Talk:Malassezia

References

In my reference to The Times I gave the full title of the article - it can be seen in the edit, however it does not show up in the Referenes.Osborne 21:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no <references /> tag in the references section -- the references are placed in that section manually via templates. You can do the same with yours (chose the appropriate {{cite}} template) or you can add a ref tag there. I would suggest the former. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

How is that single fact get its own section, and is it anything more than trivia? dude1818 (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hyper? or Hypo? pigmentation

The lead on the article states the Malassezia can cause hypopigmentation. This seems unusual to me. I know in domestic species, chonic irritation (such as can be caused by Malassezia), tends to lead to a HYPER pigmentation (similar response occurs when you get a tan). I don't know what its likely to do in people though...

Unless its attacking melanocytes, I don't know why/how it would depigment the skin.

Ibycus314 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

By releasing acids that burn the skin. Correctrix (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hyperpigmentation

Referring to the person questioning Malassezias' ability to cause hypopigmentation in the skin, there is research pointing to one specie of Malassezia found in mainly the pacific ocean causing hyperpigmentation, or white bloches of the skin, "caused by growth of the fungus Malassezia furfur in the stratum corneum with minimal inflammatory reaction."(Haole rot. (n.d.) Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary. (2012). Retrieved September 6 2016 from http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Haole+rot) I believe this is what the author was referring to. My lab does research on this specific fungi and I would be happy to add to the page if necessary. Brooklyn Sedlmayr (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Also I would like to change the section where it says his favorite disease was Malassezia furfur as this isn't a disease it is the cause of the disease and more could be added on the different symptoms of Haole rot which is the diseases common name. The section on furfur could be greatly expanded, although it is complex it is a seriously interesting organism that even plays a role in coral functions. Brooklyn Sedlmayr (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malassezia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425120901/http://ijms.sums.ac.ir/files/PDFfiles/29_1_08-Shams.pdf to http://ijms.sums.ac.ir/files/PDFfiles/29_1_08-Shams.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

WIP

@MrOllie: Restored revision 1013861229 by MrOllie (talk): All the same issues laid out for you at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus

I'm currently working on digging out more sources in here and related diseases. By reverting my (or any) contribution in bulk and without due consideration you make great disservice here. Please abstain ever doing it here or anywhere else. Please also take a note of case in Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus. It was substantiated poorly. I seriously doubt this article is regulated by WP:MEDRES so until evidences are brought please abstain doing anything else. You are nod deprived of opportunity of requesting more information or bringing it by yourself. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging users who commented on this at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus @Alexbrn: @Johnbod: @WhatamIdoing: - MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

All articles are regulated by WP:MEDRS. All biomedical content on Wikipedia is held to the same sourcing standard, regardless of the page title it happens to appear under. That means you should not be using primary sources, you should not be using animal studies, and you should not be using newspaper reporting. - MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• @MrOllie: ...All biomedical content on Wikipedia Which is the WP:BMI-paragraph that?

@MrOllie: Except of huge reverts done to this article, you never contributed to it. You can explain the link between these reverts and Pancreatic_cancer case? How come that you ended up here? I'm speechless because I've never seen someone assessing like 3 huge sources in less than a 3 minutes. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, On both articles you've written that fungus causes pancreatic cancer, based on sources that do not comply with WP:MEDRS, and you're not sure what the connection is? MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: .. and you're not sure what the connection is? Don't pretend like you didn't understand my question. You appeared out of nowhere here and I'm asking you to explain how this happened and how come you knew of Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, Your question is not germaine to the content issue so I decline to respond. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Everyone's welcome to start contributing at any time. It is not necessary to have a prior history in an article to start contributing.

You need to stop citing the primary sources and use only review articles. We probably have enough sources to support a sentence saying that a connection between this fungus and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has been a subject of research. We should probably be cautious about it. Consider a single sentence that makes it sound completely boring and unexciting. There is a long and deadly history in cancer research of an area seeming relevant or promising, and then a few years later, we're all wondering why anyone would ever think that was real. If you look back here in ten years, I hope you will find that you were "underpromising" this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I think you need to look more carefully at chunks of text and sources attributed to them
and dates of reverts (sequence of events) before making any judgments. If you look closely you will find that this article was edited long before Pancreatic cancer was ever touched by me. The questionable content in this article wasn't changed (except of adding sources) due to opposition faced in Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus. Take care to provide details as you laid out in Biomedical information#Limits of BURDEN if you feel truly impartial because I observe that you biased here substantially. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov, I have looked closely enough to see that you've been citing primary sources, which is exactly what you shouldn't be doing. I have the usual doubts that any educated person ought to have (e.g., Correlation does not imply causation is always a significant concern for early work), but in Wikipedia terms, my concerns are:

1. that your presentation violates WP:DUE, and
2. that citing the primary source violates WP:MEDRS.

