Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 109

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 107Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111→Archive 115

Prescription Drug article

Hello Doc!

You recently provided a citation that I requested (thanks!) on Methylene blue. I was wondering if you might be persuaded to add a bit of text to the header of the "prescription drugs" article to make it somehow clear that just because something is listed as a prescription drug (methylene blue) it may not have the legal onus of purchasing/possession if it is being used for another purpose (methylene blue as a dye or laundry additive for dry cleaners) It certainly confused me, and I expect other people, seeing "prescription only" on a substance, might think it was illegal to obtain or possess it without a doctor's written note.

I'd do it, but I'm pretty sure a layperson such as myself would only provide something that would end up being rewritten by someone in-the-know, such as yourself. :)

Cheers, Riventree (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

How about "Medication Rx-only"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Diagnosis section of constipation

Hello Doc James

I am wondering whether the diagnosis section of constipation would be better titled as evaluation considering that constipation is largely thought of as a symptom and not a diagnosis unless it is functional constipation. What do you think? Thank you for your feedback!!

Ryan A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan1514 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

How about "diagnostic approach"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

anthrax revert

Please explain why you reverted my edit.

As I said in my edit summary "removed small primary source" and then I explain what kind of source you need to be using on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Advice on menstrual disc page

Hello Dr. James, thanks so much for reaching out to me. I certainly understand your concerns about COI. May I ask what the best way to move forward is? I’m new to wiki and haven’t gotten a hang of how to use it, and you obviously have been on wiki for a while and would have the expertise here. I made this page to help clarify the confusion that I saw between menstrual cups and discs. My biggest concern with redirecting the discs page to the cups page is that people could get confused and actually hurt themselves, because they try to use a disc like a cup. Menstrual cups, for instance, can be rinsed and reused but discs absolutely cannot and it’s extremely dangerous to do so. My goal here was definitely not to be promotional but to help educate, so I’d love your advice here on how to make this page more educational and non promotional. Thanks once again, wikipedia is only great if there are people like you looking out for the common good! Lmschulte (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Lmschulte

First of all one should never write about a subject where you have a significant and direct conflict of interest.
Second for medical issues sources that meet WP:MEDRS are typically needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I see now, thank you for educating me on that. I have added my COI to my user page, and disclosed my COI on the talk page for the menstrual discs page. I would love your feedback on this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lmschulte
I also completely understand your point about WP:MEDRS. May I ask for your feedback/reply to my post on the menstrual disc talk page? I have tried to address your points there. Let me know what I can do better and your thoughts on the redirect. Lmschulte (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)

This message, "We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)", was sent through multiple channels by Gregory Varnum on 15 and 16 of March 2017 to village pumps, affiliate talk pages, movement mailing lists, and MassMessage groups. A similar message was sent by Nicole Ebber to organized groups and their mailing lists on 15 of March 2017. This version of the message is available for translation and documentation purposes

Dear Wikimedians/Wikipedians:

Today we are starting a broad discussion to define Wikimedia's future role in the world and develop a collaborative strategy to fulfill that role. You are warmly invited to join the conversation.

There are many ways to participate, by joining an existing conversation or starting your own:

Track A (organized groups): Discussions with your affiliate, committee or other organized group (these are groups that support the Wikimedia movement).

Track B (individual contributors): On Meta or your local language or project wiki.

This is the first of three conversations, and it will run between now and April 15. The purpose of cycle 1 is to discuss the future of the movement and generate major themes around potential directions. What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?

We welcome you, as we create this conversation together, and look forward to broad and diverse participation from all parts of our movement.

Sincerely,

Nicole Ebber (Track A Lead), Jaime Anstee (Track B Lead), & the engagement support teams

05:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Some of what I would include would be:
  1. Accessibility
    1. Improve offline access such that more of the world can get dependable access to our content (much of the world's population does not have 24/7 access to the Internet even if they can afford it, yet most have cell phones)
    2. Accessible language is also of a great importance. One of the primary reasons medical students state they use WP is because we are easier to understand. We; however, can still do better.
  2. Quality content
    1. Put in place further measures to address undisclosed paid promotional editing. This is one of the greater threats to the neutrality of our content and needs to be addressed in order to maintain our independence and keep us free from advertising.
    2. Working on improving our ability to handle rich content. This was one of the most requested features in the last reader survey. We did have someone working on maps and graphing tools within the Discovery team unfortunately this was put on hold.
  3. Collaborate
    1. Develop and expand upon collaborations with like minded organizations such as the CDC, ILAE, WHO, Cochrane, etc.
    2. Improve relations and expand upon collaboration between the formal organizations within the Wikimedia Movement and the communities. The community tech team has been doing amazing work in this area and should be further resourced.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Trolls in the admin corps

