Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 115

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110←Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117→Archive 120

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Your support means a lot to me, Doc James. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Great to see you finally with the mop User:Cullen328 :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Why the deletes?

I'm a registered pharmacist, outside of the US. So why are you deleting my additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl0173 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Have already explained on your talk page[1]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

/* Little note */ r

  1. Stark & Stark
  2. Draft:Webrepublic AG — fortunavelut luna 12:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi have you started a SPI? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ehlers Danlos syndrome Page

First off, I would like to thank you for your hard work on the page. I have tagged several points that need citations, as I suspect that they may be true, and they don't violate NPOV so I don't think there is any need to delete them. Was wondering if you knew where I could find citations for them though. these are the only sources I could find https://ehlers-danlos.com/2017-eds-international-classification/

Sure will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

/Abortion: video now instead of image. No talk page consensus.

Hi Doc James,

Today the article on Abortion is headed by a video instead of an image. The video is several minutes long and has many words. It seems to me that it's not procedurally correct to add this without talk page consensus. Also, since videos are harder to edit for content, wouldn't a spoken video explanation be problematic for Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects where the current status reflects ten years of hard-won compromises by the Wikipedia community? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to support its inclusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

Hi James, yes, I know lithium has the best supporting evidence for bipolar disorder treatment but there aren't any good pictures of it on Wikimedia commons. There's no claim in the lamotrigine picture's caption that suggests otherwise and the picture is of far higher quality. Ideally, if we are going to have a picture of lithium then it should be one of high quality. Otherwise, I think we should show another commonly used medication with a high-quality photograph instead of a chemical ball model that will be essentially meaningless to most readers. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay will try to remember to get a picture tomorrow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Terrific, thank you. I think that will be a nice addition since this is an important article and others will likely benefit as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Will try to get a pic tomorrow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Any luck? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
We did not have it in pixis. Will try tomorrow to find some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nina Teicholz

Hi Doc James, You have just edited the Wiki page on me, and I am wondering why the information about me, my history and my book must be deleted? I see that many people have unreferenced information about their childhoods and their early lives. Why should the information about me be deleted? How many people have references to document where they went to school and where they were born or the occupations of their parents? Also, there are many moves, TV shows, books that have information about the content of their work that does not have separate references yet are part of their wikipedia pages. I think I edited no more than a sentence of two on my page--which I didn't realize was in violation of policy. It seems crazy that people cannot edit the information about themselves! What if there is an error?! Now you seem to be taking draconian action, deleting 5000+ words from my profile. Is there no recourse? User:Nina Teicholz

Hey Nina. I imagine it is your PR firm that created it? Appears to have been created without disclosure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Doc, I don't have a PR firm. I have a large social media following and a great deal of information on me and my work is public. I simply added one sentence to my own page, deleted a sentence fragment, and now the entire page has been flagged and most of it deleted. Please tell me how this shows "patience and leniency" to new users, as Wikipedia recommends? And how long will the warning stay on my site such that every editor can remove everything they want? This seems like harsh and draconian punishment for a new user. Nina Teicholz (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Not everyone involved in the article about Nina is a new user. But basically someone independent from the subject needs to go through the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nudge a SPI?

Doc: It was a pleasure collaborating on the Truthinnutrition SPI. Could you tell me if it is possible to nudge Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tammy Levy? I fear it may not be looked at before CU data expires. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Have blocked the accounts in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Heading

Good afternoon, Doctor,

As I'm sure you're aware, a large body of research has affirmed that lowering LDL cholesterol lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease.

But you are certainly correct that it is unclear if lowering or raising HDL has any effect on outcomes such as heart attacks. Indeed, scientists are now questioning if HDL ought to even be called the "good" cholesterol.[1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2014/01/good_cholesterol_can_be_bad_fo.html

Genie Killoran (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please keep it on the talk page of the article in question. You first statement is not really true. Statins are associated with a lower risk of CVD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Beginner edits

Hi, thanks for the welcome mail. I am currently working on a project to add information and citations from Cochrane nursing articles. From these I am adding only short paragraphs or sentences, not making major revisions. Does this approach seem ok? Should I start out more or less ambitiously?

Thanks, Marcus

User:MarcusGP it looks good :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Last week

I created this: {{Friendly search suggestions for med talk pages}}

We should get consensus for its use.
Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Raise at WTMED. I assume the suggestion is to use this in addition to the medicine specific one?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on ABVD still going strong

Hello,

Just a heads up: you protected the ABVD article for vandalism/peacocking a few weeks ago. Now the protection is over and the rogue edits have restarted.

