User talk:Colin/Archive 12

Write for Signpost on medicine?
You criticized Jytdog's assessments at WT:MED recently. I appreciate the feedback but that talk page is not the correct forum for a conversation about a particular editor. As I was reading what you read I wished that you could have reframed your discussion as a criticism of Wiki medicine process, but seemingly your view is that the process was just an opinion of Jytdog.

If you feel strongly then I could get a response for you if you drafted an opinion piece for The Signpost or some other appropriate forum. Maybe you could mention Jytdog, or maybe you just have opinions about the oversight of Wikipedia's medical content. I feel that Jytdog only executed consensus and do not see his actions in the example you gave as personal.

Many times I have offered to chat with you by voice or video on various issues. That still applies, and I offer again because if we did a point/counterpoint article I would not want anyone to be surprised by the response.

What you stated was what I feel many people believe. WP:MED has a counterpoint, of course. It could be that WP:MED is in error, but I feel like part of your argument that WP:MED had not thought through the issues you raised. There is an established discourse, and if you can organize any number of editors to present one side, I can organize a response on the other.

If we did this some goals I would have would be keeping this entry level for new users, not committing so much labor to the article, and linking out to anywhere appropriate where people could contribute to the discussion. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really follow your comment "You criticized Jytdog's assessments at WT:MED recently". I wasn't talking about "assessments" and my section was entitled "scapegoating", not "Jytdog". Scapegoatingisn't quite the accurate word since he's taking a fall that is fully deserved, but my point is that his bullying behaviour is endemic at WP:MED and WP:MED does nothing to identify, prevent and deal with bullying. It is trivial to find other examples for other editors. I pulled out that one example, because it was brought up at the Arb and nobody, not one person at WP:MED, said OMG that's just unacceptable. I saw some horrendous behaviour from a different WP:MED editor just earlier this month, to a newbie who was very much editing in good faith and struggling simply with the protocol and etiquette. I have seen this bullying going on several times this year, and the bullying of an expert at Epilepsy by a whole gang at WP:MED, led by James, is the reason I semi-retired from WP.
 * If serious comments about serious issues are going to be treated with the kind of childish abuse that WP:MED seem to think passes for discussion, and responses so full of careless misunderstandings, then I frankly have better things to do with my time. Jytog's block could have been a moment when WP:MED reflected on its pattern of editing and attitudes towards other editors, and embarked on reform. I'm sure you are well aware of public events in the last year or two in the entertainment business, where an individual's horrendous behaviour has sparked reflection in an industry that exposes the problem is not unique to that person, and that the industry was not only in denial of the problem, but actively colluded in attacking anyone who raised a complaint. WP:MED is in that place and at some point the boil will burst. There is no counterpoint argument for bullying, just as there was never ever any excuse for the abuse that went on in the entertainment business. -- Colin°Talk 17:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and consideration. I do not see a productive way forward in this direction and have no ideas of what more to suggest.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Attribution
It may be the case that attribution is simply invisible to many people, including Wikipedia editors, when they are reading the news. I've seen myself how journalists (or their editors) can choose to highlight attribution, downplay it, or even obscure it, by placing the attribution at the beginning or end of a statement. Journalists may also choose to repeat or not repeat this attribution for subsequent statements from a single source.

I'll admit, I'm sensitive to attribution because I was taught to read the news while paying careful attention to it, and because in scientific writing it is common to have almost every sentence ends with an inline citation.

For this reason, I'm amazed when other editors see an attributed statement in a newspaper, and are incredulous when informed that the statement may not be a certain fact. -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Darouet, see British journalists have become part of Johnson’s fake news machine. See also Churnalism. Journalists are often just mouthpieces for getting "facts" from the fiction-machine into people's heads. There's very little questioning investigative journalism, because that costs so much money and takes so much time. I'm not saying that using attribution is wrong or a waste of time, but it is probably not as effective as we'd hope. -- Colin°Talk 15:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * the OpenDemocracy piece is extraordinary but unfortunately not surprising. I just re-read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. In it, he describes watching a CP agent denouncing various left-wing dissidents:


 * "It was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies — unless one counts journalists."


