User talk:Doc James/Archive 164

Archive 160

←

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

Archive 166

→

Archive 170

what is difference between anisometropia and aniseikonia

Why are you asking me? Read the sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

is there vaccine for coronavirus

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/scientists-in-galveston-working-on-coronavirus-vaccine/285-e2474aed-16d6-4ebf-bb0a-516a55e9aefa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:4201:D70:F00F:B9F3:F9EE:6BBD (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

One ready for human use? Not that I am aware of. Some are in development.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Since you have been so heavily involved in mediating the disputes at 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak (kudos for that, btw) I thought it best to give you a heads-up on my proposal. The thread is "Proposal: General Sanctions for Coronavirus related articles". Thank you. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:OhKayeSierra the volume of editing is simply too high for this to be effective IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I ended up getting some similar feedback and withdrew it shortly after posting it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Any advice for this stub?

Self-isolation Victor Grigas (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI just made it a redirect Victor Grigas (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Victorgrigas looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

• From the editor: The ball is in your court

• News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide

• Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews

• In the media: Mapping IP editors, Smithsonian open-access, and coronavirus disinformation

• Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?

• Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed

• By the numbers: How many actions by administrators does it take to clean up spam?

• Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman

• In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019

• Recent research: Wikipedia generates $50 billion/year consumer surplus in the US alone

• From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?

• Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark

• Gallery: Feel the love

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• Op-Ed: What I learned as Wikimedia UK Communications Coordinator

• Opinion: Wikipedia is another country

• Humour: The Wilhelm scream

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder Awareness Day

Hello Doc James, I tried to write this stub on Dissociative Identity Disorder Awareness Day. However I'm not sure whether I described it well enough. And also do you think it would be possible to promote it to the did you know section of the main page once the article is better? On the 5th of Marc? Best, --Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 17:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sparrow (麻雀): (sorry for the extra messages, Doc) I redirected this to the main article due to notability concerns for the day itself, and due to what was there being more about the disorder itself rather than the actual awareness day. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Deacon Vorbis: I fail to see why there shouldn't be an article on the awareness day. The day is important for people suffering from this in order to know that they are not alone, gain more confidence in themselves and not be ashamed and also for education of the public. And those three aspects were described in the article. I only briefly described the disorder itself because many people won't know what DID is, when they search for the day. But mostly it was about what the day is for. As the disorder is relatively "new" there might not be lot's of notability on it yet, but I'm this will change during the next 10-20 years anyway. So it would be great to have a short article on it already. I find it quite rude to just delete an article without prior discussion or even a notice.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 19:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we have more sources? Has this been commented on by major national newspapers? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

for obvious reasons

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For obvious reasons. Almaty (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Almaty :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

why blurry vision not called tholiopia

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&hl=en-US&ei=OGheXp60LsPIsAX555Ng&q=greek+word+for+blurry+vision&oq=greek+word+for+blurry+vision&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..0i71l5.0.0..48800...0.1..0.0.0.......0.sBDfQBHXTuM

No idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

request

Doc James....I recently asked for move protection due to[1] it was originally yesterday 'Western African Ebola virus epidemic' therefore asked for [2] however ebola is with upperclass 'Ebola' per Ebola_virus_disease (and in body of article) only administrators can change this now(even if its a typo), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to nitpick COVID updates like that?

The endless nitpicking of sourced/unsourced updates when numbers are changing rapidly and constantly (and are confirmed by BNO, a trusted source, within minutes anyway). Unhelpful bureaucracy. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It makes it easier for both readers and fellow editors if you state your source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an edit war. I am making small factually correct edits. You are yourself reverting them. Is there a process for resolving this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

References are required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

About the branding movement by the Foundation

Hello, as I'm sure you're aware, there is an ongoing RfC on meta about whether or not the foundation should call itself Wikipedia. There is a strong >90% opposition to the decision. Responses by Foundation staff members have been defensive and evasive, and they appear set on carrying on with the move, willfully ignoring the community's comments. Since you are a community-appointed member of the Board of Trustees, I am urging you to investigate the Foundation's refusal to consider community feedback and hope that the Board can convince them to back off, lest another Superprotect or Fram-like incident happens again. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 01:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Darylgolden I do not know what will be decided with respect to branding. What I do know is that when I was involved in starting Wikimedia Canada, I wish we could have gone with Wikipedia Canada. More often than not when I used the term "Wikimedia Canada" people would try to correct me and say you mean "Wikipedia Canada" right?

