User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 28

Absolutely Amazing eBooks
Continued from User_talk:Bluerasberry/Archive_27  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. I am not giving up. I think this page should be on Wikipedia. I am sending you these references and I hope they will do the trick I know the first reference is OK as it was approved already. Please let me know I am not sure what to do now Still love that picture of your hamster

Interview about Absolutely Amazing eBooks on Good Morning Florida Keys with Jenna Stauffer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq_oWM0QYCQ). Interview with Shirrel Rhoades in Florida Keys Weekly (http://www.absolutelyamazingebooks.com/images/newsaboutaaeb/Keys%20Weekly%20Sept%2022%202012.pdf). Longtime Washingtonian Magazine editor jack Limbert wrote a column about Absolutely Amazing eBooks (http://jacklimpert.com/2014/05/writing-well-still-plausible-way-make-living/).

Ebooks
yes? what do I do next to get this page up and approved? Please help. Keywestbookworm (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you reply to my comment at Draft:Absolutely_Amazing_ebooks? Some of the sources you provided do not meet WP:RS. 2-3 sources have to be identified and this is not done yet.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Dear Bluerasberry: The three sources I gave you last time around were about AAeB and published by Florida Keys Weekly Newspaper, an online blog, and Channel 19.

Interview about Absolutely Amazing eBooks on Good Morning Florida Keys with Jenna Stauffer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq_oWM0QYCQ). Interview in Florida Keys Weekly (http://www.absolutelyamazingebooks.com/images/newsaboutaaeb/Keys%20Weekly%20Sept%2022%202012.pdf). Longtime Washingtonian Magazine editor jack Limbert wrote a column that talks about Absolutely Amazing eBooks (http://jacklimpert.com/2014/05/writing-well-still-plausible-way-make-living/).

That was exactly what you asked to send and I am very frustrated and confused as to what is needed. I have looked at the rules and as far as I can tell the these three fit the requirements. You have said I need three sources and have approved the Channel 19 source so why doesn't the Florida Keys Weekly Newspaper source and the online blog source count?

I am sorry to be going on about this but I think this page should be included in Wikipedia so I am going to keep trying and I just want to get it right. Please help and thanks Keywestbookworm (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job finding the Florida Keys Weekly source! That and the Good Morning Florida Keys source makes two sources, and this meets Wikipedia's minimal criteria. If you put those two sources in your draft, and the article's information only comes from what is found in those two sources, then the draft can go live.
 * The subject of the Jack Limbert source is an author, not the publisher, so that source does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. If you wish to prevent any doubt in creating the article, find a third source which features the publisher as the subject. Otherwise - you have met the minimal criteria and can resubmit the article if you like.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Medicine.wiki
Hey, thought you might be interested to know that Medicine.wiki is now active, in case you and/or other Wiki Project Med participants want to contribute in some way. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Article deletions
Hello.

Hope you recall our meeting at Wikimania.

As discussed, please find the link to at least two deleted articles on AIDS Control Societies in India in this section of En:WP admin's talk page.

Can you ensure restoration or an explanation as to why deletion was so desperately needed? --Muzammil (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I had this article restored to User:Bluerasberry/Lakshadweep. I presume it was deleted because of the sources cited. There are three here. One is a dead link, the other is an audit which was commissioned by the organization (so self published), and the other is by the government office which funds this organization which is also self-published.


 * Right now Wikipedia does not make articles for every government office. With an annual budget of 30 lakhs, this is not even a very large organization.


 * Still - I would like regional health offices to be listed somehow. Without more sources, it would be difficult to include this into Wikipedia. It could be listed in Wikidata more easily, or maybe we could think more about this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is RfD, probably I or somebody else could have added more links. NACO is something like NIH of USA - if NIH can be referred on WP, why not NACO? What about Tamil Nadu State AIDS Control Society? This way it ensures that AIDS Control Agencies in India are not showcased on English Wikipedia at all!! --Muzammil (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case "Editor conduct in e-cigs articles" has now been opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Need your support
Hi, I hope you are doing fine.

We recently had a discussion on the State of New York University page about merging the board of trustees page with the university page.