 * Investigative journalism is precious indeed but too rare these days. I sometimes have the impression that the "churnalists" almost resent investigative journalists for reminding readers how journalism is really done. -Darouet (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Pricing
Hi Colin. Thank you for taking on the difficult subject of pricing. Have you seen Prices, which has a fairly good list of relevant discussions at the end.

As you point out, the big problem is that "price" depends on many factors, and can vary considerably. Because of this, price is generally not something that can be simply identified and incorporated as wikidata. I've been hoping some simple pricing information can be agreed upon. But as long as editors are behaving as they are, I don't think we can make much progress.

I'm awaiting closure of Talk:IPhone_11. I don't think it will help with the inevitable ArbCom, but it should get editors to tone down their behavior at least a little. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ronz, I have see Prices and is a good example of where an essay can get distorted by a POV pusher with no interest in the truth. I have rarely seen such blatant BS outside of a Trump tweet or a Tory party Facebook advert. I'm a bit out-of-touch wrt Wikipedia dispute resolution but I suspect this isn't quite arbcom level. WP:MED used to have editors who cared about source->article faithfulness and writing encyclopaedic content. I'm not seeing any evidence of that these days and there are plenty better websites for medical information today. -- Colin°Talk 22:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

MEDMOS price
Hello Collin, just to reply quickly to, yes I agree it's complex, your comments a month ago made me search for the literature on the subject. I'll reply on MEDMOS with my findings and thoughts. Best regards. --Signimu (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Medical Products Price Guide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/International_Medical_Products_Price_Guide check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/International_Medical_Products_Price_Guide?client=notify 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) 08:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Many thanks Sandy and best wishes to you also. -- Colin°Talk 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style Discretionary Sanctions
Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Interaction with RexxS at Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles
Colin, I've spent a few hours working on the pricing RfC and only now have swung around to Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles. I would ask you to strike the portions of this diff which comment on RexxS as an editor rather than the substance being discussed. If you have questions about this please don't hesitate to ask me either by pinging me here or asking on my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, done. -- Colin°Talk 22:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks. That is indeed helpful. But I have one further request that per WP:REDACT you undo your deletion of the comment and instead use tags on that content. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS". Thank you.Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Valentine's Day thanks

 * Oooh. Thanks Sandy. -- Colin°Talk 19:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Asking a favor of your time
Colin, I am here to ask a favor, in the hopes that you (like me) have more free time because of stay-at-home COVID restrictions and are willing to increase your workload at this time. Your superior writing ability and content reviews first came to my attention when I met you at Featured article candidates/Tourette syndrome-- which remains to this day the FAC with most support received ever (19 unanimous supports), and the fastest support as well (with most of those supports lodged within 24 hours only). I neglected the TS article for more than five years after the content was negatively impacted (IMO) by attempts originating at the Medicine project to enforce misinterpretations of guidelines, and even personal preferences, as if they were policy, with edits that are contradictory to the standards Featured articles must meet. When I finally decided to update and completely overhaul the 14-year-old Tourette syndrome (TS), it was the comprehensive review you gave here and here that assured smooth sailing with no problems found during TS's 3 March mainpage appearance. Many other editors-- medical and non-medical-- also pitched in to help smooth prose, but it was your thoroughness that assured that there was clarity and accuracy in the prose. Along with the work a lot of the same team did to quickly update ' Introduction to viruses for a coronavirus-related TFA, sorting this table by mainpage views reveals that our Featured medical content ranked right up there with the (significant) 75th anniversary of the Bombing of Tokyo, so your work is not only appreciated by me, but shown to our readers as quality TFAs. With that background, I would like to ask you to give more of your time and writing ability towards other featured article efforts. I can give you multiple ideas of where I could really use help, as it is abundantly clear that I am unlikely to get help from the Medicine project. I wrote dementia with Lewy bodies two years ago, and recently did a complete overhaul of the citations to make sure it uses the latest secondary reviews. Since that update, I have made no attempt (have not yet had time) to smooth the prose, check the flow, make sure everything is in the right place and has clarity, etc. I also haven't updated the lead at all, as I always insist it is best to work on the lead last. This article is almost FAC ready. I am in no hurry because FAC these days is as moribund as FAR, but DLB is a potential Featured article. But there are other, more urgent FA repair needs, to avoid or help with Featured article reviews. Perhaps one of these will interest you? Almost none of the Medicine Project Featured articles are being maintained; as you will see from this list, I despair. I can't do this alone. MANY non-medical editors are helping me, but you have the medical content writing expertise at the FA level that some of them don't have.
 * Asperger syndrome is languishing at FAR, as it has fallen into complete disrepair since Eubulides left. The FAR Coordinators have not enough feedback to either Keep or Delist the article, and one would hope it could be updated and repaired to honor our departed friend Eubulides.  The choice here is attempt repair, or to ask for Delist at FAR-- but the Coords need something one way or the other.
 * Autism is actually in even worse shape. I was just reviewing it, and hardly know where to start. This is another Eublides FA, that has been the subject of very poor editing since his departure.  I can't keep up with all of these alone.
 * Chagas disease is also currently at FAR, but there is an impressive cadre of editors at work there; it is premature for your review yet, but eventual review with an eye towards saving the bronze star will be needed.
 * Dengue fever has unaddressed maintenance tags and no one is doing a thing; I haven't yet submitted it to FAR. That is a JFdwolff/DocJames joint FAC. I am surprised neither of them has maintained it, but think it best to focus my/our efforts elsewhere, as they should be able to do the work, if they are willing.
 * Huntington's disease is a wreck, but when someone submitted it to FAR, I asked that it be put on hold because it isn't just to have three medical articles at FAR at once.
 * Parkinson's disease is another wreck that needs to go to FAR, which I FAR-noticed in February, yet no one is doing a thing. Ditto for DNA repair and Cell nucleus (FAR-noticed by others).

