome you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doc James -- Doc James (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Another excellent article. Passed as a GA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: Smashing, thanks very much! JFW | T@lk 19:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guillain–Barré syndrome

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Guillain–Barré syndrome you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Guillain–Barré syndrome for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doc James -- Doc James (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Question about your removal on the Obesity Page

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Jfdwolff: Admittedly, I'm a relatively new editor to WP, and I'm trying to learn the many protocols of proper editing. Based on your feedback, I read WP:MEDRS. I'm still a little confused though, because I interpret this to mean that we shouldn't include the primary source, which I don't believe happened, but we can and should include peer-reviewed scientific literature. In this case, that was the American Journal of Public Health. Also, I also included two secondary sources as backup - MedPageTodaym and CBS News. Do these need to be significantly different? Would you mind taking a minute to explain what I'm missing - I don't want to repeat the mistake if I indeed did made one. I appreciate your insight! Some of everything (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Some of everything Thanks for your message. Generally by "secondary source" we mean an academic secondary source rather than popular news media. In most cases, primary sources will eventually be cited and evaluated in review articles or textbooks. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Jfdwolff Many thanks for taking a moment to reply to my question. Just so I'm clear about proper sourcing in the future: Isn't this article in the American Journal of Public Health considered a "review article"? It is peer reviewed, which leads to my confusion here. That seems to be a sufficient source as I look at other entries within the Obesity page. I consider it to be the secondary source, but perhaps you see it as the primary source. What am I missing for this research to be incorporated? Or is the problem simply that CBS News was included at all. I genuinely appreciate your feedback. Some of everything (talk) 17:45, 21 2015 (UTC)
Some of everything Within medical journals there are research studies (such as the one in Am J Publ Health doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302773) but also articles that review this research within a broader context. The AJPH article is a good example of a research study, but a review would look at this as well as other studies and consider its impact, methodology and whether it is generalisable to other populations (for instance). For Wikipedia we have agreed that secondary sources are preferred for the writing of encyclopedia content; after all, many primary studies have flaws that make their conclusions unsafe, and many studies are not in fact reproduced when repeated. Please have a closer look at WP:MEDRS, which covers the difference between the two kinds of publications. JFW | T@lk 13:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Jfdwolff Thank you for taking the time to explain this one. Your explanation has been very helpful. Cheers, Some of everything (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of everything My pleasure. JFW | T@lk 20:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 July

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Question

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User:Jfdwolff, shalom. There is currently a dispute between me and another co-editor on the Bayt Nattif talk-page (see: Unbalanced, 1948 section), about article page content, and my personal view is that that one co-editor (my disputant) is engaged in a smear campaign against the IDF, and refuses to give due balance to that article, from a historical point-of-view (infringement of WP:POV). My question to you is should I seek a resolution to our content dispute through WP:Dispute resolution, or can it be resolved without going that far, say, through an administrator? Looking for any advice.Davidbena (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Davidbena: That will only work if the other party accepts the mediatory role of the administrator. I doubt it will achieve much. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks anyway. We'll just wait and see how everything works out.Davidbena (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Coeliac disease

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Thank very much for your offer, Jfdwolff! It is a great pleasure to have your help and nice collaboration!

I'm sure that you are not a Bear Of Very Little Brain! :)

My first question is this: all changes must be reviewed first in the talk page or can I edit directly? I have over three years working in the Spanish Wikipedia, but I do not know the correct procedures here.

Best regards.--BallenaBlanca (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello BallenaBlanca. I think major changes might need to be discussed on the talk page. But if you have good subject knowledge I'd probably just leave a brief message about your plans on the talk page and just start off changing what you think needs to be improved.
Many thanks for helping out! JFW | T@lk 23:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea!
We can work together, if you agree. I can prepare texts and show them to you, before editing.
There is another page that needs a revision: Gluten-related disorders Especially, it is necessary to revise the structure of the page, it seems that the concepts are mixed and confusing. I have already done some edits.
It seems that this page was created with the purpose of talk about CD and SGNC only, but then it was expanded. Thus, some sections (like symptoms, etiology...) are not adjusted, because they not correspond to all gluten-related disorders.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
BallenaBlanca Around the time when the CD article became FA, another editor wrote lots of immunology content into other articles. It is still a hugely controversial area where some vociferously dispute the non-classical gluten-related conditions such as ataxia, whereas others accept these entities. JFW | T@lk 14:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know that there is a dispute in cientific community about the gluten-related symptoms/disorders. The scientific literature is growing and providing more and more evidence in favor of these entities. But our mission in Wikipedia is to write from a "neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Thus, if we reflect the controversy, I think there is no problem. It is necessary to give the reader all the positions so that he can make his own decisions.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
BallenaBlanca I agree. The extended gluten sensitivity conditions have extensive secondary sources in their support. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Very thanks, Jdwolff. Maybe you like to comment on this talk. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Technical problem

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Jfdwolff.

