Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:35, 2 September 2020

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 110 as User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch109 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013–2015 · 2016–2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · FA archive sorting · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 Jan–Mar (DCGAR) · 2023 Apr–Aug · 2023 Aug–Dec · 2023 Seasons greetings · 2024 · 2025

MOS question

I asked a question at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#LEADALT and significance a few days ago, but I've not gotten a response. I think we need to settle the question in general, rather than article by article. If editors want both BritEng and AmEng in every opening sentence (whenever they aren't identical), or other slight variations, then the MOS should just say so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I wouldn't have thought it possible to give a definitive answer. In some cases, the variation is so well known ("organize") that it's not worthwhile explaining it; when the term is a variant spelling and we can't assume readers will be familiar with the variants ("diarrhea", "airplane", "aluminum") it's probably worth including so readers don't think they've spotted a mistake and try in good faith to fix it; when the names are totally different ("acetaminophen", "Live Free or Die Hard", "semi") it's almost invariably going to be appropriate to put all the names prominently in the lead so readers don't think they've come to the wrong page. Asking at the MOS talkpage will just get a dozen people having an increasingly insane discussion, before ultimately coming to the conclusion that this isn't a matter for the MOS and needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. ‑ Iridescent 19:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Before I answer, I will rant. This is precisely the kind of ABF, personalization and battleground that makes people not want to edit. I was gung-ho to get going on a plan for cleaning up all the medical FAs (User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2), but the battleground attitude from that person and canvassed reinforcements has zapped me of any interest in continuing. It's about winning rather than discussing to come to consensus to find a solution that works across the board for all articles, and when Girth Summit tried to rein things in, he got fired at as well. So I've stopped caring. I will be darned if I am going to engage that kind of personalization and battleground over an apostrophe. Having said that, yes, it is important to solve the big picture, because ... this is the second round. Keep in mind that Tourette syndrome inherited the problem quite simply because I gave her a courtesy notification that I mentioned the Down syndrome edit warring in my arbcase evidence. (20:27 April 15) Within hours of my courtesy notification to her talkpage, the TS article became the next battleground, with all the same features seen at Down syndrome, and more. So, we have to solve this globally lest it move to other articles. And we have this situation in many places. I was hoping that we would get feedback at the RFC talk page for how to best phrase a broader RFC, and what page to put it on. Nothing happening there. As you can see, we may need to go to the main WT:MOS page to get anyone to care. But Iridescent is right ... how to best phrase it is problematic, because every situation is different. I have explained ad-nauseum (bludgeon is a theme lately?) that the TS situation is quite different from most medical conditions because NO ONE (on either side of the pond) uses the real names, and even the Brits most frequently drop the apostrophe. One size does not fit all. I endorsed the apostrophe at Down's, but Tourettte's just doesn't need it because Tourette's is a common abbreviation. I could also post to WT:MED to get more feedback, but we've seen how that goes ... it won't solve the problem. I am beyond caring, but open to suggestions. You can see that I've mostly stopped editing ... it's stuff just like this that makes me give up and fade away. It is unbelievable that people can get so personal over an apostrophe. What if you put together a draft RFC in userspace and we post it to WT:MOS? I feel like it should encompass things like color/colour as well as Down/Down's, and this one. As far as I can tell, the MOS pages are mostly silent on this issue. It's like fighting over infoboxes or date delinking, and I didn't do either of those, and don't want to do this. I just want to write articles. Ceoil has the right attitude. It's too easy to be chased out of here again, and I don't want to be doing this with the kind of unnecessary attitude we're facing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, I posted a link at WT:MOS (to direct them to WT:MOSLEAD) three days ago, and I didn't get a single peep. I expected to get a dozen people with firm opinions, and I've gotten nothing. If this radio silence doesn't end, I may have to invoke Cunningham's Law, make a bold edit to the MOS, and wait for someone to object. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This part of the frustration ... radio silence, complicated by dealing with an editor who refuses talk Page discussion. It more and more feels like there is no way to resolve the simplest of disputes in here. Even sadder, I remember When Down syndrome was a fine Featured article ... now rather than restoring content to its former glory, we worry over apostrophes. It’s foolishness, as our content deteriorates. I just restored Tourette syndrome with three Brit Eng editors, and not one of them had an issue with the apostrophe. Of course, they were more concerned with writing a top-notch article. Why write top content to end up spending so much time dealing with editors Who refuse to even discuss civilly over an apostrophe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

