Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 119

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 117Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121→Archive 125

Hello Doc James,

As you asked me for clarification paid editing,

so the article I have created it was my interest to do, as I this guy met on set, we were checking out one celeb profile on wiki, so they request how to create Wikipedia profile, I tried earlier but couldn't make it, he request, i have done a bit research about it & create, one Profile post I have to create one more profile which was not requested, so as if now no favour cash or kind has been taken, if someone will come to me n ask for money I will be the first person to disclose as per Wikipedia policy, I was willing to create more Article n improve my editing, but didn't do as my profile is in doubt. I request you to guide me n help write an article as I can see from tv industry a lot of notable personalities doesn't have Wikipedia article & a lot required editing like the citation, inline, need to add image n other details & improvement if you allow User:Manas dubey

Apparently I'm not the only person being accused of receiving payment, when I have received no payments. I am a teacher, and I was trying to develop my skills on Wikipedia so I could teach my college students how to contribute also. If they are going to be subjected to accusations , it really gives me pause on whether or not I want to incorporate this into my curriculum. Mbarywiki (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Pls give me some slack

Dear Doc James,

My name is Chris Canaday (Bio-CLC) and I am a participant in the Sanitation Wikipedia Project.

I would say that all of my contributions today to the Cholera page are justified and not in any way extreme, especially since sanitation is key to preventing and controlling Cholera. For example, Urine-diverting Dry Toilets and ArborLoos are safer and more recommendable than pit latrines, but only the latter were left in the text. This does not encourage contributing to Wikipedia.

If you have any doubts about my contributions, please let me know that I should back them up more substantially in the text ... or ask me any questions you may have.

Thanks, Chris Bio-CLC (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bio-CLC Hey Chris. Welcome. Do you have references for the text you added? That all I requested :-) Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks Bio-CLC (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

PRECICE

Hi Doc James,

I was working on expanding the PRECICE stub when I noticed your redirect before I had a chance to finalize the article. Can you please let me know what kinds of secondary sources would satisfy your criteria? Is this Level IV study with nothing to disclose acceptable, for example? There are many other studies or mentions for establishing notability. Alternatively, is there a way to add a warning or notice that the article needs high quality secondary sources, rather than removing it entirely? Thank you, Dandv 07:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Details outlined at WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Singular possessives

This has been raised multiple times, and every case I'm aware of, the conclusion has been to use -s's instead of -s'. I'll refer to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_126#MOS:POSS_broken and Talk:Steve_Jobs/Archive_3#Jobs.27_or_Jobs.27s.3F for some examples of extended discussions. cherkash (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You will need to start a talk page discussion. We generally use what is mostly commonly used in the literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

False accusations

doc James, I would like to apologize if I offended you for editing the Parkinson's disease page. From your edits, you seem to focus on medical content and I'm assuming you were offended in some way. That's the only way I can Understand or interpret why you have now logged onto each page that I recently edited and accused me of receiving compensation for my edits. To accuse me of this without any evidence whatsoever, is shocking. I have never received any compensation for a single edit. Not one. I have first hand knowledge of Parkinson's disease because several people in my family have died from it. The reference to Seroquel - in my mind- was to hopefully help other Wikipedia users. When my father took Seroquel, his Parkinson's disease was significantly exacerbated. I read in the pamphlet that comes with the prescription for seroquel in the printed literature provided by the manufacturer that it is in not advisable for Parkinson's patients not to take it. I was told the same by a number of top neurologists and read this in literature. I was going to update the page with citations today, but before I could, I was pummeled with the unjust accusations. Again, I apologize if my edit offended you. Please don't log onto numerous other pAges and accuse me of receiving compensation for any contributions that I made to Wikipedia. There is no truth to this. There is no evidence of this because I have never received a dime. I request that you remove the notices that you put on all of my other work and contributions. Mbarywiki (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the typos. I'm very upset by these false accusations and my hands are shaking, so I am using the voice option. Mbarywiki (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The contributions you have made are unfortunately very promotional.
Nearly all your edits are related to Cumming, Beisel & Partners or books by a single author. Not all relationships involved exchange of money. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC) No, I also wrote about two other authors. I edited the Patti Stanger page and I edited the Verbal Abuse page which referenced two other authors that I added (Patrica Evans and Lundy Bancroft). You focus your attention on articles that are medical because you believe that you are good at it.If a handyman edits home improvement pages, that would make sense. Someone could make the incorrect assumption that a person editing medical articles is aligned with pharmaceutical companies-- but I would never accuse someone of impropriety without any evidence. There is no nefarious intent because someone is editing a particular subject matter that interests them. When you cleaned up the book pages and author page, there were 50-100 edits before mine and you deleted their work as well. And for you to go to such extremes because I edited your Parkinson's page? You could have simply hit "undo." That is such a disproportionate reaction and seems really malicious.Mbarywiki (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I also work on content that is promotional in nature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi James

What is COI? Can you please create an internal link in your home page? Thanks, Ben-Yeudith (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:COI Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb..