I have a technical problem. I do not receive notice of conflicting editions, if I'm editing and someone makes an intermediate editing. Do you know how I could fix it?

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca Normally the Wiki notices that someone has saved an edit after you started editing, and warns you about this. It's not completely foolproof. I have no idea how to make it work better. JFW | T@lk 19:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Very thanks, Jfdwolff. It has a random behavior: sometimes warn me, sometimes not. Also it occurs with alerts: sometimes I receive them, sometimes not. A mystery...
My concern is that there may be misunderstandings with other users, I can offend them unintentionally.  :(
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CGD

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Interested in your thoughts regarding including a reference to the Immune Deficiency Foundation, which is the largest organization in the the U.S. that represents CGD. It publishes many books on CGD, holds the largest events and meetings for the CGD community, and works with the leading scientists at the NIH to publish information regarding CGD, such as: https://primaryimmune.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ClinicalFocus_2013.pdf Also, IDF is listed here, as a reference in this NIH online publication http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99496/
Also, would like to discuss your thoughts regarding the following studies and references be considered regarding prognosis: Recent experience from centers specializing in the care of patients with CGD suggests that the current mortality has fallen to under 3% and 1% respectively. Source: Modern Management of Chronic Granulomatous Disease by Reinhard Segar, Division of Immunology/Hematology, University Children’s Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switerland
CGD was initially termed "fatal granulomatous disease of childhood" because patients rarely survived past their first decade in the time before routine use of prophylactic antimicrobial agents. The average patient now survives at least 40 years. Source: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/chronic-granulomatous-disease-treatment-and-prognosis
Look forward to your feedback. Thanks Elliedee (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I recommend posting on Talk:Chronic granulomatous disease? I'm not around very often, and the discussion page in question is also seen by other editors who might wish to state their views. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 20:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Haredi Judaism move attempt

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! Someone is trying to rename "Haredi Judaism" into "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism". I strongly oppose this. Hoping for your urgent involvement as well. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ArbCom elections are now open!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

About this edit [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Doc James Thanks for flagging that up. I had intended to remove the link to Heineken but you beat me to it! Instead it wiped out a template. Fixed now. JFW | T@lk 11:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

PR plz?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, long time no talk, how have you been? I was thinking of submitting Sexuality after spinal cord injury for an eventual FAC and I started a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1. I wondered if you have time if you would want to give it a look and let me know if you have any suggestions. No hurry or anything. Anyway, good to see you're still around, hope you've been doing well! Peacee, delldot ∇. 04:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

delldot Whoa, it's been ages indeed. Have left some comments on the peer review page. Let me know if you wish me to look at anything else; also let me know when it's gone for FAC. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks so much! delldot ∇. 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Barnstar of Diligence
Well done for consistent, dedicated contributions to Wiki medicine and others Cosmic-antidust (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Cosmic-antidust Thanks a lot! JFW | T@lk 13:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Help with WP:MEDRS

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Sir, couldn't You help me to learn some matters about WP:MEDRS policy of English Wikipedia? We have a lot of debate in Russian Wikipedia concerning possible policy about biologically active substances, and I try to make a case study of English Wikipedia WP:MEDRS policy. Specifically I want to learn:

  • Why English Wikipedia decided to care about possible harm to people, when there are WP:DISC, WP:RISK etc? In particular, was the policy proposed because of purely moral concerns or it reflects some legislatory restrictions (like WP:BLP)?
  • Did anybody oppose such a policy because of fear, that basic principles of wikipedian freedom (especially WP:CENSORED) could be compromised?
  • Did anybody claim that any proposal intented to prevent harm to public violates WP:DISC and therefore is completely illegal in Wikipedia?

Thank You! Эйхер (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Эйхер and thanks for getting in touch. I don't think MEDRS was created with specific concerns about potential harm or legal challenge. It was started as a separate page in 2006[3] to support editors writing medical articles. With the enormous amount of biomedical information out there, which is often not reproducible, the Medical WikiProject has long felt that only authoritative sources should be used for biomedical information. As you can see in the original version, it tries to avoid WP:RECENTISM in favour of more reliable sourcing. JFW | T@lk 15:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Need a Dutch-speaking admin

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi fellow admin. You and Ruud Koot are the only administrators I can find who also know Dutch. I'm writing to you because you seem to be online a bit more frequently.

I was hoping you might help to resolve an issue over at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported. If you have a moment, would you please read the conversation under the entry for the username "Poepkop"? It's a conversation between two users who claim to be Dutch. Poepkop has been on Wikipedia for 2 years and seems like a constructive editor, who claims that his username is not profane or disruptive. The other editor is an IP user who insists that it is a violation of Wikipedia:Username policy, and should be treated the same way as we treat usernames that contain the German word "Sheiß" (block the user or have the user rename the account).

Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Amatulic:. That name is as profane to a Dutch-speaking person as "Shithead" would be to an English speaker. I'd say it's unprofessional enough to warrant a forced renaming. —Ruud 23:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ruud Koot:. Thanks Ruud. Would you be willing to chime in on WP:UAA? In this case a Dutch-speaking admin would likely carry more weight than an English-only one like me. One of the counter-arguments is that, because this is the English Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter if a username has an "unfortunate" meaning in some other language, but in this case it seems deliberate, even if the offending name belongs to an otherwise good editor. Difficult problem.... If this was a new account or a troublemaker, I'd have no problem with blocking, but in this case I don't want to chase off someone who wants to work on Wikipedia. Maybe he'd be willing to change the username in deference to the numerous Dutch editors here? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Amatulic and Ruud Koot. Sorry it's taken me a while to respond. It looks like the UAA got archived, but I would encourage Poepkop to use a different username. JFW | T@lk 10:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Poussin) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
  Merry Christmas, Jfdwolff!
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC) 		 

Thank you very much for all your help and your kindness. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ketogenesis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • citation needed|date=December 2015}} It can also take place when there is insufficient [[insulin]] (e.g. in [[diabetes mellitus|diabetes]], particularly during periods of "ketogenic stress" such as

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BracketBot, have fixed. JFW | T@lk 16:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
 

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. Disappointed to hear about the WMF business. Chat soon. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ischemia/Osmosis review video

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Osmosis hi we need your input on the ischemia video/text at the link, any help is appreciated, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Protection of tractate

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Jfdwolff. You have new messages at Talk:Tractate#Protected.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Will respond there. JFW | T@lk 13:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, you had asked me to let you know when Sexuality after spinal cord injury is at FAC. Well ta daah! Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1. It's undergone substantial work since you reviewed it, I've restructured it and added a Society and culture section, so I hope you like it! Peace, delldot ∇. 23:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Book

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, Jfdwolff! I notice you've removed a book from 1971 from electrolyte article by saying it's rather old. I think it is a reference book in the field with a reference author and it should stay in the article. What extraordinary progress in the field could have happened in the past 45 years that would make the removed book undesirable? I also see that other articles have rather old books mentioned in Further reading, such as steam turbine. Should they also be removed or not?--188.26.21.197 (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello 188.26.21.197 - I am not a physical chemist so I cannot say with authority whether the book from 1971 is definitely outdated, but surely a book listed for "further reading" should be fairly recent. There are plenty of reasons why a book from 1971 might be outdated; the underlying theory won't have changed much but the practical applications will have changed beyond recognition. In my own field, it is now possible to determine electrolyte concentrations of body fluids in about 90 seconds; that cannot have been the case in 1971. You may be correct that this is not a rapidly moving field - when I search Amazon I am directed to a 2003 book that is actually just a revised version of a book from 1970 (ISBN 0486422259).
The page Wikipedia:Further reading (it's an essay, not a guideline or policy) suggests that it is certainly possible to list an important historical source in "further reading", but it should be clarified in a brief explanation that this is the case. Otherwise, I would suggest a more recent textbook. JFW | T@lk 09:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that physiological applications of electrolyte concentrations measurements have progressed due to developments in analytical technique. Where should the brief explanation of importance should be placed? In the edit description or on the talk page of the article?--188.26.20.9 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Further reading the importance of the book should be on the article page next to the reference. A reader might be surprise to find a 45-year old reference work in "Further reading" but that surprise won't be the case if it says "classical reference work" or something along those lines. JFW | T@lk 08:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Pulse oximetry

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I want to ask you, what can you say about advancement in pulse oximetry measurements since 1970-ties comparatively to electrolytes physiological measurements? Is the progress of a similar order of magnitude?--188.26.18.72 (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0984-8 is a good source to look at - it reviews the progress over the last 10 years. JFW | T@lk 08:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Pneumatic stabilisation in flail chest - mechanical ventilation

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Good point. But, there is (relative) harmonisation of chest wall excursion (flail segment moves in tandem with the rest) when controlled ppv is instituted. Perhaps, the previous author was eluding to this? --Balaji.md au (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Addendum: I started and am editing a wikibook on Intensive Care Medicine Intensive Care Medicine and hence came across your comment. Cheers --Balaji.md au (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Balaji.md au Thanks! I hadn't heard about the concept of pneumatic stabilisation but I can't imagine that intermittent positive pressure is going to provide the kind of stabilisation that one might be looking for! JFW | T@lk 13:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I also think that the term is likely an inaccurate description. I had come across the term being used in clinical parlance, akin to the usage of 'splinting' with PEEP. Intensive Care certainly needs a big clean up of abbreviations, acronyms, similes and definitions!Balaji.md au (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Electrolytes and solubility