That is only the tip of the iceberg; there is more. But if you are willing to lend a hand on any of these articles, there are plenty to choose from. Please help me? We have-- at the top levels of our medical content-- dismal failures, and I shudder to think of what is at the GA level. On the other hand, we also have a potential FA at DLB. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia goodness me you've twisted my arm so much I could use it as a corkscrew! Ok ok message received. Tonight though I have some sad TV to watch with my wife, so this will need to wait for the weekend. -- Colin°Talk 19:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I heard my name mentioned. I think you both know that I will be busy back in the lab for the foreseeable. I can't offer much help, but I'll check that the virology in dengue fever is up to date. ( BTW Colin, I'm watching the same sad TV ). Graham Beards (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I know … just like sayin' your name! No need to dig in while you are on the front lines. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Colin, I cried just reading it. I posted this response an hour ago, but suspect I did not realize I lost it in edit conflict with Graham.   I hope you understand how significant your contribution-- along with  and others like  in earlier versions-- was.  It is rare for a TFA to get through mainpage day without a single issue of significance being found. I think someone uncovered one typo, and there were some other instances of wikilinks being introduced that weren't really needed, and things like that-- but the article sailed through mainpage day with an ease that made my pre-TFA concerns look ridiculous.  A testament to the teamwork that went into perfecting the article.  Thanks to all of you! I was disappointed that the National Advocacy Day in Washington, DC had to be cancelled, so that we didn't hit the 100,000 pageviews mark, but oh well! I remember the days when we aimed for this precision, accuracy and clarity in all medical FAs. :( :(  If we could get  and others back in here, we could restore all of that list I gave above, rather than seeing them all defeatured.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And since I reference them above, without naming them, I should also ping to the list; it is encouraging to see how many editors do care about featured content. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Dementia with Lewy bodies is worth looking at for prose etc. as surely it is almost ready for FAC. I have been working on bipolar disorder. I did review Hepatitis E at GAN last year, and think the article might be concise enough to get through FAC - Colin if you saw any glaring issues in that one (sometime), it'd be great too. But no rush. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the issues in the lead alone (I didn't read further), it would take quite a sustained effort to bring Hepatitis E to FA level; I hope before that amount of time elapses, we are all released from stay-at-home and off enjoying the great outdoors! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh well. Yes, on second read, I think you are right. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides all the other stuff (which I won't list), the lead gives me the WEIGHT impression that it is mostly a disease of pregnancy. But there is more. I do think it's fine for GA level, except for the undefined jargon in the lead.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

