User talk:Whywhenwhohow

Thank you for your work on this article. It is close to my heart, and it is very good to see someone else taking up to mantle as it were! Philip.t.day (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[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 Merridew 04:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

saw your edit summary, which makes sense. Sorry for the bump. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:46, 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 the Journal of Medicine is). Also note that msnbc.com is somewhat unique and media websites are generally considered online extensions of the publication. Remember, general users are going the see the end formatted result. KimChee (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[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 to unitalicized the work field, bots come and change it. Websites should not be italicized, lol. —Mike Allen 05:50, 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 as The New York Times vs. an organization such as The McClatchy Company vs. an agency such as Associated Press. KimChee (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[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]

Noticing this edit of Boeing 737 MAX, I came here to question your interpretation of "publisher" versus "work" or "website". It seems I am not the first. The guidelines say not to use the publisher parameter for the name of a work/website/publication, and to omit it when the name of the publisher is substantially the same as the name of the work. That doesn't seem to be what you're doing. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[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 the syphilis article. Wish to get it up to WP:GA over the next bit. The History / Society and Culture section will be a bit difficult though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[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 per WP:ELNO Otherwise keep up the good work. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Levy 03:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt from Template:Cite_news

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

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This really should be mentioned in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. at Wikipedia:Citing sources). That's where I expected to find an explanation. —David Levy 03:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[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 (see MOS:PUNCTSPACE), and is used by some editors to make it easier to spot sentence starts when in edit mode. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You made some very nice copy edits at The Avengers (2012 film), fixing details to make the article more readable. The nonbreaking spaces in titles with numbers, changing curly quotes, which some browsers can't read well, to straight quotes, changing all-caps to upper/lowercase ... all necessary and all-to-often missed. Bravo! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[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 article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[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 proposed here, (deep down in the section). I think it'd be a good addition at least as an external link. (I'd maybe do more with it at some point.) Thanks for your attention. Swliv (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please meet me at Talk: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'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pitch Perfect page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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

A peer review is being held at WP:Peer review/Death of Osama bin Laden/archive1 to enhance this article to FA status.Forbidden User (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[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 noticed this edit of yours on Apple Inc. Wanted to send a short message just letting you know that there is no reason, and perhaps even negative effects, to remove the publisher fields that follow the website parameters in references. It's useful to know what companies own which media publications. I haven't reverted cause it wasn't possible and it would take so long to do it over, but hopefully this message can alert you to keeping them in the future. Have a good day! :) LocalNet (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Doc James:

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

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

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[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. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia: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 and general academic expectations on this subject. Even if content is in the public domain, it is not acceptable to cut and paste it into another work, with text unaltered (quoting it), without indication that it is being quoted (i.e., with the text being transmitted without alteration from the original). This is true, even if the markup is added to the citation to indicate such use, and it is true even if each sentence is followed by an inline citation. The text must me made your own; the text of others cannot be used, verbatim, without quotation marks. Hence, I am reverting the bulk of your edit at Baloxavir marboxil, until the material can be used correctly, through paraphrasing or blockquoting, as you choose. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from WP:Plagiarism

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

Here is an excerpt from the FDA website

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

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

The matter remains the same—at Wikipedia, and in general, the use of material, with representation of it as your own composition—that is, cut and paste, and verbatim use of text—is considered plagiarism. See the second prohibited example at WP:Plagiarism, in the subsection, "Avoiding plagiarism", which presents as prohibited the exact thing that you did. The fact that permission is given at the FDA site to reproduce the material is not the same as you mis-representing the material as original editorial content of this encyclopedia. If the material is reproduced, it must appear in quotes. In all academic and writing contexts, it is a matter of intellectual honesty, that if the content composed by another is used verbatim, it must be quoted. Alternatively, the content can be retained via paraphrase—look to see what I did with your introductory sentence on the two studies. Note, all of this is hiding the fact that I think your contribution was in an excellent direction. The article needed clear content on the clinical trials. It simply needs to be in your words, and not the words of FDA Staff (or, if in their words, that it be presented as a quote). Cheers. Thanks for engaging. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[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 the WP:Plagiarism article, it is the failure to restate the source content, instead relying on the original author's words, that make this the plagiarism that it is. Bottom line, even though it is widely done at WP (see the many cut and pastes, without even citation, from the old Britannica version), it violates its own rules and normative academic standards—because it does not matter how old a source is, or how charitable we perceive it to be, it is never proper to cut and paste text from sources without paraphrasing or quoting. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[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 creating Rosuzet.