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, Jfdwolff! I open here a new section about electrolytes influence on solubility like salting in and salting out. Have you encountered them in physiological measurements practice? What is their importance in a clinical setting?--188.26.16.125 (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question! I have little laboratory experience but I suspect it might be relevant at that end. I am not aware of specific clinical settings where salting in & out might be relevant, but that is not to say that there is no such thing. JFW | T@lk 11:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
One possible example of a clinical setting occurrence of electrolyte solubility effects (at least implicitly) is given by oral rehydration therapy mixtures of salts and sugars.--188.26.16.19 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reference errors on 8 February

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 24 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
please help translate this message into the local language
  The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Review of Lung

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Jfdwolff, I hope that you're well! From my understanding you've reviewed a fair few GAs in your time. We recently managed to get Lung promoted to Good article status. Unfortunately the reviewer does not seem to have paid any attention to the content of the article, only as to whether the references were present and correctly formatted, and one or two other guideline-based issues.

If you have time, I was wondering if you'd be able to swing by and double-check the factual integrity of the article (including the clinical significance section). These articles get substantially edited and occasionally our intended meaning is lost or changed, and it'd be very useful to have someone double-check it is indeed worthy :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Coeliac disease review

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Jfdwolf.

I continue this conversation [4], to review and update coeliac disease page.

To begin with, I propose to modify the introduction with this text, which reflects the more important and updated general issues: Coeliac disease. Introduction.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca Please make sure that there is a link to this version on Talk:Coeliac disease so other editors can comment. JFW | T@lk 17:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much. I'll do it. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Here is a cupcake to thank you for taking the time to review Sexuality after spinal cord injury and help it get to featured status! delldot ∇. 16:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Congrats delldot! JFW | T@lk 23:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed lung

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Jfdwolff. You recently made a change at Collapsed lung which indicates you prefer this page to be a disambiguation. Please take a look at the 2014 move discussion at Talk:Collapsed lung (disambiguation) where editors concluded that Pneumothorax was the primary topic of Collapsed lung. If you think this is no longer correct, and given that the article has gone back and forth over the years, wouldn't it be best to have a new move discussion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WiR at the Wellcome - Project Page!

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Jacob, I'm Alice, the new WiR at the Wellcome - Phoebe introduced us via email a little while ago. Things are now up-and-running a little more, and there's a project page here. I'll keep you posted on any upcoming events, it would be wonderful if you could possibly be involved with some editathons or give a talk at an event. Thanks again for your interest and support for the residency! Zeromonk (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zeromonk, thanks for getting in touch and congratulations on the WiR appointment. Happy to get involved, depending (as always) on my timetable. Feel free to email me anytime. JFW | T@lk 23:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

CFD RENAMING Required from "BC" to "BCE"

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
See: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 21#Category:Category:11th-century BC Hebrew people
Nominator's rationale: I started this one, but the entire series from "10th-century..." and onwards, see examples: Category:10th-century BC Judaism etc, etc, etc, need to be changed from "BC" to BCE" since this is about Judaism that does not believe in Jesus hence the choice of "BC" needs to read as "BCE" as per the article Common Era. IZAK (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Med Foundation

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does this WikProject Foundation award grants to support initiatives to improve the medical content on Wikipedias? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Barbara (WVS), at the moment the Foundation is not a capacity to give grants. The current scope of the Foundation can be found here meta:Wiki Project Med. JFW | T@lk 16:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Thank you for reverting the revert you did while thanking me! Dubbinu | t | c 16:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Dubbin Yes I clearly need my cerebellum looked at. Bad case of past-pointing. JFW | T@lk 16:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reach wikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

DiptanshuTalk 14:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Essay

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi again! How do you think about the essay WP:Why MEDRS drafted by wikifellow User Jytdog? Your feedback as medical practitioner is very useful.--82.137.15.21 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is very well written and I am in agreement with the contents. JFW | T@lk 08:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

 

Hello, Jfdwolff. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Source on electrolytes - Structure of electrolytic Solutions - 1959