There is a partisan social engineering team sitting on ANI, AE, and the appeals queue who are blocking anybody who might possibly be influenced by an opposing political party. Their MO is to cast aspersions of "not here", trolling, socking, sexism, and racism against editors to ruin their reputations so no one takes them seriously and to post comments agreeing with each other to give the appearance of consensus. [1] [2] [3]

Look at my talk page[4] and you will see a series of admins trolling and gaslighting me for saying that a Republican news site meets the RS qualifications and that an editor who rants about conservatives and Christians should not be editing in American Politics. This does not happen to editors who say that Democratic news sites can be cited or that conservatives who rant about liberals and gays should not be editing in American Politics. They are imposing a test of political partisanship, not reliability, for the inclusion of information and for participation in the site.

The editor whose opinion they are substituting for the RS policy describes the Jewish news site Algemeiner as white supremacist[5] and does not allow the use of Republican news sites.[6] His edit warring is protected[7] by a paid editor[8] who says that Israel's centrist establishment paper the Jerusalem Post does not meet RS.[9] They are pushing an agenda. This has been going on for years. Jimbo knows about this and has not done anything to stop it.

Furthermore, this[10] is unacceptable behavior. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

My area of expertise and interest is medicine. Do not work on US politics and thus do not have an understanding regarding what is or is not a reliable source in that topic area. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Topical Steroid impact articles

Hi Doc James,

Red burning skin syndrome is idiopathic erythroderma with steroidogenesis interference. I can inundate you with articles, or you could check out the Topical Steroid Education page on Facebook which posts relevant studies as science catches up. (Or you could spend some time on one of the many Facebook groups for sufferers -- whose numbers are over 10,000 across the groups in a few short years.) I've been studying this for years. I am the poster child in the pics and I need the medical community to catch the hell up. You contribute to the disenfranchisement of these sufferers of iatrogenic disease. I recommend becoming familiar with Dr. M. Fukaya's personal journey as a brilliant dermatologist in Japan who was driven from the profession for daring to shine the light on this situation. He lost his career and had a nervous breakdown but he changed the care in his country and hospital beds are now designated for this condition. He is very candid about his experience, which aligns with everything the majority of sufferers experience in the allopathic system. Please be part of the solution.

Sincerely, Corinna Kennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalishSea2 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

We use sources as described here WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

International Dupuytren Society

The International Dupuytren Society is mentioned in a medical text book: Dupuytren’s Disease and Related Hyperproliferative Disorders.

"The International Dupuytren Society acts globally because this is a global disease. We are cooperating with other organizations"

You are saying that textbook contains that passage? On what page? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet

Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

epilepsy

please calculate- 1-3% clearly doesnt give 23 mln, just 60mln, also look at other languages on wikipedia, it is 60mln — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panbijak (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The ref says 39mil. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Amblyopia poor wording

Hello Doc James,

I greatly appreciate the great work you do on Wikipedia. I wanted to inquire why you reversed the improvements I made to the grammatical structure of the Ambylopia page. I view the wording on this page in various places to be nebulous, and it seems to unnecessarily obscure what amblyopia really is. For instance, "[amblyopia] is a disorder of sight due to the eye and brain not working well together." is not very informative, I changed this sentence to be more precise about amblyopia so that readers can more immediately get a sense of what it actually is. "The eye and brain not working well together" could mean many different things and this obscures what the disease is. Regards, LTClipp (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:LTClipp The ref says "Amblyopia is the medical term used when the vision of one eye is reduced because it fails to work properly with the brain. The eye itself looks normal, but for various reasons the brain favors the other eye. This condition is also sometimes called lazy eye."[11]
The NEI feels that it is a reasonable definition. Not sure why the NEI definition / source was removed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Undid revision

Hi James, I just undid a couple of revisions here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osteoporosis&type=revision&diff=771806093&oldid=771772910 Seems strange, unless I am missing something :) . Thanks, Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes looks good thank User:JenOttawa Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

code on your userpage

You have code on your userpage that interface with other users' ability to access (view) portions of their User Interface <edit>In a very limited test case</edit>. This IMO is harmful, can you explain to me clearly how this helps the encyclopedia? Specifically, you have little green plus signs that cover over links on the upper right side. I did not plan on leaving any comments here, but this graphic interfering with me leaving your page really bothered me. Can you please explain this? Endercase (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