Thanks in advance AlexCdvp (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted some of the most recent. Will need to look more closely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Heading

i am one of the author. Genuinely asking how to add this . I am a pulmonologist and medical bloggerfor more than 10 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslam646 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

one of the author of original article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslam646 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Aslam646 that source is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of my blog content in a Wikipedia article?

No, no, not me. I write a history column for my town's paper, and post that content to a blog. Recently, someone has been using my content to add to the History section for the town. References are links to my blogged columns. Any Wikipedia policy on referencing to an individual's blog? I suppose I could replace the refs in question with refs to the original sources I researched for what I wrote. David notMD (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We do not tend to us blogs as they are self published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I replaced refs with links to blog with refs to the original source material. David notMD (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
In which edit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
In the article on Maynard, Massachusetts, the editor Swampyankee created content with refs to my blog. I am not disputing the content. What I did was substitute other references, with links when possible, to my source materials. On a separate note, Swampyankee has created six new articles about bits of Maynard that are either already covered in the article on Maynard or in my opinion could be merged into Maynard without that article getting bloated. However, I do not want to get into a merge fight with Swampyankee, who appears to be a very frequent creator of new articles. Any suggestions? The new (all in July): Amory Maynard, Maynard High School (Massachusetts), Fowler School, Green Meadow School, Maynard Public Library, Presidential Village. David notMD (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah okay. Sounds reasonable. Have you brought this up with them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. I will reach out to that person first, before starting a merge discussion. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
And that person is adamantly against merging the start/stub articles into the parent article. So I will not start a merge or delete dispute. I will suggest that my blog not be used as a reference for content. Thanks for your advice. David notMD (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Strabismus

Hi James,

Please, see this article's talk. 85.193.218.178 (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and have replied there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Lateral headaches

Hi Doc James. In the headache article, would you be able to insert a link to occipital neuralgia? There is a brief mention of cranial neuralgia, but I am not sure whether that is the same thing, but in any case there is, at present, no dedicated link to "cranial neuralgia".

Furthermore, could you then refer to this neat treatment page[2] for occipital neuralgia triggered by the trapezius muscle? Or to a better textbook source which you feel may be more appropriate for Wikipedia? Referred trapezius headache is the first thing that comes up in google searches for lateral eyeache/headache, and that must mean it is a commonly experienced cause.

My concern is that at the moment, the headache article only briefly touches on the trivial causes and then expands on the sinister ones. Many an MRI scan could have been avoided if lateral headache/eyeache sufferers gave their cramped trapezius a quick massage to see whether that switches off their headache. It works in seconds/minutes.

Thank you. 86.170.122.149 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Have added a link. This [3] is not a very good source. Is there a better one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Strangulated?

Hi James!
I feel the need to make at least a separate section about strangulated hernias, since the Strangulation (bowel) just redirects to volvulus without taking regard to other causes of bowel strangulation. Do you know if this case happened to be strangulated? There seem to be signs of inflammation around it.
Best regards,
Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Mikael Häggström Yes the bowel in that case was ischemic / strangulated adn required urgent surgery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

UDP tag on Nazeera Dawood

Hi Doc James. I'm assisting with Wikipedia-EN IRC chat. The subject of this article was inquiring why there was a UDP tag on this article. I noticed that you placed it but I couldn't see your rationale. Would you mind commenting on the article's talk-page to help other editors understand the reasons for your concern. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Salimfadhley This does not appear to be a new account [4].
Appears to belong to this massive sock family[5] Did you ask them yet which company they hired to write their article?
Figuring this out would help with further follow up BTW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

How to write about treatments?

Hi Doc James - I'm recently sort of 'feeling the weight' of writing about cerebral palsy and its management, particularly as I seem to keep coming up with the theme that therapies used for people with CP are non-beneficial or with low evidence for their use, etc. I'm a bit worried about the consequences of my findings and how they're represented in the articles. Are you aware of anything more in the vein of the uni of Kansas's writing guide for medical journalists, but perhaps with Tony1-style exercises? How should a person write about treatments/management options? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well we tend to include both a discussion of what is done plus a discussion of what the evidence shows. Often what is done is poorly supported by evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so it's that simple, is it? What is being done and if there's any evidence, what that says. Thanks for the guidance. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please unblock Vagina

