User talk:Whywhenwhohow

Thank you for your work on this article. It is close to my heart, and it is very good to see someone else taking up to mantle as it were! Philip.t.day (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that edit was mostly backwards; please review the doc page, ok? Template:Cite news/doc. Anyway, I'm off so rv if you wish; and I'll revisit tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

: saw your edit summary, which makes sense. Sorry for the bump. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:: One size does not fit all, it may be beneficial to check if an item is a specific program or publication vs. a network or news agency. Hence, why various fields are provided by the various citation templates. KimChee (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::: MSN is not identified as the publisher of MSNBC here, but msnbc.com is fine. However, in that case a work field is still not applicable as the title should not be italicized (msnbc.com is not a work as the Journal of Medicine is). Also note that msnbc.com is somewhat unique and media websites are generally considered online extensions of the publication. Remember, general users are going the see the end formatted result. KimChee (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Outside of the reference formatting, can you identify an edit conflict that should be fixed? Your account looks relatively new and Jack Merridew has been here a very long time with a focus on reference formatting. I trust his judgement. KimChee (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::And if you use italics to unitalicized the work field, bots come and change it. Websites should not be italicized, lol. —Mike Allen 05:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::Jack is very friendly about edit conflicts, but I would stick with the guidelines presented in the {{tlx|cite news}} template -- make sure you distinguish between a publication such as The New York Times vs. an organization such as The McClatchy Company vs. an agency such as Associated Press. KimChee (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I still want to commend your motivation because it appeared to be in good faith. Cheers. KimChee (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Noticing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737_MAX&diff=prev&oldid=887846784 this edit] of Boeing 737 MAX, I came here to question your interpretation of "publisher" versus "work" or "website". It seems I am not the first. The guidelines say not to use the publisher parameter for the name of a work/website/publication, and to omit it when the name of the publisher is substantially the same as the name of the work. That doesn't seem to be what you're doing. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

For your work on the syphilis article. Wish to get it up to WP:GA over the next bit. The History / Society and Culture section will be a bit difficult though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

::I know different people have different opinions on this but I find it easier to edit when refs are over a single line rather than over multiple lines. Thanks and keep up the goo work.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The NYTs is not an appropriate external link for health care pages per WP:ELNO Otherwise keep up the good work. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

{{User Good Article|2011 Tucson shooting}}{{clear}} SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed your notation that "Google AP links should not be used in Wikipedia". I was unaware of this (and selected that source because the layout was cleaner than others).
What's the reason behind this? Is it documented somewhere? (If not, it should be.) Thanks! —David Levy 03:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:Here is an excerpt from Template:Cite_news

:Do not post urls of Google or Yahoo! hosted AP content: that content is transient. Use MSNBC or another provider that keeps AP archives.

:Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks! This really should be mentioned in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. at Wikipedia:Citing sources). That's where I expected to find an explanation. —David Levy 03:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Question – why are your script edits changing two spaces after periods to one? Double spacing after periods has a long history of use, makes no different in output (see MOS:PUNCTSPACE), and is used by some editors to make it easier to spot sentence starts when in edit mode. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You made some very nice copy edits at The Avengers (2012 film), fixing details to make the article more readable. The nonbreaking spaces in titles with numbers, changing curly quotes, which some browsers can't read well, to straight quotes, changing all-caps to upper/lowercase ... all necessary and all-to-often missed. Bravo! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I found a blog post from a top drug coupon website that offers information needed for a citation needed tag but I think I configured the citation wrong. If you take a look?

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks.

Mitchumch (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you're having edits accepted to this article but thought I'd put in another plug for an External link I proposed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jodie_Foster#Edit_dispute.3F here, (deep down in the section)]. I think it'd be a good addition at least as an external link. (I'd maybe do more with it at some point.) Thanks for your attention. Swliv (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please meet me at Talk:Bill_Clinton#WP:OVERLINK_.3F.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

:We need to work through individual links. I left a list a few days ago. You have yet to respond.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

::You have ingored my discussion request. Sometime soon, I will revert your changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows:

• On the Pitch Perfect page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=588348721 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help). ([{{fullurl:Pitch Perfect|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AReferenceBot%7CReferenceBot%5D%5D}} Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20{{Replace|Pitch Perfect| |%20}} Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}§ion=new report it to my operator].

Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A peer review is being held at WP:Peer review/Death of Osama bin Laden/archive1 to enhance this article to FA status.Forbidden User (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the edit notice carefully, please do not challenge edits made via reversion, instead discuss this on the talk page. Thanks. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! Just noticed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Inc.&diff=next&oldid=808938895 this edit] of yours on Apple Inc. Wanted to send a short message just letting you know that there is no reason, and perhaps even negative effects, to remove the publisher fields that follow the website parameters in references. It's useful to know what companies own which media publications. I haven't reverted cause it wasn't possible and it would take so long to do it over, but hopefully this message can alert you to keeping them in the future. Have a good day! :) LocalNet (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

{{Reply to|Doc James}}

:Excerpt from https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/AboutThisWebsite/WebsitePolicies/default.htm

:Unless otherwise noted, the contents of the FDA website (www.fda.gov)—both text and graphics—are not copyrighted. They are in the public domain and may be republished, reprinted and otherwise used freely by anyone without the need to obtain permission from FDA. Credit to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the source is appreciated but not required.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

::Content not by the FDA per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James#FDA_content_is_public_domain] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

:::Okay I stand corrected :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not write book titles in sentence case. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names for guidance. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{tlx|PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Check your last edit. I'm not sure what portal you are trying to add (I'm not very familiar with adding them). You wrote {{portal bar|harmacy and pharmacology|Medicine|Viruses}} (pharmacy is missing the p), but even when I preview a version with pharmacy spelled correctly, I don't see a change that shows in the article. MartinezMD (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

:Any word? MartinezMD (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Re|MartinezMD}} Sorry I missed your earlier message. I was adding the Pharmacy and pharmacology portal. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like that portal was deleted. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

:Thanks. I couldn't figure it out. It was driving me crazy lol. MartinezMD (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Please consult with {{ping|Doc_James}}, and acquaint yourself with WP:Plagiarism and [https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Honest-Work-College-Plagiarism/dp/0226484777 general academic expectations] on this subject. Even if content is in the public domain, it is not acceptable to cut and paste it into another work, with text unaltered (quoting it), without indication that it is being quoted (i.e., with the text being transmitted without alteration from the original). This is true, even if the markup is added to the citation to indicate such use, and it is true even if each sentence is followed by an inline citation. The text must me made your own; the text of others cannot be used, verbatim, without quotation marks. Hence, I am reverting the bulk of your edit at Baloxavir marboxil, until the material can be used correctly, through paraphrasing or blockquoting, as you choose. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

:Excerpt from WP:Plagiarism

:A public domain source may be summarized and cited in the same manner as for copyrighted material, but the source's text can also be copied verbatim into a Wikipedia article. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

::Agreed. It must be summarised. It cannot have text lifted, via cut and paste, and used verbatim. To use the direct text, without alteration, is plagiarism. See the examples that are given at that Plagiarism guidelines article! And please do not edit war. Engage in the discussion at {{ping|Doc_James}} Talk page, until he moves it to the article Talk. Note, I am a former Professor, and I know the ins and outs of this matter. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

:::WP:Plagiarism states public domain source may be summarized and the source text can also be copied verbatim

:::Here is an excerpt from the FDA website

:::Unless otherwise noted, the contents of the FDA website (www.fda.gov) — both text and graphics — are not copyrighted. They are in the public domain and may be republished, reprinted and otherwise used freely by anyone without the need to obtain permission from FDA. Credit to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the source is appreciated but not required.

:::Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

::::The matter remains the same—at Wikipedia, and in general, the use of material, with representation of it as your own composition—that is, cut and paste, and verbatim use of text—is considered plagiarism. See the second prohibited example at WP:Plagiarism, in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Plagiarism&action=edit§ion=5 subsection, "Avoiding plagiarism"], which presents as prohibited the exact thing that you did. The fact that permission is given at the FDA site to reproduce the material is not the same as you mis-representing the material as original editorial content of this encyclopedia. If the material is reproduced, it must appear in quotes. In all academic and writing contexts, it is a matter of [https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Honest-Work-College-Plagiarism/dp/0226484777 intellectual honesty], that if the content composed by another is used verbatim, it must be quoted. Alternatively, the content can be retained via paraphrase—look to see what I did with your introductory sentence on the two studies. Note, all of this is hiding the fact that I think your contribution was in an excellent direction. The article needed clear content on the clinical trials. It simply needs to be in your words, and not the words of FDA Staff (or, if in their words, that it be presented as a quote). Cheers. Thanks for engaging. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

:Full credit to the source was provided by the citations and the PD-notice template added further clarification. You are mistaken about the use of public domain text in Wikipedia. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

::As a faculty member that taught, wrote, published, and edited for many years, I can tell you, though practices other than what I describe may be widespread here, any use of a text, verbatim, that does not acknowledge that the contributing, posting, or submitting author is not the author that composed the text is considered, generally, and widely, to be plagiarism, regardless of whether the source is placed in (or appears by virtue of passed time in) the public domain. Otherwise, entire books past a certain age could be copy and pasted, in toto, into Wikipedia, without use of blockquotes or paraphrases. And while I agree that you did better than many here in placing a citation at the end of each sentence, as noted by Example 2 in the WP:Plagiarism article, it is the failure to restate the source content, instead relying on the original author's words, that make this the plagiarism that it is. Bottom line, even though it is widely done at WP (see the many cut and pastes, without even citation, from the old Britannica version), it violates its own rules and normative academic standards—because it does not matter how old a source is, or how charitable we perceive it to be, it is never proper to cut and paste text from sources without paraphrasing or quoting. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia has its own guidelines that have been worked out over time.

:::Adding open license text to Wikipedia

:::Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?

:::Public-domain sources

:::Here are some archives of discussions for the WP:Plagiarism page

:::Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_10#Complete_article_plagiarism_of_public_domain

:::Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism/Archive_8#Policy_on_copy%2Fpasting_a_whole_public_domain_article_with_attribution%3F

:::Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

::::From my understanding one can use PD material verbatim without quotes. Generally it is not in an encyclopedic format and thus I generally paraphrase due to that reason, rather than because of copy and paste concerns. User:Diannaa is the expert and I generally go with what she says :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Whywhenwhohow

Thank you for creating Rosuzet.