typeface size
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop&diff=952709930&oldid=952369590#Doc_James_does_not_write_about_cost%2C_he_adds_factoids_%28Evidence_presented_by_Colin%29 this edit]: would you consider not setting your examples in a smaller typeface size, to make them easier to read? It's just a suggestion; I appreciate any consideration you may give. isaacl (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * isaacl thanks for the hint. Fixed. -- Colin°Talk 18:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! isaacl (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Scope of pricing in medicine articles
Hi Colin. I know you looked at this. If I recall correctly, Doc James never commented on the scope of his additions, despite requests for him to do so. Further, I mistakenly thought User:Colin/ExistingPrices was only a listing of articles citing the International Drug Price Indicator Guide. Could you clarify how you made this list (or point to where you already have)? User:Hipal/scope is my sampling from Category:World Health Organization essential medicines, where I found a few articles that you did not identify. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It's clearer after looking at User:Colin/PriceEdits again. Still, I'm surprised that I found a few that you didn't, such as and. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering, what did you used as your list of articles to search? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hipal/Ronz it was a few months ago when I created this, so my memory is not perfect. I recall generating a list of prices that used the MSH Price Guide, the Drugs.com, BNF and NADAC database sources. I combined these together to produce a list of article titles. User:Colin/ExistingPrices comes from the same source as User:Colin/PriceEdits. Then I wrote a program that got the history of those articles, downloaded every version of wikitext, and started from 2015 to look at insertions or deletions of cost/price words. The ExistingPrices is an extraction of any sentence that includes such a reference, tidied up a bit by hand. So it is possible that my initial list of drug article titles is incomplete. I didn't start from the WHO Essential Medicines. When I looked at the latest version of the WHO document, and counted the drugs in the index, it came to 500. Some of these are combination pills, which might not all have their own Wikipedia articles. There are also some drugs not on the WHO list that James has added prices for (e.g. UK or US prices). The two you mention are not using the databases I searched for.
 * My User:Colin/OsmosisEdits is also not entirely complete. I got the list by looking at the articles that James removed videos from on the night when he conceded defeat. But it looks like a few videos had already been successfully removed by other editors, so it isn't the complete list. -- Colin°Talk 19:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wikiblame has been working so poorly the past few days that I've decided it best to move on from anything that requires it. I'm trying to wrap up with the data I have, comparing it to yours. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hipal/Ronz (and User:SandyGeorgia), have you tried Who Wrote That?. It works for me. -- Colin°Talk 19:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will try that next. I am at such a level of frustration with the tools, that I have to keep taking long walks just to blow off steam.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a long way from perfect though. It doesn't seem to identify the author of every word. It is a difficult problem to solve. -- Colin°Talk 20:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've been looking further through Category:World_Health_Organization_essential_medicines for articles not in your list. I've found 24 more. At this rate, it looks like the total number of articles is around 600 (assuming you found 530). I vaguely recall you changing the 530 to something else. Am I misremembering? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hipal, I don't recall revising the figure, though I may have said 540 at one point just misremembering the number. If you want to record the extra drugs somewhere, you are welcome to edit User:Colin/ExistingPrices to add a paragraph or bullet-list at the start, with additional entries you found. There doesn't seem much point in going into detail about the text or edit history of those as the RFC and Arbcom are over. -- Colin°Talk 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just wanted to make sure that 530 is what I should be working from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Kilmainham Gaol Main Hall 2016-06-03.jpg}} scheduled for POTD
This is to let you know that the featured picture File:, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 13, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-05-13. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Prose and English
Hey Colin, how are you? Mate such a dispute. I can clearly see though content wise what you are aiming for, and I can see James' aim for accessibility (trust me I hate the readability so called algorithms as much as you do).

There is a happy medium though, and we cant have these sides warring going forward.

What do you think of the COVID-19 transmission section for instance. As a person involved IRL I'm more than familiar how difficult it is to make so many things readable to the public as well as not "dumbed down".

