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)[reply]

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 Merridew04:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

saw your edit summary, which makes sense. Sorry for the bump. Cheers,Jack Merridew04:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 theJournal 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And if you use italics tounitalicized the work field, bots come and change it. Websites should not be italicized, lol. —Mike Allen05:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Noticingthis edit ofBoeing 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)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions!129.49.72.78 (talk)16:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your work on thesyphilis article. Wish to get it up toWP: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This user helped promote2011 Tucson shooting togood article status.

SilkTork^{✔Tea time}16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Levy03:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt fromTemplate: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)[reply]

Thanks! This really should be mentioned in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. atWikipedia:Citing sources). That's where I expected to find an explanation. —David Levy03:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 (seeMOS: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)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in health research topics. I saw what you did to better formate theSipuleucel-T article. Blue Rasberry(talk)17:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made somevery nice copy edits atThe 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)[reply]

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 articleRichard 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)[reply]

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 proposedhere, (deep down in the section). I think it'd be a good additionat 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On thePitch Perfect page,your edit caused anunnamed parameter error(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hey there! Just noticedthis edit of yours onApple 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)[reply]

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

@Doc James:

Excerpt fromhttps://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)[reply]

Content not by the FDA per[1]Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all your work on Essential Medicines :-)Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)18:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

Please consult with@Doc James:, and acquaint yourself with WP:Plagiarism andgeneral 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 atBaloxavir 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)[reply]

Excerpt fromWP: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)[reply]

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@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)[reply]

WP:Plagiarism states public domain sourcemay be summarized and the source textcan 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)[reply]

The matter remains the same—at Wikipedia, and in general, the use of material, with representation of itas your own composition—that is, cut and paste, and verbatim use of text—is considered plagiarism.See the second prohibited example atWP:Plagiarism, in thesubsection, "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 ofintellectual 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 theWP:Plagiarism article, it is thefailure torestatethe 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 oldBritannica 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)[reply]

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/pasting_a_whole_public_domain_article_with_attribution?

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

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)[reply]

Hello, Whywhenwhohow

Thank you for creatingRosuzet.

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

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

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

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

Doug MehusT·C00:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus:{{R from trade name}} redirects to{{R from drug trade name}}. See[[Category:Redirects from trade names of drugs]] which recommends using{{R from trade name}}.

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

Whywhenwhohow, Okay, fair enough. My apologies. Carry on. Nevertheless, I marked it as reviewed. Good work! :)Doug MehusT·C05:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, though, I prefer to useArcher personally because (a) it's easier and (b) it's got a whole bunch of specific categories at your fingertips.Doug MehusT·C05:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 toHand sanitizer that consisted solely ofdeletion 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Create the redirect after creating the target article, not before. We can’t have redirects pointing to non-existent pages like you did atVokanamet. —MarkH₂₁^talk02:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language viameta

The 2019 Cure Award

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

Thanks again :-) --Doc James along with the rest of the team atWiki Project Med Foundation18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

BestDoc James (talk ·contribs ·email)16:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question has been posed atNiacin 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)[reply]

If you wish, please continue to review, suggest, editNiacin. 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)[reply]

Can I just bring to you attention that when you change citations from|first= and|last= to|vauthors= as you didhere, 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 ofWP: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? --[[User:|RexxS]] (talk)19:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: The citation style in the article is predominantly vancouver. The remaining citations were updated to use a consistent style by thisedit.

cc:Boghog,Doc JamesWhywhenwhohow (talk)23:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: In addition, the examples shown inWP:CITEMED use theVancouver system. cc:Boghog,Doc JamesWhywhenwhohow (talk)23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog andDoc James: Whywhenwhohow:WP:CITEVAR doesn't use "predominantly vancouver" (or predominantly anything) as a criterion. It says :"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)[reply]

@RexxS: The predominant citation style used in that article has been Vancouver.Whywhenwhohow (talk)03:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The second reference was added used Vancouver style and many of the subsequent citations were added usingDiberri'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|vauthors= over|first1=,|last1=, ... is that vauthors is much more compact and enforces consistency.|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)[reply]

@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.