I think it is reasonable to let organizations and projects within our movement decide how they want to brand themselves. And to experiment in this area if they so wish. I do not view this as an issue equivalent to either Superprotect or the Fram incident. If someone was trying to change the name of a project against the wishes of a majority of that project that would be a concern, but this is not that case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not actually strongly opposed to the name change itself, and had the same experience with people in real life trying to correct "Wikimedia Foundation". However, many people in the community do feel strongly about it, and the way the branding team is communicating with the community is bound to cause a lot of anger. Whether it is justified or not, the community is going to feel that their views have been ignored, bringing tensions high again. I also find their method of gauging community opinion to be extremely misleading and dishonest. What was essentially done was that 9000 users were emailed, and the number of users who responded with opposition was taken to be the actual opposition rate. This is extremely dishonest as the vast majority of people reached by email will not even bother replying. For example, if you emailed every German citizen whether or not they would support reverting their country back to a Nazi regime, I highly doubt that even 1% will respond; this absolutely does not mean that the opposition rate among Germans to the creation of a Nazi state is only 1%. The RfC provides a much clearer and honest view of what the community wants - no name change. If the branding team does not care about community feedback it should just say so and not outright lie and misrepresent the community with an insultingly easy to see through intentional methodological flaw. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 07:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Darylgolden The community is being consulted on how the branding should take place. Different parts of our movement already do and may in the future brand differently depending on their specific circumstances. And those who are closest to those circumstances should be given the authority to make the final decision. Ie if Wikimedia Canada decides to change its operating name to Wikipedia Canada the global community should not be given the ability to override, just as on the flip side if the members of Wikimedia Germany decide to stick with Wikimedia Germany the global community should not be able to force them to use Wikipedia Germany. The branding team cares very much about community feedback. And while certain aspects of the community will get final say on certain decisions I do not consider it reasonable for certain aspects of the community to get the final say on all decisions.

Additionally as for the measurement of community opinion, I do not think their intention was to be dishonest but to express the breadth of their outreach to different communities. The Communications brand team has apologized, and they have committed to using exact response ratios to describe any future meta discussions. They are also currently inviting people to join them in exploring alternatives that support our shared vision.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

After stepping back I do agree with you that the Foundation should have the final say on what they should call themselves. However, I think that it is inevitable that the community will feel angry and betrayed, and the Foundation should carefully consider whether they want to have to deal with that in an already very strained relationship. I also think the survey method is wholly inappropriate even for affiliates, but that's something I will contact the branding team about if I'm inclined to do so. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 01:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Does wiki generally have this effect?

Droplets transmitting coronaviruses only stay suspended in the air for a short time. Details for the COVID-19 virus are not available as of 26 February 2020, and it is assumed that they are similar to other coronaviruses, which may stay viable and contagious on a metal, glass or plastic surface for up to nine days at room temperature and it goes on a little - consensus content several days ago, then News Corp Australia did this article today. Correlation isn't causation but just reminds us of the immense sense of responsibility we have when contributing to the page --Almaty (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes the news often pulls from us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Generic and brand names

Just throwing a pebble into the treacle - when and how did the concepts get separated? Heroin was originally a trademark, but is now generic; so was aspirin, which is now mostly generic; I think that Aspro may still be a trademark in some countries, for the reassurance of those who feel happier paying twice as much for the identical formulation.

A fellow patent agent once told me that companies introducing a novel pharmaceutical have nowadays (from at least the 1990s) to think up two new names (typically based on the IUPAC name, or on the organism they found it in or derived it from). They register the catchier one as their trademark, and submit the other for registration as the generic name. Generic drug and drug nomenclature don't explain the history and reasons, but might usefully do so. Trademark dilution doesn't quite relate to the special circumstances in pharma. There was a step change somewhere between sulfa and ranitidine/Zantac. An article would take some research, but could be valuable. Narky Blert (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There are a few exceptions. The INN determines which generic we use. They have rules for naming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

if I and all who are at Wikiproject Medicine do this everyday, its because you inspire us. Thank you as always--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Both of you do. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested Edits