If i'm to continue my prolific editing, I will need both yours and James mentorship. How do you feel with that? to ping james as well User:Doc James -- Almaty 11:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Almaty, always happy to review text and help out. You should be aware that I am time-poor and also read what my friend Graham wrote about me on the Evidence page, wrt my reviews. You might also want to look at my recent reviews of DLB and TS for Sandy. Unlike Graham, say, I'm not confident with knowing all the grammar rules of English: it is easier to say when something sounds off than to reliably get it right oneself. I haven't looked to see who/wrote what, but since you are asking, I'll assume it was you and let's not worry if it isn't. I haven't looked at the talk history or researched sources in detail.

I'm looking at COVID-19 pandemic, which you mention on James's page. Here are some initial thoughts:


 * This section appears virtually identical to Coronavirus disease 2019. One of them should really be the master and the other a summary, which refers to the master.
 * User:Doc James and I tend to agree with them to be templated exactly on the pandemic page and on the disease page. Why should one be the master? They're both important, if you are looking for information on the disease, or the pandemic --Almaty (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My approach to this section would be to review as many sources as possible and determine what aspects of transmission they focus on and how they go about introducing them. That way, we can give appropriate WP:WEIGHT to the aspects of this sub-topic, and not forget anything. For example, we want to discuss the mode of transmission, how easily the virus spreads (is it hard to catch?), when you are infectious (do you need to show symptoms, do you remain infectious afterwards?). Who/what you catch it from and how it transfers from that into you. Btw, I found this article -- not suggesting that it could be a source, but it is a lay article on the topic that could guide how you word things.
 * I note that the Europa source (and the LiveScience article I found) says "modes of transmission". Now "mode" isn't an everyday word, but it isn't university level either. We say "mode of transport", for example. If you google "mode of transmission" you see that's the term used by the experts (who also use "route" which is related). Where I differ from James, is that since we are an encyclopaedia (we teach all things), we can use this as a teaching opportunity to help grow our reader's vocabulary. While we don't gratuitously use jargon, we also don't eliminate terminology that the reader may benefit from knowing. That way, when they read other literature, they won't stumble on the terminology. So I think you should work "mode(s) of transmission" into the early part of the section, in a way that the reader will understand what you mean from the context. For example, you might say at some point that large droplets are the primary mode of transmission. Introducing this concept also gives you a framework to discuss the other modes. For example see this lesson gives you all the permutations, and you can consider how/whether to mention them and their importance or otherwise for Covid19.
 * "As COVID-19 is a new disease, many aspects as to how it spreads are being researched." The word "as" is repeated. The text says transmission is being researched because it is a new disease. I don't think the sources support that and people research transmission for ancient diseases too. I think what you are trying to say is that transmission is not yet fully understood, and still being researched. The wording "many aspects as to how it spreads" isn't great English. When you use a vague word like "aspects" you are setting up hope in the reader that those aspects are enumerated: make sure you do and don't disappoint them. Since we are saying here that we don't yet know everything, I'd expect some mention in this section of what we don't know, in addition to what we do.
 * Can you do an edit there on that then please? --Almaty (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, you have been warned I can write a lot, and we haven't even gone past the first sentence!. -- Colin°Talk 13:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Colin, I am also time poor! This is the kind of fantastic, word by word feedback that I needed the whole time. Members of the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases including very very senior decision makers were helping me with my edits during march. Lets start on the first sentence again, thankyou! --49.180.126.41 (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But in answer to several of your questions, it is literally impossible to review as many sources as possible around the mode of transmission. Because we do not know in general, and it is not wikipedias role to do attempt to consider what is due weight. What we need to do is reword what the WHO, CDC and ECDC say at this moment. We cannot cite primary studies, viewpoints or views, because wikipedia does not have the ability to give them appropriate weight or balance. And in "bludgeon" terms, they fail WP:MEDRS. --Almaty (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there are two things to think about WP:WEIGHT. The first is literally whether a viewpoint (e.g. drinking disinfectant) represents a minority or majority view, and I agree with you about not citing primary studies, opinion pieces, etc. Do most your sources mention the Trump nonsense (to reject it of course) or do they ignore it? My gut feeling is they all ignore it and only the newspapers wanting to score political points, or commenting on that day's stupidity from POTUS have given it weight. If so, that would tell me that the long sentence warning not to drink disinfectants likely fails WP:WEIGHT and is more likely some Wikipedian thinking it is vitally important to warn their fellow Americans. Remember Medical disclaimer -- that's not our job.
 * Yes when I added the trump thing, i said WP:IAR and havent been challenged on that, and i find that surprising --Almaty (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The second is the weight given to each aspect you are covering. Are you spending too much time discussing close-contact droplets vs surface contamination? Not saying you are, just a question. For example, the advice is to blow your nose with a paper tissue, discard it, and wash your hands afterwards. Does the transmission section even suggest that is a route? It seems to mainly cover surfaces becoming contaminated through droplets breathed, coughed or sneezed out, and not on being contaminated because a person has bad hygiene wrt blowing their nose or coughing into their hand rather than their elbow. These are just the things that come to mind and seem perhaps to be missing. That's what I mean about researching sources. I agree you can't find all the sources but policy requires we cover these things in proportion to the secondary literature, and you need to have a decent sample set of that literature to judge that. Without that, you are indeed just judging weight by your own gut feeling or opinions, and we aren't allowed to do that.