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Hi, Jfdwolff! I have seen your edits from early January this year at Electrolyte wikipage involving a rather old source. I want to ask you if you can access the presumably offline text of the 1959 source mentioned in the title of this section edited by W. J. Hamer, especially the page 97 and its surroundings, chapter authored by E. Glueckauf, regarding the derivation info concerning the formula mentioned on activity coefficient#Concentrated solutions of electrolytes. Thanks.--82.137.11.224 (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure which source you are referring to. I didn't insert it and I have no access to it. JFW | T@lk 15:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There are at least two sources involved: one by Hans Falkenhagen that you have objected to in January and other that I'm interest in accessing it by Hamer and Glueckauf. Can you access the second one? If the second you cannot access, how about a third source such as, also by Glueckauf Transactions of the Faraday Society.--82.137.14.105 (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think any source older than 10 years is going to be of limited value to a scientific article, unless it is used to illustrate historical content. JFW | T@lk 11:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your view about a limited value to a scientific article where the source is cited for a formula or equation which does not expire!? Or does a mathematical equation indeed expire (in your perspective?) If I want to add in that article more details about the derivation of that formula, aren't the 1955 or 1959 mentioned sources by Glueckauf no longer useful to this purpose of providing background to a scientific equation?--82.137.8.5 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course, for new derivations/developments of new equations based on previously proved ones more recent sources could be used, but firstly must be spotted and accessed in order to used or inserted in articles. An equation derived earlier can be used in new developments if one sees the proof steps contained in older sources, proof steps that still hold no matter how old are the sources that mention them.--82.137.8.5 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I've noticed the Falkenhagen 1971 book's presence in Conductivity_(electrolytic)#Further_reading for quite a while.--82.137.8.5 (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
For instance, how do you view the status of the following research article from J. of Phys Chem, has its content, mathematical in nature, expired or not?--82.137.8.5 (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I am not a physical chemist so I am not necessarily the best arbiter. In medicine we are continually discovering that previously held views (or even entire equations) need revising in view of new evidence. It may well be that the field of physical chemistry hasn't undergone the same kind of change, but I doubt it. To be sure about it, it is better to use a recent secondary source (see WP:PSTS) rather than guessing whether a certain concept is still current.
This is where I'm going to leave it. Apologies for being unable to help any further in this matter. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Apologies except. I've just noticed during this day a very interesting wikiessay on User:Jytdog#Essays that underlines the contrast between physico-chemical knowledge which is rather easy to handle conceptually and close to mathematical style and complex biological systems representations especially human physiology where is harder to make valid inferences due to incomplete info about metabolic networks and other aspects which limit the application of biological (biochemical-biophysical) knowledge to medical diagnosis issues.
Of course in medicine, as someone pointed out about the sayings of ancient Menodotus, there is a type of supreme and categorical convictions which needs to be avoided in order to keep the intellectual honesty. On there other hand I see there are wikiarticles like physiome and mathematical physiology. It has been a nice conversation, perhaps we can continue it in some other context like, say, one linked to evidence-based medicine.--82.137.10.216 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that dogmatism is unhelpful in medical practice. I am not sure what it has to do with our discussion about possible outdated sources. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It can be said that dogmatism is contrasting with the continual discovery that previously held views (or even entire equations) need revising in view of new (empirical) evidence. Among these extremes of total dogmatism and total belief revision (which assumes that every ten years or so knowledge reset/restart from zero occurs), there is certain knowledge that is never subjected to change, no matter how much further new empirical discoveries and theoretical developments appear. For instance geometric theorems like Pythagorean theorem are never obsolete. In this context I'm very surprised by your statement that entire equation need revising! Can you mention a specific example of an equation (related to medicine) which needed revising? Or perhaps some misunderstanding sneaked in here in the sens that the need of revising is not the same/identical with no longer valid? Revising can also consist in extending to a more general case, isn't it?--82.137.13.73 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not hugely interested in a debate about epistemology. The general premise is that it is POSSIBLE that an equation may have been revised on the basis of new experimental data. This is why recent sources are mandatory, and this is not the place for an exception. JFW | T@lk 14:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course the epistemological aspect is just tangential. The usefulness of recent sources consist mainly in highlighting possible recent developments in research, at least in some fields of scientific investigation which are more inclined towards the theoretical aspect like math/proof-based sciences such as theoretical physics and chemistry. Older and more simple equations can be treated as special cases and approximations to more recent developments. Or perhaps older developed equations can be incorporated in new developments as proof steps in proof sequences leading to the new development. The ratio of theoretical vs experimental also counts in the necessity of using more recent sources. I think that the necessity of more recent sources is less mandatory in fields with slower development of novelties such as the field of my interest from which this discussion has started. Of course there is another rather pragmatic aspect, the access to (newer) sources by those who want to add content in wikiarticles. I notice that in this particular case the access even to an older source is rather problematic.--82.137.14.16 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Was this spam

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

You reverted the addition of an external link on the Moses Sofer article with the edit summary "rm ref spam". The fact is that the editor added this material to only three articles, and the title of the link includes the name of the Chatam Sofer (who is the same as Moses Sofer). I think this link was possibly relevant, and surely not spam. Perhaps you could consider this again? Debresser (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Debresser Classic example of someone adding different works by the same author to multiple articles to attract attention to them. That is no different from spam. It happens frequently in medical articles. JFW | T@lk 13:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but if the work is relevant, and just a few links on well-chosen articles, then perhaps that is a valuable contribution. If it is, then it is not spam and we shouldn't mind that it attracts attention to somebody's work. Again, I am not saying it wasn't spam, but the test should be objective. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Debresser Adding links to articles to "External links" is almost always spam. The added value to encyclopedia content is almost non-existent. I think the editor who added the links is probably the author of all three papers added to the Chasam Soufer, Yaavetz and Noda Biyehudo articles. In a perfect world we would make a huge effort to turn subject experts into fully fledged Wikipedia editors who actually contribute content rather than dropping references to their own work into articles. I have never succeeded at doing this either in medical articles or in other areas.
You are entirely in your right to reach out to הלומד מכל אדם and see if you can develop him as a Wikipedian. JFW | T@lk 10:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You too are Dutch?!? Debresser (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hypo and hyper-

