User talk:Doc James/Archive 139

Archive 135

←

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

→

Archive 145

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

autism spectrum in females

Hey Doc James: Are there any examples of sources you can give related to autistic girls/women? I'm autistic and female myself. I'm having trouble finding sources relasted to girls and women with ASD (autism) or PDD-Not Otherwise Specified. Angela Maureen (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There are some such as this [1] User:September 1988. What are you looking for in particular? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

From a fan

Hi Doc James,

I'm Rossouw van Rooyen, we met briefly at Wikimania 2018. I would like to state that I'm a big fan of your work and really think you are making amazing contributions.

I live in Namibia, my dad is a radiologist (also a fan of yours) and if you ever would like to visit Namibia I can accommodate you and show you some farm-life. Feel free to contact me at rossouwvr@gmail.com.

Cheers Dumbassman (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Dumbassman That would be wonderful. It will likely be a few years before I return to Africa again. But when I do I will definitely take you up on the offer :-)

By the way if your dad has medical images they are willing / able to donate would be happy to help them with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

why the indef?

I don't see what led up to the sudden indef block at User_talk:TheShopArt#August_2018. Shouldn't the user get some warnings, coaching, and/or limited-time blocks before such a drastic action? Or do you know something that's not apparent there? Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sufficient evidence that they are 1) using multiple accounts 2) appear to be involved in undisclosed paid editing 3) prior warning of copyright problems here[2]

User has not replied to prior concerns. The block mandates addressing things now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't see what evidence you refer to, re multiple accounts or paid editing. Lots of new users make copyright violations before they know better, and I don't see much attempt to educate him. Dicklyon (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And there has been zero engagement with the prior concerns raised. Plus you need to look at the deleted contributions to see the full extent of the concerns.

On another note, you should not edit the article about yourself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Copy paste

Hello again Doc James. I noticed this previous post and wondered: is that automatic and is there a public log of edits that matched text detected elsewhere? Or is it one of the tools (a number of tools don't work for me so if there was a log it'd be most useful, especially if it can be filtered by article). It does not appear to be part of Special:AbuseLog (and that log cannot be filtered by article), I also see no related entry at Help:SpecialPages. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate we have this tool [3]. Often I simple do Google searches of content that looks suspect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The tool partially works (I get a log), that seems useful, thanks a lot. So far what I did was also search for a few sentences in search engines, although it's of course error-prone. —PaleoNeonate – 18:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Momsteam.com for medical articles

• momsteam.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Should this be used as a MEDRS? First thing I checked out was an article on ACL injuries, written by a D.C., referenced by Sex differences in human physiology. Concerns for its use at Concussions in sport, Skin infections and wrestling, etc. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Bri does not look MEDRS to me. Would generally replace with something better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Newbie frustrated, requesting help!

Dear Doc James,

I thought I'd been successful in editing one (very crucial!)sentence of the "Spasmodic dysphonia" introduction yesterday, and adding a citation. Alas, I did not use the correct form for the date of the citation, and apparently my edit was rejected. I now see the correct date format, but have been unable to recreate my edit. In fact, I can't find it on a help page. Can you direct me to the location where I can edit my work from yesterday, please?

There are many other sections of this entry which would benefit from editing by me, a person who has had Spasmodic Dysphonia for most of my life, been active in the National Spasmodic Dysphonia Association (1990-2018), presented at the Voice Foundation (2016), and experienced successful surgery for this condition in 1984! I understand and will respect all of the guidelines, and appreciate your assistance. I am stymied, however, by the process.

Improving this entry could directly benefit hundreds or thousands of people who are suffering the debilitating effects of this very serious and daunting voice disorder. Please advise.

Thanks, Mary BradyConsumerWithSpasmodicDysphonia (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Have provided you advice on your talk page. It is critical to use review articles or position statements from major governmental organizations.

At SD you removed a statement by the NIH and added one by a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

CTE

Hi there. Point well taken about the JAMA. The problem was the prior citations were literally "broken" links. They wouldn't work, so there wasn't anything there. Ultimately anything that had a cite from NY Times or Washington Post was citing a Medical Journal published study. But I would agree it is a bit lazy to use the secondary reference when the primary can be found. I would rather the medical studies be directly cited anyway. That will be my next Wiki endeavor.LindseyGentile (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User:LindseyGentile the JAMA article is not a broken link. It works perfectly well. You can see it here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28975240

We do not cite popular press and we do not cite single article. We generally cite high quality secondary sources such as review articles in major journals.

Also can you please clarify your relation to the topic in question... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I am somewhat new editing on Wikipedia just a few months. So, you will have to guide me as to how to get the optimal result in terms of information and accuracy here.