I am requesting that the block from editing Vagina be removed. I understand the reasoning and have read the discussion on the talk page. Contentious editing and discussions do not have to stop improvements to the article.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Protected until Aug 9th so that consensus can be developed on the talk page rather than continued editing warring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Just had a quick look at this. Although Flyer22 Reborn and Martindo are obviously in a slow-burning edit war, I don't really think there was any need for a full-protection for more than 24 hours. Indeed, the protection policy states "Content disputes and edit warring may be addressed with blocks issued by uninvolved administrators while allowing normal page editing by other editors." so I am mindful to endorse Barbara (WVS)' request to unprotect the page, and give the two warring editors mentioned here a stern warning to leave the article alone. Sorry James, but your actions seem to be contrary to policy, so I really am minded to unprotect. However, I realise that will cause rancour so I'm going to hold off on doing so for a minute to let you reply to this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333 when a slow edit war is ongoing, IMO it is much less drama to fully protect an article in the prewar state than wade in and start blocking established editors.
The rest of the policy you quote is "Under the protection policy, an alternative approach is available as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may be better suited to multi-party disputes and contentious content as talk page consensus becomes a requirement for implementation of requested edits."
Anyway currently at work and that article is not really SFW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this general approach; however it does fall apart when it disrupts neutral editors who've had nothing to do with the dispute and want to edit in an unrelated area. Also, I only recommended giving the pair a warning and nothing else - in my experience although Flyer22 can be quite, well, passionate about the stuff she writes, if you tell her to back off a bit (using slightly more polite language, of course), she will. I'm not anticipating either of these will need blocking. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Barbara has not working on that article in many months (they have made one edit there ever). Their involvement on the talk page would likely be useful to help with the development of consensus. Will look further in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) That section header can be interpreted in more than one way, and it gave me quite a laugh![FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
another (talk page watcher), Ritchie333 this is signpost fodder. Did everyone else really miss this? Bfpage (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe "unprotect", but that actually would not have been much better. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I somehow have the perfect link for this situation. Eman235/talk 05:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Posey vest

Hi Doc. :) Is the Posey vest still used? If so, would you happen to have a photo for the article? There's nothing at Commons. Many thanks if you can help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Will see what I can get. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Anna Frodesiak We appear to have removed all the posey vests from the hospital I work at. We now use Pinel restraints. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Okay. Although we have no image of a Pinel restraint, we have one of Philippe Pinel. A pinel restrain pic would be great if you can get one. We could add it and other images to Medical restraint, which right now has none. I think visitors would like that. Many thanks and sorry for the bother. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded User:Anna Frodesiak Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
A man in the West Riding Pauper Lunatic Asylum in 1869
Fantastic! You are wonderful. And thank the young woman who was brave enough to get strapped down like that. You know, that really makes the article look great. Visitors will be well impressed.
One more thing, the commonscat has a number of images of restraints used, not to secure patients during procedures, but to restrain the mentally ill. Would those be considered medical restraints? If so, I will make a new category over there and add the link at the medical restraints article. An example is presented here at your talk page.
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Anna Frodesiak These restraints are used for those with agitation due to mental health or medical issues. Typically restraints are not used during procedures as procedural sedation is typically used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Welcomes Medical Students

I have created meta:Wikipedia Welcomes Medical Students as a part of the Wikipedia Welcomes X program. I invite you to develop sample guidance material as well as the prototype so that they could be made use of if and when they are held at such institutes. Diptanshu 💬 09:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Diptanshu Das wonderful, thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Need your participation and cooperation. Diptanshu 💬 14:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes certainly. You have seen Template:Student? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Amisulpride

Hi, I see you made some edits to amisulpride in which you added that it was used to treat psychosis in schizophrenia and mania in bipolar disorder. It isn't approved by any regulatory administration (e.g. the TGA of Australia hasn't, even though it has approved it to treat schizophrenia) to treat mania, bipolar-related or not. I know in Canada it isn't approved for any purpose so you could be excused for thinking it was used for this purpose as most atypicals have indications for this. Amisulpride has some, albeit modest, efficacy in treating negative symptoms of schizophrenia (e.g. see PMID 23938176), so I don't see any value adding the "psychosis in" specifier for its use in schizophrenia. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 15:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Fuse809 these were the edits I made[6]. Not seeing were I added that it was for mania? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Oops sorry, I must have misread the diffs. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 16:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
No worries  :-) Agree with your adjustment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Milton Packer

Can you restore the page on "Milton Packer" so that I can correct the copyright infringement issue? I was not responsible for the first paragraph, which was written by someone else. That is the paragraph you were concerned about with respect to copyright infringement. I was responsible for expanding the page beyond the first paragraph. xostugo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xostugo (talk • contribs) 01:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No that is incorrect. The copyright problems were added by you in this among other edits.[7] ::Also you must disclose your connection to the subject in question and have not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I am Milton Packer, the subject of this page. I am confident that I can address all of your concerns. Can you advise, please? It is true that I added reference [6], but I do not understand why that made the problem of infringement worse that in the article which I inherited.

I am confused about the Wikipedia policy. I have tried to read it very carefully and comply with it. I was trying to respond to the request to expand a stub. May I submit suggested text for your review? If so, can you review the text that you deleted?

As a connected editor you should not be editing the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

As a courtesy

If you have concerns about the contents of a sandbox, please leave a note on my talk page before deleting content. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 06:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The Category:RTT has a specific use by the translation project. Having it on other pages disrupts the function of the tool. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Bramah N. Singh

I don't know if you look at draft articles, but wondered if you might cast an eye over Draft:Bramah N. Singh. I've submitted it for consideration, having noticed it languishing following the loss of interest of the initial (inexperienced?) editor. You know a lot about this topic, so your expert views might help; I agree that many of the edits regarding him on antiarrhythmic agents have been inappropriate (both of us have deleted or reversed some of them), but do think that he reaches the notability threshold (professor who has founded a scientific journal, even ignoring the Vaughan Williams classification naming controversy). The article is little more than a stub, but my view is that it is worthy of appearing in article space. Klbrain (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:DGG and User:Jytdog have more experience writing about people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Harassment

I've been editing Woodland Hills High School to improve it, but an editor named Jd22292 ‎is reverting all my edits. He also had the nerve to post a warning on my talk page calling my edits vandalism. The editor refuses to address my inquiries on his talk page, and has deleted them. Please help. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 14:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk page discussion would be were to start. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Your name/talk page has been invoked by the editor here. The issue is not the reverts themselves nearly as much as it is the complete lack of edit summaries and the false allegation (twice) of vandalism. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Discuss what changes you wish to make and why on the talk page if you are reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I heard you the first time, but you're either missing my point or don't care to address it. My concern is about someone who calls a constructive editor a vandal after removing all their content with blank edit summaries. I would think that an administrator would tell someone who does that to knock it off. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay let me make this clearer. You should both take it to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind. I don't give a fuck about the edtis any more. They were obviously well-intended, clearly explained, and an improvement to the article. Who the hell wants to discuss edits with a knee-jerk editor who swoops in, deletes everything you've done with no explanations, then falsely labels you a vandal? It's editors like that who drive so many potential good editors away from Wikipedia. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E91E:8E:830C:7D8E (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Problem solved per ANI. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been editing some articles on dyes and came across some content about the Feingold controversy (food colorants induce hyperactivity). I wonder if the extensive discussion in dyestuff articles does not give undue weight to a discredited study. Could you look at [big deletion]? --Smokefoot (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

No strong opinion either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Medical expert review needed

EarlySense § Clinical research is this okay? My recollection is that you only want to see reviews in medical articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Noticed this in passing: my feeling is that there is too much extraneous detail in the section (P values aren't needed, for example), too many details of the references/journals in the body of the text (we don't need to know if the body of the text that it was published in the "American Journal of Critical Care", as interested readers can see that in the reference list; no need for author lists in the body), and the text is too technical (you should pitch at a less expert audience). There were also too much extraneous information; for example, you don't need to define and reference to define an adverse event when you link adverse event. Klbrain (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Klbrain Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I see the section is gone now, which is probably best. Thanks for reviewing. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
It was partly copied and pasted from sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Tim Weller Wikipedia page

Dear Doc James, I am ops director of Incisive Media in London and our chairman is a bloke called Tim Weller. I've noticed you have deleted Tim's Wikipedia page, could you advise how this has happened please and what I need to do to reinstate it. You can see from the previous sentence that I am employed by Incisive Media (and Tim is our non-exec chair and founder). I'd appreciate your advice, my email address is robin.shute@incisivemedia.com. Thanks and best wishes. Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Shute (talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Read this - Wikipedia:Conflict of interest then wait for further comment from Doc James. Roxy the dog. bark 07:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure Robin will email you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I and some other users have been discussing possible solutions to the paid editing conundrum on IRC and I have been told that you and Jytdog are interested in this area (doing it here simply because Doc James was mentioned first).

One proposal was to create a new CSD criterion for "created by undisclosed paid editors". There has been a recent influx of paid page creation requests on websites such as Upwork and Fiverr recently and taking them through AfD seems a little surplus to requirements seeing as such editors blatantly violate the Terms of Use (when undisclosed, example [8] and the corresponding AfD [9]).

So I suppose the wording of such a criterion would be something like "A12" or "G14" - "This applies to pages which can be proven to have been commissioned for payment (with links to sites such as Fiverr) AND a userpage which, at the time of the creation of the article, does not disclose paid editor status".

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 20:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please see here... Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm I should really have noted that, especially as I've already offered input... DrStrauss talk 21:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
More minds thinking is a good thing! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
User:DrStrauss may take a few RfC to get wording that a majority accepts. But agree this is important.
Planning a meet up at Wikimania on the topic per here
There is also discussion regarding the use of CUs on meta, but likely will need to adjust the wording further to get acceptance their aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_115&oldid=1144236814"