In the particular cases of Tourette('s) and Down('s), I'd lean towards bolding both variants in the first sentence. Because the apostrophe variants are in such common circulation, and because common conditions like Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease and Parkinson's mean readers are used to the principle that "a condition named after a person is written in the possessive", so it's reasonable to assume that at least some readers will be confused as to why Misplaced Pages isn't following what they reasonably assumed was a medical convention. (FWIW, in 30 years in the UK I have never seen either written without apostrophe-s; this isn't some archaic affectation like the people who insist on using "connexion" and "shewed".) ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I get that part, Iridescent but have a look at the article and the abbreviations used (which are most common). We already have Tourette's as an abbreviation, which is used 161 times in the article. I don't want to spell out the full Tourette syndrome 161 times, and if I switch all of those to just TS, doesn't it become tedious reading? I need to solve the overall picture-- where the lead is now all balled up in redundant use of 's, but what to use in the body of the article? If I remove the Tourette's abbreviation from the lead, and switch all abbreviations to TS, doesn't that move in the opposite direction of what the UK proponents want to achieve? I haven't removed the 's from the lead because, not gonna edit war an apostrophe, but I still have to solve the abbreviation issue. Down syndrome doesn't use abbreviations, and Down syndrome is not a featured article and doesn't have vetted prose. And say "Tourette's syndrome" ten times together out loud and you can see why it is shortenend to Tourette's. The double s does not flow-- a problem you don't have when the second word is "disease" like Alzheimer's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That article might make a good example, because there are three nearly identical names (Tourette syndrome, Tourette's syndrome, TS, Tourette's) in the first sentence. I suspect, though, that people would vote to keep 1, 2, and 3, rather than the original 1, 3, and 4.

And since there isn't a clear ENGVAR here, it wouldn't really deal with the celiac/coeliac cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I am beyond caring how it is resolved, but just need to fix the rest of the article now and do not want to do it with the continual battleground and personalization. If we are left with only TS as an abbreviation, we will be left with tedious writing in exchange for adding one obvious word to the lead, but not my problem— the article has already run TFA, and the tedious overuse of TS will be someone else’s issue. How much happier would I be if we were instead cleaning up the hugely deficient FAs at most of these eponymous conditions ... Alzheimer, Huntington, Parkinson, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My preference in that particular case would be "Tourette syndrome (TS), also known as Tourette's syndrome, is a…". If the possessive version isn't there, people who only know it by that name might reasonably be confused and think there's a letter missing. (Bear in mind that even in the US where the "Tourette" name is more common, a significant chunk of readers will be Nirvana fans who've been drawn to the topic by the song "Tourette's".) TL;DR summary; whatever the topic, if there's a variant spelling in common use and it's not such a well-known variation that all readers will be aware of it already, bold both in the first sentence. ‑ Iridescent 19:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but then, Iridescent would you think it useful to go through the entire article to remove all 161 instances of the abbreviation "Tourette's", converting them to either the full name, Tourette syndrome, or the abbreviation TS? That is, we would be eliminating all of the Tourette's from the article, because it's no longer the abbreviation listed, and we can't delete the TS abbreviation, because it's needed for TS-only and pure TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, as it's obvious from context that "Tourette's" is a contraction of "Tourette's syndrome". It's no more problematic than the fact that Sunbeam Tiger just refers to "Tiger" rather than writing the name in full every time. ‑ Iridescent 21:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. So I will propose on article talk that we drop the abbreviation from the lead, but keep the what-you-say is obvious abbreviation in the text, and see if that flies. I’ll do that when I’m ready to dive back in to that mess again ... within a day or two ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the general rule here, so @Iridescent: Would you open Barclays with "Barclays, originally known as Barclay's..." ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Barclays never had an apostrophe, so in that case no. For something that dropped the apostrophe years ago like Harrods I wouldn't; the purpose in this case isn't to avoid confusion (nobody searching for "Selfridge's" is going to think they're on the wrong page when they land on Selfridges), but to avoid the risk of good faith editors trying to correct it. Thus for something that only recently dropped the apostrophe like Waterstones, I would include it to make it obvious from the start that the name has recently changed and this isn't an error on Misplaced Pages's part. (If you're a fan of lame edit wars, watchlist this company which is called "Dunkin" in the US and "Dunkin Donuts" in the rest of the world, and enjoy the endless arguments over which name is an error.) As with all these "name variation" things, there isn't necessarily going to be a hard-and-fast rule; there will always be some cases where the story of how the apostrophe came to be lost or added is itself an interesting enough part of the story to warrant inclusion in the lead. (A good example would be Tim Hortons, where the dispute with Quebec nationalists that led to the dropping of the apostrophe is the only interesting thing that ever happened to the company.) ‑ Iridescent 17:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like your general rule might be to put a variation in the first sentence if omitting it is likely to attract good-faith corrections otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed ... ... WhatamIdoing, if adopted, this simplifies the bigger picture for the RFC, since TS is unique in rejection of DSM/WHO names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Well. Anyway. @WhatamIdoing and Iridescent:, what is good timing for beginning to design an RFC? The problem here is that TS is just not a good example, since commonname for it rejects both ICD and DSM, but we need to get this resolved. I suggest a broader RFC, at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#RFC on article titles with spelling variations SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the general question at LEADALT needs to be settled before trying to handle it at MEDMOS. Three people have replied there so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not realize I had not watchlisted that page ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Eh