These are common and many users have it. What browser are you using? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
An appeal to popularity doesn't really help further my understanding on this matter. Also, could you please tag me next time you reply to me (outside my talk page), that would be helpful. I'm more than willing to drop this issue though and you may archive it. I just wanted my complaint logged. The browser I'm using appears to me to be immaterial and not relevant to this discussion. Endercase (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Endercase, what browser you're using is eminently relevant—given that {{topicon}} is one of the most frequently-used templates on Wikipedia, it clearly does not affect the overwhelming majority of readers or we'd have had complaints about it previously. FWIW, I've just viewed Doc's userpage in Chrome, Firefox, MSIE and Edge in both desktop and mobile view and been unable to replicate the issue, so I strongly suggest that either you're using a very non-standard browser, or have some kind of plugin which is interfering with Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Iridescent Ah, I can now confirm that is a bug likely somehow related to my extensions. Thank you for pointing that out. It is not a browser issue. The related template is one that you mention. I have not encountered this issue on any other page containing that template though, so far anyway. It is odd, I will begin to look out for this error and once I have enough data I will file a bug report. This does clearly demonstrate that covering the links was not he intended effect (I failed to AGF, because it did look cool). I appear to be an edge case. Thank for your clarification, this helped greatly. I formally drop all complaints about this. Thank you. I'm sorry if I was any trouble on this issue. The linked articles (when functional in a different test case) are very nice. Endercase (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
No worries User:Endercase. Glad we figured at least part of the issue out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

orally vs. by mouth

Hello, Doc James, and thank you for reviewing my recent edit on Methylprednisolone. My question: why did you revert my description of the medication administered "orally" back to "by mouth"? I didn't touch the piped links' use of lay terms for intravenous and intramuscular, but I'd think "oral" isn't too technical? N.B. I was a medical secretary in Los Angeles hospitals (1977-1982) but since 1984 am living in Israel so am unfamiliar with current Anglophone vernacular. Thanks -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The medication is taken by mouth is simple to understand and in common use. Not sure why you changed it to "orally" User:Deborahjay? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your explanation. My reasons are twofold and relate to how editing Wikipedia differs between editors with different professional backgrounds:
  • As an in-house med secy and Spanish-language interpreter (Neonatal ICU, peds metabolic neurodegenerative disease, radiation oncology), I engaged in spoken communications with patients and their families, some of whom were uneducated, most of whom were in some form of distress. The ward and clinic physicians had my support in clarifying queries and answers for maximal mutual understanding.
  • For the past two decades I've been a written-language translator to English (in non-medical fields), providing material for a web readership that includes many for whom English is an acquired language. This consideration also informs my contributions to Wikipedia.
The English Wikipedia being the accessible encyclopedia consulted by countless non-native readers, as on medical topics the content is far more likely to be complete and reliable compared to the other language versions, the level needs to be a compromise. A language corrolary of Occam's razor guides me: where several alternative expressions exist, choose the one least likely to be ambiguous. To me, the collocation "_oral_ medication" seemed preferable to "medication _by mouth_" as no one says this (rather: pills/tablets/caps/syrup, etc. which would be clumsy here). I was actually surprised that the author of "by mouth" didn't follow with "an IV or an [intramuscular] injection (or "shot)," if aiming for familiar, colloquial language.
On further thought, my better move would've been to use a directed link for the rewording, i.e. [[Route of administration#Oral|Oral]]. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Deborahjay People do say "it is taken by mouth" or "it is given by mouth". These are English while "oral / os" is more Latin. Well latin words may be perfectly fine or even easier for those who speak a Romance language they are much less easy to understand for those from other language families.
We thus tend to use "lungs" rather than "pulmonary" and "kidney" rather than "renal".
Orally also refers to "spoken language" such as the speech was given orally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
By the way happy to discuss further. I believe these are important issue. And that there is a balance. I believe the leads of our articles should be in easy to understand language while the difficulty of the language in the body of the article is of lesser importance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Reference

The reference I added although is not indexed in Pubmed, that journal is indexed in WHO-HINARI. Moreover, the information I added can be verified easily. So, I think you can keep the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.225.94.11 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Replaced with a pubmed indexed journal[12]. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