I wanted to let you know that the page of one of the trustees Joseph Belluck has been nominated for deletion. I would really appreciate it if you could support the page so that it is not deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Warren_Belluck

Thank you very much Nwerner1 (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Invisalign
Hi Bluerasberry. There is an RFC here that hasn't attracted any comments as of yet through the normal RFC process (only editors I've pinged). I noticed that you were one of the most active editors at WikiProject medicine and you're probably the only editor I know that is active on medical topics anyway, besides, who I already pinged about this page back in January. It is a pretty high-investment discussion where you'd have to read through some of the discussion and the article-content and maybe that's scared off a few folks. Getting the medical literature down is the only thing that's really still needed to get this GAN-ready.

BTW - I've actually been working on Acupuncture on a volunteer basis, mostly focusing on the non-medical stuff (History, Adoption, etc.) and rather enjoyed it. It's obviously (IMO) not a real treatment, but it's interesting seeing how they myth has spread and evolved over time.

PS - were you the one that told me that the "Intro" section where a study's author summarizes the literature was a MEDRS-compliant secondary source? said you couldn't use any portion of a source where original experimental results are introduced and that made the body of source material much more manageable. CorporateM (Talk) 05:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:CorporateM you are allowed to notify an entire project to request further input on an issue. Going to one specific editor and making them aware that you want their input is generally not kosher. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

One of WikiProject Food and Drink's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Bananasoldier  (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

St. George's University page
Hi Lane, I hope all's going well. I'm with the communications department at SGU. I had made edits to the SGU page, basically just putting a bunch of markety stuff on there because it hadn't been updated in a long time. A lot was deleted, which I'm OK with - I understand there are rules and we can abide by them. Can you point me to the guidelines for a university or an educational institution in general? I looked at the pages for some of our competitors (Ross and AUA for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_University_School_of_Medicine; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_of_Antigua). Even Yale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_School_of_Medicine). I think they're all a cross between what's there now and what I had added, mostly without the figures we had added. Let me know. Thanks!

Brett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.17.126 (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Brett. You asked for guidelines about educational institutions - there is Schools, but I would not recommend that to you. For new users in general, I could say go to WP:TEAHOUSE to ask questions or WP:HELP if you want to browse. But what you really want to know is how to add content to the article. First, read WP:COI. Then, here are two rules -
 * After every sentence you add, use a citation to the high-quality published source from which that information came
 * Never cite any source published by the school or its financial partners.
 * If you follow those those rules then you will progress quickly.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sex, drugs, and money
(catchy header, right?) About this. As you know, I work with early stage biomedical stuff, and am very aware of how much work has to be done, to develop a medical product, from an early stage idea. And there is a high chance of failure. That work requires money. In a capitalist system, that money comes from the private sector, which has lots and lots of investment opportunities, all the time. So why would any sane person, invest their money in an early stage biomedical product? Their money will be tied up for years, and there is a high chance all their money will be lost. This is why patents are so important in the biomedical space. After development is done, if (and it is a big if) it is successful, there will be a few years left on the patent, during which the investors can get their money back (and then some - they were investors, after all). Then the patents expire, competition will come in, and prices will fall. That is how it works.

The story with flibanserin is that Boehringer gave up on it, and yes, a startup was formed to get investment to try another time to do trials and see if they could show it worked and get it to market. There is nothing "fishy" about that per se, in my view. Do you see what I mean?

With regard to the medicalization of sex... I am not sure what you are struggling with there. Apparently a bunch of guys had a hard time getting erections, and now with viagra etc they can. I don't see that as a bad thing. Sprout is trying to do the same for women whose bodies don't respond sexually as they would like.... and I don't see that as a bad thing either. It is isn't clear to me what you are objecting to with the "medicalization of sex" thing. I think there are important questions about where our health care dollars go, as a society, and for sure about making sure there is fair access for everybody (e.g. reimbursement for contraception).... but I don't understand where you are coming from on that, and would be interested to hear more.

If you don't want to discuss, I would understand that too. Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where I can I read more about the drug development model in which small companies bring drugs to market? How long has this been a thing? Is this a way of divesting liability of medical harm, and not just about divesting financial liability?
 * With Flibanserin, the accusation that I heard is that the drug has failed FDA approval in the past. In response, re-submission for review came with funding to community organizers to develop a public campaign that framed the FDA rejection as discriminatory. Viagra, for example, might have been just as risky, but since that was for men it passed, whereas Flibanserin was rejected even though it is similar. I have not examined these arguments but with articles like this one on NPR, I wish that social campaigning was not a compelling factor in deciding that drugs come to market. I might also ask how long social campaigning has been a factor in granting FDA approval - with HIV it was, but I am not sure if cases are documented before or after that.
 * I might like to see Wikipedia articles for "one-drug company" and "Social campaigning for FDA approval". I have not even begun to search for whether these things exist on wiki or in the literature. I do not feel strongly about this - I am just curious.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * in what i wrote above, what i focused on, was the work required to try again with the FDA - Sprout conducted another clinical trial, I think.  You are raising a good point, with the social marketing campaign that they did.  Drug companies have a function that they call "market access" in which people who do regulatory, reimbursement, and marketing work.   (all the things you need to address, to actually get the drug into people's hands).  For drug companies, patient advocacy groups are great for two reasons - the first is recruitment for clinical trials, and the second is getting the word out, for whatever is needed.  Yes, if a drug company is having trouble at the FDA, they may try to mobilize advocacy groups.  I understand that Sprout went even further and set up an astroturf one.  Definite financial COI going on there.  Whether their actual message has caught on with some women who have had problems, and want the opportunity to see if this drug will help them, I don't know.   There is huge tension around the role of the FDA in all this stuff.  On the one hand you have the Abigail Alliance which basically wants the FDA to get the hell out of the way of patient's access to drugs, and on other hand you have people really angry with the FDA for ever letting drugs like Avandia and Vioxx ever get to market.   The FDA needs to be in the middle but they are always attacked by extremists on both sides.  Hard.
 * The whole thing about the time and money it takes to bring a medical product to market is not about liability, but about the actual money you need. It is.... what it is, whether an established company like Pfizer is starting down that road or whether it is a startup.  If you do every single step of discovery and development perfectly (hitting the bulls eye early on at each step) it takes something like $200M and eight years to go from start to finish.  If things work out normally where there is a lot of trial and error, it is more like $1B and 12 years. That is how hard the science is.   Pfizer will use its own money, and a startup has to raise it, but the time and risk are the same.  The real problem a startup has, is that it can only raise money in small chunks.  (Pfizer has huge bank accounts, and once it starts something there is no doubt it can finish.)  Most startups fail because they run out of money - they can't raise their next round of funding or do the deal (like a partnership deal with a bigger company) that will take them their next step.  A lot of companies deserve to die b/c their idea didn't work,  but a lot of cool ideas have been shipwrecked by bad captaining.    Which is tragic.... sometimes the thing can be relaunched (erbitux was in the hands of two companies before Imclone got it) but not always.
 * It is not surprising to me that Sprout was able to get funding, since so much work had already been done and there are no competing drugs at this time. It is true that it had failed at the FDA before - that is why Boeheringer gave up on it (boeheringer first developed it as antidepressant than shifted to the hypoarousal indication).   But some folks wanted to try again.  All the time people see flaws in clinical trials other people did, and think that if they do it different, they might get a better outcome. So they raised money and launched Sprout to try again.  (see here and here - for example - Sprout tried to raise $5M in 2012 and took $20M b/c interest from investors was so strong.  I need to read more on how much they raised when they launched in 2010 and what they actually did with all the money they raised - what trials they did and how they were different from B-I's trials)  But the outcomes that Sprout got from their trials were clearly not as good as what they hoped for - they have "gone for it" anyway.  So we have this messy current situation.   hm. happy to talk more and send you stuff to read on any of that, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can compile a Wikipedia article about social activism in the FDA approval process.
 * Is there a name for the business model of using a small company to introduce a single drug? I have heard the narrative about 10 years and a billion dollars to bring a drug to market. The part that I wish to know more about is when this kind of investment started coming from small companies with a single drug as their only product. It makes sense that funding would happen in stages in any case, but I still wonder how anyone other than a major pharma company would be able to plan to invest the billion dollars, and when market conditions began to allow small groups of investors to collect money in this way and bring their own drug to market. I wonder what drugs are the product of single-drug companies, and which single-drug companies have investors in common. Also I wonder if there are enough drugs from single-drug companies to generalize traits of them - are drugs from small companies more likely to have safety problems? Do investors in these companies have greater appetite for risk than major pharma companies? Are they more likely to do social campaigns to get their drugs approved? Is there even a name for this kind of development model? Is this common? Is looking at companies like this a topic of research? I am not sure where to begin asking questions but I wonder what if anything has ever been said on this model. It seems so different from big pharma that I wonder if anyone has described this system in a way that could be a Wikipedia article.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * hm. What you call "single drug companies" (which I would call a "rifle shot" model - see for example here) is one model of gathering talent and money around an asset to turn it into a product. There are many more business models (all of them ways to gathering talent and money around assets to move them forward), and I don't see how (or why) one could judge one model more morally hazardous than another. So much depends on the type of asset, and the preferences of the people involved, and their relationships.  If you google "biotech business models" or "pharma business models" it isn't hard to find information on them.  People write about them all the time.  What all of them share - what they are about - are strategies to go from one round of funding to the next round, and then to "exit", so that the investors can get their money back.  In the old days (the 1980s) the exit was an IPO - since the mid 1990s the exit has more often been getting acquired by a bigger company, in whole or in part.  The IPO window has been pretty open for the past year or two and that model had a bit of a renaissance but that will probably not last long.  But almost nobody thinks of going from the start (a pre-IND candidate) to market by themselves anymore....
 * In biotech, people with money invest in people (the talent) and their plan much more than the asset per se. Maybe a bit around the kind of asset (whether it is early or late, or how risky it is)  For example:
 * From the links above... the guy who founded Sprout is Bob Whitehead; before he did Sprout he did a company that brought a novel depot formulation of testosterone to market; before that, he was with another company that brought a novel topic gel form of testosterone to market. So he is what we call a "very late stage" guy who likes to work with well-understood drugs and do new things with them.  He has a track record of success (of making money for investors) so it is likely that some of the same investors in his last companies invested in Sprout, too.  But... Sprout is much riskier than either of his two prior companies, right?  Flibanserin is not an approved drug, and it might never be approved.  So it could be that some of the investors in his last companies were not up for something ~that~ risky.  (and I note, that the risk left in flibanserin was tiny compared to a drug that is just IND-ready and has never been in humans. yikes. flibanserin had already been in Phase III trials when it was acquired by Sprout from B-I. I wouldn't think that if Whitehead wanted to do an early stage venture, that he would be able to raise money for it. That is not what he is good at. And people that invested in Sprout may have no interest in something earlier-stage either.)  I don't know if you are getting my meaning here or not...
 * Not sure what else to say here. If want to learn more about how investors think about medical innovation, there is a great blog by a really smart (and nice, and honest(!)) VC named Bruce Booth, here who is with Atlas Ventures in Boston. I read him regularly.  Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I get all your meaning. Now the biggest question I have is how you stay in the loop on these kinds of narratives. I will check out the blog and look more into funding for little pharma. I am not ready to write anything on wiki about any of the funding angle, but maybe I will look at writing something on social activism and drug approval.
 * Are you unusual in your field, or is there a subculture that knows all this flibanserin gossip?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  22:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * :) I pay lots of attention to innovation in biotech and to the business models around it. I read and read, and talk with folks too.  I think it is some of the most intellectually fascinating stuff that goes on anywhere.
 * I haven't read that much about Sprout itself - really just about 15 minutes this morning while responding to you, and mostly from those two articles I linked to above, and a couple others i didn't cite. I've learned the basic business models and seen them all unfold a bunch of times - with that background it is easy to figure which story is at play and easy to pull out the main themes.  It takes time to work out the details though  - and it is always the details that make any given story interesting.  I do want to know what data Sprout had in hand from B-I's work, how much Sprout raised over all, and what trials they actually did - and whether they carried out reasonably well-planned studies that got messy results, or if they did badly-planned or badly-executed trials (e.g. from skimping) that got necessarily messy results that they are now trying to make hay with.   The answer there doesn't really matter - the data we have is the data we have and the FDA will decide based on the data (hopefully), but it matters to me from a learning perspective. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I will read more.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I will read more.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

August 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Ping
I know you do a lot with page views, so you might be interested in this explanation: Village pump %28technical%29  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Franco
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Franco. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion re No legal threats
Thanks for the offer but I would only consider off-wiki communication for something extraordinary. There is nothing at WP:No legal threats that cannot be discussed at its talk page. I am very sympathetic to the idea that NLT should not be enforced in a mechanical way without an attempt to think about whether there is a content problem that should be addressed, and without looking at the editor's approach to see whether calm discussion should occur first. If editor A makes statements threatening editor B, it is likely that A will have to be blocked pending a retraction. However, there could be other less-clear circumstances where a brief discussion should occur before any block. The tricky point concerns what advice should be given to A or B, and that's where we part company. I think that anything more than providing a link to an official WMF page is inviting trouble because a how to respond guide written by general editors might lead someone down an unhelpful path.

People disagree about things all the time, and it's best to accept that editors have different opinions. When the text on a page is disputed, the standard dispute-resolution approaches should be followed. I may respond to any further substantive points raised at NLT, but there is no reason for the few who have engaged so far to discuss the matter until exhaustion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Doug Flag
Working on an overhaul of this article. I removed content sourced by unreliable references. Feel free to help with its expansion. Hoping to get this article promoted to Good article status eventually. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigpost contribution
Lane, I just read your extensive piece in the signpost discussing the role of volunteers and conferences. It is an excellent piece on many levels; there was a lot of information new to me, and it provided a thoughtful discussion about issues.

I did have two minor points to make. I'll leave it up to you whether they are worth addressing as an edit, but it is not inconceivable you will be asked to share this document more widely and if so you might consider the following two points:
 * 1) In the multinational hotel accommodation section, you make an observation about the Hilton Hotel. In context one can tell this is a reference to the Hilton Hotel used for the Mexico conference. My minor quibble is that you discuss the Mexico conference several paragraphs above, then returned to a specific comment about the hotel without a clear indication that you are talking about the hotel at that conference. I simply suggest that the opening sentence might explain that it refers to the Hilton used as the venue in the Wikimania event in Mexico City.
 * 2) In the next section on paid versus volunteer presentations, the following sentence appears: "There were lots of empty rooms reserved, and people could meet during the first two days, and scholarship recipients were present, but posting to the schedule was prohibited." (emphasis added). I don't quite know what that last phrase means. My guess is that you are saying that if participants wanted to revise the schedule, either adding a new subject dropping an old subject or modifying a a description, they were not allowed to do so, but that's a guess. Could you be more specific?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments.
 * I will clarify the point about the Hilton.
 * For the other part - I mean that literally if you were not staff of the WMF that posting was not allowed to the schedule for the preconference. Staff of the WMF were organizing this event and controlled the schedule. I would have set a community schedule elsewhere, but all links pointed to the WMF event, and indeed, the intent of the preconference management was to direct all attention to what the WMF staff were organizing. Next year, it is my wish that regional and subject matter meetups can happen during the preconference and I will want a divided WMF / community schedule. Things like the OTRS meetup, admin meetup, regional meetups like US or India or whatever might better happen during these preconference days. The result of what happened this year was that these things had to be squeezed into conference coffee breaks and the lunches, or happen early morning or end of day. This was just a misunderstanding - the WMF staff had no idea that the community used the preconference for anything, and their small actions made big barriers to community organization.
 * Thanks again - I am looking forward to the OTRS meetup. Whether you cover this in your talk or not, I would like to learn how to do Commons licensing review.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Shelly's Leg
I grew up in Seattle in the 70's and was pleased to find that someone had already created a page. The backstory is interesting and during that time my mom (still kicking in her 80's!) was a manager for a band. Though as far as I recall, there were no live bands at Shelly's Leg, she opened my eyes to different lifestyles (being straight and mostly conservative at the time). I have read much of the cite material and found some things that tell a conflicting story and after rereading the article found that the flow did not lend itself to the impact that SL had on both the Seattle Gay scene or emerging disco era. I would like to try my hand at reworking the article and feel that since you put almost all, if not all, of the work into it that it would be the right thing to do to see if you would be interested in collaborating on a revamp. I would be interested in your feedback. I am leaving the current article intact and working on the revamp in my sandbox. -- S l i m J i m  Talk 08:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I care about documenting Seattle's gay scene but I do not see myself having free time for research in this space in the next few months. Feel free to edit the article directly if you like - I know nothing about this place except that I read some articles about it and thought it deserved a Wikipedia article. I think I made this for Wiki Loves Pride so I did it quickly and could have gotten things incorrect.
 * Thanks for your interest. I watch the article so would read if you developed it.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)