@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)[reply]

• It is debatable whether an editor thatadded 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 likePubMed 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 asZotero 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.Searching for "Smith JS" is far more reliable than searching for a complexregular expression for some combination of firstn, lastn, Smith, J*S* that still may fail since|firstn= and|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 ofdon'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)[reply]
  • @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 ofpmid:26905361? PubMed certainly isn't going to tell you.
    The solution to wikitext being overwhelmed by citation templates isHelp:List-defined references, not truncating the information. You can have clean wikitext with just{{r}} and{{sfn}} to embed your citations if you choose to do so. I always do.
    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 asa Google search. The 104 results from Google seem a little more comprehensive than your 39, don't you agree?
    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)[reply]
    • 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 likelist defined references, but many others like Doc James strongly object.
    • The Google search also produced a significant number of false positives.
    • When academicsmine 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)[reply]
      • Here's theedit. 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)[reply]
        • @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. Seehere orhere.
        • As you wrote above,WP:CITEVAR states"if the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it".WP:CITESTYLE states"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)[reply]
          • So we don't use PubMed to recover"data that is already stored in a more reliable and convenient form", right? We follow the doi from Wikipedia to the original document, which isless 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).
            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)[reply]

• One can quickly and easily regenerate|last=Su |first=Xiaole | ... by inserting10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.01.016 intoWP:RefToolbar.
• What citevar says is to defer to the citation style of the first major contributor. The first citationadded did not have authors. The second citationadded used full author names. The third citationadded used Vancouver style. The fourth citationadded used Vancouver style. The first cite journal templatesadded used Vancouver style. It is a stretch to argue that theeditor who added the second citation is the first major contributor to this article.Boghog (talk)07:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As a compromise, we could replace|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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have trimmedhttps://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. BestDoc James (talk ·contribs ·email)05:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I am constantly amazed about how many of my watchlist entries come from your edits. Thanks for all the good work you are doing here!ἀνυπόδητος (talk)08:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What is going on?El_C20:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:This edit reminded me to use the present tense.MOS:PRESENT. Sorry for the noise.Whywhenwhohow (talk)22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whywhenwhohow. I noticed you addedGlaxoSmithKline toCategory:World_Health_Organization_essential_medicines[2]. 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)[reply]

You just reverted my removal of the category fromNicorette. Don't you realise that we have an article onNicotine 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 isnot on the EML. Please revert yourself. --RexxS (talk)02:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 amissChevin (talk)21:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Please seeWP:NOTNEWS,WP:RS,WP:MEDRS, and the discussion atDiscretionary_sanctions_on_the_use_of_preprints.Whywhenwhohow (talk)23:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn'tGlutamine be OTC in the Drugbox? I buy it at Walmart...Stephen Lafleur (talk)05:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.Cite error:A<ref> tag is missing the closing</ref> (see thehelp page).Yours sincerely,--Wisdood (talk)09:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1] --Whywhenwhohow (talk)03:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello!

On October 1, 2022, I changed the stylization of "Narcan" on thenaloxone 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 takeJPEGMafia 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)[reply]

Please seeMOS:TM. --Whywhenwhohow (talk)04:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you know why this medication which was approved in Sept of 2022 does not have aDailymed yet?Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)13:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why it is missing from DailyMed. Information is available inMedlinePlus andNCI. --Whywhenwhohow (talk)16:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has appearednow, just slow I guess.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Biomedical information in Wikipedia must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources. Please seeWP:MEDRS andWP: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi, thank you for looking after this article. I just wanted to let you know that I've startedthis discussion, as it would be great to have your input.Dr. Vogel (talk)11:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 atTalk:Alteplase#FDA Licensure details.WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk,contribs)15:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

The redirectDutoprol has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 5 § Dutoprol until a consensus is reached. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]}17:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectDutoprol has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 11 § Dutoprol until a consensus is reached. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]}16:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I hope you are well. If you could please help me with a little bit of categorization, that'd be great. I wrotepersistent stapedial artery a while ago, and I've only placed it in theEar 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)[reply]

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

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

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedVadadustat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDialysis.

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

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. BestDoc James (talk ·contribs ·email)00:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

We have had a collaboration withLorenzo Moja at WHO for years. They are the one who got released the 2017 list under a CC BY 3.0 license.[3]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We could probably use your thoughts atWikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I suggest you post your request onWT:MED --Whywhenwhohow (talk)00:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The text you removed from the introduction ofsemaglutide inthis editwas 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)[reply]

Hi! I'm a COI editor for BeiGene working on some improvements to the article. I'd love a little more context on the{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, checkingSpecial: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)[reply]

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 yourWP:COI in the medical field?