I have added 16 requested edits to the young blood transfusion talk page. Would you please make these edits, or respond on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.6.209.89 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

A weird one, I know, but thanks for reverting me on Young blood transfusion. I had originally thought that "control group" made it sufficiently clear that it was distinct from a treatment group, but I started to doubt myself when the sources started talking about people being their own controls—I thought it sounded like a contradiction in terms, but when Science starts quoting it… YorkshireLad (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User:YorkshireLad thinking on this further and you are indeed correct. You can have a study design were people are their own controls. Will need to check if they did this... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, fair! My initial message really wasn't a passive-aggressive way of saying that, I promise; as you can probably tell, this isn't my area of expertise! (From the Science source [3], the Ambrosia study did seem to use people as their own controls, though the scientific validity of that study seems a little questionable.) YorkshireLad (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User:YorkshireLad you raised an excellent point and I agree with you :-) Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeking your advice

Hi Doc, I hope you've been well.

I'd like to create a medical article with verifiable but potentially controversial subject matter. I'd appreciate your opinion on how to frame the topic from the outset.

Specifically, I'd like create a encyclopedic article which outlines the medical conditions where smoking tobacco has been shown to either be protective or to ameliorate the severity of the disease.

Eg, just to list a few:

• Diabetic retinopathy
• Uterine fibroids
• Endometriosis
• Pre-eclampsia
• Alzheimer's disease
• (just to name a few)

Do you have any advice on how to structure this new article?

Kind regards, Vitreology talk 23:07, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I would just add it as a section to Health effects of smoking to start. The specific section would be this one Health_effects_of_tobacco#Benefits Just make sure that you only use excellent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, thanks for the suggestion. Of course, all references will be high quality peer reviewed articles. My concern is that the "health effects of smoking" article is a bit bloated and too broad. Even in it's current form prior to any additions I made, it seems to be have too broad a scope. Personally, I'd like to see more highly focused articles being split off from that article (eg, one focused article on campaigns to raise public awareness of the health effects of smoking, one article for global epidemiology, one article for biochemistry, etc. The health effects article is well positioned to provide a 1 paragraph summary of each of these section pages, before providing a link to the main page for that section. Furthermore, it is very easy for anyone to counter any evidence that smoking is protective in certain medical conditions with the overwhelming evidence that on the whole, smoking harms most people most of the time. This is why I'm very reluctant to put what is a very specific, targetted topic into this article, which already has an overwhelmingly (but appropriately) anti-smoking tone. I would much prefer to have this niche but serious topic covered separately from all this, as it allows greater exploration of the molecular mechanisms through which specific components of cigarette smoke may confer protection, without all the inevitable noise and commentary that this content will generate on a page with such a broad scope and justifiably anti-smoking tone.

So, if I could just go back to my original question: Do you have any advice on how to structure this new article? Thanks very much Doc, Vitreology talk 23:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC).

I would still start with a paragraph there at least. And it is not just peer reviewed articles but review articles we are looking for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

epithelioid cell granulomas

Hello Doc James, thank you for your comment. The place for my sentence, which I inserted in the “Sign or a symptom" section, is unsuccessful. Nevertheless this proposal is very important for understanding the pathogenesis and morphogenesis of the tuberculosis process, since epithelioid cell granulomas are one of the most common morphological manifestations of tuberculosis at the level of organs and tissues. I will try to insert this suggestion in another appropriate section on tuberculosis. Sincerely, ArkhipovSergey.ArkhipovSergey (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:ArkhipovSergey one is not to add sources they write themselves generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

2019 COVID-19 Outbreak table issue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_outbreak_data Someone secretly changed the name for International conveyances to Diamond Princess without WP:CON even through Grand Princess not a Diamond Princess...it just cruise ship? Regice2020 (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We now have outbreaks on two cruise ships. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks User:Cthomas3 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Substance use disorder

Hi Doc James - Help me understand the importance of "also known as a drug use disorder" to the first sentence of Substance use disorder. There might be a good reason that I'm not aware of. ¶ I had removed the phrase for 3 reasons:

(1) DSM-5 does not indicate that "drug use disorder" is an equivalent term.