User:Dmehus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

{{Bq|This is a great redirect. I modified the rcat slightly to {{tl|R from drug trade name}}. If you don't already have it installed, I highly recommend Archer. :)}}

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{code|{{Re|Dmehus}}}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with {{code|~~~~}} .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Doug Mehus T·C 00:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Re|Dmehus}}

{{tl|R from trade name}} redirects to {{tl|R from drug trade name}}. See {{code|Category:Redirects from trade names of drugs}} which recommends using {{tl|R from trade name}}.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

:{{u|Whywhenwhohow}}, Okay, fair enough. My apologies. Carry on. Nevertheless, I marked it as reviewed. Good work! :) Doug Mehus T·C 05:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

:Nevertheless, though, I prefer to use Archer personally because (a) it's easier and (b) it's got a whole bunch of specific categories at your fingertips. Doug Mehus T·C 05:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please restore color-coded world map of Coronavirus cases that was located in the epidemiology section of 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak page. This is a core component of the article and any issues with it should be discussed first with the community before attempting to remove it. Thank you. History DMZ (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Your revision history info: 08:30, 24 February 2020‎ | Whywhenwhohow | 356,632 bytes | -2,449‎ | update and consolidate refs

Hi there,

You recently made an edit to Hand sanitizer that consisted solely of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hand_sanitizer&diff=942773507&oldid=942751095 deletion of the web links for three references]. Can you clarify why you chose to do so? WP:SOURCELINKS says that "if the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you may provide the URL for that link". One of the URLs you deleted was to an abstract on the publisher's site; the other two were to third-party sites, but I've since found the abstracts on their publisher's sites.

My inclination is to restore the links (substituting publisher's sites for the third-party one where applicable), but I wanted to check with you first.

Thanks,

Stephen Hui (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

{{Re|Stephen Hui}}

The DOI is a permanent identifier so the URL is not needed. The URL may become stale over time. The semanticscholar URLs are confusing since they don't link to the articles. There are plans to make the semanticscholar links available via a new parameter. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Create the redirect after creating the target article, not before. We can’t have redirects pointing to non-existent pages like you did at Vokanamet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Has now moved to this document https://www.msh.org/sites/default/files/msh-2015-international-medical-products-price-guide.pdf

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Question has been posed at Niacin by Doc James as to whether the two info boxes can be combined. I understand the issue is niacin being a nutrient and a prescription drug. David notMD (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

:If you wish, please continue to review, suggest, edit Niacin. My intentions are to improve the article to the point it can be nominated for Good Article. David notMD (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I just bring to you attention that when you change citations from {{para|first}} and {{para|last}} to {{para|vauthors}} as you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=955866891 here], you change the style that the author list is rendered from a Chicago-like style (Last, First;) to a Vancouver-like style (Last Initial,) which may be a breach of WP:CITEVAR. You also lose information by removing first names and replacing them with initials. Would you be kind enough to restore the missing information, please? --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|RexxS}} The citation style in the article is predominantly vancouver. The remaining citations were updated to use a consistent style by this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=955901217&oldid=955898122 edit].

:cc: {{u|Boghog}}, {{u|Doc James}} Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|RexxS}} In addition, the examples shown in WP:CITEMED use the Vancouver system. cc: {{u|Boghog}}, {{u|Doc James}} Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

:: {{re|Boghog|Doc James}} Whywhenwhohow: WP:CITEVAR doesn't use "predominantly vancouver" (or predominantly anything) as a criterion. It says : {{tq|"Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change ... it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved ... If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article"}}.

::* 23 December 2005: "Maggon, Krishan. 'Best-selling human medicines 2002-2004 (editorial)". 2005. Drug Discovery Today, 10(11):739-742'

:: It looks to me like the first style used in the article was the Chicago-like author string, not the Vancouver style, wouldn't you agree?

:: Anyway, I didn't ask you to revert your unwarranted change to the citation style; I asked you to restore the information you removed, author's first names. That is part of the metadata emitted by the template and it is helpful to identify authors. Knowing first name would help distinguish between multiple authors with the same initial and surname, such as Xin Su, Xiao Su, Xingguang Su, XM Su, Xin Zhuan Su, Xiaoping Su, and so on. It's particularly important for Chinese names where the number of surnames is relatively small. Let's try and make Wikipedia better, not worse, please. --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

::: {{Re|RexxS}} The predominant citation style used in that article has been Vancouver. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

::::I generally just use whatever the ref toolbar gives me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

::: The second reference was added used Vancouver style and many of the subsequent citations were added using Diberri's template filler which also follows this style. Hence Vancouver became predominate relatively early in the article's history. Concerning citation metadata, Wikipedia is not a reliable source since error can creep in. Safer to harvest an identifier like doi and regenerate the citation from scratch using citoid or similar tool. Finally the advantage of {{para|vauthors}} over {{para|first1}}, {{para|last1}}, ... is that vauthors is much more compact and enforces consistency. {{para|first}} will accept almost anything (spelled out first names or initials with or without periods or for that matter almost anything else including "!@#$%" gibberish). Boghog (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

:::: {{re|Whywhenwhohow}} The style of citation for an article is not determined by what the predominant style is. I've shown you what the guidance is, and if you want to change it, get consensus at CITEVAR.

:::: {{re|Boghog}} I understand the limitations of the automatic tool. When it used Chicago as its style, that grew in popularity, now it's changed and Vancouver is becoming more popular. But CITEVAR doesn't say "use what's most popular" or "use what your automatic tool currently uses". This is not a paper encyclopedia and we're not short of space in references, so "compact" is not an advantage; it's just throwing information away. When you're writing tools to scrape author info, you're not going to be thanking anyone for forcing you to make an external call to a doi just to help disambiguate an author, when the information was already available before being thrown out. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

::::* It is debatable whether an editor that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&type=revision&diff=15135732&oldid=15127976 added] a single citation is the first major contributor to the citation style.

::::* No one is throwing information away. Full first author names can easily be recaptured more reliably from external databases like PubMed than from Wikipedia. If someone is really interested in authors first names, they would likely link to the original article through one of the provided identifiers. In addition, citoid that uses identifiers to retrieve citaitons is used far more frequently than reference management software such as Zotero that harvest metadata to generate citation templates.

::::* Compactness not only applies to the rendered citation, but also the imbedded template. Inclusion of first1, last1, ... parameter bloats the size of the template so that they start to overwhelm the surrounding prose.

::::* Wiki linking of authors starts far more often with the author page than the target page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?cirrusUserTesting=control&sort=relevance&search=insource%3A%2FSmith+JS%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 Searching] for "Smith JS" is far more reliable than searching for a complex regular expression for some combination of firstn, lastn, Smith, J*S* that still may fail since {{para|firstn}} and {{para|lastn}} can occur in any arbitrary order.

::::* I do not buy that including spelled out first author names is essential to understanding a citation. In rough order of decreasing importance are title, date, journal name, author last name, and author first names. More important than author first names are the author affiliations which are not normally included. Including spelled out first author names obscures more important data like title and falls under the category of don't hype the authors (I realize that this applies primarily to prose, but by extension, it also applies to excessive detail in the citations). Boghog (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

::::** {{re|Boghog}} when you remove authors' first names and replace them with initials you are literally throwing the information away. Please feel free to demonstrate how PubMed can help anyone distinguish between Xin Su, Xiao Su, Xingguang Su, XM Su, Xin Zhuan Su, Xiaoping Su - all of whom are authors on PubMed. Now you've thrown away what the initial X stands for, how are you going to work out which of those is the author of pmid:26905361? PubMed certainly isn't going to tell you. {{pb}} The solution to wikitext being overwhelmed by citation templates is Help:List-defined references, not truncating the information. You can have clean wikitext with just {{tl|r}} and {{tl|sfn}} to embed your citations if you choose to do so. I always do. {{pb}} Nobody with any sense uses wikitext to search for author names. It is so much simpler to search the rendered html, which is perfectly predictable for "Smith, JS" even using something as simple as [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Smith%2C+JS%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&oq=%22Smith%2C+JS%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org a Google search]. The 104 results from Google seem a little more comprehensive than your 39, don't you agree? {{pb}} You're the one who's introducing the idea of "essential to understanding a citation", not me. What I'm concerned about is third-parties scraping metadata from Wikidata and your discarding of existing information making it more difficult for them to collect works on a particular topic by a unique author. Why make life more difficult for others when you don't have to? --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

::::*** The lower prority information that is being thrown away can rapidly be retrieved from PubMed. Why should Wikipedia try to replicate data that is already stored in a more reliable and convenient form?

::::*** I like list defined references, but many others like Doc James strongly object.

::::*** The Google search also produced a significant number of false positives.

::::*** When academics [https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/04/05/ten-most-cited-sources-wikipedia/ mine] Wikpedia citation data, they unusually extract identifiers like ISBNs, DOIs, and PMIDs and not author first names. Anyone who scrapes Wikipedia for citation data that already exists in external databases is a fool. Wikipedia itself (e.g., Citation bot, Citoid, etc.) does not do that. Life is made more difficult by scraping citations from Wikipedia that is riddled with errors. Better to stick with identifiers that point to entries in reliable databases like PubMed and WorldCat. Obscure citations that are not indexed in these databases is another matter, but that is not what we are talking about here. Boghog (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

::::**** Here's the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=955866891 edit]. Show me how I can recover the information |last=Su |first=Xiaole |last2=Zhang |first2=Lu |last3=Lv |first3=Jicheng |last4=Wang |first4=Jinwei |last5=Hou |first5=Wanyin |last6=Xie |first6=Xinfang |last7=Zhang |first7=Hong from PubMed, please. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

::::***** {{Re|RexxS}} The PMID and DOI are in the citation. The DOI is also in PubMed. The DOI provides a permanent link to the article which contains the full author list. See [https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(16)00132-3/fulltext here] or [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272638616001323 here].