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sure that as an expert you don't need to be told the difference between these two extremely confusing prefixes but Wikipedia is designed for ordinary people and is NOT a medical textbook. Your comment that it would need to be applied to all such articles is no argument at all. Maybe it should be. It is quite easy for a non-medical person to not even notice that they've got the wrong prefix and in something like thyroidism they could come away with entirely the wrong message. Chris55 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chris55: It is widely accepted that there is a lot of confusion over "hypo-" and "hyper-" and this even extends to normal conversation because they sound very similar when pronounced in a normal fashion. That does not mean we need hatnotes on all these articles. You are free to form consensus (e.g. on WT:MED) to the contrary. I do not need to be reminded that Wikipedia isn't a medical textbook. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I would have thought that the fact that they are regularly confused is good a priori grounds for providing a hatnote. Wikipedia style is to be bold in editing not to wait to form a consensus on every edit. Can you show me that there is a consensus not to provide headnotes? Chris55 (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I oppose. Covering the tops of articles with all sorts of terms that are similarly spelled or pronounced is not what we should be doing IMO. The article should begin with what the article is about. What the article is not about can go latter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, you're the experts so I guess I'll let you get on with it. Chris55 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Jfdwolff.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, Jfdwolff. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, Jfdwolff. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
 Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Thanks John, happy holidays to you! JFW | T@lk 13:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

...for your thank you concerning some protracted discussion about some five words or so on a talk page somewhere. I noticed on your user page that you like to write about Judaism. I am a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar with the University of Pittsburgh and work to insert content from the University's archives into Wikipedia in the appropriate articles and other places. I have come across hours and hours of interviews and oral histories of some of the Jewish community members that lived in Pittsburgh. Some of the interviews are with older people who remember some of the most important events in history and have emigrated to Pittsburgh. They describe their encounters with famous persons such as Openheimer and other such famous people in history. If you have any interest in these oral histories let me know, but I will have to warn you, there are weeks and weeks of audio to listen to. The list of interviews are sorted by subject, so that helps a little, too. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Margo McCaffery

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article Margo McCaffery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability issue. One footnote, which is not a source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Darthbunk Pakt Dunft (message) 23:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"420" collaboration

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, not sure if you'd be interested in contributing personally or not, but some WikiProject Cannabis members are organizing a 420 collaboration in April. I know some people hear 'cannabis' and immediately envision lazy stoners, but I'd like to get as much community buy-in for this collaboration as possible so we can improve many Wikipedia articles. My hope is that you and Wiki Project Med will support our efforts, especially by improving articles related to medical marijuana and health. I'll be pinging other Wiki Project Med board members and participants for help, too, but just wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer review of case study

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Jacob,

Are you able to perform a peer review of a new submission to WikiJournal of Medicine, titled Acute gastrointestinal bleeding from a chronic cause: a teaching case report. This is an interactive case report, and if we can assure a good quality then it will be of great use to both students and practicing doctors.

The peer review is preferably written in the corresponding talk page, and should include a declaration of any conflicts of interests. In this case I understand that it could include that you've been working together with dr Laurent in previous scholarly work. Comments should be constructive, include both strengths and areas for improvement, and be referenced whenever possible. Otherwise, the journal has no strict rules regarding the structure and length of a peer review. Still, more guidelines for peer reviewers can be found at: Wikiversity Journal of Medicine/Peer reviewers.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Alteplase

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi... I suggest creating Alteplase article instead of the redirect to Tissue plasminogen activator... What's your opinion?

--محمود (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mahmoudalrawi: We have pages for reteplase and tenecteplase so I would be supportive of having a page for alteplase. JFW | T@lk 00:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
  Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Minimal change disease

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Your recently posted DOI link is dead.--Quisqualis (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Thanks. Not uncommon unfortunately. I've reported it through CrossRef and posted an URL in the meantime. 15:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

  Administrator changes

  Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
  Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

  Administrator changes

  TheDJ
  Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

  Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
  Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
  The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

  Administrator changes

  Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
  ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

  Administrator changes

  Happyme22 • Dragons flight
  Zad68

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The NCEPOD website says: Under the National Clinical Audit and Patient Outcome Programme (NCAPOP) participation in the Clinical Outcome Review Programme into Medical and Surgical Care, and Child Health Review is mandated. The GMC states that clinicians should take part: Good Medical Practice states "You must work with colleagues and patients to maintain and improve the quality of your work and promote patient safety". In particular Item (g) states "...contribute to confidential enquiries and adverse event recognition and reporting, to help reduce risk to patients". (Para 14 Good Medical Practice 2006). Additional guidance from the GMC on confidentiality also states that "There are circumstances in which you should disclose relevant information about a patient who has died" Item (c) states that this should be disclosed "for National Confidential Enquiries or for local clinical audit". The DH documents cover NHS Trusts and the GMC document covers clinicians working in both the NHS and the Independent sector.