Do you think Himmatrao Bawaskar has sufficient notability to clinch an article? Prim. he appears to pass but a second eye will be urdently helpful!Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Two of the refs are by him. Only one is about him. User:DGG would be better to ask. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Godric on Leave, Uncertain, but I added the necessary reference that would tend to show him an expert. The relevant guideline is WP:PROF. ``

Have I given offense?

Today (2017 September 28) I posted a number of references in the History section of Wikipedia's article "Nitroglycerin (Drug)", and shortly thereafter I received a couple of notifications from editor / administrator "Doc James". Such notifications are rarely good news. So, have I given offense? Have I made some mistake or violated some rule?

I know that I cited primary sources, but in this case, the article was making claims about the writings of Ascanio Sobrero, and some editor had asked for evidence to support those claims. The best way to determine whether Sobrero wrote something is to read his original writings and thereby determine whether the claim is valid. So I found Sobrero's original articles, read them, and quoted and translated the relevant passages (since I doubt that many English speakers can read Italian).

I know that the result was a rather bulky footnote, but I do believe that Wikipedia's rules allow for the inclusion of quotes in footnotes.

By the way, just to assuage any anxieties that you may have, I confine my edits to the history of science, technology, and mathematics. I wouldn't post primary sources on any contemporary topic that might be subject to dispute — for example, the latest chemotherapy. My interests are restricted to basically the 19th century and earlier — largely settled science. (However, I have found errors in secondary and tertiary sources that treat the history of a subject, which is why I constantly check, and sometimes post, primary sources.)

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

User:VexorAbVikipædia no real problems.
Was just providing you some details on how to better format references.
These details are at WP:MEDHOW
Welcome. And happy editing :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Schizophrenia, all edits deleted

You just deleted all the edits I made to the Schizophrenia article. I'm not terribly happy about this. Using secondary sources doesn't make a great deal of sense with respect to the articles I was citing. Most the history of schizophrenia is made up of tiny little studies which do not hold up to repeated studies, or are simply flawed by genetic confounding. I cited a number of studies with HUGE cohort sizes (2.4 million people etc). These are not 'little' studies that are going to be falsified. In the current article there is a crap ton of total hockum that will be discredited in no time, regardless of whether there are a dozen review articles written about them (see the literature on deprived social areas). I implore you to reconsider.

User:Andorin consensus is that we use high quality secondary sources. This took me some time to adjust to aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to focus more on deleting crap from articles rather than high quality edits that just happen to use high quality sources that you have some bizarre disagreement with? Seriously, this is just beyond my ability to fanthom. Why in the seven hells would wiki insist on poor quality references to crap review articles rather than high quality primary literature? If we were talking about sociology then maybe this would make sense but this is genetics we're talking about. Permitting the kind of gumpf that is currently in that section while refusing to allow modern citations will have a damaging impact on scientific knowledge. Schizophrenia is clearly not an immune disorder and yet you are insisting on permitting those lines and deleting the largest genetic studies to date. Does not make sense.

I'm trying to improve the article but this is utterly ridiculous. Rather than citing the primary literature i'm having to misdirect people to crap review papers that happen to reference key findings. This is a dreadful way of doing things.

(talk page stalker) "This is a dreadful way of doing things." Gosh. I know how you feel, but the wiki community has these policies for very good reasons, and it has worked very well for the project. Remember that Doc James isn't correcting your error out of malice, spite or ignorance. My experience meant that I wanted to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS like you, was astonishingly frustrated, and then thought "what a stupid project" and stayed away for three years. I wish I hadn't. Please don't use primary sources on this project in future, but follow WP:MEDRS instead, things will go far smoother. Good luck. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable, and any given primary source may be contradicted by another."

This is simply not relevant to massive modern genetic studies. Insisting on NOT using primary literature with regard to genetics is the way to get crap wiki pages. Wiki should encourage people to update wiki with the latest genetic findings as soon as they are released, not insist on perpetuating damaging myths from the stone age of premodern genetics. There is no patient sensitivity in reporting these findings and so the perogative should be on disseminating the most up to date understanding of major breakthroughs in disease knowledge as quickly as possible. Wikipedia is a key way of disseminating such knowledge in the modern world. If junior scientists come and look at the Schiz genetics page as it was they would be terribly mislead.