::::***** As you wrote above, WP:CITEVAR states {{tq|"if the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it"}}. WP:CITESTYLE states {{tq|"citations within any given article should follow a consistent style}}. The recent changes update the few non-consistent citations to be consistent by using the Vancouver reference style. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

::::****** So we don't use PubMed to recover {{tq|"data that is already stored in a more reliable and convenient form"}}, right? We follow the doi from Wikipedia to the original document, which is less convenient than Wikipedia directly (what I was complaining about as an machine-unfriendly means of retrieving information that we were supplying in the first place). {{pb}} What you should have done was find the earliest use of citations that identified a style and made that the consistent style. That's what CITEVAR tells you to do. It tells you not to just change citations to the style you prefer. If you want CITEVAR to say "make the article consistent to the style most commonly used", then go and get consensus for it at CITEVAR. In the meantime, why do you think CITEVAR in its current state should not apply to your edits? --RexxS (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

• One can quickly and easily regenerate |last=Su |first=Xiaole | ... by inserting 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.01.016 into WP:RefToolbar.
• What citevar says is to defer to the citation style of the first major contributor. The first citation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=6910346 added] did not have authors. The second citation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=next&oldid=15127976 added] used full author names. The third citation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=40563497 added] used Vancouver style. The fourth citation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=112290444 added] used Vancouver style. The first cite journal templates [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atorvastatin&diff=prev&oldid=152338688 added] used Vancouver style. It is a stretch to argue that the [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Ceyockey&page=Atorvastatin&server=enwiki&max= editor] who added the second citation is the first major contributor to this article. Boghog (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• As a compromise, we could replace {{para|vauthors}} with |last=Su |first=Xiaole | ... | name-list-format = vanc in that one citation. That way, the rendering will be consistent with the rest of the citations in that article while the template will emit full authors name metadata. Boghog (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

:: The edit that added the third citation removed the previous citations. Using name-list-format=vanc seems like a good option. It is used in other citations in the article. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Have trimmed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=27748179 as this is potentially predatory. Plus homocysteine is not a great maker as vitamins that decrease it did not result in improvement. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. If you take it to the talk page instead of arguing through edit summaries, you give other editors the opportunity the add their opinion. That is far more likely to resolve the disagreement. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

What is going on? El_C 20:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|El_C}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitamin_B12&oldid=prev&diff=957636650| This edit] reminded me to use the present tense. MOS:PRESENT. Sorry for the noise. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Whywhenwhohow. I noticed you added GlaxoSmithKline to :Category:World_Health_Organization_essential_medicines[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GlaxoSmithKline&type=revision&diff=938932879&oldid=937728404]. As far as I can tell, this category is used for actual medicines, not for the companies involved. I've removed it. Is there something I'm overlooking?

:That seems fine. Thanks. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You just reverted my removal of the category from Nicorette. Don't you realise that we have an article on Nicotine replacement therapy, which is the appropriate article for the category? The gum (as polacrilex) and patches are not the proprietary product trademarked as Nicorette. The product Nicorette is not on the EML. Please revert yourself. --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone with some knowledge I'm sure you could find a reference for my edit about about Prednisolone rather than lazily deleting it. You would find that there is very little peer reviewed work on the coronavirus - most of the work is relying on preprints. Given the potential seriousness of the topic a little thought might not come amiss Chevin (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

: Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Please see WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, and the discussion at Discretionary_sanctions_on_the_use_of_preprints. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't Glutamine be OTC in the Drugbox? I buy it at Walmart... Stephen Lafleur (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

: The infobox is correct since it is a dietary supplement and it is not an OTC drug. The infobox is about the drug. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Whywhenwhohow,

The change I made is to what I believe is the preferred way of incorporating citations. It allows newcomers to add the reference materials to the body of text and experienced users to add a reference nickname (e.g.) to the body of text and the full reference to the reference list. It makes it easier to see the text you are editing. Otherwise, the full reference descriptions break up and overwhelm the text of the article so much it is hard to add material or edit. Newcomers' citations can easily be moved to the reference section by more experienced users. I plan to slowly move citations from the body of the article to the reference list, leaving their nicknames in the actual text in the article. That is how the "Hydraulic Fracturing" page organizes references. Check it out. Please check with an admin before reverting again. Thanks. Stoney1976 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|Stoney1976}} Please see WP:REF and WP:CITEMED -- "If an article already has citations, preserve consistency by using that method or seek consensus on the talk page before changing" Whywhenwhohow (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

::Moving the references to the end is objectively an improvement to the article. Why should we respect the wishes of some hypothetical editor who may want them embedded in the text? And if someone did the hard work of moving the references to the end, reverting the change would be vandalism...
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic&diff=965513036&oldid=965512697 this edit], is there a tool or something you're using that's adding the spaces after/before {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|-|lang=text|class=|id=|style=|inline=1}} tags open or close? The article keeps going back and forth with some people adding the spaces and others removing them, and I don't really care which it is, but it's very annoying for trying to track the changes on the page, so it ought to be standardized. I'm not too familiar with this area so I'd appreciate help figuring out what's happening and where the place would be to sort it out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Who decided that "External links" must come after "References"?
It does not make sense. No one reads through the References section; readers get there by clicking links on the anchors in the text. That section could even be a separate page, that only appears on that occasion. (And the popup that appears when one hovers over the anchor already makes that section superfluous). In contrast, there is no way to get to the External Links except by reading through that section.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

: {{Re|Jorge Stolfi}} Please see MOS:ORDER and WP:PHARMMOS Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

::Well, manuals of style are just the opinions of a handful of editors who like writing rules for other editors, and agree on whatever ends up written there. Editors who disagree with the three guys who want a Pink Elephant section will eventually get tired of fighting and just leave, and that section will be added to the MOS. (I am not guessing; I did look into the histories of some such decisions.) So, everyone is free to respect the MOSes in their own edits, but they cannot demand that other editors do.
And articles do not "belong" to WikiProjects. Thus WikiProjects don't have the "right" to write style rules specific for "their" articles.
(In fact, WikiProjects are one of the many "cancers" that grew in Wikipedia over the years. A group of like-minded editors coordinating to impose their views on some topic used to be considered an attack on Wikipedia...)
But hey, all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

::PS. But I fully agree that the External Links section should be kept to a minimum, or even deleted outright -- with the good entries turned into refs and anchored at some appropriate point in the text, even if it at the end of the definition paragraph.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

::: {{tps}} {{re|Jorge Stolfi}} No, the Wikipedia Manual of Style, including Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, is an editing guideline that enjoys project-wide consensus. If you want to change the guidance, you'll need to raise the issue and get consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Until that happens, you are expected to respect the current consensus, and it is perfectly reasonable to demand that you do so. I agree with you about Wikiprojects, but the placement of "External links" after "References" isn't a matter for any Wikiproject; it has been a guideline since 2002, well before Wikiprojects were invented. --RexxS (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

::::As I said, I will not fight Whywhenwhohow's changes to the articles. But "consensus" among the authors of a manual of style is not enough to oblige other editors to respect those authors's opinion. I could tell you the story of how the editorial tag "This article needs more references" got approved and its placement rules were defined...
And there is somewhere an explicit "style meta-rule" that says "feel free to ignore style rules if you have a good reason to do so".
In 2002 there still was no <ref>...</ref> or <ref name=.../> facility to access the "References" section. (In fact, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sodium&oldid=205607 many articles] did not even have a "References" section, just "External links".) So the "References" section was just like today's "Further reading" -- the reader would only see the entries by reading through them. Hence it made total sense to put "References" before "External links". That is no longer the case.
I am totally not a "talk page stalker". I visited this talk page yesterday to complain about that edit, and happened to see an entry about another subject that I feel very strongly about...
Anyway, thanks to Whywhenwhohow for all his good work, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

::::: I only added the {{tl|tps}} to alert you to the fact that someone else was joining the conversation. Remind me not to extend you the courtesy in future.

::::: {{tq|But "consensus" among the authors of a manual of style is not enough to oblige other editors to respect those authors's opinion.}} - You can denigrate the consensus process with scare quotes, but it's still project-wide consensus, and it is not optional at any editor's whim to ignore it. In 2002 there was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout&oldid=401329 this version] of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout and that was the example showing the order of sections. External links followed References and, of course, full citations were place in that section because that was the original citation style. The order of those sections hasn't changed in the past 18 years, and you're going to need something more than hand-waving about "ignore all rules" to justify breaking that "rule" simply because you don't like it. That really isn't "a good reason to do so". --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the pricing from the lede before I got to it! I will follow your example and cite MEDMOS2020, if I remove prices in the future. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|Tribe of Tiger}} FYI, watch out for deleting references used elsewhere. For example see

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Activated_charcoal_(medication)&diff=966414142&oldid=960620708

:and

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Activated_charcoal_(medication)&diff=966414871&oldid=966414142

:Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, so sorry. Will check back through my recent edits. I forget how things work, sometimes, between my yearly editing sessions. Thanks for the reminder, and for correcting my mistake. I won't make it again. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Update---checked recent edits, no other broken cites, other than the one you fixed. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too hasty there. I clicked through on the copyright statement and the bottom of the EMA page, and discovered that they do indeed appear to license it for use elsewhere. I've restored the page. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|Girth Summit}} Please restore Lonquex. Thanks. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

::{{u|Whywhenwhohow}}, done GirthSummit _(blether) 15:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

:::{{Re|Girth Summit}} Please restore Talk:Lipegfilgrastim too. Thanks. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

::::{{u|Whywhenwhohow}}, I'm not very good at this restoring game, am I!? Will do... GirthSummit _(blether) 15:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Whywhenwhohow,

Thank you for creating Dapagliflozin/saxagliptin/metformin.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

{{Quote|1=Has the issues which I tagged it for but IMO meets wp:notability and I'm markng it as reviewed.}}

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

North8000 (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Whywhenwhohow,

Thank you for creating Dapagliflozin/saxagliptin.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

{{Quote|1=Heavy on use of primary and tertiary sources but I think meets wp:notability and I'm marking it as reviewed.}}

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

North8000 (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Image:Copyright-problem.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Arginine/lysine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/lysakare. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The overriding principle in determining which version of spelling to use is not the number of each variant when mixed spelling versions are present. If you have a look at MOS:ENGVAR, you'll find that when there are no strong national ties, we use "{{tq|the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety}}". I had a quick scan through the early history of Dexamethasone (Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups is helpful for that job). The first edit that I spotted introducing an identifiable variety was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dexamethasone&diff=20027889&oldid=19851228 this one], which used the word "hematological". That implies that the article should use American English, as you chose, and I've added the appropriate template to the talk page. I hope you can understand that if the first identifiable version has been in a different variety of English, I would be asking you to revert your edit. I think it's clear enough that MOS:ARTCON requires consistency, but does not help decide which version to make consistent. --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ofatumumab&type=revision&diff=974348575&oldid=974289937 here], I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|Sphilbrick}}

:Text from the EMA has previously been found to be acceptable. cc: {{U|Diannaa}}.

:See Talk:Insulin_degludec/insulin_aspart#Copyright

:~~----

::

:: Unfortunately that's not clear-cut. The page is clearly "© 1995-2020 European Medicines Agency" and the [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/legal-notice European Medicines Agency copyright and limited reproduction notices] only state {{talkquote|1=Information and documents made available on the Agency's webpages are public and may be reproduced and/or distributed, totally or in part, irrespective of the means and/or the formats used, for non-commercial and commercial purposes, provided that the Agency is always acknowledged as the source of the material. Such acknowledgement must be included in each copy of the material.}} That does not seem to grant the right to [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ "Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially."] which is required for a CC-BY-SA licence. A release that is effectively [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ CC-BY-ND] is not compatible with Wikipedia. There may be arguments that the release might allow derivatives, but the absence of a structured licence on the site makes that a judgement call. --RexxS (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

::: {{U|Diannaa}} has found the use of EMA text to be acceptable. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

:::: And another editor has not. What's the basis of your argument? --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

:::::My opinion has been that the phrase "totally or in part" is enough to consider derivative works an acceptable use. A judgement call on my part. — Diannaa (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

::::::{{Re|Sphilbrick}} I'm not sure which text was concerning to you but it appears that you reverted all six of my edits including the ones that are unrelated to the EMA URL you mentioned. Would you please review your deletion? Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|Whywhenwhohow}}, The reason all six edits were reverted is that it is accepted practice when encountering a copyright issue to do a rollback which undoes all consecutive edits of the editor involved in the problematic edit. As is noted by {{ping|RexxS}}, the material is clearly marked with a copyright notice, and the explanation of the copyright could be construed as being broad enough to be acceptable. It is unfortunate that the European Medicines Agency has chosen to go this route. There are clearly acceptable CC licenses recognized around the world. It is incomprehensible that they are unfamiliar with such licenses, which strongly suggests that they have chosen to do something other than a CC license. While the language sounds acceptable, our legal staff has explicitly cleared CC licenses and not, to my knowledge, this specific language. I think it sounds acceptable but it's a major red flag that the organization has chosen to do something about than a CC license. I would also urge someone interested in using language such as this to reach out to the European Medicines Agency, as this is likely to be a continuing problem. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

::::::::Sphilbrick, you make a convincing argument.— Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: The exact stumbling block for me is the absence of the word "use" from their "... may be reproduced and/or distributed, totally or in part ...", when compared with the example at WP:Attribution licences which contains the three elements I always look for: "You may use, copy, or distribute this work ...". --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that you have recently spear-headed some edits on which version of "typically the (not) recommended long acting insulin" was correct, so I'd like to point out that everyone seems to have missed that this same information is duplicated (and conflicting) in the opening paragraph of the article. I am of the opinion that it doesn't belong up there, and certainly not if it is inconsistent with actual facts, but I am just a casual passer-by where I see you have done a lot of research on this, so I wanted to defer to your thinking here. NipokNek (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked updating the WHO refs. I shall be more cautious in future, and also check my recent edits, within 24 hrs. Thanks. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

:{{reply to|Tribe of Tiger}} No rush. By the way, thanks for the Amoxicillin edit. That text seems to be for the wrong audience even if it was cited. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

:: Happy to help with Amoxicillin. As you say, wrong audience, wrong article. Asking for a source allowed me to dodge the issue, as it was late at night...Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

::(Checked all WHO refs, in my recent edits.) A further note. After reverting at Amoxicillin, as noted above, I later discovered the exact same edit at Ampicillin: “Like all antibiotics, it is not useful for the treatment of viral infections.“ which I removed from Ampicillin @ 28 September. (See history) The phrase was added to the first paragraph of the lede of Ampicillin, not sure when, or by whom. Something to watch out for...However, the Amoxicillin edit was done by someone named Minisini. Just a note, so you can keep an eye out for similar edits. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

::: Thanks --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Whywhenwhohow,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Spheroids of human autologous matrix-associated chondrocytes for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{urlencode:Talk:Spheroids of human autologous matrix-associated chondrocytes}}&action=edit§ion=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Image:Copyright-problem.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Spheroids of human autologous matrix-associated chondrocytes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/spherox. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate your attending to the infobox for Folate. Would you consider looking at the infoboxes of other vitamins that are also Good Articles? List is Vitamin C, Vitamin B12, Niacin, Pantothenic acid, and currently in the process of Good Article nomination for Vitamin K. David notMD (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

: {{Re|David notMD}} I took a look a couple of them and will try to look at the others. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I recently reverted some edits here, in the Medication section, and have tried to correct the grammar/prose in this section. However, I don’t have the medical knowledge to property assess the section, and my good faith grammar/prose corrections may be wrong. Would you please review the section? Thanks so much! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|Talk:Tribe of Tiger}} I took a quick look and will review again. FYI, the article needs more citations. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

::I do wish I could be of further service to the article, but it is over my head. You added a daunting number of cn tags, and quite obviously (yikes!) with good reason. I respect and value your medical-article expertise. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've re-reverted your revert to the Remdesivir article that removed my addition of a category. My rationale is that, regardless of whether it's an already-existing compound, it is being "developed" for use as a COVID-19 drug. See sentence beginning "Remdesivir is being tested as a treatment for COVID‑19," in the article's intro. Please let me know if you disagree, and if so, if you think there is a better way of categorizing this other than simply deleting the category. -- The Anome (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

:{{Re|The Anome}} I don't think of testing as being developing. There is an article about COVID-19 drug repurposing research so a category named COVID-19 drug repurposing might be more suitable for drugs like remdesivir and dexamethasone. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Whywhenwhohow. I am having trouble finding the part of WP:MEDRS that overrides the discretion granted at MOS:CITELEAD that statements in the lead are not necessarily required to have a citation provided the statement is well reference in the body of the article. Could you please point me to it? Thank you, Mkdw ^talk 23:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

:Whywhenwhohow, since you have continued to edit for several days without further explaining your revert, I do not believe that your action was supported under WP:MEDRS as you claimed. Please do not revert the contributions of others without a valid reason. In addition, if you do decide to revert someone else's actions, as a best practice, you should be willing to discussion and explain your actions when asked to do so. Mkdw ^talk 17:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

::{{Re|Mkdw}} It is MEDMOS that recommends using citations in the lead. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

:::The specific section WP:MEDLEAD, interestingly and currently tagged with a disputed tag, provides the same provision as MOS:CITELEAD. MEDELEAD expressly states:

::::{{quote|It is sometimes useful to include citations in the lead, but they are not obligatory.}}

:::It quotes MOS citation which repeats the same information noting it is discretionary. The addition to the lead correctly summarized a significant and well cited section of the article. If your argument that a repeated citation would have been "useful", not required by guideline, a number of other options such as tags, stating it was your personal editorial preference for a citation to be included, or simply adding the reference available from the relevant section would have been a more suitable option than reverting, especially edits in good-faith appear to attempt to improve an article. Mkdw ^talk 04:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Please could you explain why you reverted my (factually correct) edit to the exenatide article? In the absence of an explanation, I will undo your revertion.FredV (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

On re-reading the article I see I have duplicated information already included in another place. It would be nice if your revert had noted this!

----

My strong impression is that we are dealing with a reverting robot, an automaton. Mazarin07 (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, are you a reverting robot? Why is so bad if people searching for Xeter will find the relevant article? I have the impression that you are just sabotaging Wikipedia. Mazarin07 (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

?--Oblio4 (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

:It took me about an hour{{snd}}actually, thanks for the excuse to practice my two-windows-open clipboard skills{{snd}}anyway{{nbs}}...

Tip: to the right of "Publish changes" are "Show preview" and "Show changes"; our bestest buddy is "Cancel".--Oblio4 (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

:{{re|Oblio4}} I'm sorry about clobbering your edit and your time involved to fix it. Somehow I missed it and didn't realize it at the time. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've seen COVID‑19 and COVID{{nbh}}19 vice COVID-19, but{{nbs}}... [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine&type=revision&diff=1013280554&oldid=1013280093 ?]--Oblio4 (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree with the deletion you have made of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. It is one thing for these countries to accept the authorization (as their own) of the European Union and another for them to belong to the European Union!. Since the list item (and of course) says "European Union" and not "Countries that accept the European Union authorizations". Can you correct it? --Jmarchn (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Hope you're doing well. I'm a journalist, and I'm working on a story about Wikipedia pages with COVID vaccine information. I'd love to find time to talk, if you're willing. Feel free to shoot me a note here, or email me at ggedye@washingtonmonthly.com. For reference, here's another story I've written about Wikipedia: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/02/04/when-the-capitol-was-attacked-wikipedia-went-to-work/ Spelunkerr (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused why you added a CN tag to the lead [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxford%E2%80%93AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine&diff=prev&oldid=1016982832 in this edit] given that it's well cited that countries suspended the vaccine in the body - I intentionally didn't add a cite to the lead given it's cited in the body. If I'm mistaken I apologize, but I don't think the citation should be in the lead because it's well cited in the body that countries suspended the use in the body. Regardless, thanks for your help on the article. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Esiymbro (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

:{{Re|Esiymbro}} There were no reliable sources or edit summaries provided with your changes. See WP:OR and WP:RS. Please discuss on the article talk page before changing again. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, there is an edit request at :Primary hyperoxaluria, which you made two edits to last year. Would you be interested in taking a look? As the request is long and technical nobody has responded so far. TSventon (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

: {{Re|TSventon}} A discussion was started at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Primary_hyperoxaluria Primary hyperoxaluria] and another at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Edit_request_on_Talk:Primary_hyperoxaluria Edit request on Talk:Primary hyperoxaluria]. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

:: I am aware of those, I asked you because you seem to be the major contributor to the article who is still an active editor. Obviously it is fine if you have other priorities. TSventon (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering why you reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trifarotene&diff=prev&oldid=1024612263&diffmode=source here]. It was studied for both in the [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/drug-trials-snapshots-aklief drug trial.] Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

: It is indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. The indication doesn't specify or limit the application area. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

::{{u|Whywhenwhohow}}, The indication does not specify or limit it, but I think it deserves a mention since the drug is unique in that it has been studied and tested specifically for the treatment of truncal acne compared to Acne vulgaris in general, whereas most other acne drugs are not.

::By the way, can you ping me on reply? Thanks!

:: Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 03:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

:::{{Re|Shadowrvn728}} I found that the indications for Canada and Australia specify it and added it to the Medical Uses section. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

::::I think something like this could be added:

::::"Aklief, a Trifarotene cream, is the first topical treatment specifically studied and proven to treat both facial acne and truncal acne" (This is copied and pasted from Drugs.com with some stuff substituted, so just as an example)

::::using the following sources that show this is true:

::::[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13555-021-00530-y] [https://www.jaad.org/article/S0190-9622(19)30335-4/fulltext#secsectitle0105]

::::From the sources:

::::"Trifarotene is the first topical retinoid with robust evidence from large-scale, randomized, vehicle-controlled phase III studies, supporting its use as a first-line acne treatment for both the face and trunk"

::::"A variety of treatment options are currently available for [Acne Vulgaris], but they have not been rigorously studied in truncal disease."

::::"Trifarotene 50 μg/g cream is a new selective retinoic acid receptor (RAR)-γ (RARγ) topical retinoid and is unique in that its clinical development program included evaluation of performance in both moderate facial and truncal acne."

::::"There is sparse literature for the prevalence and treatment of chest and back acne despite it being a very common condition."

::::"Few studies have evaluated drugs in the treatment of truncal acne and there are no well-designed comparative studies. Most studies have been small in scale and not rigorously controlled."

::::"A review of the sparse evidence of the treatment outcomes of acne located in different anatomic regions has shown varying responses to systemic therapy when the face and trunk are involved."

::::Let me know what you think. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 00:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}

{{Re|Shadowrvn728}} I suggest discussing it on the article's talk page instead of here. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear Wiki member,

I hope you are well.

I am reaching out regarding my latest contribution to the cladribine Wikipedia page. I have declared my COI and intended changes on the Talk page prior to initiating the page edit directly. I was hoping to hear from editors to ensure a smooth edit vetted by the Wikipedia community. It has now been 3 weeks and I have not received any feedback. I can see that you are quite active on other MS molecules (your contribution on the ocrelizumab, alemtuzumab or fingolimod pages for example). I was wondering if you could please advise whether it would be acceptable for me to proceed with the edits. To provide further clarification, I have suggested further unbiased detail to the current page, and have proposed some edits, all of which I have included citations for.

I invite you to consult my post here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cladribine#2021_Page_factual_update

I would greatly appreciate your feedback. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Samer FahmySamerFahmy (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology § ATC for new drugs. Petersam (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Whywhenwhohow,

We keep ping-ponging changes to a reference. Not sure why this is happening. Could you explain?

I just changed it back to what it should be in curprev 07:09, 6 July 2021‎ Wikiscienceguru talk contribs‎ m 366,572 bytes +37‎ Fix citation again undo

You made a change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine

Single dose interim use is under consideration to extend vaccination to as many people as possible until vaccine availability improves.[6][7][8][9]

curprev 16:42, 5 July 2021‎ Whywhenwhohow talk contribs‎ 366,505 bytes +79‎ update refs undothank

curprev 16:29, 5 July 2021‎ Whywhenwhohow talk contribs‎ 366,426 bytes −22‎ removed Category:Vaccines using HotCat remove parent category undothank

:{{Reply|Wikiscienceguru}} There are different citation style templates to use depending on the source. The source is SSRN which is not a journal. In addition, the citations in the article use Vancouver format. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So the important change I made is to include the DOI. If this is not done, metrics tools like PlumX and Altmetric do not find the reference in Wikipedia which prevents people from finding wikipedia articles that reference a given article. While SSRN is technically not a journal, it does have what it calls "eJournals" which include content based on editorial staff selection criteria. The referenced article is in an eJournal. But again, most importantly, the DOI must appear in the reference (not as a link) to be captured by PlumX and Altmetric. References by PlumX and Altmetric steer traffic to wikipedia via those references. SSRN functions as a Journal so perhaps it's best to use that citation style. Somehow, the DOI must appear in the reference as directly visible text, not hidden within a link.

I'm concerned about the information bias on the Ivermectin page and can't edit because I have too few edits. I'm reaching out to see if you be willing to see this large research paper that substantiates the effectiveness of Ivermectin as a medicine for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19, which is a peer-reviewed Meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/.

In Wikipedia, the medicine is listed as a parasite treatment in spite of its use over many years in anti-inflammation & anti-viral applications for which it has been used to combat Dengue, Zika, West Nile, etc with literally billions of doses.

This research clarifies Ivermectin's efficacy and appropriateness for preventing and treating Covid-19, though understandably and industry that is making $billions off new drugs would not be interested in an off-patent medicine.Thanks for considering this correction/update to a site that appears to be managed to meet a political preference rather than facts.

Levinas2021 (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2021‎ (UTC)

:Thanks for suggesting a source. Unfortunately, the problems with that paper are not obvious. In the context of COVID-19, it has been discussed at length, and editors eventually concluded that it was better to rely on other sources for the time being. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's an article about a phenomenon where repeat withdrawals from GABAergic drugs paradoxically produce worse and worse withdrawals. The article is, "Kindling (sedative–hypnotic withdrawal)." I am not familiar with how to propose an article be deleted, etc., so I was looking for help as this article, I believe, is misleading anyone who uses GABAergics such as alcohol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentinoids.

You can find my complaint in the talk page of the article under the header "Original Research." I'll give a summary here though. I can't find any scientific articles about kindling, and the cited studies are on random topics like alcohol withdrawal in adolescents, which I assume were all cherrypicked from, using original research to create the article. The entire introductory paragraphs have ZERO citations despite being the place in the article with the strongest statements about kindling. The rest of the article seems to discuss random things withdrawal from a GABAergic can cause. All citations lack "kindling" in their titles. If this were a true phenomenon, with how common alcohol, benzodiazepines, and gabapentinoids are, I'd expect there to be reviews on the topic, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, and meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Damn, this article includes the buzzword sensitization right next to kindling.

Please, pick a section and read it, looking at the ridiculous sources used. For example, under the "Pathophysiology -Benzodiazepine" section, you should notice it's talking about how GABA and glutamate are changed in people with physical dependence to benzodiazepines, getting information from "Neuroadaptive processes in GABAergic and glutamatergic systems in benzodiazepine dependence." It's a study about GABAergic and glutamatergic systems in people physically dependent on benzodiazepines.

I propose shifting some of these findings to the appropriate topic e.g. seeing if that claimed source and explanation of physical dependence might fit somewhere in the benzodiazepine page. If you can find an actual source claiming kindling is real, you can also add in the credible source and remove all the ones unrelated to kindling that appear to be using original research.

:I replied to the IP's original question at Talk:Kindling (sedative–hypnotic withdrawal)#Original Research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Doc James and myself have noticed you do great editing, we were wondering if you'd stop by https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page , we basically do similar health related articles to wikipedia, except we add NC. ND images, cost of med, dosage, videos and more (Whispyhistory is there as well) we'd love you to join, thanks! Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

: Sounds interesting. I will take a look. -- Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfJsrDRQBhKpajoqdFtKIKylYZ5kWQDjvvJm207FJvZ1UEjRg/viewform?usp=sf_link LINK HERE].

Piotr Konieczny

Associate Professor

Hanyang University

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you're [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Embolic_and_thrombotic_events_after_COVID-19_vaccination#tool-authorship one of the top 10 contributors to this article], can you comment on the move request? Thanks — Omegatron (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, as the title may suggest, I am looking to obtain an image for an article regarding the antibody nirsevimab. [https://seekingalpha.com/article/4363140-sanofi-sny-nirsevimab-r-and-d-investor-event-slideshow The image is found here], on slide twelve. It's from Sanofi's R&D Investor event. What do I need to do in order to obtain this image? Contact the company's media department? And is a non-free use rationale required when uploading? Appreciate your help Obama gaming (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

:See WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:UPIMAGE --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Whywhenwhohow, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AWhywhenwhohow added] the "{{mono|autopatrolled}}" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

I apologize for imposing on you, but you are knowledgeable both on the subject and on Wikipedia mechanics. Could I trouble you for some help and advice, please?

The Clindamycin article ends its third paragraph with the number of prescriptions (US, 2019). That is fine in the second-to-last version dated 08:18, 7 January 2022‎. Then came this bot-made edit, or at least it looks as if a bot had been at work: 21:07, 8 January 2022‎ 2600:387:c:6a12::1 talk‎ 42,517 bytes +178‎ undo Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit references removed

The edit removed a bunch of harmless comments from the facts box – and lopped off the end of the third paragraph, including the cite for the five million prescriptions. My question is: Should I just put the missing bits back in place (manual copy from previous), or should I consider the bot to have gone overboard and revert the edit, or should I do nothing?

Again, I would very much appreciate your advice in this. Thanks!

--Felixkasza (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

: I undid the edit that removed the text. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

:: Thank you very much! --Felixkasza (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You deleted all references to them, I was hoping you would make a WHO LEM 22 template, using the template WHO LEM

Riventree (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

: I prefer the explicit citation. I found the template to be an inconvenience when searching and during other editing. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your reverts of my changes. The Manual of Style does state to avoid See also where possible, but it is not a command. There's no way to avoid using "see also" while also linking to drugs closely related, unless you can think of another option of including them in the article that I am missing? Perhaps I could create a navigation box. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

:{{Re|Rockstone35}} The best option is to include text in the article that discusses the other medication, explains how and why it is related, and provides a link to its article. Each of those articles contains a navigation box that links to the other medication. (One article already had one and I added one to the other.) --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

::See also is necessary when other information on Wikipedia is likely to be of interest to the general Wikipedia reader, but such information would overly change the direction of the article currently being read. Accordingly, I have reverted your reverts of my links on Oxycodon. If you disagree, please rewrite a relevant section of the article so that the links are included that way. Any such rewrite should not change the focus of the article. Until you have done this, please do not revert the See also section with those links.Rich (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

:::Please start a discussion on the article talk page about the need of adding a "see also" section instead of deciding that {{tq|it should be there because it is likely to be of interest to the general Wikipedia reader}} instead following the guidelines in the Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

::::Well, I think you should have already begun the discussion on the talk page, since you've reverted my contribution without any response to the point I made.Rich (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Vonoprazan/amoxicillin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of any notability for this dual drugs pack

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'd just like to begin this message with a massive thanks, I saw your edits to the article and I don't quite know why but it really makes me happy seeing the bare-bones draft that I first created to becoming an FDA-approved drug. Now I have just one question, how do I bring the article up to good article status? It is something I've been thinking about doing now that it's FDA approved. Cheers! X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 08:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

: I suggest reading the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria|GA criteria] and looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Biology_and_medicine|some sample good articles on individual drugs]. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I see you merged this page into Ursodoxicoltaurine and are using that name. The name used in almost all research is Tauroursodeoxycholic acid (see Pubmed). There are many other issues on that page that could be worked on if you are familiar with bile acids and clinical trials. Please revert the page name back to the accepted chemical name. Thanks.Jrfw51 (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

:{{Re|Jrfw51}} The convention is to use the INN as the name of the article. See WP:MEDMOS and WP:PHARMMOS --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I've seen that you removed some of studies from the NIHR Evidence page for being primary sources. I have posted on the WikiProject Medicine talk page here about adding NIHR sources as part of my Wikipedia residency. The reasoning behind using NIHR Evidence is that even though some of the articles are based on primary sources they are chosen by a committee of medical professionals based on their importance, strength of evidence so in essence they go through sort of an evaluation or review. What do you think? Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

:Also the reference removed from the Lansoprazole article is a health technology assessment, I think that is counted as strong evidence. Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to put citations in the info box, since the same information is contained in the article below with citations. Generally citations should be avoided in the infobox unless the information is not elsewhere in the article. --IWI (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Before going on a revertation spree, please check for references that may support New Zealand Costco.

Also, is there a way to salvage an edit conflict on Costco article that I made a few minutes ago? That event caused me to lose a bunch of work. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

:There are multiple online sources that should support the presence of New Zealand Costco and its recent opening. For instance, a [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/costco-nz-opening-what-makes-new-store-globally-unique/URN4JK5QCSHTGWAYSCXR7FLHYY/ New Zealand Herald] reference about the opening of Costco. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|pending changes reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Femke (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Refer to your edit [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1123505982 here], whereas you changed date format on date and access-date parameter on citation from yyyy-mm-dd to dd-month-yyyy. while that changes may still be acceptable per MOS:DATEFORMAT, I don't see any good reason to change from automatic date formatting to manual date formatting. especially Help:Citation Style 2 also suggest to use publication-date format in the template is YYYY-MM-DD. Do you mind to explain the rationale of your edit. thanks. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

:The article uses the Template:Use_dmy_dates and the article was using an inconsistent set of date formats. The dates should be consistent (see MOS:NUM and MOS:DATEUNIFY). --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:: It was exactly because that page uses Template:Use dmy dates, the yyyy-mm-dd format will automatically be rendered as "d mmmm yyyy". It was also aligned with MOS:DATEUNIFY. And, no need to manually input as the date as "d mmmm yyyy". That's why I am a bit confused with your edit. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

::: MOS:DATEUNIFY states that {{tq|Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format}} and the date formats weren't consistent with each other or consistent with the body of the article. In addition, there are some citations that don't use either CS1 or CS2. I used the macro to add the consistency. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

:::: MOS:DATEUNIFY also state that {{quote|Publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format, which may be:

::::* the format used in the article body text,

::::* an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body, or

::::* the format expected in the citation style being used (but all-numeric date formats other than yyyy-mm-dd must still be avoided).}} Which means, all of those three format are acceptable (including yyyy-mm-dd). Furthermore Template:Use dmy dates automatically render dates ({{para|date}}, {{para|access-date}}, {{para|archive-date}}, etc) in the style specified by this template. So, eventhough it was written "yyyy-mm-dd" in the code, it'll be displayed as "d mmmm yyyy". And the eye of the general reader, there is no visual difference between inputing manually "d mmmm yyyy" and "yyyy-mm-dd" when Template:Use dmy dates used, esp. when {{para|cs1-dates}} is not specified. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain me your modification change in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moderna_COVID-19_vaccine&oldid=prev&diff=1127545631 ?

after I added this statement : EMA also recommends the full authorization of the vaccine for children (in its non-bivalent original version). {{Cite web |title=Spikevax1 (COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified))- An overview |url=https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/overview/spikevax-previously-covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-medicine-overview_en.pdf |date=2022-10-20 |access-date=2022-12-12 |website= European Medicines Agency (EMA) | vauthors = CHMP }}

Yours sincerely,

--Wisdood (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I was giving clarification for which type of the medication are available from a pharmacy and which are not. Only topical is available as a pharmacy medicine, which is actually the same as over-the-counter, by the way (although if you agree with me, I will make the link the same as the automatic one, to a section lower in the OTC article about UK medicine laws). Currently, the parameter is confusing as it's not explained how the medicine can be POM and P at the same time. --IWI (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

:Some medicines in the US are available via either OTC and or Rx-only at the same time. Here is the description for the UK classifications.{{cite web | title=Medicines: reclassify your product | website=GOV.UK | date=18 December 2014 | url=https://www.gov.uk/guidance/medicines-reclassify-your-product | access-date=26 December 2022}} --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

::Yes I know about that, it isn't my point at all. I said I would link to the same place it links to now (Over-the-counter drug#United Kingdom) if you allow me to reinstate. The point is to add more detail as to which forms of the medication are “P - pharmacy medicine” and which are “POM - prescription only”; in this case “topical” and “everything else” respectively. --IWI (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

:::If you view my edit to the article, you will see the detail in brackets that I'm talking about. --IWI (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Naloxone ==

Hello!

On October 1, 2022, I changed the stylization of "Narcan" on the naloxone page (first paragraph, first sentence) to "NARCAN" — how it's stylized both by Adapt and by Endo (Endo first came out with NARCAN, as I'm sure you know, back in the 1960s). Is it against Wikipedia rules to use all-caps as a stylization or something? Or is there a different way I should've included the all-caps stylization? For example, I see on some music artists' pages — let's take JPEGMafia for example — "(stylized in all caps)" after the first mention of their name. Is that how I should've edited the naloxone page?

Like this: "Naloxone, sold under the brand names Narcan (4 mg) (stylized in all caps) and Kloxxado (8 mg) among others..."?

And in the event I'm wrong, if possible, could you very kindly point me towards which section of the rules cover this topic? ProDrugAdvocate (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

:Please see MOS:TM. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wondering if you know why this medication which was approved in Sept of 2022 does not have a [https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/search.cfm?labeltype=all&query=Futibatinib Dailymed] yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

: I don't know why it is missing from DailyMed. Information is available in [https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a622072.html MedlinePlus] and [https://www.cancer.gov/abaut-cancer/treatment/drugs/futibatinib NCI]. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

::Has appeared [https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=0b1332a1-0581-4707-9bf6-1eccfa39bef4 now], just slow I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why removed my Sentence?

It should only be a Quick Info about the limited excretion and exactly this was described in the conclution of my source. Not more, not less. Materie34 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

:Biomedical information in Wikipedia must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources. Please see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS about reliable citations for medical content. The citation that was used is a primary source from a very small clinical trial. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Is the official site of drugbank about amisulpride a reliable source? I mean its (somehow) a medical journal and (somehow) peer reviewd. Also the thing about its limited metabolism is somehow common knowledge and though not mentioned in the Wikipedia site.

Thank you for reading this, have a great Day, bye😊 Materie34 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

:Please submit your query for a wider review/response at WT:MED. Thank you. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for looking after this article. I just wanted to let you know that I've started [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#duplicates_in_WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Medicines this discussion], as it would be great to have your input. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I messed up your username on the first try, so I'm not actually sure the ping went through (apologies if this is redundant/nagging). I wanted to discuss FDA regulatory details at Talk:Alteplase#FDA Licensure details. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Just wanted to know the reason why the link was removed. The link actually contained the latest survey related to stress. Please explain. VM Interactive (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

: A survey doesn't add any value to the article. The link was a blog. Please see WP:NOBLOGS and WP:MEDMOS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutoprol&redirect=no Dutoprol] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 5#Dutoprol}} until a consensus is reached. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 17:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutoprol&redirect=no Dutoprol] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 11#Dutoprol}} until a consensus is reached. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 16:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope you are well. If you could please help me with a little bit of categorization, that'd be great. I wrote persistent stapedial artery a while ago, and I've only placed it in the Ear category. Are you aware of any more specific categories in which this article could fit into? Perhaps a category dedicated to anatomical anomalies? I did a bit of digging around, albeit to no avail. Thank you for your time. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

:I suggest you ask at WT:MED where there is a wider audience. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

::Will do. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vadadustat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dialysis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Wondering if you would be interested in joining a discussion with the head of the EML at WHO? Not sure if you are planning on coming to Wikimania. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

:I don't plan on attending Wikimania. Please provide more detail about the EML meeting discussion. How are you doing? Thanks for reaching out. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

::We have had a collaboration with [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lorenzo-Moja Lorenzo Moja] at WHO for years. They are the one who got released the 2017 list under a CC BY 3.0 license.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Medicines]

::They continue to be interested in collaborating further and will be coming to Wikimania in Singapore. Anyway with you being the most active on EN WP when it comes to medications would be good to hear if you think there are ways WHO can help use further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Whywhenwhohow - i noticed you`ve created pages for newly approved products in the past - would you already be looking at rozanolixizumab-noli or is it something i could draft and get your input on? thanks for your feedback. Noxoug1 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You undid the removal of 1969 bytes by Materie34, and noted the following: (Restored revision 1164414446 by Whywhenwhohow (talk): Unexplained removal; no WP:MEDRS citation)

However, the edits removed by Materie34 were added by Materie34 in the first place, and after discussion between Materie34 and myself, he opted to remove what he had previously added. Yes, it was deleted by Materie34 without explanation, but he did it at my behest because it didn't make sense and contained errors. The "Serotonin receptor" section in present version makes no sense in English. Compare it to the preceding section on "Dopamine receptors" and it should be immediately apparent that the "Serotonin Receptor" section is simply incoherent.

Please undo your undo.

Verytas (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

:I didn't see any discussion on the article talk page. I'll take a look at the article. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We could probably use your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Terminology usage for routes of administration of drugs and other terms in article intros (seeking consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

:OK, I'll take a look, but I've been discouraged at putting work into Wikipedia only to have it destroyed.