I think you may have "cancelled" (not sure what the proper Wiki terminology would be) the work I put in yesterday. I do not have a bias (financially) but as a grad student in the field of sports medicine, I have a strong desire to see accurate information disseminated to the public. The fact that I had a professor who is a leading teacher on CTE, or support a variety of CTE non-profits, I don't think is a negative. I would assume that (like the first editor who assisted/critiqued me, EnWebb, is an expert and enthusiast involved with Bats and Butterflies, and thus weighs in most often in those areas) would be quite typical on all topics throughout Wikipedia. Naturally people who have the most information, e.g. pursuing a PhD on a topic might weigh in most.

The prior write up was (and now is) a total mess as far as the reference notes being out of order in a dozen places, and/or repeating the same number over and over again. Information prior to my work was also a few years' outdated vs. the newest studies and data. The JAMA links did not connect. But as I said in my prior note to you, I am happy to get more primary medical references, vs. referencing NY Times or Wash Post quoting those references -- so one step removed.

I am going to try to paste screenshots side by side, so you can see what I am referencing above. I am not a "wiki guru" but I am an expert on the topic and think I did good work to get it to Doctoral level quality in terms of being accurate, sourced, and clean.

Is there something I need to do, in order to ensure the few hours of work I put into getting the site up to date, and correct and clean, can be reinserted. I think you'll agree if you look at the screenshot vs. the painstaking clean, accurate version with more recent information, from yesterday 8/10.

I don't want to just leapfrog over your returning to the messier and older version. Would you let me know the best protocol here? LindseyGentile (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What you state simple does not make sense User:LindseyGentile. 2017 is NOT out of date. The JAMA reference works perfectly fine. All the references in the lead function perfectly fine in fact. And the JAMA link connects perfectly to pubmed and the doi.

No do not use primary sources, use high quality secondary sources as has been explained to you. Yes one can use the same reference multiple times. You do not need to paste screen shots, I looked extensively through the changes you made and they were NOT an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

links work, but all are

The links to the references do work now. You are correct.

But, all the citations are basically to one study, the same study over and over again and again. Whereas there are dozens from which to pull. If you would like, I can stick to those and try to get back to where I was yesterday, but with more primary sources, and less national publications (Times, Post, etc.).

My relation to the topic....expert, graduate student, hoping to get the accurate information out there through a variety of non-profits including ALS Association, Parkinson's Foundation, Alzheimer's Association, Boston University, CTEHuddle, CTE Awareness Foundation, Concussion Legacy Foundation, and StopCTE (Risha) Foundation.

Not a financial interest. Just area of expertise.

If there is something I did that you found irritating, please let me know and I will try to adjust as I am working to get this topic up to date.

ThanksLindseyGentile (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

They always worked perfectly well.

Not it is not "one study" but a review article that summarizes the current medical position on the topic in question. It sites 93 studies.

You state you work for CTEHuddle. Can you describe that relationship further. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that I’ve joined the Translation task force and other stuff

Hi Doc James,

I’ve added my name to the Translation task force (Japanese) and letting you know here that I’ve done so. I also signed (hopefully in the right place) in response to the FB call out for support for the Thematic Organization application.

I have some time on my hands to focus on some WP medical article translations or to help where needed with some of the other tasks that fall within my experience and expertise. Let me know if you need me for something on particular.

Cheers, Dr.khatmando (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC) (Dr. J.Dixon)

User:Wakkie1379 has been doing a fair bit of work translation into Japanese. She can provide some guidance User:Dr.khatmando. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Good oh! I shall touch base with her momentarily. Thanks for the heads up.Dr.khatmando (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Villous atrophy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Villous atrophy. Since you had some involvement with the Villous atrophy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Villous atrophy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Villous atrophy. Since you had some involvement with the Villous atrophy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PRehse (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship

Wishing Doc James a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 02:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Kpgjhpjm 02:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Kpgjhpjm thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

WHO spreadsheets

This case is worse than the previous one. Is the 2012 spreadsheet particularly unreliable? I have the 2016 spreadsheet on my computer and one possibility is to regenerate the charts for that, though I don't relish the prospect as I have other things to do. But who knows how many howlers will be disclosed by that? (Ireland didn't report.) I've thought about contacting them but I don't have a feel for it. I don't know how lethal Dengue is with decent medical treatment. Your voice might carry some weight. Chris55 (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Chris55 The spreadsheet from 2012 does say that Ireland has zero deaths from dengue. Would love to see the mortality updated to 2016 and the old one replaced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No James, it doesn't. It says it has 0.0 thousand deaths. If you alter the number of decimal places in the sheet, you will discover that the actual number is 0.037, i.e. 37. That was what my program used. Chris55 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank User:Chris55 so it is correct than. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

In a WP sense it is correct: i.e. it correctly represents a RS. But it's almost certainly wrong in that I'm pretty sure there weren't 37 Dengue deaths in Ireland in 2012. One such death generates mentions in the newspapers (which I've found) and they wouldn't stop talking about 37. So the question is do we do anything about it? The easiest thing to do would be to fudge the map: it would take 2 seconds. But it is a bit of a cheat.Chris55 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Chris55 lots of reliable sources contain small errors. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus I would have no problem fudging the map and noting the correction in the caption. If the 2016 data does not include that issue would prefer a map based on that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. Chris55 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Why did you remove my edit to the article on Scabies?