Why did you delete the "See also"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? Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

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

I deleted the see also section because they are discouragedAvoid the See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end.. SeeWP:MEDMOS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk)17:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ifyou want to delete a "See also" link,you should incorporate the link into the text. I do not work for you. I am aWP:VOLUNTEER. MEDMOS does not give you the right to delete "See also" links. Please readWP: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 aboutWP:COI.Polygnotus (talk)20:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the copyright statement "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 andcommercial 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)[reply]

User:Diannaa The EMA adopted their current license inJanuary of 2008. Wikipedia on the other hand only moved to aCC BY SA license in Jun of 2009. Before that we were GNU.[4]Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)14:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite troubled. The reality is, people look to wikipedia for important information, addition orremoval 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 yousanitizing 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)[reply]

For example:

- this is a direct quote from the cited source - the "IMPORTANT WARNING" at MedLine+ - for the statement you have removed :

AtAriprazole, 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 inConsumer 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 freakingblack box warning: increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, young adults and adults.[5]https://www.drugwatch.com/abilify/side-effects/

The added content is biased and weighted. One of the sources statesA small number .... Can you provideWP:MEDRS secondary sources with more detail?WP:UNDUE. --Whywhenwhohow (talk)02:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seethis 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 thatWP: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)[reply]

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

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

Category:AstraZeneca brands has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.

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

Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regardingyour revert of my edit, what portion ofWP:MEDMOS specifically are you pointing to? Thanks.Nightscream (talk)15:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)buidhe10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you doing this again.[6] This is disruptive editing and must stop. (t ·c)buidhe18:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 19 § Category:AstraZeneca brands on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.Qwerfjkltalk12:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have noticed that each time you touchedGuanfacine 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 fixSpecial:Diff/1184244290; andSpecial:Diff/1184381506 and the fixSpecial:Diff/1189467861.Kimen8 (talk)01:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

First, the description as it was is 43 characters; not only is there no hard limit on the length, but perWP: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)[reply]

For clarity, I am not sure how your explanation makes sense. The first sentence of the article isGuanfacine, sold under the brand nameTenex (immediate-release) andIntuniv (extended-release) among others, is an oralalpha-2a agonist medication used to treatattention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) andhigh blood pressure. And the short description you keep overwriting isMedication 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)[reply]

Top 10	Top 10 Medical Editor Barnstar 2023
	You were one of thetop medical editors on English Wikipedia in 2023. Thank you for your hard work!

Mvolz (talk)12:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hello Whywhenwhohow!

• TheNew Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet theguidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly readthe tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on theproject talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please considerapplying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

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

Hi Whywhenwhohow! I noticed on the article "Sodium oxybate", on 3 September 2023, you made an edit[7] 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)[reply]

Only three entries are supposed to be in the infobox —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)[reply]

Hi Whywhenwhohow,

Inthis edit, you added a ref in|legal_EU_comment= but no actual information about the legal status in that field and|license_EU= is blank. Could you check what its status actually is?DMacks (talk)13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedMedical abortion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageVanity Fair.

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

Hi I wondered if you might cast your eye overhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue. I've made a lot of changes over the last year or so with very little challenge. thanksAsto77 (talk)13:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they're tiredW;ChangingUsername (talk)13:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I am again undoing an edit of yours toFlorbetaben (18F), where you set the infobox to calculate the MW with unlabeled natural-abundance fluorine (essentially¹⁹F) rather than the infobox/article-topic that is solely¹⁹F. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hi

Onhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ergotamine&diff=prev&oldid=1224384667&title=Ergotamine&diffonly=1Your changes removed the visibility of the "pregnancy category" fieldW;ChangingUsername (talk)13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that you have reverted my edit onRegeneron Pharmaceuticals and have given an explanation as "unexplained". Pleaseassume 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_U20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The {{infobox company}} documentation.^Wiinter_U14:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation states, "Top-level URL of the company's website, using the{{URL|example.com|optional display text}} template. Do not include the leading www. unless the URL will not resolve without it."^Wiinter_U18:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, (afterhttps://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 misrepresentedhttps://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)[reply]