(2) I started working in the substance abuse field in 1981 (as an addiction counselor during college). Over the past 40 years several terms have been proposed, used, discarded, revived, and modified—leading to confusion and uncertainty among treatment professionals, patients/clients, families, and policy-makers. The American Psychiatric Association and the WHO ICD-11 team have gradually improved their respective substance use disorder nosologies over the years. Both systems now use "substance" instead of "drug".

(3) One of the reasons for not using the term "drug use disorder" (or "drug dependence" or "drug abuse") is that many people—the general public and many health professionals—tend to think of alcohol as somehow different from other drugs. As you know, there are many historical, cultural, and psychological reasons for this artificial division, nonetheless, for years substance abuse treatment professionals have used phrases such as, "alcohol and other drugs", "AOD dependence" (alcohol and other drug dependence), "the drug, alcohol", etc., in an attempt to educate patients and others. Both DSM and ICD shifted to "substance use" in part to avoid terminology that reinforced the unscientific distinction between alcohol use disorders and all the other drug use disorders.

Many thanks   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Because both are very commonly used terms for the same thing [4]

Alcohol is a drug. Both terms link to the same place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Alcohol is definitely a drug, that's one of my main points. And I see that etoh is listed as Alcohol (drug), which is great. Since Google Ngram does not include books after 2008, these Google Trends graphs are interesting: Worldwide (2004–present) and United States (2004–present). ¶ To clarify, I believe adding the phrase, "also known as a drug use disorder", is unnecessary, not that the term is inaccurate. That said, this is not a major concern for me. You do not make edits willy-nilly so I wanted to understand your perspective. If another editor brings up the topic independently, I'll chime in, but otherwise I won't fuss, as they say in the South.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It is just that both names are still commonly used... I do agree substance use disorder is better and thus why it is listed first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Great work Doc!

Hey, noticed your great Covid-19 editing work. A valuable service to the world in these days of change. If there is some Wikipedia coronavirus thing to do, please let me know. I can help, or find someone else to help, or point people towards helping. God speed! Sun Creator^(talk) 00:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Sun Creator. Always lots to do with respect to COVID19. A really rapidly changing situation. Please feel free to jump in :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Endometriosis correction

Thank you for your explanation on why you undid my edits on the Endometriosis page. As I'm sure you saw on my page I am a brand newbie and this was my first edit (in hindsight a medical page was probably not the place to start!) I will look for better sources on what I wanted to add. Clemlivy aikensnaps (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Clemlivy aikensnaps no worries. I had my first edits to Wikipedia reverted for not being sufficiently sourced aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Remdesivir can it be produced and studied in private

There is a lot of drug is called research chemicals they are usually remembered as bath salts cannabinoids K2 cathinones, at first. These chemicals were taken by anyone and everyone that wanted to get high and it’s information was collected on a site called Erowid or Reddit - where you could actually get a betterExplanation for what medicine does before you took (then mostprescription medications given off labelit now if I could get a hand on this medication I’ve been more than happy to be Given the illness and then test towers effects were on curing me someone has to step up and do this it’s not that big of a deal I wouldn’t think corona Vincent seem to be the killer they say it is but why would we wait around for the government . They allow dental analogues to be sold for three years without anyone giving a crap as everyone died of overdoses so my faith in the system died and If ever alive. With any information please give it to me where I could find this medication or where the labs are made I have a following of 2000 people which have various jobs in chemistry,Pharmaceuticals doctors warriors stoners trippers the one thing we have in common is we like psychedelics and want to help the world not the world to each other. We could all sit around and pontificate or we can do ! please see me at XXX. Your name and everything else will be left out of anything that happened if you wish to I just wish to make a positive impression on this. - Fatalchemist CribTick (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian and physician, not a clinical research scientist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

numbers

is it just meTemplate:2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak_data but per China recovery/cases is about 74%, while there is no other country close to that percentage, for instance Italy recovery/cases gives about 10%...are China's 'recovery' numbers credible? (I, of course, could be wrong) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa what China is doing is working. So yes numbers are credible IMO. It is a glimmer of hope for the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

OTRS request

I see that you have edited Endovascular_coiling. Could I ask you to take a look at ticket:2020031010005951 ? I'm trying to help them sort out some issues but, if they are sorted out, there are likely to be some issues in which your expertise would be valuable.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I see my request here was archived without action. Sorry I could not help.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jenny Jankel (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Jenny Jankel thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Multi-language poster about sneezing and coughing

Hi Doc James.