I am not saying that it was wrong for you to, as you know better than me as I am new on Wikipedia. But I did provide a valid source, and I think it should be included to aware people of the actual dangers of untreated scabies also no where in the article on Scabies it is mentioned that the itch mites feed on human flesh, which they do. I think the article needs a lot of improvement and more information, as scabies is a very common disease, and can be really dangerous when untreated. Thank You: abc7chicago.com/report-woman-93-eaten-alive-by-scabies-in-nursing-home/3413414/ A Good Guy 1 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

User:A Good Guy 1 popular press is not sufficient for medical content generally per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, thank you for your reply. A Good Guy 1 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nurse practitioner

Are you serious? That is the most biased, unobjective and poor excuse for an attempted condescending, passive aggressive article, I've ever seen...

You can obviously detect your personal bitterness, insecurity and bias.

How can you blatantly lie and provide inaccurate information about NPs?

Check you're ethics, and get new resources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.170.242 (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are you telling me? I have never edited the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

See also section

Hi Doc James,

Please join the discussion on the Talk Page (structure) of "Health and Appearance of Michael Jackson“ and give us your opinion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaffel (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Doc James is currently away Im certain he'll respond ASAP--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of page about me

Hi,

My name is Hadi Partovi I recently realized that you deleted the Wikipedia page about me. Looking at the reason for your deletion, you claimed that the page was created or edited by a banned or blocked user. Can you please take a look at the page content? I'm not actually sure who created the page, but I'm pretty sure the content on the page (last I had seen it) was accurate, and met Wikipedia's terms.

Also, I'm not offended to have a page about me deleted, and I'm not the world's most important person. However, I'm pretty sure that I meet the bar of personal relevance to be included in Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance for re-considering your deletion of the page about me.

Hadi Partovi

74.85.95.106 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Doc James is currently away Im certain he'll respond ASAP--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll add here that Hadi Partovi is Code.org CEO. Code.org received major contributions in 2015 from Usterday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sockpuppet from a major undisclosed paid editing operation. --MarioGom (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear I think MarioGom means the article received edits from the sockfarm. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

IP changing stuff

50.106.182.217 (talk) is making a fair number of changes such as this on Adrenocorticotropic hormone (medication) changing Adrenocorticotropic hormone to Corticotropic hormone. Some of that appears to be a copy/paste from another source. I see that you have followed up on a couple if the anon's edits. I undid a few edits per wp:COMMONNAME Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 looks like the problems have been dealt with correct? Just heading home after a few days in the north. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hepatitis C article

Hi ! Yes I was trying to add the "oral symptoms and signs" that can be experienced with Hep C patients. I found other references, kindly check those 2 links from other journals that support what I edited. I know sometimes dental considerations are disregarded but they are also worth mentioning, because the disease is not confined to one organ. Ty https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1079210498901433

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/154411130301400205

This is also another reference: Dental Management of the Medically Compromised Patient - Book By James W. Little, Donald Falace, Craig Miller, Nelson L. Rhodus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaimaa Abdellatif (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup those look okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. ISBN-13: 978-0323080286 and the page number is 151. I re-edited the oral part with the reference I've sent to you earlier , yet the edit is gone for some reason ! I need to know why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaimaa Abdellatif (talk • contribs) 19:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Shaimaa Abdellatif The content is still there. I have added the page number and ISBN. You can see it here [5]

OK. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaimaa Abdellatif (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

thank you!

Thank you for the advice on the citations! There is a corresponding review article I can add. best, dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.203.80 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Angelman Biomarkers

Hi, I am writing in reference to adding a link to Angelman Biomarkers and Outcome Measures website on the Angelman Syndrome page. Thank you for any details on the decision to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitha96 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would we link to this https://www.angelmanbiomarkers.org/ User:Smitha96? And what is your relation to the site in question? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Angelman syndrome - Speech Issues

Hi, There is extensive evidence suggesting that speech impairment is severe to profound and continues into adulthood:

"Severe oral motor dyspraxia with absent or limited expressive speech is nearly universal in AS across age groups, with a significant discrepancy between expressive and receptive language abilities [Clayton-Smith et al., 1993, Penner et al., 1993, Didden et al., 2009, Laan et al., 1996, Moncla et al., 1999, Jolleff et al., 1993]."