MEDRS assessment

I am curious your take on the relative MEDRS compliance of the following sources and use of the quoted material or a summary that makes the same point. The article in question is Equine therapy. I’m basically here because I would like someone who has a background in human medicine to comment on the quality of this source material, good or bad. Montanabw(talk) 22:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/ijahsp/vol14/iss3/12/ “The current body of evidence is constrained by small sample size, lack of comparator, crude sampling methods, and the lack of standardised outcome measures. Equine-based therapy shows potential as a treatment method for behaviours and social interactions in children with ASD.”
  2. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-016-0090-0 “The majority of the research documented improvements in functioning; however, these conclusions were qualified by numerous factors that limit the interpretation of the results”
  3. http://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/655/ “All articles found positive aspects in working with horses and concluded children and adolescents gained skills. With these skills, children and adolescents are able to overcome effects of early trauma and stress related disorders.”
  4. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08927936.2016.1189747 "Lack of consistently reported study variables across studies was a limitation that resulted in the inability to run moderator analyses. However, the results indicate that equine therapy is a viable alternative to conventional intervention strategies among at-risk youth."
  5. http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0029188 "the evidence is promising in support of the effectiveness of complementary and adjunct interventions employing equines in the treatment of health challenges. Future studies are needed that utilize rigorous and creative designs, especially longitudinal studies and comparisons with established effective treatments. "
(talk page watcher) I took a look at them, and I'll give you my take – the Doc may differ. I feel like 3 isn't entirely a review article, because it looks like publication of a masters degree thesis (lists the advisor). The other 4 seem to satisfy MEDRS. However, reading them, I get a strong message that they all consider the available evidence to be weak, which is something that would need to be better reflected in the quotes. For example, 5 specifically says that there haven't been any randomized clinical trials. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
We generally want stuff that is pubmed indexed in a journal with an impact factor (per the reputable journal bit).
Agree with Trypto that 3 appears to be a master thesis that has not be published in a reputable source[13].
Will look at rest in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I ran across the impact factor ratings once, cannot find them now… can you link me to a tool to assess these? One thing I recall seeing is that psychology and other social science journals don’t seem to rank as high as a group as journals in the hard sciences — or am I confusing this with some other form of ranking? One big problem is that it is really, really challenging to do studies with people and live horses… I’d be interested in what would be “best evidence” given this restriction. Montanabw(talk) 04:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, FWIW and IMHO, the talk page discussion is, basically (my view, of course) over 1) what studies to use and how to summarize them — the medical benefits are reasonably well-studied and other than autism spectrum stuff, that content isn’t really being argued over. and 2) The big difference of opinion is them mental health treatment stuff. Most of these meta-analyses seem to say, essentially, “stuff looks promising but the studies had methodological flaws so we really can’t say.” So the question becomes do we say “there is no good evidence this helps” or do we say “Small scale studies appear to indicate there are benefits, but there isn’t enough evidence from properly designed studies to make a firm determination.”. Montanabw(talk) 04:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
As for "best evidence", as long as one is talking about proposed benefits to humans, then generally it would be a randomized double-blind trial with enough participants to get a high degree of statistical confidence, and the trial is cited as important in a secondary source. Obviously, that's an awfully high barrier for content about people and horses, but I would still take a pretty strict editorial view about saying anything in Wikipedia's voice about mental health benefits without that. With all of the secondary sources apparently saying there isn't enough proper evidence, the simplest solution would be to leave such material out altogether, and I think that would be the way I would choose to go, and the way most MED editors would choose. If editors feel that this would leave next to nothing, and that they would like to say at least something, I'd say pick a review from which you can quote verbatim (in quote marks) them saying something like the second quote that you have up there, but in the source's words and not Wikipedia's. It's really important not to give readers the impression that something is beneficial to health when there isn't enough evidence to be confident about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher)I was kind of surprised to see this topic pop up here. That's indeed the general state of the literature beyond these sources as well that there isn't appropriate evidence yet to support the treatment or recommending its use. A previous review specifically stated the therapy should be avoided, not recommended, etc. unless there becomes sufficient evidence someday (last two paragraphs of Equine-assisted_therapy#Effectiveness). One of the underlying areas of dispute at the article is that since the literature does not have adequate study design and even offers caution against the treatment at this time, we need to be careful about making the research appear "promising" or otherwise undue promotion of the practice, especially when we get continued reviews like the ones discussed here. The most recent iteration of this that also summarizes some past related issues is at Talk:Equine-assisted_therapy#Crux_of_the_issue if it helps either you or Doc on the context of what's being figured out here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It being a small world, I watchlist your talk page too, so I've been aware of the content dispute. Here, I was trying to be neutral, and simply provide fresh eyes. However, I just learned here from your comment about that previous review, and now that I see it, I believe that it is essential to cite it and give it significant weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Montanabw I would summarize these as

  • [14] Tentative evidence of benefit in ASD.
  • This does not appear to be pubmed indexed so would not use it.[15]
  • This also not pubmed indexed[16]
  • THis review commends that while there is tenatative evidence of benefit in those with health problems no RCTs had been done as of 2013[17]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