From the Wikipedia contributors, I find you the best starting point. Please let me know: 1) Do you consider the content useful for Wikipedia? 2) What pages may be improved by such content? 3) What content and style changes would you suggest? 4) Do you think I should ask somewhere else?

I have organized a translation of a poster about the correct sneezing and coughing (link). The contents are according to the WHO recommendations and the tone is informal. Currently 4 languages are ready, 6 need to be reviewed, several more to be done today. The translations are done by native speakers and peer-reviewed by native speakers (mainly my friends).

The original (in Russian) is licensed under CC-BY. The translations I release in CC-BY-SA (with the agreement of the named translators). The format for Wikipedia will be svg.

Thank you, Pesho Cheater no1 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please upload your poster to Wikimedia Commons and you can post a note at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I wouldn't encourage you to add the poster to any articles yourself at this time. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Well coughing into your hands as long as you immediately wash them after would be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Lost Sections on COVID Talk Page

I posted a question yesterday here which I couldn't find now when I looked. Here's the first dif where #31-35 disappear. How are we to interpret? I'm surprised the edit history notes a net positive character count for that dif. Thanks. Moksha88 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Moksha88 not sure to what you refer? Is it this?[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I fixed it. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you Bri. Moksha88 (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

		A glass of Thandai for you
		Here is a glass of Thandai for you. Thandai is a traditional Indian cold drink prepared with a mixture of almonds, fennel seeds, watermelon kernels, rose petals, pepper, vetiver seeds, cardamom, saffron, milk and sugar. Thank you for all your editing efforts with 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Here is something to keep you recharged, cheers. DTM (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC) For more Indian dishes, visit the Kitchen of WikiProject India.

Thanks User:DiplomatTesterMan. A lot of people working hard on this content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Kind of looks like bhang, but Doc is in Canada, so all is well ☆ Bri (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID Infobox

I sure did sir, I have also tried three different formats, Windows, Mac, and Android. As a fellow Canuck can I ask that you revert to the original until both a working template is in AND support for a scrolling box is verified in the talk page. Krazytea(talk) 05:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Krazytea there is a discussion on the talk page. I even provided a link to the discussion. Did you try swipping left and right on your smart phone? It works for some of us. You are running Windows on your smart phone? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Acuminatus

Hi! Just a heads up that I've proposed for deletion the page Acuminatus. – Uanfala (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Uanfala have removed it. You can take it through a XFD if you like Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question ("what harm is it causing?"): this is a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate anything (species epithets are not used on their own), it only lists articles that have got a certain word in their title, and – here's the bit about the actual harm – it's incomplete as it only lists about half of all articles that fit the bill, so if a reader, for whatever reason, does search for Acuminatus, this page will block their access to the search results. – Uanfala (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

One has to do to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=&title=Special:Search&go=Go

To force a search. I guess the question is should we add the rest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Off to AfD then. I'd normally avoid starting AfD's for such obscure little pages, but also not terribly keen on editors attempting to expand and maintain lists that ultimately end up nominated for deletion by someone or another. – Uanfala (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Definition of recovery for PL COVID-19 page

Also @Hzh: or others who make serious (whether agreeing with me or not :)) comments - Some comments or !votes at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland/Archive 1#Proposal: definition of recovered from sources would be welcome. Or wait and watch, and then become an uninvolved closer. Boud (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Boud will look in 8 hours when I get back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Boud (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Press Barnstar

		The Press Barnstar
		For consistent professionalism as an unofficial spokesperson for English Wikipedia and WikiProject Medicine, including in Wired in the article "How Wikipedia Prevents the Spread of Coronavirus Misinformation". ↠Pine (✉) 20:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You were probably aware of this...

In Wired --Masem (t) 13:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Masem thanks. I have been giving a number of interviews on this both from a Wikipedia and healthcare perspective. Have not seen this yet. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Kudos to you and the entire WP Medicine team for your careful review of these important articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

opinion

• [6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)