User talk:Pgcudahy/Archive 2

Reliable sources
Thanks a lot for your additions to amphotericin B. They have significantly enhanced the article.

Just one thing: I note that in the past, asked you to ensure that the sources meet the WP:MEDRS criteria for reliable sourcing in health and medical science. Recently, you used a rabbit study as a source, as well as a paper from 1969. One would not expect an encyclopedia to use such sources for content - we place an emphasis on secondary sources (reviews or textbooks), ideally from the last five years. In some very unusual circumstances we deviate from these requirements, but not very often; after all, there is no shortage of information in the medical literature on most subjects but the issue lies in identifying the most reliable information and making it accessible to the general public.

Let me know if I can be of any assistance! Kind regards. JFW &#124; T@lk  14:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The strict adherence to guidelines without thoughtful interpretation has made contributing to Wikipedia unrewarding for me. The point of my rabbit model reference for the CNS penetration of ambisome was to show how flimsy the evidence is for a practice that is recommended in all the secondary sources as well as the common clinical practice. Check the IDSA guidelines and you'll find the same reference. I could have stated that more clearly and included the secondary reference, but for you to just strip it out is unproductive and insulting to the time I put into it. Similarly for the 1969 reference, so what if it's old? It's the same drug we're using now. Why spend the time to strip it out and comment to me rather than just select a reference more to your liking? This page languished for years without substantive revisions, I would hope you'd be more constructive when someone actually comes along to try and make a broad edit. Pgcudahy (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It was not my intention to appear unconstructive, or indeed insulting. In fact, I have made an effort to support your work on the amphotericin B article, e.g. the sourcing for the treatment of naegleriasis. It is my experience that an open and frank discussion about the quality of sources leads to good and reliable content. At the same time I can understand your frustration and I am keen to make contributing more rewarding.

If the secondary sources acknowledge that the basis for a certain recommendation is weak, it is possible to quote the secondary source to that effect rather than the primary sources on which a recommendation is based. For instance, the UK guidelines for acute asthma acknowledge that the use of magnesium sulfate for severe exacerbations is not supported by much evidence. Nevertheless, they are prepared to make a recommendation. I imagine the same applies here. JFW &#124; T@lk  15:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Provide sources
As a reminder, please cite sources when you add information to Wikipedia articles. I was looking over your contributions to HVTN 502 and saw that you added a results page. I am not sure if this is from the original study results or a later report.

Also - what is Wiki Journal Club? You used them as an external link. There is no author listed that I see and I do not see who vets this information. Why did you present this as an external link?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  12:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is about a study so the source is the study itself. What would you recommend I cite then? I guess I could add yet another link to the NEJM publication but that seems redundant. As for wiki journal club, why don't you follow the link and find out? It's a high quality review of high impact papers in the medical literaure that I thought more professional readers would find useful since it's more technical.


 * I continue to be impressed at how wikiproject medicine appears to encourage "bold edits" and yet I get so much friction from editors. Why not add a citation yourself if you feel it would benefit the article, or take a few minutes to follow the wiki journal club link? Pgcudahy (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * Wikipedia is very redundant because anyone can edit so citations are repeated much more densely than other publications. We depend on citations rather than the authority of contributors. This is the basis for quality control here. It was not obvious to me how many papers had published results from the research data. Wikipedia requests citations for all health information added. To what extent is that explanation satisfying to you?
 * I followed the link to Wiki Journal Club and I read a lot of it before I wrote to you. It looks like your credentialing process is to put your articles into a category as seen at usable articles.
 * I may be presuming too much but you seem to be upset or feel that something about Wikipedia is not orderly. If you like, I could talk to you by voice or video after the new year and give you a tour of Wikipedia's health information.
 * From what I have seen people who comply with Wikipedia's short and simple ruleset have positive experiences and people who either do not know the ruleset or choose to not follow it have more difficulty. Adding good references after medical content is required and I am sure you understand why. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * “The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.” Pgcudahy (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As you like. Good luck in your travels.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Some details about what kind of refs to use
Can be found at WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Spread of Zika virus.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Spread of Zika virus.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)