Both of these are problems that you could solve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I have looked closely enough ... Let me make clear few things:
1.Current #WIP section disputes all reverts done by MrOllie, not just one cited at the top. It's cited because it's the last one going before mine.
2.Relatively to Restored revision 1013861229 by MrOllie (talk): All the same issues laid out for you at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus I made it clear several times (one, two) already that I'm busy on providing more sources and working on Malassezia article. I think this should be enough to refrain from making reverts right after contributions as in this particular article - nothing warrants to.
2. Relatively to Revision as of 21:13, March 23, 2021 MrOllie (→‎Malassezia restricta: we don't report on mouse studies, see WP:MEDRS) I see no explanation. The summary of the revert can't be counted as such: I don't get who are those «we» who «don't»; But I see that you, among others, were called here for a different purpose. You can't fairly and legally address any of these reverts so please disengage.

@WhatamIdoing: ... Both of these are problems that you could solve. ... Stop repeating the same points laid out in the Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus. Nothing of said justifies speedy removal here. WP:DUE can be invoked only in relation to issues with WP:NPOV which I see none in my text. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing you've said justifies letting weak content hang out in the article for a while. Seriously: you could solve the sourcing problem. Solving this problem means that you stop citing the primary source and start citing the multiple review articles that mention it. Why don't you want to do that? Did someone make a bet with you about whether you could successfully promote the primary source? Are you running some sort of personal challenge in which you only cite Nature journals? What's preventing you from following the standard rules here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: See #wip-preserve --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: See WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• @MrOllie: Take a look at #wip-disputes-all-reverts and also don't forget to address this question here first please.

... That means you should not be using primary sources, — Disagree. It depends on the kind of the text I attribute the source to. You bother to explain me which text you mean? Please don't repeat the same points laid out in the Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus. I don't object adding more reliable sources. I object your disruptive reverts that prevent me from doing so.

... you should not be using animal studies — False. Reliable sources perfectly allow me to do so. I see neither reasoning, nor provisions indicating otherwise. Feel free to cite any (relatively to Malassezia restricta subsection).

... and you should not be using newspaper reporting. — Doubtful. At what and why? Your claim is contradicting to WP:NEWSORG. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, See WP:MEDRS, specifically the sections titled "Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies" and "Popular press". If you would like to continue workshopping this content, you may do so in your own sandbox, but we are under no obligation to host your version in the live article without full and proper sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Are you going avoid addressing "issues" on the text by text basis?

@MrOllie: ... "Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies" Well nice, let's give a shot to WP:SOURCE. I'm going to upgrade single studies to more reliable stuff in relation to humans once you disengage. In relations to animals it's just as perfect as it isn't biomedical information.

@MrOllie: ... "Popular press". I'm curious what's that.

@MrOllie: ... but we are under no obligation to host your version Let's you personally comply with WP:V, WP:PRESERVE, WP:FIXFIRST, WP:NOTPERFECT. According to these polices and guideline you are obliged (let's say "instructed") to avoid removing content as soon as you think. Only three exceptional cases grant you a right to rapidly remove content.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

When you don't know what a term means, it's often effective to see if there is a Wikipedia article on the subject, e.g., Popular press. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Malassezia: D/SD

I propose to replace the following statements concerning Dermatitis and dandruff (D/SD) diseases and related to Malassezia info (Revision of 01:44, March 25, 2021):--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

By the following (all temp-notes will be removed):

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Support (Malassezia: D/SD)

1. Support - All the WP:RS for the text given are provided. Even though I would prefer to put both sub-species under different sections so far it's hard achieve as reviews/studies often don't separate them. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support. This change improves clarity of the text and verifiability of the claims. Over-citation is a comparatively minor, aesthetic concern. After this change is implemented, those concerned about over-citation are still free to WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXIT. Sennalen (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (Malassezia: D/SD)