How fitting. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My middle name. Drmies I used to have something installed that prevented this from happening. I don't remember what it was or where to look for it or why I no longer have it. Are you able to enlighten me? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

FAR advice

Hello again, and apologies for this super random message. I am sorry to hear about the Dementia with Lewy bodies copyright violation. It is always a shame to hear about something like this, especially since you put a lot of work into Misplaced Pages.

I have decided to help with the FAR for Final Fantasy X-2. I have never participated in a FAR before so I am a little nervous about it. I think I can help (at least somewhat) since I am very familiar with the game. And as an active FAC contributor, I should be more active in the FAR space. I was wondering if you had any FAR-related advice as I would not want to be a pest or cause any trouble? I am probably just over-thinking it lol. Thank you in advance, and I hope you are doing well today! Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Aoba47 this is wonderful news! I will give you a list of advice after I catch up ... I had a few days off because of a series of minor but irritating IRL issues, and am struggling to catch up ... but this is on my talk page and on my To DO List. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Aoba47 I'm back. FAR is even more short-handed than FAC, so if you can help out there, it would be grand. I consider it a worthy venture, because FAs are only as good as the weakest links; if we don't value and keep updated the entire pool of FAs, the category means nothing!

The main thing to do is to understand the FAR instructions, and their purpose. I summarized the gist of it at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Elagabalus/archive2, where you can also see the kind of work needed. People don't do the notifications, haven't posted a notice in advance on talk, or weigh in immediately with Keep or Delist, not understanding that FAR is a deliberative process, with one goal of casting a wide net to find interested editors to save stars when possible. All of those items need constant checking and reminding, as well as helping maintain Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/notices given (making sure things are added correctly, and removed if the article is sent to FAR, etc). Another helpful thing is to try to ping in people who might help. Other than that, time is always given if progress is ongoing, but frequent pings and checking in are needed, to see if things are on track. After a FAR has been up for about 10 days, one has to check if any progress has been made, and if not, say so on the FAR page, and suggest Move to FARC; alternately, suggest that progress is occurring and it's OK to hold. Once articles move to FARC, then Keep and Delist declarations are needed. My standards at FAR aren't as strict as at FAC, for the simple reason that articles that appear at FAR have usually already run WP:TFA, so I am more willing to let a few things slide if the article is close enough. There are a number of FARCs stalled at the bottom of the page, where the Coords simply need more feedback re Keep or Delist.

I'm particularly happy that you are willing to help out at the Final Fantasy FAR, because User:Deckiller was a co-nom there, and he did a lot of helping other editors in his day, and was quite active in helping out at FAR. Happy to see something he worked on potentially saved! Other than that, read through the entire FAR page to get an idea ... and ask me if you have any other questions. I have a long history at FAR, and a soft spot for it, back from the days when so many FA people worked together, and we saved the bronze star on half of the articles that came through. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay in my response. Thank you for the explanation and links. I agree that the FAR is very important, and it is very encouraging whenever editors band together to help an article keep its featured status. I also agree that it is important to upkeep FAs as readers will likely judge the entire FA/FAC process on a single FA that they run across, and that could be quite bad if it is one of those weak links.

• It will be particularly nostalgic to work on this article, as I cannot believe it has been 17 years since this game's release. This game and the Final Fantasy series was a huge part of my childhood, but I will make sure to keep as much of an unbiased view as I can. I will likely start looking through the article and doing revisions either Thursday or Friday so apologies for the delay there. I am not entirely sure how much help I can or will be, but I will certainly try my best.

• ProtoDrake has already done a lot of great work. I will consult the video game FAs as I have actually never nominated a video game article through the FAC space. Maybe, one of these days I will get on that as it is nice to work in different spaces. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

New editor "patrol"

Hope all is well with you and your family. After your note from July, I definitely took a step back and remembered that I, having read Misplaced Pages for years, seen it in the news, and made some minor changes as IP, was very fortunate to find the existence of WP:Pharmacology and WT:MED to ask for help/review. Many editors are not so fortunate and are met with reversions, "policy vomit" (such as just saying "needs WP:MEDRS, this isn't okay per WP:CITEWATCH, see WP:RSP", etc), and thus likely get discouraged or even threatened with blocks/bans for it. I'm mostly curious if there's any way you know of to "watch" for these new editors making medical edits, and potentially catch them for personalized intervention early on if their edits are reverted/undone by someone, thus potentially increasing the number of medical editors on Misplaced Pages.

