Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
Awarded to Doc James for efforts in replacing lesser quality citations with high-quality academic citations. Awarded on 13 October 2017 by Cdjp1.
Deletion and CSD G12 criterion
Hi, Doc James.
I am writing you concerning Nalaka Gunawansa the page you just deleted per CSD G12. Actually it is not applicable per CSD G12 policy, which unambiguously stated:
Public-domain and other free content, such as a Misplaced Pages mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion.
I need not mention Misplaced Pages is both free content and in public domain. Second; I clearly understand the user copied it from another newbies' draft, but they if we assume good faith they are both working towards the same thing and the user whose draft was not accepted can easily improve it in the main space, since nobody owns an article. If there is any policy or guidelines I am missing I am willing to know it, but clearly not G12 and no where this is even slightly supported in guideline about copying within Misplaced Pages. Thanks –06:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Ammarpad they need to attribute the source of that content. The second author is claiming credit for the work of the first. Unless of course they are the same person behind the accounts.
So you realized that their was another draft here? And than you assisted them to get around the other conclusions? Basically this is a deletion not simple for a "mere lack of attribution".
To your first reply; I and you know they should attribute, but this is a new user (DinukaH2 (talk·contribs)) who obviously doesn't. No 2, We don't know whether they're the same person or not (and we have no reason to know), but my concern is on the applicablity of speedy G12, (as policy) where it says it doesn't apply in clear and unambiguous manner. To your appended comment; per WP:TPG, you should've given me at least 30 minutes to respond first, because you're now raising different objection to what I actually want us to discuss. But my answer is; I actually don't know that another draft exist, and many users who submit articles to AFC tend to create more than one or submit both in draft and their sandboxes. Hmm, and second, I don't know why my objection to what policy doesn't say will summarily be labeled as "helping" new user (whom I never interact with) to circumvent a procedural process. Your second comment will surely drift this discussion from what it is really for, so let us discuss the deletion and, If you're accusing me for "helping" or "subverting" process you can talk to me separately as I talk to you for this wrong deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
So you see, you don't even left me to reply but you are eager to bomb-comment the thread. Please which Misplaced Pages policyor guideline says if lead contain unsourced claim it should be deleted via WP:G12? Are you now saying it is deleted because you found unsourced claim or because it is found in second paper not first?Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You state "I clearly understand the user copied it from another newbies' draft" which make it appear like you know it existed before.
I've respect for you and your experience here and hope we can solve this case on this talkpage amicably. I am requesting you for the second time to restore this page Nalaka Gunawansa which you incorrectly deleted. The first request above you completely derailed the topic with off-topic replies and accusations. I also received your 30th October email and ready to discuss its content but not in this thread. This thread is for only the above page you incorrectly deleted per G12 either because you misunderstood the policy or you didn't revisit it for a while. I know you're an experienced admin, but we all make mistakes. What however can differentiates people is what they do after they're shown the mistake. Therefore, I want you to understand copying whole draft to another draft on Misplaced Pages is not copyright violation, it is termed "duplication" and cannot be deleted via G12.
Moreover, beside that fact, both drafts were written by the same user who is newbie. This, further substantiate what I told you in the above thread; that newbies often copy duplicate the drafts they write or their sandboxes. Read the author of the article reply to my questions here on his talkpage and another reply on my talkpage.
Finally, here is an example of admin who restored content that was copied duplicated within Misplaced Pages, and you're well aware per policy real copyright violation cannot be restored. – —Ammarpad (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah see it now. They admit to using socks (which was fairly obvious). User:DGG declined the draft here. It is not deleted just returned back to draft. And no you do not get to pass it again. It is way to promotional and is not suitable for mainspace.
... its also important sometimes to know when and which work was the first, in this case how insulin effect the metabolism in vacsular smooth muscle ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memurubu (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
A draft Draft:Ronald H. Winston is in review. The AFC script says that you deleted Ronald H. Winston in September as WP:G5, WP:G11, and WP:TOU. My question has to do with the G5, which is a blocked or banned user, because this would mean that the draft is being created by a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user. Please either file a sockpuppet report or tell me who the master account is so that I can file a sockpuppet report. We appear to have a persistent self-promoter. (Winston Diamonds is notable, but that doesn't justify spam.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
::The drafting editor has a story on their talk page that I don't find plausible. I think that I will be reporting them at WP:COIN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I conclude that the drafting editor is really acting in good faith, but good faith is not enough, because they are an employee, even though editing Misplaced Pages is not in their scope of employment. As such, they mean well but are tying themselves in knots anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Doc James has posted he's on vacation so I'll take the liberty of answering first. The creator of the other article was Jeremy112233 who we now think is/was a WikiExperts agent. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I remember Jeremy112233 as a paid editor who was blocked for socking, but I don't recall a connection with WikiExperts. Why the sudden change? - Bilby (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Two wikilinks to direct tagging that I know of are in the LTA writeup, previous reply–along with extensive behavioral notes related to WikiExperts COO. Pretty sure at a deeper level it involves confidential info (OTRS and Checkuser). ☆ Bri (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. We had an extensive checkuser on Jeremey112233 and found that there was socking, but Jeremey112233 was the master. That was years ago, so new checkuser data would be stale. I checked your link - all I see is Jemeremy112233 being added as Wikiexperts with no explanation. I certainly remember Jeremey112233, but I'm not seeing any evidence of a connection with Wikiexperts, and so I remain curious. - Bilby (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I went though the old COIN discussion, and that seems better. I'm not concerned in trying to defend Jeremey112233, as he was clearly a paid editor and ran an extensive sockfarm. But I remain curious as to how the account was connected to Wikiexperts so many years later when that connection wasn't determined at the time. - Bilby (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.
Arbitration
Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
The Misplaced Pages community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Dinh Xuan, AT; Matran, R; Regnard, J; Vitou, P; Advenier, C; Lockhart, A (1988), "Comparative effects of rilmenidine and clonidine on bronchial responses to histamine in asthmatic subjects.", British journal of clinical pharmacology, 26 (6): 703–8, ISSN0306-5251, PMC1386584, PMID2907408
Hi nice to see someone who can edit wikipedia and is interested in making it good!
just looking at the vitamin B12 deficiency page in Wikipaedia. Im a general radiologist (not a neuroradiologist) and I dont know too much specifically about Vitamin B12 deficiency but I think the MRI picture just shows non-specific white matter change, I know it comes from a journal article about vit b12 deficiency but doesnt seem to be too classic.
There is no way to use a medical textbook and reference each page that contains information as a separate entry. I have used this referencing style in dozens of articles where a bibliography is used. References to this source will be used extensively in this article and if we use the referencing style you recommend, the reference section will quickly become populated with the same textbook (with different page numbers) to end up being confusing and unnecessarily long. A book needs to be cited once and then page numbers indicate exactly where in the book the information has been found. There is no guideline that states that a certain type of referencing system is required. In this article, and others that I have written, this type of referencing has been acceptable to copy editors, bots, other medical editors. The reference you identified as being adequate is from a 2005 paramedic textbook. The reference you removed was from a Post-graduate, medical gynecological textbook published in 2014.
(1) That template does not work in a lot of languages (2) only two pages were being used from that textbook. (3) The reference was not removed but the formatting changed. (4) Which 2005 paramedic textbook do you refer in what edit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
you deleted it.. ? pharmacokinetics, half life of fluphenazine, after 1 injection on 9 patients, it didn't decrease to 50% after 26 days (test from 1990), the test that says it's for 2 weeks is from 1985 and it does not seem to be good.
I want to let you know that reverted 2 of your edits (at vaccine controversies and shingles). If you want to revert my reverts feel free, I won't edit war. The reason I reverted at shingles is that lead is describing the effectiveness of Zostavax, which is no longer the only approved vaccine, and because shingles outbreaks don't occur. At vaccine controversies I just thought the old wording was better but it dosen't matter much to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes there is a second one. Is there any evidence the effectiveness is different? With respect to vaccine controversy, does not matter much to me either. Started a talk page discussion of the use of the term "outbreak" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The new one is around 90% effective, they are telling people to get the new one even if they have already gotten the old one cause the new one is so much better. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is a Washington post article discussing the difference in effectiveness (the recommendations for revaccination haven't been made official yet)
I don't know if there are any WP:MEDRS on this yet, my point is that the article should not say "the vaccine is 50% effective" when a more effective one also exists. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
PPI / Gastric cancer risk
Hi
The study I referenced from Gut journal describes an increased risk of gastric cancer form PPI use.
I want to put this information on the PPI page.
How do I do this?
(I can link to the summary of the study on the Gut website.
Dr. Mark Porter, writing in The Times of London yesterday, quoted the findings too but that page is behind a paywall...)
Many thanks, Doc James, for rewriting my rather clumsy paragraph at Ascariasis into plain English. Though I started editing Misplaced Pages in 2004, I've only been studying in healthcare for a relatively short period of time, and haven't yet got the knack of avoiding "medicalese". Thanks again for that. Yours, Tristessa(talk)19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you--