NB you clearly know a lot more about oxygen therapy than I do - or the writer of the Guardian article. I read that article and it wasn't very clear to me where NIV fitted in. Rathfelder (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Thanks for the clarification on the GMC duties. NCEPOD is not the only confidential enquiry but certainly the best known. Perhaps we could add this as a reference.
The Guardian article is very poorly written and I have flagged this with the journalist on Twitter but no response has been forthcoming. NIV is much more specialised treatment than oxygen therapy. It uses masks that are much more tightly fitting because air is pushed into the lungs with each breath. I have started the non-invasive ventilation article because it was not being done justice in the previous merged content in mechanical ventilation. JFW | T@lk 11:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
  Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Biographical info on Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed you added biographical info on Rabbi Yehoshua Neuwirth, but something does not seem to be correct. As far as I know, after Kristallnacht in 1938, the family managed to emigrate to Shanghai and not Netherlands.— Ineuw talk 07:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ineuw: My source was the Hamodia obituary. I have heard reports that he spoke some Dutch after his time in Amsterdam, and I have never heard about him living in Shanghai for any period of time. JFW | T@lk 15:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. My source is no longer alive, but this can be accurately verified by/with his brother Rabbi Yossi Neuwirth who may still be alive in Bnei Beraq. They also had a sister whose name I don't know. As well, I very much doubt that religious observant Jews survived in the Netherlands during the Nazi occupation. In any case, it would be interesting to know the actual events. — Ineuw talk 18:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Please remember that word of mouth is effectively original research. You are very much mistaken about religious Jews surviving the second world war in The Netherlands. Rav Neuwirth and his family were "ondergedoken" (hidden) as were numerous others who eventually survived the War - see History of the Jews in the Netherlands#The Holocaust for some detail. JFW | T@lk 20:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Again thanks, and because it is word of mouth I didn't edit the article. However, I very much doubt that his cousin would make up the story. I am also aware that people have various reasons to cover up the past.— Ineuw talk 21:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Nakon • Scott
  Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

  Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
  Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
  Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Palliative medicine has been nominated for discussion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Category:Palliative medicine, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Port (medical)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Jfdwolff,
up to now, I was unable to find casuality reports. AVS (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, Jfdwolff. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Joe Roe
  JzG
  Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry X-mas

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Jfdwolff, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Heading

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Jacob, I devoted about 4 hours of precious time this morning to improving the top section of the Atherosclerosis page. Because of many demands and limitations on my time, strained ability to earn a living and lack of sufficient understanding on how to edit and organize the wiki pages with greater fidelity to the wikipedia intent, I am very confident that you will have many criticisms (as usual) and could offer improvements in organization. Go ahead.

I figured out, while in cardiology fellowship, 1985-1987, that the conventional view (assumptions) about how arterial disease progresses (based on intermittent angiography from the late 1950s on and autopsy pathology data yet without actual reliable data of progression, over time) was inherently incorrect. Why, How? Because, even though I knew the disease was within the arterial walls, one could rarely recognize its presence via lumenograms, i.e. angiography. Yet, very occasionally, one can see reality, via X-Ray still or motion images, CT or angiography, and see that the lumen appears normal compared to adjacent areas, yet (especially if seeing the vessel on end), once can visualize a ring of calcification (at the outer edges of advanced plaques), then a radiolucent region (newer, 'soft' plaque) between the calcification and the lumen and then the contrast agent within the lumen. Yet the lumen appears identical to adjacent regions without the apparent same volume of plaque within the arterial wall.

I also have an far more accurate illustration, image: https://edc2.healthtap.com/ht-staging/user_answer/avatars/1013433/large/Arterial_Disease_Natural_History.jpeg?1386581115 of how arterial disease actually progresses, which I have utilized with both clients and on the internet for 20 years. This image was commissioned by Imatrom Corporation and based on both: (a) the 1987 research article http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198705283162204 and (b) IVUS data, which largely began in 1988 via ultrasound machine engineers and manufacturers working with Steven Nissen, MD at Cleveland Clinic.

The Imatron machine was developed by engineers, at Sandia Labs in the early 1980s, who recognized that imaging the heart arteries and plaque within the artery walls would require extremely rapid scans, so as to "strobe like" minimize the never ending coronary artery movements and at high enough resolution to see not just the arterial lumen but also calcification within the outer edges of atherosclerotic plaque.