For finding impact factor I generally search for the journals name with "impact factor" with google. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Misconduct of by User:Doc James in removing a properly cited article. NeilN talk to me 18:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Heart failure medications

What do you think you're doing? Why did you delete the article on Heart failure medications that I created?? If there is a problem you don't just come around and delete an entire article - that's just common sense! The article was well-referenced with sources from highly-credible publications and did not infringe any Wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, my collaborator is new to editing on Wikipedia, thus they made the mistake of copying and pasting (with citations) but that could have easily been fixed! Sazhnyev (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You added the copy and paste problem in this edit[18] not your collaborator.
Also these are not really "head failure medications" but antiarrhythmic agents and we already have an article on those.
Additionally your need to use high quality sources per WP:MEDRS and we already have an article on the topic called Management of heart failure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
That was a comprehensive list that was from my collaborator's Excel document that I uploaded, but regardless, only that section could have been deleted not the entire document! Regarding the WikiProject on Medicine, only the classification could have been removed, thus making the article a reliable source under WikiProject in Pharmacology! Why do you feel the need to do what is not asked of you? This information is of high importance for a research project in my laboratory and will benefit researchers in the future, thus revert your changes, leaving out the copied and pasted information and the WikiProject:Medicine classification. Otherwise we will go through the Wikipedia administrators to have you and your intentions investigated Sazhnyev (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is not the same as the one titled antiarrhythmic agents! How is that so hard to understand?? The article on Heart failure medications went into a much greater detail describing animal models and indications that researchers use in their studies! If that's beyond your understanding, then editing Wikipedia articles on antiarrhythmic heart failure drugs is not in the realm of your expertise! Sazhnyev (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
So you were uploading content written by someone else without mentioning it? Hum.
If "copy and paste" issues were the only problem with that content restoring it would be reasonable.
But we already have an article on that topic and the sources were not good. If you wish to bring this to WP:ANI happy to discuss there aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Now I know that heart failure medications are NOT antiarrhythmic agents. So I am struggling to figure out what you are doing here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

We uploaded it together at the same time through my account. If there are any specific problems then they can be fixed, but the entire article is very accurate with all sources from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed. This article is much different from the existing articles on antiarrhythmic drugs. I suggest you undo the removal. Sazhnyev (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer reviewed articles are not necessarily the same as review articles. That article was not really about heart failure medications per say.
This edit causes me concern[19] Can you explain what you were trying to do?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
How is this a justifiable reason for removing an article? That page was on heart failure medications (i.e. atrial and ventricular tachycardias), thus heart failure medications is an appropriate link for it! Sazhnyev (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, cardiac arrhythmia and heart failure are not the same thing.
The page was removed because of "copy and paste" issues.
And this edit [20] gah. We have an article on antiarrhythmic agentrs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The copy and paste issues can be fixed without removing an entire article. As far as any other issues, everything can be edited without sabotaging an entire article. Sazhnyev (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
We take copyright issues here on Wikipedia very seriously. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I also take copyright issues very seriously, but I am also able to reason that the few copied and pasted sentences can be removed without the removal of an article. It's called common sense. Sazhnyev (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Review

You might want to review Tough Love (web series); the construction process was very similar to article where we encountered each other. A brand new editor dumping information and templates, a more experienced (appearing) editor doing cleanup. Both major accounts had non-standard first edits. Though one account is much older than the other. I would like your take on this, as you appear to be somewhat of an expert on wikipedia paid edits and sockpuppets. I am trying to learn to recognize the symptoms of such cases, and this appeared to me to be a candidate. Thank you for any input. Endercase (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Tough Love (web series) Yes agree the pattern of a person's very first edits dealing with complicated templates is a good sign that this is not a new account.
That they are using both VE and non VE also supports that they are not new.(a non VE edit)
The question is what should be done? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I asked, hopefully they will give us a real answer. I mean once again their article appears neutral, due, and reliable. So I'm not what to do about it. But, they do put us in a difficult position. Thank you for advising me on this. Endercase (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Unclear caption

Anemia (left hand).

File:Anemia.JPG: which hand is anemic? I'm assuming that it's the pink, right hand. Correct? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Koavf The white had has the anemia. The red hand is normal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

PTSD page

Hi Doc James I think I was composing some more information for the PTSD page at the same time you were making some edits. Do you mind taking a final look over what I added about the Westat survey? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by G J Lee (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Have moved the text here for discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do chime in

Notability within bios (more specifically application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!)

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really my area of expertise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_109&oldid=1083584623"