1. Oppose. Five cites for one claim? This is the kind of horror we want to avoid, not encourage. RfCs without WP:RFCBEFORE are also kind of disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   An RfC without WP:RFCBEFORE There is an extensive discussion at #WIP. It goes nowhere. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose as over-citation. One source (the best secondary one) is sufficient. To the extent other sources would be useful, that will probably be for specifics covered in potential follow-on sentences. But don't just pile up redundant citations as some kind WP:WINNING tactic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   @SMcCandlish: Different sources are attributed to different diseases. The one that concerns DNA sequence cannot be omitted. The one which studied Dandruff/SD is also separate. Omitting any would cause WP:UNDERKILL Make an effort to read sources next time and take statement they are attributed to into account (per WP:RSCONTEXT). Being superficial here doesn't help. I suggest you to WP:DISENGAGE or read #WP in full first. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Alexander Davronov: if the references are for separate items in the list, then put the relevant ones after that item, not at the end of the whole list.
   More generally, make sure that you are following WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Peter coxhead: I've removed one source and moved the other to the left. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: M. restricta spp. 1

I propose to adopt the changes below but before this can be done here are some questions:

1. Do you find the following excerpt being a biomedical information (WP:BMI)?
2. Does it require more sources (WP:RS/WP:SOURCE/WP:PRIMARY)?
3. Do you have reasonable objections against putting the excerpt under «Malassezia restricta» section?

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

PROPOSAL CHANGES LOG

• Added a secondary source to verify claim about sebum.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

1. No/No/No —
   1. I don't. A general fungus sub-species description has nothing to do with provisions of WP:BMI
   2. It's enough for the information given.
   3. No objections. Adopt proposal ASAP. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
2. No/Yes/Yes —
   1. Internal metabolism of a fungus is not obviously related to human health.
   2. A review paper about a human disease is not an appropriate source for a statement about how a fungus obtains energy. This kind of information is often sourced to a textbook, reference work, or a paper whose main focus is the fungus itself.
   3. See #2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

   @WhatamIdoing: is not an appropriate source According to what? This carries no weight here. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   From WP:RS: Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. From WP:V: Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. Of course it matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

3. No / Yes-ish / Yes-ish per WahtamIdoing. However, it is likely that the paper in question has already cited the source that we actually need for this, so I see it as a temporary problem to just resolve quickly with additional sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   @SMcCandlish: There is none. Look into the paper. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   Then it's too poorly sourced a claim for us to use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

   @SMcCandlish: What do you think of the following one?

   "Malassezia globosa and restricta: Breakthrough Understanding of the Etiology and Treatment of Dandruff and Seborrheic Dermatitis through Whole-Genome Analysis". Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings. 12 (2): 15–19. 2007-12-01. doi:10.1038/sj.jidsymp.5650049. ISSN 1087-0024.

   --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

   That appears to be a primary source (primary-research paper), so we cannot use that for any sort of WP:AEIS claim. Basically, it is too soon to be making such claims in Wikipedia. This is science that has to be verified by additional research and bubble up into secondary source material that is actually reliable for the subject (medical literature review, grad-level textbook, subjectmatter-expert book from a major academic publisher, etc.). Well, given that the paper came out in 2007, it probably isn't actually too soon; rather, insufficient source research has been done. It's "too soon" in the sense that WP lacks, at this moment, the proper kind of sourcing to include it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

   @SMcCandlish: All the sources agree on one single thing: Malassezia spp. feeds on human sebum which is partially composed of fatty acids. Virtually every source, old and new, say this. The second source is WP:SECONDARY and is just enough to satisfy WP:V. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

   I'm not sure which is "the second source"; you've pasted in a number of sources throughout these blocks of discussion. If you mean the news source, it is secondary, but it's not a medicine-and-science reliable source, so we're back in the same boat. We need high-quality med/science secondary sourcing, like a literature review or systematic review. I think everyone here is going to keep telling you this until it sinks in. :-/ I'll take this to user talk rather than mire this RfC mess any further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

4. No/Yes/Yes per WhatamIdoing. Sea Ane (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
5. No/No/No. The sources make many biomedical claims, but they are not being used in this case to make a biomedical claim in the article. Ordinary WP:RS rather than WP:MEDRS is the hurdle to clear. Sennalen (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: M. restricta spp. 2 (CD/Colitis)

I propose to put the following text under «Malassezia restricta» subsection. Any reasonable objections here? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Support (CD/Colitis)