I had personal experience with EBT, in the later 1990s, both personally & with clients, as an early detection device (worked well) and was privileged to have had a detailed guided tour of the Imatrom factory, along with a very wealthy businessman/layer client in 1999. (We were a potential multiple machine purchasing customer.) However, during our two years of very time consuming, detailed entrepreneurial efforts, 3 leaders: myself, my lawyer/business friend/client and his CFO, GE decided to purchase Imatron Corporation and we finally gave up (not because of the GE merge) but because of the difficulty educating the public about the realities of atherosclerosis combined with huge opposition from most physicians (in the mainstream disease industry, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hK4pDKraZNyPk6ZKBThqaXkqiGP1R3tfTtZaONcrJd8/edit ) combined with the fact that no "3rd party payers" would cover such examinations. We estimated, 5 year financial spreadsheet projections (worse, expected & optimal assumptions) that we would/could make it financially. However, the barriers of the disease industry remained formidable. We finally decided to abandon all our efforts. Milton MAlvis (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits in question and provided you a list of issues on your talk page.
The lead should be 4 paragraphs not 9
Review articles and other high quality secondary sources must be used. Not primary sources.
This source is not appropriate[5] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello MAlvis (talk · contribs). I am sorry to hear that you feel I am a major source of criticism. Over the years you have made lots of good contributions. Sometimes you add material that doesn't necessarily reflect the current accepted understanding of certain conditions. I am therefore in agreement with Doc James that you should attempt whereever possible to reflect widely held views from high-quality secondary sources, even if you personally believe that they are potentially based on misunderstandings of the science. Kind regards, JFW | T@lk 12:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

 

  Administrator changes

  Muboshgu
  Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
  None

  Bureaucrat changes

  Worm That Turned

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

 

  Administrator changes

  None
  Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

  Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

  Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

 

  Administrator changes

  Lourdes†
  AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

  Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

  Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

  Miscellaneous

  Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Collab-medicine-prev

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Collab-medicine-prev has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

WHO Cancer update

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The WHO cancer fact sheet from 2009 has been updated to its newest, 2018 version. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 11:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

 

  Administrator changes

  331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
  Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

  Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

  Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would appreciate your views on a discussion at Ketogenic diet. Peter is claiming text should be completely removed because the underlying research stages are early and evidence limited per MEDASSESS. I'm claiming that MEDASSESS only influences how strong (if at all) we claim efficacy, and what sources we can cite, but not whether we mention that this research is underway and somehow describe its preliminary findings -- that's for WP:WEIGHT. The section is clearly in a "other appilcations" / future research kind of section, and not the "indications" or "efficacy" section of the treatment. I think Peter is conducting WP:OR. -- Colin°Talk 11:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

 

  Administrator changes

  None
  Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

  Guideline and policy news

  • The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
  • A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

  Technical news

  • AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
  • When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
  • The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
  • There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
please help translate this message into your local language via meta
  The 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks James! JFW | T@lk 19:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Premature ventricular contraction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syncope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

 

  Administrator changes

  None
  Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
  • There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
  • It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

  Arbitration

  • A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

 

  Administrator changes

  Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
  Gogo Dodo
  Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

  Bureaucrat changes

  Andrevan • EVula

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

  Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon ( ) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

  Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

JFW, thanks again for the journal article, although I haven't been able to get to it yet. What a year we have had here. A tree fell on me and, while glad to be alive, I do have a traumatic brain injury, and mostly need to stay off the computer. I expected to be better by now, but progress is slow. I will get to the source you provided as soon as I am able. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There is the sort of thing that results :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Good brief, so sorry to hear about this. I hope the symptoms will continue to improve! JFW | T@lk 13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks :) The subarachnoid hemorrhage has resolved ... Waiting now for MRA for cervical artery dissection. Like I said ... quite a year, here :( Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
PS, those are some fine articles you have written ... we don't see much medical writing at that level anymore 'round here :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

 

  Administrator changes

  Sro23
  KaisaL • Ymblanter

  Guideline and policy news

  • After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
  • Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

  Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Facto Post – Issue 15 – 21 August 2018
 
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Back numbers are here.
Neglected diseases
 
Anti-parasitic drugs being distributed in Côte d'Ivoire
What's a Neglected Disease?, ScienceSource video

To grasp the nettle, there are rare diseases, there are tropical diseases and then there are "neglected diseases". Evidently a rare enough disease is likely to be neglected, but neglected disease these days means a disease not rare, but tropical, and most often infectious or parasitic. Rare diseases as a group are dominated, in contrast, by genetic diseases.

A major aspect of neglect is found in tracking drug discovery. Orphan drugs are those developed to treat rare diseases (rare enough not to have market-driven research), but there is some overlap in practice with the WHO's neglected diseases, where snakebite, a "neglected public health issue", is on the list.

From an encyclopedic point of view, lack of research also may mean lack of high-quality references: the core medical literature differs from primary research, since it operates by aggregating trials. This bibliographic deficit clearly hinders Wikipedia's mission. The ScienceSource project is currently addressing this issue, on Wikidata. Its Wikidata focus list at WD:SSFL is trying to ensure that neglect does not turn into bias in its selection of science papers.

Links
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jfdwolff/Archive_37&oldid=1145687913"