Yes we should generally stick with high quality secondary sources. No the prerogative is not to as quickly disseminate primary sources as quickly as possible. We want to summarize agreed upon stuff and typically secondary sources represent that much better than primary ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for deleting FlightNetwork. I nominated it for deletion years ago, but the paid mouthpieces took advantage of lack of interest to write nonsensical essays that kept it online. The references for that page were mostly paid advertisement from obscure garbage sites, yet somehow it was left on Wikipdia. That company has a terrible reputation for screwing people out of money, lying and cheating, and they flood the internet with fake reviews written by dodgy "reputation" companies on sites such as Trustpilot. When you read complaints from people ripped off by that company on TripAdvisor forums or Flyertalk forums, the presence of a Wikipedia page seemed to be a factor in them thinking it was a legitimate entity. Thanks again. Powermugu (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. With respect to dealing with undisclosed paid editing, I agree we need to do a lot better than we are currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion on food allergy articles?

I am looking at the individual articles on the eight most common food allergies (milk, egg, peanut, tree nut, soy, wheat, fish, shellfish). The first six have articles of varying class and length (three Start, two C-class, one B-class; 6,200 to 27,800), but fish and shellfish redirect to the food allergy article (B-class; 54,000). I see this as two projects, first to improve the three Start-class to at least C-class, and second, to create new articles for fish and shellfish. Your opinion? David notMD (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

OTRS

This one: ticket:2017100110002918

Has (figuratively) your name on it.(I do realize that you can't be expected to know everything in every medical field, but I'm betting that if you don't know the answer, you know someone who does.)S Philbrick(Talk) 14:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Currently locked. I would inform them of WP:MEDRS. They need to provide a decent source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What tools do you use to spot COI editing?

What tools do you use to spot COI editing? I'm curious, i've never dug into it that much Victor Grigas (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Doc James will get back to you ASAP--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Victorgrigas there are a number of methods. WP:COIN picks up a lot of stuff. Looking at newly created pages also picks up a lot. Paid editing typically has a common style to it. Email me and I would be happy to discuss in person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

app/French

created [1] using [2], I know there is one on Meta[3] but it doesn't work at Fr--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa not sure what you mean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
[4]the banner in French wikipedia, I don't think it was available before...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Ozzie10aaaa you should turn it into a stand alone template :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Perfect :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Preliminary analysis results on editors who were invited to projects

Hi Doc James,

I did some preliminary analysis on the impact of recruitment on editors in our first batch study. The results are very promising! I compare the number of edits those editors made before the recruitment in two weeks and the edits after the recruitment in two weeks, and find that their edits increased by 73% on articles within the project on average, while the number of edits of editors who were in the control group (editors who were also recommended by our system, but were not shown to any organizer nor recruited) decreased by 42%. So thank you for your great help! But now, we only have 40 editors that were invited by our participants (small sample size). It would be very helpful if you can help publicize our study to draw more attention from the community. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Currently stuck in a snowstorm. Car is stuck in the middle of the highway in a snowbank... Unable to go forwards or backwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Shit! Are you going to be OK? It would be horrible if that was the last thing you ever wrote in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
just stay calm, I'm certain you've been in similar situations(in regards to weather)...stay safe!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
If it becomes really bad, he can always call the rescue services, at least he clearly has connectivity :) Dysklyver 00:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yikes! Please update us when you're unstuck ☆ Bri (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. I want everything to be resolved quickly and without major problems. I'm sure you will. Best. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
James's cousin posted on Facebook an hour ago. They made it safely to her home and will remain until the roads are better. :) :) :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all. Yes make it okay. Crazy storm. We always travel with down sleeping bags and are used to winter camping even if we could not get out. Will upload some pictures when I make it home :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
:-) --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I was hoping you were prepared per the boy scout motto and living up there and all! Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
:-)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Page Leslie Becker-can I re-create?

Thanks for your response. I had no idea that the people who created my page were getting paid. It was not by me. Is it possible to at least retrieve the page information, so I can relaunch it. It is an important piece of my life's work and would like to re-create it. Again, this is for Leslie Becker.

Thanks so much Leslie

Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It is frowned upon here to try to write your own page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Doc...I'm very clear that this is not a social media site and I have never used it as such. Since I have no idea who actually built my page, how do I go about making a new one if I can't recreate myself AND I'm not allowed to have someone else do it? That doesn't make sense. I'm also confused how my page could be up for five years with no issue, then suddenly taken down without notice, and be told that I can't re-create it. Please give me some guidance as to how to get my page re-created, or at least send me a link to retrieve the info for my own reference. Please help. Thanks Leslie Becker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesliebecker (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Would you write to the Encyclopedia Britannica and ask if you could add an article about yourself? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Correcting sources on Mesothelioma pag