User:Dmehus, while examining this page as a part of our page 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 recommend Archer. :)

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

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

Doug Mehus T·C 00:46, 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 Mehus T·C 05:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, though, I prefer to use Archer personally because (a) it's easier and (b) it's got a whole bunch of specific categories at your fingertips. Doug Mehus T·C 05:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[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 to Hand sanitizer that consisted solely of deletion of the web links for three references. Can you clarify why you chose to do so? WP:SOURCELINKS says that "if the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you may provide the URL for that link". One of the URLs you deleted was to an abstract on the publisher's site; the other two were to third-party sites, but I've since found the abstracts on their publisher's sites.

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

Thanks, Stephen Hui (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[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 at Vokanamet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Can I just bring to you attention that when you change citations from |first= and |last= to |vauthors= as you did here, you change the style that the author list is rendered from a Chicago-like style (Last, First;) to a Vancouver-like style (Last Initial,) which may be a breach of WP:CITEVAR. You also lose information by removing first names and replacing them with initials. Would you be kind enough to restore the missing information, please? --[[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 this edit.

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

@RexxS: In addition, the examples shown in WP:CITEMED use the Vancouver system. cc: Boghog, Doc James Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog and Doc 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 using Diberri's template filler which also follows this style. Hence Vancouver became predominate relatively early in the article's history. Concerning citation metadata, Wikipedia is not a reliable source since error can creep in. Safer to harvest an identifier like doi and regenerate the citation from scratch using citoid or similar tool. Finally the advantage of |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 that added a single citation is the first major contributor to the citation style.
• No one is throwing information away. Full first author names can easily be recaptured more reliably from external databases like PubMed than from Wikipedia. If someone is really interested in authors first names, they would likely link to the original article through one of the provided identifiers. In addition, citoid that uses identifiers to retrieve citaitons is used far more frequently than reference management software such as Zotero that harvest metadata to generate citation templates.
• Compactness not only applies to the rendered citation, but also the imbedded template. Inclusion of first1, last1, ... parameter bloats the size of the template so that they start to overwhelm the surrounding prose.
• Wiki linking of authors starts far more often with the author page than the target page. Searching for "Smith JS" is far more reliable than searching for a complex regular expression for some combination of firstn, lastn, Smith, J*S* that still may fail since |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 of don't hype the authors (I realize that this applies primarily to prose, but by extension, it also applies to excessive detail in the citations). Boghog (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[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 of pmid:26905361? PubMed certainly isn't going to tell you.
    The solution to wikitext being overwhelmed by citation templates is Help:List-defined references, not truncating the information. You can have clean wikitext with just {{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 as a 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 like list defined references, but many others like Doc James strongly object.
    • The Google search also produced a significant number of false positives.
    • When academics mine Wikpedia citation data, they unusually extract identifiers like ISBNs, DOIs, and PMIDs and not author first names. Anyone who scrapes Wikipedia for citation data that already exists in external databases is a fool. Wikipedia itself (e.g., Citation bot, Citoid, etc.) does not do that. Life is made more difficult by scraping citations from Wikipedia that is riddled with errors. Better to stick with identifiers that point to entries in reliable databases like PubMed and WorldCat. Obscure citations that are not indexed in these databases is another matter, but that is not what we are talking about here. Boghog (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the edit. Show me how I can recover the information |last=Su |first=Xiaole |last2=Zhang |first2=Lu |last3=Lv |first3=Jicheng |last4=Wang |first4=Jinwei |last5=Hou |first5=Wanyin |last6=Xie |first6=Xinfang |last7=Zhang |first7=Hong from PubMed, please. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[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. See here or here.
        • 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 is less convenient than Wikipedia directly (what I was complaining about as an machine-unfriendly means of retrieving information that we were supplying in the first place).
            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 inserting 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.01.016 into WP:RefToolbar.
• What citevar says is to defer to the citation style of the first major contributor. The first citation added did not have authors. The second citation added used full author names. The third citation added used Vancouver style. The fourth citation added used Vancouver style. The first cite journal templates added used Vancouver style. It is a stretch to argue that the editor 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 trimmed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=27748179 as this is potentially predatory. Plus homocysteine is not a great maker as vitamins that decrease it did not result in improvement. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[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_C 20:45, 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 added GlaxoSmithKline to Category: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 from Nicorette. Don't you realise that we have an article on Nicotine replacement therapy, which is the appropriate article for the category? The gum (as polacrilex) and patches are not the proprietary product trademarked as Nicorette. The product Nicorette is not on the EML. Please revert yourself. --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[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 amiss Chevin (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shouldn't Glutamine 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 the help 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 the naloxone page (first paragraph, first sentence) to "NARCAN" — how it's stylized both by Adapt and by Endo (Endo first came out with NARCAN, as I'm sure you know, back in the 1960s). Is it against Wikipedia rules to use all-caps as a stylization or something? Or is there a different way I should've included the all-caps stylization? For example, I see on some music artists' pages — let's take JPEGMafia for example — "(stylized in all caps)" after the first mention of their name. Is that how I should've edited the naloxone page?