 * We have a prevention section around that aspects of prevention that you're referring to. My opinion alwyas has been, and it has been the evolving and now more explicit opinion of the three big MEDRS sources that it goes 1. cough sneeze and talk 2. breathing (they're all droplets) the droplets contaminate the surfaces, but the ECDC especially deemphasize the surfaces in my reading of their FAQ presently. Thats what is simultaneiously mine and the ECDCs assesment of the matter. I think its a reliable replication of the sources in this regard. --Almaty (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a bit uncomfortable with some of the sources used. It may be there is nothing better right now, but these lay "public information leaflet" type of pages are not a high quality source that would be permitted in a featured article on a disease, say. A problem is that they are often already a dumbed down translation of the official professional text, which we then try to paraphrase, and, like a translation of a translation, something gets lost or confused in the process. So where we can, I would encourage the use of professional-level sources. And frankly, if we are just parroting a lay government advice page, then Wikipedia might as well stick up a banner with a reader-location-appropriate link to the government advice, and we can all go write about Stranger Things or something else. -- Colin°Talk 14:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I 100 agree, and though I am invoved in the discussions to a very junior extent that result in this page, I never cite perhaps just once earlier in the piece when one thing was more clear there. But it is definitely a reliable source. The ACON source is actually the NSW government public health department about STIs in MSM populations particularly, its the health promotion arm of my work that is tasked with "endinghiv.org.au" in our state. is that what youre referring to? Theyre just a very "progressive" part of NSW Health (but authoritative in our jurisdiction, despite what they write is generally in "woke" terms for that population.) It is a WP:MEDRS source though. The Irish Government did a similar as did NYC, but I liked ours best, but always happy for any chats about sourcing. --Almaty (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But this is my philosophy for outbreak editing at least. If the MEDRS source says it, and we accept it, great. But if the media, or pamphlet says it better, more understandable and accessible, then the general reader is going to get more out of reading that source than they would say just the CDC. When the risk of the pandemic became very high, I cited the BBC, not the WHO. Because the BBC source stated what happened in a clearer way than the WHO did in their press release. Its unique but I do this because I eventually want to become an outbreak communicator. Which is why I want to write a guideline for outbreaks. With yours and James' and the communitys help of course. --Almaty (talk)

Lewy image
Colin, would this image work for the History section? And if it does, what if we chopped it in half, to include only Alzheimer and Lewy etc (the right half of the picture)? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_H._Lewy#/media/Datei:Alzheimer_with_his_co-workers_Nervenklinik_Munich_1909-1910.JPG Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to include the whole image. I googled to see if there was a better copy, and found this article that describes the people in the lab, and I agree with them that this research is rarely one person alone. The blackboard behind them is great too. -- Colin°Talk 15:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted
The proposed decision in the Medicine arbitration case has been posted, and contains one or more remedies or findings of fact which relate to you. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed
An arbitration case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
 * Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
 * QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard