User talk:CFCF/Archive 11

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Speedy deletion nomination of Clear liquids

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 Clear liquids, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- Tavix (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive creation of edit wars and repeated failure to follow WP:STATUSQUO

All editors are required to follow WP:STATUSQUO and seek discussion and consensus if they have been reverted. There is no excuse for creating disruptive edit wars. Afterwriting (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You violated WP:3RR

You may be blocked. 212.200.65.127 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no I didn't. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 06:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Hey Carl. Wondering what these links mean? [1] They do not work for me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James — They should bring you directly to the translation dialogue on the CX-tool. What is it that isn't working? Have you enabled it? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

A procedural close trumps involvment. Since a gadget cannot be deleted through MfD, it is pointless to keep it open. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edokter, please point to policy that supports such an argument. Also, a gadget most assuredly can be deleted through MfD, and I may remind you that Wikipedia is not a WP:Bureaucracy — and this is policy. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #217

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Main articles

Feel free to change the main articles aswell [2] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure. Thought you wanted to keep signs and symptoms in the English version, but if you're fine with simplifying it I will go ahead and remove it as I come across it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I added this [3] see if you think its a good idea, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Drum brake. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Space medicine

Then say so in that box that says "edit summary". —swpbT 16:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #218

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing MEDRS revisions

Excerpted from the Project Medicine page under Comments: CF: I'm still feeling reluctant about HTA as the highest level of evidence in the draft chart for guidelines under WP:MEDORG. The HTA article is about "technologies" specifically, such as telemedicine within MAST. A position statement based on systematic reviews as Level I for evidence-based medicine would likely be the highest standard for a clinical practice guideline which would be adopted and held unchanged for 5 years internationally if sufficiently strong. As for the other charts and text you have drafted, what tasks remain needing collaboration and what is the process for implementing the consolidated changes for MEDRS? Thanks for the excellent drafting to date. The charts are effective. --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zefr — HTAs refer to "technology" in the very broadest sense - calling pharmacological agents technology. If you look at the WHOs definition: [4], they go even further, to include any intervention (page 11):

A health technology is “any intervention that may be used to promote health, to prevent, diagnose or treat disease or for rehabilitation or long-term care”

That means that this report on food in obesity qualifies as an HTA [5]. Basically HTAs are what practice guidelines are based upon — sans the politics, in essence: very high quality reviews. Maybe we should get some more input on this from other users, but I think they should be there. I don't think they should be on the study image, because they aren't always entirely apolitical. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO document is a good rigorous definition, but the term is both more complicated with underlying definitions and is not lay-user friendly (not one that I as a health scientist would use or previously knew). I agree input from other editors on the best possible term will help. Would be helpful if your discussion could be refreshed. --Zefr (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue with the draft, and once I feel good enough about it I'll post again. It might be good to have a couple of references for this information to avoid confusion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will do some looking for useful references later today-tomorrow. --Zefr (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl: a few reviews below that hopefully give you useful information for the rewrite. Let me know here if I can help. --Zefr (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations Note: see Table, Checklist of Items to Include When Reporting a Systematic Review Involving a Network Meta-analysis

other recent PRISMA titles

Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews

Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review

Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study

Tech News: 2016-30

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Problems

  • Sometimes, the visual editor required saving twice. That problem is now fixed. [7]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 July. It will be on all wikis from 28 July (calendar).
  • It is now possible to mark all Notifications as read on Special:Notifications, by clicking on the cog icon. [8]
  • Wikipedia search will now detect the language of your search if 2 or fewer results are found. It will then show results from the matching language Wikipedia, if any relevant article exists. It will start to roll out in 5 languages. [9]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 26 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is "an extension that implements an authenticated key-value store". The meeting will be on 27 July at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join. [10]

Future changes

  • The current icon for Notifications "Notices" (in English "Notices") will be changed from a bubble-speech icon to a tray icon for consistency. [11]
  • Special:Notifications page code will be changed to be more Mobile friendly. [12]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Why this revert, please?

[13] Not challenging -- just would like to understand. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 19:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sfarney — See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Expert_perception_of_drug_harms_chart: it is a primary source, which aren't used for health claims on Wikipedia per WP:MEDRS. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 20:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion indentation and accessibility

The comment by QuackGuru was a response to the comment by SmokeyJoe as well. They were first, so your subsequent reply should go below theirs, see WP:THREAD. Furthermore, the format I implemented is preferable for accessibility, see MOS:LISTGAP. Happy New Year and Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Godsy — The indentation is used to clarify where responses are made — and when longer discussions arise: how they behave chronologically. QGs message was unrelated to my response, which was not directed to the discussion writ large, merely to SmokeyJoe. Changing other peoples comments violates the WP:TPO guideline, while WP:THREAD merely contains suggestions (which I actually followed). Please refrain from changing other peoples' comments, doing so may invite disciplinary action. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also be aware, the manual of style does not apply to talk-pages. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The action I took is explicitly allowed per WP:TPOC (Fixing format errors, Fixing layout errors, and/or Sectioning bullet points). WP:THREAD references WP:LISTGAP, though setting the accessibility concerns aside wouldn't have substantially changed my edit. The closest guidance at WP:THREAD gives in relation to this situation is "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to." which is not in line with your format. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TPOC allows fixing errors. This cannot be considered an error, because it was the result of an intentional choice and if you look at WP:Indentation (which holds the same weight as WP:Thread) — the practice is shown in their examples. Neither WP:THREAD or WP:INDENTATION should be enforced by other users, as they constitute guides primarily directed at beginners. Refrain from doing so in the future unless you are positive that what you are seeing is truly an error and not intentional. And please do not ping me 4 times like you did in writing your response here. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which example at Wikipedia:Indentation? In the examples, the reply to Example's 12:34 comment by Place holder at 12:44 is always shown before the reply to Example's 12:34 comment by Sand box at 13:57, i.e. in chronological order. I often... I suppose clerk is the best way to put it, at MfD by fixing poor formatting to keep discussions orderly. This aids those attempting to follow or read the discussion and the closer when they are assessing the consensus. That being said, we fundamentally disagree in regard to TPOC, so I don't see any point in discussing that aspect any further. I made two slight copyedits to my second comment here, resulting in the software automatically notifying you multiple times, I didn't ping you. I don't intend on altering the format of your reply again in the concerned mfd, I just thought it was worth pointing out that replying in that manner isn't the best practice. We may have to agree to disagree, but there is no need for this to turn adversarial. Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:CFCF/Archive_11"