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

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

Please see MOS: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 a Dailymed 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 in MedlinePlus and NCI. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has appeared now, 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 see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS about reliable citations for medical content. The citation that was used is a primary source from a very small clinical trial. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[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 at WT: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 started this 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 at Talk: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 see WP:NOBLOGS and WP:MEDMOS. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The redirect Dutoprol has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia: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 wrote persistent stapedial artery a while ago, and I've only placed it in the Ear category. Are you aware of any more specific categories in which this article could fit into? Perhaps a category dedicated to anatomical anomalies? I did a bit of digging around, albeit to no avail. Thank you for your time. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 08:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask at WT: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 edited Vadadustat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dialysis.

(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. Best Doc 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 with Lorenzo 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 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Terminology usage for routes of administration of drugs and other terms in article intros (seeking consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[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 on WT: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 of semaglutide in this edit was cited. The information from the introduction was all discussed in greater detail in the body of the article, where the citations were given. I'm reverting your removal and placing the citations in the introduction, in addition to where the citations already appeared in the article's body. Please check to see if citations appear elsewhere in an article before removing what could be useful information. Thanks. Vontheri (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[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, checking Special:WhatLinksHere/Ziyad_Al-Aly shows that the article is essentially an orphan (the transclusion, the talk page, and two articles where he's a study coauthor in one or more refs) so if there's anywhere that it should be linked, it's the Long COVID article. Mapsax (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[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 your WP: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? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

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

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

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

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

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

User:Diannaa The EMA adopted their current license in January of 2008. Wikipedia on the other hand only moved to a CC 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 or removal of which can help or hurt, and, it's not melodramatic to say, can even be lifesaving, or cost lives, which is in no small part why there are disclaimers here.

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

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

For example:

“

Children, teenagers, and young adults who take antidepressants to treat depression or other mental illnesses may be more likely to become suicidal than children, teenagers, and young adults who do not take antidepressants to treat these conditions

”

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

“

In children, adolescents and young adults, there is an increased risk of suicide.<ref name=MedlinePlus />

”

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

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

You have reverted me after every single edit with exceedingly weak justification. You have removed critical information. You mustn't keep reverting with falsehoods like implying I said Children, adolescents and young adults are elderly. Explain yourself. It's not like there's a shortage of reports of a risk. PMC2990567. PMID16240856. Or lack of identified contributing causal mechanism (akathisia). It's not like there isn't a freaking black box warning: increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, young adults and adults.[5]https://www.drugwatch.com/abilify/side-effects/

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

I see this is not an isolated case - I see you vandalizing numerous drug articles by removing adverse events en masse. The interactions on this - your talk page appear to be the tip of a much larger iceberg. I concur that listing side effects that are minor and rare is excess detail should be removed - that is fine. Good. But you have been removing far more than that.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Regarding your revert of my edit, what portion of WP: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) buidhe 10:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you doing this again.[6] This is disruptive editing and must stop. (t · c) buidhe 18:09, 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 the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 19 § Category:AstraZeneca brands on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkltalk 12:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

See: Special:Diff/1184244290 and the fix Special:Diff/1184244290; and Special:Diff/1184381506 and the fix Special:Diff/1189467861. Kimen8 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[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 per WP:SD40, 40 should be a rough guideline. I'd say 43 is close enough to 40 to not warrant removing useful information from it. Second, why do you think mentioning high blood pressure is undue when it is literally mentioned in the first sentence of the article? Third, if you truly have an issue with mentioning high blood pressure, why do you insist on resetting it to "Medication" when you could simply change it to "Medication for ADHD", if the blood pressure part is your issue? It's also quite annoying that you have overwritten it as part of a larger edit, without mentioning that it was being changed in the edit summary, and not once provided your reason for overwriting the short description repeatedly. I shouldn't have to dig through individual diffs to find out when the short description was changed, and ideally you would indicate why you are changing it if you repeatedly overwrite other editors' changes. Kimen8 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Top 10	Top 10 Medical Editor Barnstar 2023
	You were one of the top 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 in this project? Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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,

In this 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 edited Medical abortion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

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

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

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

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

Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that you have reverted my edit on Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and have given an explanation as "unexplained". Please assume good faith next time someone doesn't use an edit description. I was only trying to fix the link to remove the "www." at the beginning per documentation. ^Wiinter_U 20:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[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_U 14:15, 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_U 18:39, 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]