You misrepresentedhttps://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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Please readMOS: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 perMOS:NUM. Please do not restore the incorrect notation. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk)12:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nice to meet you. I see that you are a member ofWikiProject Pharmacology, so perhaps you would be interested in taking a look at an edit request I posted for the pharmaceutical companyViatris 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)[reply]

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

List of drugs: K

added links pointing toKineret,Kanuma andKyra

List of drugs: Z

added links pointing toZantac andZagam

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

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

List of drugs: U

added a link pointing toUlo

List of drugs: V–Ve

added a link pointing toVantas

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

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

Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign

added links pointing toBloomberg,Deadline,ABC News andAxios

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

		The Pharmacology Barnstar
		I work on a lot of biotech/pharma related pages and, reviewing the edit history on many of those pages, I've run into helpful edits from you multiple times. Keep up the good work!NickCT (talk)13:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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 -here,here,here, andhere. You stated that they were not NotWP:MEDRS, but previouslythe 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)[reply]

Their 'Evidence updates' would appear to beWP: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)[reply]

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

Zefr and WWWW: HeedWP:Revert only when necessary, thanks.RememberOrwell (talk)01:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Top 10	Top 10 Medical Editor Barnstar 2024
	You were one of the top medical editors on English in2024. Thank you for your hard work! —Mvolz (talk)15:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Peryour revert, could the pronunciation guides gosomewhere 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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'rebuilding an encyclopaedia. It shouldn't matter what the article is about when Wegovy redirectsto the article.Mac Dreamstate (talk)12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with[8]. Content issues can be discussed on the talk page.RememberOrwell (talk)00:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please seeWP:MEDMOS andWP:PHARMMOS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk)03:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 parityMallardTV (talk)10:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fruquintinib Is there anything controversial about a minor addition of dose informationPlanetoryd (talk)06:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a guide. SeeWP:MEDMOS,WP:PHARMMOS, andWP:NOTGUIDE --Whywhenwhohow (talk)01:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the NIDA article link from thePsilocybin mushroom article but not from theHallucinogen article? --CrispyCupcake (talk)10:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Whywhenwhohow: Additionally, you did not revert my edit to thefentanyl article. --CrispyCupcake (talk)22:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read ofTemplate:References. Think you have been putting {{References}} where you meant to put {{Reflist}}.Cielquiparle (talk)04:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this article should be moved toFluorodopa (18F), since all the content appears to be about the F-18 tracer variant rather than the simple chemical itself?DMacks (talk)01:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we could useDISPLAYTITLE:Fluorodopa (¹⁸F) too but someone with appropriate permissions would need to swap the page with its redirect page. --Whywhenwhohow (talk)04:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone" has done the swap:) I added the DISPLAYTITLE, and also|drug_name= to format the drugbox title line.DMacks (talk)04:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I should look into getting that privilege. I made a few more edits to the article. --Whywhenwhohow (talk)05:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Let me know if you need any other page-moves or other special actions. I updated a bunch of entries inTemplate:Diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals (navbox MOS). But I assume the isotope-numbers should actually be superscripted there as in the articles?DMacks (talk)05:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user, you are repeating undoing my edits such as midazolam and I would like to know why? I am trying to make pages more international by not having American brands at the top. I am also trying to have all the brand names link together for all users around the world to include their brand version. Your latest reversal includes messages full of jargon and does not explain why you think it is appropriate to keep the page Americentric.Tonym91 (talk)09:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WikiProject Medicine/Manual of Style which you can see atWP:MEDMOS and a WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide which you can see atWP:PHARMMOS. The initial brand name is specified in the lead. Other brand names can be specified in the Brand names section in the Society and culture section. --Whywhenwhohow (talk)22:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enoughTonym91 (talk)19:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectVatinoxan has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 24 § Vatinoxan until a consensus is reached.Traumnovelle (talk)20:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is RosalinaH-M82

I came to ask why my addition to the article regarding hormone replacement therapy was reverted without citation nor listed reasoning.

warm regards, RWHM82RosalinaH-M82 (talk)02:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectSudafed has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 24 § Sudafed until a consensus is reached. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk)21:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, onPulmonary surfactant (medication). Why exactly did you remove that see also section. I was trying to de-orphan a list article I'm writing.scope_creep^Talk21:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the see also section because they are discouragedAvoid the See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end. SeeWP:MEDMOS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk)03:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right. I did plan a navigation template right enough. I will do that.scope_creep^Talk05:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk pages with reference errors