Slightly off topic, but this is coming up now for me because I've personally tried to get a few colleagues interested in the articles I compiled re: the subject of medical injections - people ranging from 20ish years old and in school at the time to professionals with 20+ years experience - and the response I've gotten from all of them is either "it's too hard to edit" or something along the lines of "too many policies/rules" or "I tried it before and I got told to piss off with a bunch of rules that don't make sense to me". For all of them, though, they expressed reserved interest in potentially returning after I explained my experience with helpful editors who, while they were enforcing rules similar to what medical professionals use mentally every day, were nice and helpful in explaining them. Many people don't realize why "no primary sources" (well, very rarely) is a policy here - because they read primary sources every day. But when you explain to them "yes, we read primary sources, but we do not use one or two primary sources to override years of reviews/meta-analysis that says otherwise - we wait until enough primary evidence exists to override our past thoughts on the matter" - they seem to get it. In fact, I had someone ask me why our COVID articles seem to be lagging behind - but when I explained why (including the "we are an encyclopedia for the general public, not the breaking news journal of medicine"), I got virtually unanimous understanding. I'll stop giving examples of these interactions here now, but just wanted to provide some background.

One thing I noticed is that WP:MED has a "getting started" section that quite literally only links 4 policies - with no "new editor friendly" explanations at all. One of those "getting started" articles is even geared towards other WP editors, not new editors, so it's hardly a "getting started" article at all imo! {{subst:WPMED welcome}} is basically the same - basically all links links links with the only "explanation" a 2008 "signpost article". It also doesn't make very clear how to get help - it says go to the talk page, but that's hard for many newer editors to do. I get completely the desire to not "overwhelm" new editors with tons of information on their talk page, but surely links to specific, short (500 words at most) explanations of various things, or even an comprehensive "new medical editor" FAQ would help? Maybe I'm just not finding it, but I definitely did try - if I can't find it after a few months here, then new editors definitely aren't finding it if it exists.

So, I guess here's my final question: Where would be the best place to propose changes to new member welcoming - WT:MED, template talk page, or some other place - and what's the best process for "drafting" a template change - use my userspace, use a template page, etc?

Thanks in advance for your help with these questions, and while I could ping about 200 other editors you seem to always know who would be best to answer so I will kindly ask if you wouldn't mind pinging the specific people you think would be best to answer or provide more information here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: after a few days off for a series of minor but irritating IRL issues, I am struggling to catch up. I'm making a To Do list, and I consider responding to this the most important/useful thing on that list, but I am pushing it down the list so I can catch up first on the easier-to-do tasks. This issue deserves my/our full attention, so I promise I will get to it once I've caught up everywhere else. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully less irritation now - you can ignore Talk:Resveratrol if you want - I think we got it figured out and came to a conclusion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