:Verytas (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

::I took a look at that discussion you linked - I had no idea the debate was raging. A few years ago I went back and forth with Doc James, who inexplicably had a deep need in his soul to describe a drug as the "by mouth form". That sounds ridiculous to me, but I couldn't get him to budge, and he even threatened to ban me from Wikipedia because he's a big time editor with oodles of time to edit Wikipedia for free. So much for my interest in editing Wikipedia articles. For what it's worth, I fully concur with using terms such as "oral" and "myocarditis" instead of "by mouth" and "heart inflammation". I also believe the latter actually detract from clarity, they introduce wholly unnecessary ambiguities, and they are not in keeping with the level of comprehension required for the other text in these articles.

::My issue with Materie34 is different. He has been inserting sections into various pages about the pharmacology of antipsychotics that are done in good faith, but I can't make any sense of them because of severe language problems. I am also concerned about the misinterpretation of sources. I not only prescribe these drugs, but I teach their pharmacology to med/grad students and I write about their pharmacology in professional journals, so if I don't understand the sections he is inserting ... then there is a problem. I don't want to be heavy-handed about this, so I have implored Materie34 to delete those sections himself, and I am grateful that he has been complying.

::Verytas (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I made a try for an edit for the article about benperidol left on the talk page, because, well Im not a professionell and also my english isn't perfekt. Im not in a hurry to post it official but I asked for feedback right on the talk page and I wrote to verytas but nobody gave me feedback. If you have time you can go to the benperidol Talk page to see my approach for an edit and leave some feedback, that would be very nice😊😊 have a nice day👌 Materie34 (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

== ALS Good Article Nomination ==

Hey there wiki-buddy! I'm hoping I can attract some interested folks to consider reviewing the Wikipedia page about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for Good Article status. As you may know, ALS is a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disease that quickly causes people to lose the ability to move, speak, and breathe. The Wikipedia page about ALS is read over 2,000 times each day in English alone, and often experiences spikes in traffic whenever a celebrity is diagnosed. There have recently been a number of genetic advances made in the space and some recent drug approvals, thanks in part to the momentum started by the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. I've been grinding away at it since early this year but keen to see it improve further, hope you'll consider! PaulWicks (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

:I suggest you post your request on WT:MED --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

:Let's clean up the spelling: neuron (American) versus neurone (British). "Neurone" is appropriate when referring to the name of the British society, but in other locations it should be "neuron", or simply explain that the 'e' was dropped in the pond when the term crossed over from the UK to America.

:Verytas (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The text you removed from the introduction of semaglutide in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semaglutide&diff=1169779059&oldid=1169475748 this edit] was cited. The information from the introduction was all discussed in greater detail in the body of the article, where the citations were given. I'm reverting your removal and placing the citations in the introduction, in addition to where the citations already appeared in the article's body. Please check to see if citations appear elsewhere in an article before removing what could be useful information. Thanks. Vontheri (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a COI editor for BeiGene working on some improvements to the article. I'd love a little more context on the {{tlx|advert}} flag you placed in June – would you be able to give me a bit of direction regarding what parts of the article need to be addressed? Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

:Since this editor has not replied to this message, we may move forward with the discussion on the talk page without their participation. Needless to say, their input is always welcome, and we would be delighted if they changed their minds in the future and wished to join in the discussion with any of their concerns. Regards,  Spintendo  04:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

While I perhaps didn't add the wikilink to the article on the Long COVID article in the best way, I believe that it should go there somewhere. I'm familiar with that doctor because of his many consultations in mainstream media, and while I know that MSM is less relevant in this context, the article has enough refs so that isn't really an issue. Also, checking Special:WhatLinksHere/Ziyad_Al-Aly shows that the article is essentially an orphan (the transclusion, the talk page, and two articles where he's a study coauthor in one or more refs) so if there's anywhere that it should be linked, it's the Long COVID article. Mapsax (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=%22Reproduction+is+authorized+provided+the+source+is+acknowledged%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1

Why are there 319 articles with that text?

What is your WP:COI in the medical field?

Why did you delete the "See also" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxycodone/paracetamol&diff=prev&oldid=1176545530 here]?

Can I delete every instance of "Text was copied from this source which is © European Medicines Agency. Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged." You cannot relicense text under a more permissive license, right? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

Polygnotus (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

: I deleted the see also section because they are discouraged {{tq|Avoid the See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end.}}. See WP:MEDMOS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

: In previous discussions it was determined that use of text from the EMA was permitted along with the addition of that notice. cc: {{U|Diannaa}}. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

::I used to think that was a compatible license, but I don't feel that way any more. It was pointed out to me by another admin that they certainly have a legal team available and the knowledge to release under a compatible CC-by license if they so chose. And they don't. Why not? Plus, are derivative works allowed? Commercial use? — Diannaa (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:::I am not a lawyer, and I can't even pretend that I understand copyright law. Is there someone we can ask? The EMA? A wikipedian who happens to know these things? WMF legal? Do we have to get rid of all these warnings and whatever text is infringing on their copyright? How can we tell which text is infringing on their copyright?

:::You shouldn't just delete the "See also" link(s), but you can incorporate them into the main article. Please stop deleting them. Polygnotus (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

::::You should add text to article body incorporating the link and references instead of adding "see also". Please stop adding see also. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

:::::If you want to delete a "See also" link, you should incorporate the link into the text. I do not work for you. I am a WP:VOLUNTEER. MEDMOS does not give you the right to delete "See also" links. Please read WP:CONLEVEL. Everyone is allowed to add a "See also" section anywhere; local consensus (aka the opinion of Stevenfruitsmaak in 2006) does not overrule widespread consensus.

:::::How will you fix the "Reproduction is authorized"-mess? Are you going to check those 321 articles one by one, remove whatever text is infringing on copyright, and removing the "Reproduction is authorized" claim? Are you the only one who added those copyright infringements and "Reproduction is authorized" claims to those articles? I notice you haven't answered my question about WP:COI. Polygnotus (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is the copyright statement "[https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/about-website/legal-notice#european-medicines-agency-copyright-and-limited-reproduction-notices-section Information and documents made available on the Agency's webpages are public and may be reproduced and/or distributed, totally or in part, irrespective of the means and/or the formats used, for non-commercial and commercial purposes, provided that the Agency is always acknowledged as the source of the material.]"

So 1) Yes commercial use is permitted. 2) Derivatives are permitted per the "in part" bit. 3) The requirement is "By attribution". So why did the EMA go with their own license? CC started out a bit American, not everyone needs to do the same as Wikipedia, meh. Plus it is nice that they spell it out rather than using abbreviations. I consider it a compatible license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

::User:Diannaa The EMA adopted their current license in [https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/policy-scientific-publication-representation-european-medicines-agency-scientific-committees-their_en.pdf January of 2008]. Wikipedia on the other hand only moved to a [https://creativecommons.org/2009/06/22/wikipedia-cc-by-sa-free-culture-win/ CC BY SA license in Jun of 2009]. Before that we were GNU.[https://diff.wikimedia.org/2009/06/30/licensing-update-rolled-out-in-all-wikimedia-wikis/] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite troubled. The reality is, people look to wikipedia for important information, addition or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aripiprazole&diff=prev&oldid=1179582410 removal] of which can help or hurt, and, it's not melodramatic to say, can even be lifesaving, or cost lives, which is in no small part why there are disclaimers here.

I see you sanitizing numerous drug articles by removing adverse events en masse over time. Please stop.

: Wikipedia is not a guide. It is not intended to contain a list of every adverse effect. WP:MEDMOS, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:MEDICAL --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

For example: {{pullquote|Children, teenagers, and young adults who take antidepressants to treat depression or other mental illnesses may be more likely to become suicidal than children, teenagers, and young adults who do not take antidepressants to treat these conditions}} - this is a direct quote from the cited source - the "IMPORTANT WARNING" at MedLine+ - for the statement you have removed :

{{pullquote|In children, adolescents and young adults, there is an increased risk of suicide.

}}

At Ariprazole, you have reverted that addition multiple times. Can I put it back without you reverting it a third time?

The article notes, "there is a greater rate of side effects such as weight gain and movement disorders. The overall benefit is small to moderate and its use appears to neither improve quality of life nor functioning." Yet it's been heavily advertised as an antidepressant. :48 in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMb0C70gq0U Consumer Reports ad review] - called misleading.

You have reverted me after every single edit with exceedingly weak justification. You have removed critical information. You mustn't keep reverting with falsehoods like implying I said Children, adolescents and young adults are elderly. Explain yourself. It's not like there's a shortage of reports of a risk. PMC2990567. PMID16240856. Or lack of identified contributing causal mechanism (akathisia). It's not like there isn't a freaking black box warning: increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, young adults and adults.[https://www.drugwatch.com/abilify/side-effects/]https://www.drugwatch.com/abilify/side-effects/

:The added content is biased and weighted. One of the sources states {{tq|A small number ...}}. Can you provide WP:MEDRS secondary sources with more detail? WP:UNDUE. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aripiprazole&diff=prev&oldid=1179582410 this] is not an isolated case - I see you vandalizing numerous drug articles by removing adverse events en masse. The interactions on this - your talk page appear to be the tip of a much larger iceberg. I concur that listing side effects that are minor and rare is excess detail should be removed - that is fine. Good. But you have been removing far more than that.

Are you aware that WP:MEDCOI guideline states, :According to the conflict of interest guideline – conflicts of interest (COI) must be disclosed. Editing on topics where one is involved or closely related, especially when there is potential financial gain, is discouraged. Medicine is not an exception." ? I see you avoided answering, @Polygnotus asking, "What is your WP:COI in the medical field?" RudolfoMD (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

: There is no COI. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You may not have realized that Zepbound redirects to Tirzepatide. You removed both mentions of Zepbound that I added. See related topic MOS:BOLDREDIRECT for why I also bolded the name. STEMinfo (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1187269455&oldid=1187247302&title=Montelukast your revert] of my edit, what portion of WP:MEDMOS specifically are you pointing to? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

: Your edit removed citations. "Medical articles should be relatively dense with inline citations" -- Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

While I think the template {{cs1 config}} is handy and in the future might allow each reader to display an article in their preferred citation style, if you are going to use it, please ensure that it is set up so it does not change the existing citation style. Truncating excessively long author lists is OK IMO, but there is no reason to change to Vancouver authors unless the article already uses that style. (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

:I've noticed you doing this again.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eplontersen&diff=prev&oldid=1190501805] This is disruptive editing and must stop. (t · c) buidhe 18:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

:: I mean to truncate the author list. I will update it. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed that each time you touched Guanfacine recently, you replaced a customized short description with a generic "Medication" short description. Two editors (me and another) have changed it each time you have done this. I just loaded the page and it yet again says "Medication". Is this part of an automated process (as indicated by the edit summary of your edits there)?

See: Special:Diff/1184244290 and the fix Special:Diff/1184244290; and Special:Diff/1184381506 and the fix Special:Diff/1189467861. Kimen8 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

: The description is not short and it appears to provide undue weight for high blood pressure. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

::First, the description as it was is 43 characters; not only is there no hard limit on the length, but per WP:SD40, 40 should be a rough guideline. I'd say 43 is close enough to 40 to not warrant removing useful information from it. Second, why do you think mentioning high blood pressure is undue when it is literally mentioned in the first sentence of the article? Third, if you truly have an issue with mentioning high blood pressure, why do you insist on resetting it to "Medication" when you could simply change it to "Medication for ADHD", if the blood pressure part is your issue? It's also quite annoying that you have overwritten it as part of a larger edit, without mentioning that it was being changed in the edit summary, and not once provided your reason for overwriting the short description repeatedly. I shouldn't have to dig through individual diffs to find out when the short description was changed, and ideally you would indicate why you are changing it if you repeatedly overwrite other editors' changes. Kimen8 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

::For clarity, I am not sure how your explanation makes sense. The first sentence of the article is {{green|Guanfacine, sold under the brand name Tenex (immediate-release) and Intuniv (extended-release) among others, is an oral alpha-2a agonist medication used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and high blood pressure.}} And the short description you keep overwriting is {{green|Medication used for high blood pressure and ADHD}}.

::Is your issue the order of the two things it is used to treat? If so, change the order rather than remove all useful information. Kimen8 (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Springer's website is having technical problems resolving DOI for all of their articles. Please hold off on further 'doi-broken' tagging. DMacks (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I like your username :) While I'm here, I was wondering if you'd be alright participating in this project? Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Whywhenwhohow! I noticed on the article "Sodium oxybate", on 3 September 2023, you made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sodium_oxybate&diff=prev&oldid=1173670938] where you removed "Lumryz" as a trade name from the infobox. While Lumryz is an extended-release formulation of sodium oxybate, it is still sodium oxybate, and the Lumryz formulation is discussed on the page. The term "Lumryz" also redirects to the article. Other drugs usually list the brand names of extended release version(s) on the page (i.e., the "Zolpidem" article lists "Ambien CR", and the "Adderall" article lists "Adderall XR" and "Mydayis" as trader names). Would you have any objections to "Lumryz" being re-added to the trade names section? Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

: Only three entries are supposed to be in the infobox — {{tq|comma separated list of trade names by the originator (no generics, not more than three names)}}. You can add it to the brand names section of the article. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Whywhenwhohow,

In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bedaquiline&diff=1214320222&oldid=1190946405 this edit], you added a ref in {{para|legal_EU_comment}} but no actual information about the legal status in that field and {{para|license_EU}} is blank. Could you check what its status actually is? DMacks (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

: Fixed, thank you. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Medical abortion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi I wondered if you might cast your eye over https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue. I've made a lot of changes over the last year or so with very little challenge. thanks Asto77 (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

:Maybe they're tired W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not clear Why you continue to replace my contribution with a previous. I am the scientist whose lab discovered trodusquemine. The piece I placed into Wiki provides a balanced scientifically accurate summary of what we know about the compound, and references virtually every contribution that has been published in peer reviewed journals. Please let me know what is disturbing you and we can likely resolve the matter. Thank you. ZASLOFF (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

:Replied on Trodusquemine talk page. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::The guidelines refer to "possible COI..." In the case of Trodusquemine I led the discovery team and have been responsible for all early development work, and still remain involved its development. This contribution is scientifically accurate. If you see inaccuracies, please advise me of them.

:: Thank you. ZASLOFF (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am again undoing an edit of yours to Florbetaben (18F), where you set the infobox to calculate the MW with unlabeled natural-abundance fluorine (essentially ¹⁹F) rather than the infobox/article-topic that is solely ¹⁹F. It would be a nice (although rarely-used) feature if chembox/infobox could handle isotope-specific molecular formulas, but I don't see a way currently. So until then, I think we have to hard-code the value. DMacks (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

:I updated the formula. Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

::Looks good! I have this fantasy where formula (and by extension weight) are automated from InChI, since that string has an isotopic-desgination layer in it. DMacks (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi

On https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ergotamine&diff=prev&oldid=1224384667&title=Ergotamine&diffonly=1

Your changes removed the visibility of the "pregnancy category" field W;ChangingUsername (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that you have reverted my edit on Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and have given an explanation as "unexplained". Please assume good faith next time someone doesn't use an edit description. I was only trying to fix the link to remove the "www." at the beginning per documentation. ^Wiinter_U 20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:Which documentation about the www? The OfficialURL template is intended to be used in infoboxes. It gets the official URL from the associated wikidata. -- Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

::The {{infobox company}} documentation. ^Wiinter_U 14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

::The documentation states, "Top-level URL of the company's website, using the {{URL}} template. Do not include the leading www. unless the URL will not resolve without it." ^Wiinter_U 18:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

::: It also states that the subtemplates should not be removed because they add the microformats. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This resembles pushy/edit warring: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rituximab&diff=prev&oldid=1232699091 Why so pushy, @Whywhenwhohow ? You provided no explanation for the bulk of it and none at all outside of your edit summary. That's your your second time pushing that, (after https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rituximab&diff=prev&oldid=1231947787) and then you added a bunch more, which tends to ramrod your preferred version. Your repeatedly pushing removal of a {{failed verification}} tag, with no explanation whatsoever, is not collegial. You also misrepresented https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/view/teva-celltrion-maintain-slender-discount-to-rituxan as being 6 years old! It's barely 4. And you provided no evidence that it's stale info. - RememberOrwell (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:You misrepresented https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/view/teva-celltrion-maintain-slender-discount-to-rituxan as being 6 years old! Now you're claiming it doesn't exist? -RememberOrwell (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

::Whywhenwhohow apropos your last edit. FALSE. I explained my edits on user and article talk page and in three edit summaries, so Whywhenwhohow, you need to respond, rather than edit war. RememberOrwell (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Again, why so pushy? Do you have a conflict of interest? Why is it that you misrepresented https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/view/teva-celltrion-maintain-slender-discount-to-rituxan as being 6 years old? RememberOrwell (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read MOS:NUM and note that it says to write "two hundred". It doesn't say "2 hundred". The same applies to one million vs. 1 million. It's the same principle. I am reverting your edit per MOS:NUM. Please do not restore the incorrect notation. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Nice to meet you. I see that you are a member of WikiProject Pharmacology, so perhaps you would be interested in taking a look at an edit request I posted for the pharmaceutical company Viatris at: Talk:Viatris#Add updates to History Section. The edits are straightforward, nothing complicated. Thanks so much for considering adding the information. 170.85.73.82 (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

:List of drugs: K

::added links pointing to Kineret, Kanuma and Kyra

:List of drugs: Z

::added links pointing to Zantac and Zagam

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

:List of drugs: U

::added a link pointing to Ulo

:List of drugs: V–Ve

::added a link pointing to Vantas

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

:Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign

::added links pointing to Bloomberg, Deadline, ABC News and Axios

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Whywhenwhohow, thank you for your editing with medical and health articles. I have a question about a few recent edits of mine that you reverted - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methylphenidate&oldid=prev&diff=1257705072 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amantadine&oldid=prev&diff=1257705161 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modafinil&oldid=prev&diff=1257705234&markasread=332047499&markasreadwiki=enwiki here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatigue&oldid=prev&diff=1257705371 here]. You stated that they were not Not WP:MEDRS, but previously the community reviewed this form of Evidence Updates, very similar to these, and concluded that they did fit MEDRS. I wanted to bring this to your attention as, like many things across the various Wiki projects, things can be difficult to find. Can you please reconsider your reverts of these edits? Thank you for your consideration. FULBERT (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Their 'Evidence updates' would appear to be WP:SECONDARY in nature, though a lot of the site is not (e.g. more press-releasy in nature in the way new research is covered). Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

::@Zefr. Again: "'Evidence updates' would appear to be WP:SECONDARY in nature."

::Zefr and WWWW: Heed WP:Revert only when necessary, thanks. RememberOrwell (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|RememberOrwell}} - Better to read the summaries at the bottom of the PCORI page, or to read the publications themselves - the studies are too preliminary to mention. The PCORI summaries are intended for physician-patient discussions as advice. Use review articles, when available. This has been discussed on the Modafinil talk page, where you can comment. Zefr (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::You claimed "Both studies mentioned are preliminary research" and " the studies are too preliminary to mention"

::::I didn't cite any "preliminary" studies. Why do you keep implying otherwise and basing your reverts of my edit (originally @FULBERT's) on that false premise? RememberOrwell (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I see what you wrote on the talk page, where you make a totally different argument. We can discuss further there. RememberOrwell (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

A talk has been started, which you did not participate in. However, you re-reinstated the content in dispute. Graywalls (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semaglutide&diff=1271243301&oldid=1271150458 your revert], could the pronunciation guides go somewhere in the article at least? It's a really ambiguous, nonsense-sounding name that few readers unfamiliar with the subject would know how to pronounce. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

: Wikipedia is not a guide and pronunciations are discouraged. The article is about the medication, not the brand name(s). --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

::Discouraged where? Please show me an MOS where it says that. Plenty of product names, place names and people names on WP include a pronunciation template—it's helpful to readers, since we're building an encyclopaedia. It shouldn't matter what the article is about when Wegovy redirects to the article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

As with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxycodone&oldid=prev&diff=1274409266]. Content issues can be discussed on the talk page. RememberOrwell (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of drugs: Mep–Mes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merrem.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! I have a question about your recent edit of datopatamab deruxtecan - could you explain why the list of side effects in this article was considered improper? Kamdu22 (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

: Please see WP:MEDMOS and WP:PHARMMOS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

You reverted my edits on the diabetes medication template, and I now realize that I didn't explain myself. The name of the article for insulin analogues has been changed to analogues withe the gues at the end. I was bringing them to parity MallardTV (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Fruquintinib Is there anything controversial about a minor addition of dose information Planetoryd (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:: Wikipedia is not a guide. See WP:MEDMOS, WP:PHARMMOS, and WP:NOTGUIDE --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)