This text is from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5534346/ under the heading "Communication." I hope this helps.

I think my current position is something along these lines... given the profound impact on speech - the current introduction in this article does not adequately portray the severe speech impact that is associated with this syndrome. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitha96 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes the article previously mentioned speech problems. We should base stuff on review articles per WP:MEDRS

The source you had used was a primary source. It was a "phone interviews with caregivers for 110 adolescents and adults" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

primary citations

Hi Doc James, I am curious to better understand your policy about primary citations? After your previous message I had thought you wanted me to include a review along with the primary citation. I am a bit confused because there are numerous other examples of primary citations, including in the sentence directly previous to the one of interest (#44 Short et al.). It doesn't seem immediately intuitive to me why scholarly articles should rely solely on reviews rather than primary research. best, dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danmontoro (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Danmontoro it is explained at WP:MEDRS why we generally only use secondary sources such as review articles.

Additionally one should not generally add sources of which they are an author per the COI policy. Hope that helps. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Vitamin E and Tocotrienol articles

Adding chemistry and mechanism of action to Vitamin E in preparation of GA review (nominated back in June). In process, also revising Tocotrienol article. And probably Alpha-tocopheol article.

P.S. Looks like I have retired from being a consultant to dietary supplement industry. Combination of clients not needing new work and deliberately not seeking new clients. If this holds true for remainder of year I will be revising my User page accordingly. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good User:David notMD Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting articles: PMID 28624327 PMID 27095224 PMID 27816611. The evidence for benefiting NASH appears to come from PMID 26059365. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OTRS request

Could I ask you to take a glance at ticket:2018083010009646. I contemplated a brief summary but I decided against it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

They are here to try to spam Wikipedia User:Sphilbrick. Probably best to ignore them at this point. I have watched the page in question and cleared up some of the prior issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I trust you can guess why I thought you should take a look at it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 10:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

For sure User:Sphilbrick. Always happy to take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Doc James, or dispatch them to the gallows :-) ∯WBG^converse 16:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Winged Blades of Godric Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Tricuspid insufficiency

sorry to bug you w/ this but ip continues to add non-MEDRS references to above article even though Ive reverted them several times, have also left note on their page[6],--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• left another note on their page[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks agree with you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

In your opinion, does it look like this page is seeing some COI edits? I don't trust my own judgement, because I have strong opinions against the regulation, and I try to avoid editing pages where I have strong opinions, lest I introduce an unconscious bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon I am not sure. We need to push to have the article supported by high quality sources. A bunch of primary sources have recently been added which raises concerns for me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Block of Jaidier

I would be interested in any comment or information you might have about Jaidier's block. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Replied and email sent Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Backwards Copy on the Greece article

Hello, I stambled upon you while doing a bit of research regarding backwards copying on wikipedia. Sorry if this is not the appropriate place to post, but I'm not sure what to do and would appreciate some pointers if that is the case. There is an ongoing discussion on the Talk:Greece page, and while poking around I discovered that large parts of the history section were identical to the content of a book published by Routledge and used as a source for a specific statement within the history section. The book in question is this, published by Routledge in April 2017. The content in dispute was added by myself on 18 February 2012. Additions to the article by other users on 20 April 2012 and 29 November 2012 have also made it to the book word-for-word. I'm not sure how to proceed, if this is a case of myself and others making successive copyright violations from the book (that we managed to somehow get 5 years before it was published?), or how to prove that this is indeed WP:BACKWARDSCOPY, and would appreciate any pointers or advice. --Michail (blah) 18:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Since writing this, I found that this entry from a fourth user on 25 March 2013 is also present in the book word-for-word. --Michail (blah) 18:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Philly boy92 books copy and pasting from us is fairly common. The evidence you have provided is sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they copied from us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Because we release our content under a free license, it's actually quite permissible for books and other websites to mirror Wikipedia. They are also required to provide attribution to Wikipedia, and they frequently don't, but that's something that often isn't worth litigating. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue is when they claim they are the author, that they own the copyright, and they do not attribute Wikipedia which is most common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The author is indeed claiming copyright. The copyright page says that the right of Andreas D. Boldt to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The irony in all of this is that the first sentence of the book is From the early stages of my academic career I was always interested in the approach to the study, research and practice of historical studies: How do we choose our sources?. --Michail (blah) 10:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"spammy?"

Hi, you reverted my edit to the lead, here as "spammy?" It most certainly was not. I am an adult living with the condition, and I have been in and around clinical trials related to the condition for my entire life. I made a critical revision to the lead that is in line with modern science. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Sleyece it was not in line with the sources cited. It also overly emphasis BH4, which raised my concern.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)