One less to do is a relief, since today has been slow progress! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not worry too much about this inquiry/"project" - while it's important to me and you, it seems to have gone unnoticed for months, if not years - thus another few days is definitely not likely to hurt any more. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help you with any catching-up - you can also email me if that's easier than here. You did me a great favor when I first started and I haven't yet been able to repay it, so I'm happy to help with any "grunt work" or little projects you have that are hard or tedious to do :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You are too kind :) The issue you raise is what matters most, and is why I am trying to get other stuff done and out of the way so that I can really focus on it. If you really really really want to do some miserable work, you could go through Pheochromocytoma and flag all of the primary sources :) A lot of the text may be citeable to secondary sources, but student editors unfortunately used primary sources for most of the article, sample here. After I've flagged all the primary sources, I need to make a post to talk about the numerous tone and organizational problems in that article. Students are told to read MEDMOS and MEDRS, but it looks like they rarely do, and then they go forward with no guidance from WP:MED, until they suddenly want the article re-assessed as ... higher quality than it is in spite of all their work. Or, if that kind of boring busy work isn't your cup of tea, you could also look at the mess I waded in to here, with a warning that it is at WP:ANI and at WP:SPI, and that ATC is someone I have mentored since their earliest days, and I know to be a good-faith editor who will listen to reason. Nonetheless, that page is a bit of a battleground, withe some pushing of strong viewpoints, and tiring. Ah, the fun of Misplaced Pages. But I end up sticking around because of the good new editors who show up-- like you! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Will work on Pheochromocytoma tonight and tomorrow - rare day off work altogether so I should be able to get that done throughout the day tomorrow. Will tag with {{primary source inline}} and if iI notice any glaring problems try to fix them :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You are amazing! I will give you my first-born. If the Air Force will let me :) As to why the issues you raise are so important, maybe you are following my work with User:Memdmarti, a good-faith topic expert. It is because of this work with Dan (and earlier same with User:Eyoungstrom) that I am realizing how problematic are all of the issues you raise and that we must figure out what to do about this. There is so much we understand and take for granted about Misplaced Pages practices, policies and guidelines that is complete gibberish to new editors, and yet we need to retain content experts. On top of that problem that exists for all of Misplaced Pages, we have the additional primary vs. secondary sources in medicine problem. That's why I want to get my other work done so as to focus on this. But then ... if we retained more content experts, I wouldn't have so much other work to do ... Catch-22. Anyway, I will make a longer response to you, but perhaps not til Wednesday, as I have the six-hour drive home from the cabin tomorrow, and then medical appt's Wednesday ... Perhaps WhatamIdoing will resurrect in the meantime her post to WT:MED from a month or so ago that explained how to locate new editors from the tools we already have. I gave up on that, because the first new editors I encountered sent me into The Black Hole of Despair ... there are only 24 hours in a day, and I don't have time to take on what is seen in most new editors one encounters: COI, POV pushing, and a whole lotta mentoring needed! More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Just a forenote - I only had enough energy for that one section tonight (surprisingly, it takes a lot more than I expected to plug in to pubmed and actually evaluate the sources themselves). Please do not worry about the timing of this as much - heck, it's taken me months to actually realize that I was an anomaly in new medical editors, a few more days isn't going to hurt. I have a theory that has no proof whatsoever behind it, but I think it'd likely hold true however... that most new medical editors that look to have a COI or "pov" they are pushing are actually just attempting to add their real-life experience to the editing process. Someone who's treated a thousand or so patients and 80% of those patients claim that glucosamine works for them - well that doctor may very well want to come attempt to "fix" that information on Misplaced Pages. Is that a "pov pushing"? I don't really consider it that - because it's not so much a "point of view" as an experience. Likewise (this is a hypothetical, not sure if it actually happens/exists), you may have a pharmacist show up who's taught in Pharm.D. school that generic drugs are just dandy and fine - and so they may try to remove information regarding differences in excipients or quality control that are sourced appropriately to MEDRS reviews - because they think it's "wrong" simply because they don't understand why it's what it is. Long story short, I think a majority of medical editors are good - and if there were simply a way to have a dynamic list of "reverted edits from new editors on medical articles" that would help greatly with targeted outreach.Regardless, I hope your drive and appointments go well, and I will continue working on marking primary sources in that article tomorrow. For now, I shall be taking my daily comatose state time (also known as sleep) :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, flagging up issues in student editing takes GOBS more time than it would take to just rewrite the article from scratch; it is frustrating, but I feel I have to leave a list on talk explaining all the issues and why it can't be assessed higher, and I really appreciate your help. Sourcing and tone are the most significant problems there (although I have already removed and addressed the worst of the tone problems). I have similar ideas about the POV/COI thing, as I realize just how difficult it is for new editors to grasp the way things work in here. Maybe you can answer a question: why did you "get it"? What made the difference for you? Did you participate for half a century as an IP or something ? :) :) You seem to have missed the newbie stage (mine was eternal, and I used the HelpMe template enough times to set a record). Sleep well ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, all! Quick note to say that I am alive, healthy (so far) despite all of the COVID-19 issues at my home university, and I will be picking up the ball and re-engaging with this in about 10 days (helping colleagues with a Sept 9 deadline, and still adjusting my teaching). I haven't disappeared, and sorry that I have not had more bandwidth. Best to all in the meantime! (10 days feels like another eon at the speed Wiki moves!) Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I never really thought about significant editing until after having seen articles in the news over the past few years re: Misplaced Pages's response to some controversies and medical articles - and figured I'd give it a go... but I definitely didn't want to screw it up. I saw an article in some news somewhere which mentioned the Misplaced Pages Medicine project or something similar, so after I dove in with lente insulin I went ahead and searched for a WikiProject that would cover it - finding WP:PHARMACOLOGY and then later realizing that WP:MED covers basically all of it too. I've seen editors with 200,000 edits, heck even some over a million - and I can't ever see myself getting there because even now I'm still spending lots of time looking for policies or guidelines or template documentations etc to try and make sure I'm doing things right. Back when I started, you can see I made a stub at lente insulin on 11 May, and took the entire rest of that day to actually get it to a somewhat viable length article.

Long story short, I think having seen articles in the news which covered "talk pages" and "wiki projects" where you can ask help is actually what enabled me to be confident enough to dive right in. This in addition to the fact that I'd been fixing typos/etc forever as I saw them (nothing more than a word or two change ever) as IPs so I kind-of had a concept of what the edit screen looked like.