1. Support — It's desirable to have some info on links between CD and fungus in animal models as underlying physiology is similar. For humans though there is little high-profile research currently. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support I share the main sentiment of the oppose votes, which is there was no reason to put this to an RfC. Sennalen (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (CD/Colitis)

1. Oppose two unreliable medical sources and two footnotes? Would prefer to see something plain meeting WP:V using reliable sources only. Also an RfC without WP:RFCBEFORE is kind of disruptive (let along four of them). Alexbrn (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Alexbrn: Given the WP:RSCONTEXT the sources are reliable. Some notes will be removed on the adoption. This kind of "oppositon" has little weight per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   Nonsense. We avoid unreliable sources because of WP:V core policy. No amount of your WP:BLUDGEONing will overturn that. You asked for a binary decision, I gave it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   I will take it as a failure to elaborate and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. WP:RSCONTEXT is linked from WP:V via WP:RS. I encourage you to read both carefully before coming back. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Alexbrn, and my objection (to "cite stacking") in the first of these three four pointless RfCs. This is not what WP:RFC is for. You do discussion first and resort to an RfC only about something on which consensus stubbornly refuses to emerge without further input. And you don't do three of them back-to-back about sourcing nit-picks in the same material. If something like this happens again, I would expect a WP:ANI report for disruption and a suggestion of a topic ban, honestly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   @SMcCandlish: What are you arguing here? The same as per #rfc-restricta-cd-low-weight. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   If you can't understand the arguments being made, this is not a topic area you should be editing in. Peter_coxhead and Berchanhimez have already explained some of this to you, as did people before you opened these so-called RfCs. You're exhibiting a WP:NOTGETTINGIT problem. You cannot use primary sources for these kinds of claims; yes, that includes primary research in journals. You cannot use specialized sources that are ostensibly reliable for something within their specialty as sources for specialist claims that are outside that specialty; at best, such sources may indicate what sources they used themselves, and we might find those to be reliable within that other specialty. We do not just pile up a log-jam of random citations at the end of a passage. Citations adhere to particular claims. We do not need more than one citation per claim. (That said, we sometimes provide a secondary-source citation for something and follow that with also a citation to the primary-research paper, if it's something that originated in a primary-research paper; the latter does not do anything to make the material more reliable as encyclopedic writing, but it may still be of interest to specialist readers.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

   @SMcCandlish: Thanks for explanation.

   @SMcCandlish: You cannot use primary sources for these kinds of claims I made it clear (in the footnote) that the claim is only related to animals, not humans. Has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS/WP:BMI. The rest of "it's prohibited" wasn't ever proven here. Feel free to bring discussions or policy/guideline provisions proving such consensus. BTW: I replaced the primary source (dunno how it got out there) with a secondary one. Under WP:SECONDARY, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and all other WP:RS- things it's perfectly acceptable. Just stop trying to apply WP:MEDRS arbitrarily. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

   The vast majority of the sources you've pasted into this discussion are primary sources (primary-research, i.e. new, unverified research claims that might be disproven a month from now), and some of the others (e.g. NYT articles) are not reliable for medical or other scientific claims, though they are good for things like public-policy reactions to science, for specific quoted statements of interviewed scientists, etc.). You seem to understand this kind of subject area well enough to know what a literature review and a systematic review are. So why is it seeming to be so hard to get you to understand that these are primarily what we mean by reliable secondary sources for medical claims?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

   I agree, as I was called to this page only because of a notification of an WP:RFC. As SMcCandlish mentioned above, this isn't for small sourcing changes to text that haven't been discussed and a consensus first attempted to be reached. I kindly ask @Alexander Davronov, hopefully without affecting his willingness to edit in future, to use this feature more sparingly, and take the above suggestions both with a pinch of salt and a suggestion to read some policies before quoting them. I know it can sometimes feel as though one is attacked via threads like these, but this is not the aim. Please take the constructive advice and continue editing boldly! I withhold a vote for now. waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Waddie96: I took down the one RfC for now. The root problem here is the bulk revert which disrupted a lot of the normal WP:EDITING process. It's impossible to get things around into article if they are reverted under pretext of some guideline violation (e.g. WP:MEDRS) which obviously can't apply to a whole bunch of texts at the same time. Excepting the clearly WP:BMI-related things here (related to human health) the rest of "issues" wasn't even made clear so I stepped up with specific proposals in the hope of quicker resolution. I seek the input from the outside because #WIP was in deadlock from very beginning. I can't discuss anything if the other party refuses to discuss stuff on text-by-text basis. I also can't make edits because it would count as WP:WARRING so RfC is a logical step here. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

   I'll happily (if that's the right word) agree with you that bulk reverting is problematic. It very frequently causes much more drama than it would ever solve.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: M. globosa spp. - Pancreatic cancer

I propose to put the following text under «Malassezia globosa» subsection. Any reasonable objections? Feedback on sources is welcome. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Support (M. globosa spp. - Pancreatic cancer)

1. Support - The study enjoys New York Times, Nature and Cell journals coverage. As NOTABLE as it could be. Adopt. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

   You seem to be completely confused about what our policies and guidelines say and mean. WP:Notability is about only one thing: whether a subject can have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with whether a particular source is a reliable one for medical claims.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Support. Again, over-citation is a comparatively minor, aesthetic concern. After this change is implemented, those concerned about over-citation are still free to WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXIT. Sennalen (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Support if sourced correctly. McAllister is regarded very positively by a great many reviews. I am uncertain why you have chosen worse WP:SECONDARY sources when many good ones are available. Additionally does "Fungi complements cancer" cite McAllister in any way? I don't think it does. On the subject of MEDRS and animal claims I agree with Alexander Davronov if you truly are making only animal claims. I have had this problem in some situations. If you are writing text only about animal biology then the fact that these same mechanisms may be involved in human disorders is irrelevant. Confusing the two is a common mistake. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (M. globosa spp. - Pancreatic cancer)

1. Oppose horrible WP:OVERCITEd sentence with unreliable (primary/junk journal) sources mixed in, savouring of synthesis. An RfC without WP:RFCBEFORE is also kind of disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   An RfC without WP:RFCBEFORE There is an extensive discussion at #WIP. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Alexbrn and my rationales in the "RfCs" above this one. PS, @Alexander Davronov: please stop mangling list markup on talk pages. When a post starts with a # marker, your reply to it should start with #:, not :::.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Noting my oppose to this one because it's obvious that the user proposing this didn't take my advice into consideration and is continuing to try to use primary sources for things - we are getting into WP:RGW and WP:IDHT territory with this user's insistence on putting connections into medical articles - advocacy of some kind? Regardless, oppose this, and just for User:SMcCandlish if you were looking for the WPSPACE:ACRONYMVOMIT for the "don't break the list markup" it's at WP:LISTGAP (or any number of other shortcuts). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Berchanhimez: did you somehow not notice that I already linked to MOS:LISTGAP? Why do you think you need to tell me the location of the guideline when I already cited it directly? I'm confused as to what you're getting at here, and why it seems to be laced with hostility.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Berchanhimez: You didn't read #WIP, right?
   The primary is cited because it's mentioned in previous 5 secondary and even tertiary ones. Take a look. So far MrOllie who initially bulk-reverted here failed to point me out in a direction that explicitly prohibits use of primaries along with directly related secondary ones on statements concerning animals (see #wip-disputes-all-reverts ) The same is true for the rest people who were obviously CANVASSED here.
   Feel free to cite related provisions/consensus.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   Alexander Davronov, I pointed you to specific sections above. Did you read them? MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   @MrOllie: Your opinion of WP:MEDRS guideline provision is welcome and has directly influenced current proposal. It's irrelevant now per WP:RSCONTEXT. I ain't gonna pursue adding info on humans in this very context - there is no non-speculative sources on fungus causing Pancreas Cancer in humans (the same is true for Chrohn's disease, see RfC above). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Related discussions elsewhere

Some of this "litigation" has spilled over onto some internal discussion pages:

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Volume problems
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request to enforce WP:FOC & WP:NPA in Talk:Malassezia

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Malassezia and cancer

The following review article, published yesterday, may be of interest to some considering the discussion above:

• Das, Shankar Prasad; Ahmed, Sumayyah M.Q.; Naik, Bharati; Laha, Suparna; Bejai, Vishal (2021). "The human fungal pathogen Malassezia and its role in cancer". Fungal Biology Reviews. 38: 9–24. doi:10.1016/j.fbr.2021.08.002. ISSN 1749-4613.

Esculenta (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up. This one is also interesting Overview of the Potential Role of Malassezia in Gut Health and Disease (2020). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)