So, why I "got it"? I'm not really sure - you'd think I'd be the person adding these primary studies without attributing them... but I guess it boils down to me realizing this: Misplaced Pages isn't the resident's table rounds, nor is it the bedside discussion with a patient - meaning basically that Misplaced Pages is more like the "medical textbook" - which doesn't list every study ever done. When there's only a few studies, we say that and, if the reader here is a clinician, they'll use their judgement to make a decision - we don't make the decisions for them, we just present the most complete and attributed if necessary information possible. I also note that quick intervention from people - the names I remember being you, RexxS, WhatAmIDoing, and BlueRasberry (left a "thanks for the new article" on my talkpage) were very encouraging and allowed me to build a mental list of those I could ask for help (which I've been doing, as you know ha ha). I'd also add that I most definitely have not finished "getting it" yet - I'm still making some mistakes but I'm still trying to improve. Thanks for the vote of confidence :).

Small PS, pheochromocytoma is done being marked through the Management section, I will try to get to the rest tonight, but it's turning out to be a little more than I thought it would. I've been marking them as I can, or changing the text to attribute the primary study where I feel it's important to include but would need attribution per WP:MEDRS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, I sometimes look at this link to find promising editors. If you like doing this, then this longer list might be better. WPMED would really benefit from someone reviewing these changes, salvaging whatever can be salvaged (most of it – most new folks are very grateful for help with the most basic wikitext fixes), and inviting promising (and even semi-promising) folks to stop by WT:MED or WT:PHARM for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: remember when I suggested you interview new and active editors for the WPMED newsletter? This thread gives you material ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse ping list

Hi, I Usedtobecool (I am not sure whether we've officially met before). I was wondering if you would be interested in being pinged on occasion to the Teahouse to help out? (I just realised after coming here that you hate pings.) I am compiling a list at User:Usedtobecool/Tea for when regular hosts at the Teahouse wish they could ping editors with area-specific-expertise to provide a better answer, or when all hosts would rather just ignore the question altogether because they do not know how to answer. The object is to first make sure no question gets archived unanswered and optionally to also make sure on-topic queries receive accurate answers instead of "I think"s and referrals to other talk pages. I have you in mind for "Featured articles" and "WikiProject Medicine" if you would be interested in being listed. If you would be, please check out the list and see if you would like to be listed for other topics also; if not, I will remove you from the list before it gets to the project space. I am also looking for recommendations about who else to reach out to (as my tenure means I would have memorably come across a select few editors only). Thank you, and best Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Usedtobecool. I can't remember if you pinged me once before for Teahouse help, but I know I've encountered your fine work before. My thoughts. First, I have a DREADFUL time keeping up with pings, which is only part of why I hate them. If I mark them all read, I lose track of what I still have to do, but if I don't mark them all read, I can't tell what I still have to do. So here I am, after several days off due to a series of small but irritating IRL issue, and I am having to go through my pings, through my talk page, and through my watch list to consolidate a list of what I must do so I can prioritize how to get through a backlog. So, generally, I much prefer a request on my talk page to a ping, because I don't lose track that way of something or someone I have to get back to. I also suggest that in terms of Teahouse questions for FAC or medicine, you are much better off making a post to WT:FAC or WT:MED, where you will get more responses. When I see a request there, I jump in if I am able. Perhaps, in fact, make this same request on those pages now, to see if anyone wants to sign up? I think the one area where you could "ping" me (with a request to my talk) is for Spanish-language help, because it is so hard to find people to help with Spanish-language issues, and no real centralized place to make that request. The other editor who is helpful and knowledgeable for Spanish-language help is Seraphimblade. Keep up the good work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I will have to think about whether or not to add various languages to the list (if I did, Spanish and Hindi would probably be at the top) but it's good to know you and Seraphimblade would be able to help with that, as there are indeed occasions where language expertise is missed. Although, that I think about it, most of those occasions are usually to do with AFC drafts, and the AFC project has its own list here, if you'd like to check it out (everyone listed, save one, seems to be below es-4). Thank you for your kind response, and stay safe. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, are you using the Special:Notifications page, or the little bell-and-inbox-tray icons at the top of the page? I find that if there's more than one or two (work-me has, um, 83 at the moment...) that the little drop-down menus at the top of the page just don't cut it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

To do

1. Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Squirm/archive1; WP:RECEPTION
2. User:Memdmarti, User:Memdmarti/sandbox/endofound
3. Pheochromocytoma
4. Dali FAC
5. Iri talk
6. Berchan NPP query
7. Tom Anatomy FAC blurb User talk:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7
8. CC office
9. Check back in on Discrete trial training
10. User:Eyoungstrom Finish VMI
11. User:WhatamIdoing Lead RFC
12. WT:MED estrogen templates, TTFF response
13. Article work:

    Sensory phenomena/Premonitory urge

    Morgagni hernia

    habit cough

I don't even know anymore

SandyGeorgia, I've seen you around a lot and have appreciated your reasonable and thoughtful approach that I've seen before. I'm wondering if you can chime in at the current conversation at WikiProject composers where a situation is unfolding that I really don't even know how to explain. The OP seems to be ignoring that Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source that reflect the coverage of secondary sources, whether they are systematically biased or not – I'm slowly loosing my patience... I'm tempted to bring the article in question to AFD but it may be better to wait till the conversation (hopefully) resolves itself. Aza24 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Aza24, do you see that "To do list" above? After a few days off, I am so far behind that I despair :( I can promise to try, but can't promise to find time. Tomorrow I have a six-hour drive home from the cabin, and the next day I have multiple medical app'ts, so trying to get all I can done tonight on the list above. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Lol I completely missed that list. No worries then, the conversation is actually talking a calmer turn. If you get a chance in the next few days to stop by (given that it's somehow continuing) feel free to – but if not, that's fine! Aza24 (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I can promise to try :) I wanted to catch up today, and one of the first content issues I waded into turned out to be at ANI and SPI, and ... the usual crap ... taking hours of my time on POV pushing acrimonious bullroar when I had hoped to catch up today. This is why people quit. :( Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

PUBMED publication type

For a stop-gap way to find how PUBMED classifies an article, and if you're feeling geeky, you can use their API to retrieve an XML record summary by using a URL like so:

https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/esummary.fcgi?db=pubmed&id=9546297

Replace the digits at the end with whatever PMID you're interested in. Somewhere in the record you get back there should be a:

<Item Name="PubType" Type="String">Review</Item>

or somesuch. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Geeky but helpful! Thanks, Alex ... bookmarking this in my userpage userbox, Best SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia or Alexbrn, does a PunMed classification as an "article" mean that the review of the literature in "Introduction" and "Discussion" of the article is not secondary? Memdmarti (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could give an example, but for an otherwise primary source, the secondary portions (background discussion, etc.) are generally of limited use since they typically tend to present a partial framing of the subject domain which favours the research findings. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What he said ... but it always depends on context (what you want to source, and what kind of source you are using, so an example with the text it cites would be good). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User talk:Alexbrn and SandyGeorgia!

No specific example as most articles, even meta-analyses and Cochran have bias/spin.

Examples: 56% of abstracts had spin in "Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals" and 55% of peer-reviewed papers in "Peer reviewers identified spin...".

User talk:Alexbrn, your XML_record_summary notes are at User:Memdmarti/editing_tools#PubMed_XML_record_summary. Thank you. Memdmarti (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And that is why editor discussion and consensus apply even to MEDRS sources. (Besides I personally find Cochrane to not often be very useful.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, SandyGeorgia! Cochrane is very statistically correct, but that is not always useful. A current example is that 99.94% of the US population has survived COVID. That is Google accurate, but I will still wear a mask, wash my hands, and maintain distance as I do not wish to join the 180,000+ who died or the much larger number who were hospitalized and have an unknown future. Memdmarti (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Memdmarti: Just in case you didn't know, those studies you cited are an example of metascience. I may use them to improve that page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikiman2718! I have watchlisted that. The page looks interesting.Memdmarti (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Those papers are a really nice find. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Some things

Before I get to the point, I would like to apologize for coming across as a bit terse on the talk page of discrete trial training. I really do appreciate your weighing in, and we have made more progress towards consensus in the one day of discussion with you than in the entire week before. However, I do have two concerns: Firstly, you pinged an editor that I had previously accused of harassment and asked him to participate in the debate. I think that you were aware that I had made this accusation, but please do correct me if that is not true. It could easily have been an accident. I really wish you hadn't done that, as this particular editor's choice form of harassment is to conduct content disputes that are not really content disputes, but attempts to drive another editor off the platform. His opinion may be well-respected in some areas of this encyclopedia, but his involvement in the dispute is going to make reaching consensus much more difficult.

Secondly, I would like to talk about the editor who invited you to join the debate. You appear to have some sort of mentoring relationship with him, and it is clear that he respects you. However, his lack of understanding of WP:MEDRS guidelines are a major issue in taking this debate forward. Perhaps you could give him some coaching? I have tried that many times, and he just doesn't listen to me. If you would correct him about claims of the sort that he is making here, where he tries to use MEDRS to justify the removal the mass removal of content that has nothing to do with health claims, that would be big progess on reducing his tendatiousness. Again, I would like to reiterate how much I appreciate your attempts to bring us to consensus. I hope that you continue to participate in discussion, and that we can reach consensus. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There's that busted AGF-ometer again. "I think that you were aware ... " and no, I was not. I am NOW aware, and a bit troubled about the history that you reveal, along with your accusations about other editors, but no, you are wrong that I pinged Alexbrn because I was aware of your history. I saw that he had engaged on your talk page when I went to welcome you, thinking you were new, and I knew that he could help me sort out whether the article was a review. Just that simple. The best thing you can do at this point is to NOT personalize disputes or discussions, as you recognize we are on a good path towards consensus. Whatever past you had with Alexbrn is best forgotten and left behind. You are doing similar with respect to ATC-- focusing on the person rather than the content. Yes, I was a mentor to ATC a decade ago on tic-related articles when they were new and learning, and I have found them to be eager to learn, reasonable in discussion, willing to listen, and always aiming towards policy compliance. In short, I have found ATC to be a non-disruptive, good-faith editor. I have always coached them, when needed, and I find in THIS issue and in this discussion that they are being tempered and reasonable and willing to listen and engage in considered discussion as always. That's the way to go, and the way you should proceed. The advice that SarahSV gave you on the ANI is sound, and I hope you'll consider it. I won't be able to catch up over there on talk until later tomorrow, as I am in the car, six-hour drive home from cabin, typing on iPhone hotspot. I hope by the time I get over there to start proposing text and sources that I will find things are calm and collaborative. If I can, then, I will also look at Lovaas, but I am disinclined to weigh in to yet another contentious topic unless you, too, work to focus on content rather than editors. Leave behind personalities and strong opinions about what you want articles to state and focus instead on what usable sources have to say. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey! I had reason to suspect that you might be aware of the harassment allegation, as it was discussed in an ANI thread that you contributed to. I now see that I was wrong. However, I strongly suggest that you do take a look as Talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas, because when you see how ATC acted there, it will be very difficult for you to reconcile his editing with the claims that he is "willing to listen and engage". This message was intended to be an olive branch. I fully understand that you are acting in good faith, and I really do appreciate your contributions to the talk page. As for my AFG meter, I've gone a little bit past assuming bad faith where ATC is involved. As you can see here, I was recently attacked by a seven year old sleeper sock, and I have accused ATC of being the master. If I am wrong I will owe him a big apology (to say the least), but I don't think I'm wrong. You are, of course, free to weigh in. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I see at Lovaas:

• You start a quite inflammatory section, using neurodiversity.com as your source:
• I guess this may be you (?), but there are no diffs, so am not going to try to track down the old concern, but the poster is focusing on editor, not content. IF the OP HAD focused on content, there would be diffs and usable sources, rather than hyperbole aimed at Alexbrn.
• Another personalized section heading: I find you being very intimidating, threatening and accusatory with "last warnings", and ATC keeping their cool and trying to dialogue anyway. Your threats towards ATC hinge on *your* interpretations of select sources, while others have done the work to find a broader representation of sources. So, you may find that taking a different tone in dialogue will produce more lasting results. I do not have a subscription to newspapers.com, so cannot comment on how well you are representing sources. I hope you understand that you got off on the wrong foot by personalizing disputes, and I hope that will end. We don't ask editors to never make mistakes; we ask them to AGF and not turn Misplaced Pages into a battleground. In the discussion in which I *am* engaged, if I see problems with ATC then I will discuss them there, but I have no interest in wading in to another article to review the entire history where a disagreement has become entirely personalized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but if that's your analysis, it's clear that you can't be neutral on issue's of ATC's behavior. It looks like I'm just going to have to wait for that socking investigation to go through. Regardless, I am glad to see that you have still managed to remain neutral content-wise. You don't have to worry about the dispute on discrete trial training going on with out you-- I have little hope you making progress with those other two editors while you are not involved, so I'm not even going to try until you come back. Stay safe, and please remember not to Misplaced Pages and drive. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Note: for source 4, neurodiversity.com is not the source, but the hosting service, the source is life magazine. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Wikiman2718: As you have been told by others, making unevidenced accusations of harassment is a WP:PA. You have done this in the past and are still doing it. That you are making such attacks cannot be a reason why I, or any editor, should not be involved a topic you are interested in. You are now doing the same with ATC. In general, your approach to Misplaced Pages appears to be contaminated by a WP:USTHEM attitude which apparently leads you into imagining elaborate plots against you. The solution is clearly set out in WP:FOC; I strongly recommend following this for everybody's sake. Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a ton of behavioral evidence that those accounts were connected. The sock’s username was even ATdevil, a pun on ATC. I’m going to try to get this re-opened. Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thank you for your contributions to the current discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers. You made excellent points very eloquently, and in a discussion that definitely needed some finality. Noahfgodard (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Good luck there—looks like a tough one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)