I'd like to respectfully reply to your edit on my addition of 2 sources and 1 sentence to the mesothelioma page. I had included elaboration on the latency period of the disease, linking my numbers to a review study. I had also included prevalence of the disease in a specific population of ship workers and too linked this prevalence to a source. I am interested in discussing why you suspect those sources are incorrect? Yaakov bressler (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Yaakov bressler One of the sources does not appear to support the content in question. I have moved the text in question to the talk page.[6]
The other bit of the text was moved to the body of the article. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Appreciate it. I'll make sure to hash out my editing concerns on the talk pages in the future. Yaakov bressler (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

question

[7] quick question did you shorten text b/c it was redundant or not accurate[8] Autophagy is mediated by a unique organelle called the autophagosome(5th sentence after abstract) ?thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It is accurate. Just shortened. Linked the term. What are your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
[9]that we may see a spike in that article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hum yes good point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing parasitology from periodontitis

Doc James, you are remove everything I add to periodontitis. Is there any way we can show the reality of periodontal infection and curing method? This removing is keeping low knokedge to such a disease. Parasitology is part of periodontitis from 1914 studies. So tell how I do? Also we can cure this disease relatively easily changing the sulcus microbiota! This we know from 1980. So will you only leave AAP no piwer to this disease? Also you say Youtubes if mine are not correct films. Do you want me, or may I place them all on communs and they are more accepted? Really tell me! Thank you! Tdebouches (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Tdebouches the key is to use sources per WP:MEDRS Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving Articles to Main Space

Doc James, I appreciate you working with this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kaveh_Alizadeh) to make sure it's the best it can be. I'm curious as to what the next steps are in moving it to the main space, as I asked in late September what I needed to do to square it with you and hadn't heard back. Can you let me know what needs to happen next? This has been a very instructional process for this and future articles. Thanks. Alikouros (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Add WP:AfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:EasyEn

Template:EasyEn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I can move it to user space. Though it is used a fair bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Alkhurma virus

Alkhurma virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A new editor want to rename it "Alkhumra virus" (m-r swap) citing some Saudi guy. Also, dumping a huge list of journal cites. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Restored to the CDC spelling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Followup on Leslie Becker

I noticed a request to re-create was posted to your talk page on 3 October 15:05, and the subsequent creation of the page on 3 October 15:41. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup some people do not take "no" for an answer. Raises concerns about the creator of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Paul Kruger

Hi. You protected the article Paul Kruger for vandalism, however, it is the TFA, so vandalism is normal. If you could reduce the duration it would be better because it won't be an active page once it is off. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected until Oct 24th. What are you wanting it changed to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The lenght, as two weeks is unnecessarily long (tomorrow it will be off the Main Page). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay what do you want it changed to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding an ongoing AfD

Hello, James. There's an ongoing AfD which might be of your interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touch-type Read and Spell. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There are no review articles on the topic. Not sure if it is really notable for its own page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't seem to meet GNG or any topic-specific notability guideline. But the program is widely used, so it may be merged to some article, although I am not sure where to merge it. If you can decide on a merge target then we can easily merge it after discussing at the article's talk page. But if you think it should be deleted then it has to be AfDed again. BTW, thanks for looking at it. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree trimming the primary sources and merging would be a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

SEPT9

Without going into the broader paid-editing-motives of the editor, did the edits by Bu11man7 improve the article, even marginally?Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Their work was an attempt to mislead our readers. I followed up with the USPSTF and they said that this company was misrepresenting their position. This is one of the worst kind of cases of undisclosed paid editing (using good sources but purposefully misrepresenting the sources in question for financial benefit). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This source probably proves the statement to be minimally true.The line was initially used definitively promotionally.Prob. a better statement would have been:-SEPT9 DNA was listed in the recommended (Grade A) screening tests in the United States Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) Colorectal Cancer Screening (2016) for people aged between 50 to 75 years.The study did not prove it to be any more effective than other tests including .......Is it all or am I still missing something?Am not standing up for him.It's prim. due to an OTRS ticket..Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 07:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you share the OTRS ticket. This stuff was not a Grade A recommendation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Check your inbox in a while! Am also appending the rely that I draft-ed! That being said, was the afore-mentioned source (which I accessed while manoeuvring through the original inline-source in the article) wrong?.If there is something that does not meet my eyes, you could choose to use the email-function too! Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay so this was what our paid editor added "SEPT9 DNA was listed with the recommended Grade A screening tests in the United States Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) Colorectal Cancer Screening (2016)." Which implies that this test received a grade A recommendation by the USPSTF for colon cancer screening.
  • The USPSTF actually says "Although a serology test to detect methylated SEPT9 DNA was included in the systematic evidence review, this screening method currently has limited evidence evaluating its use (a single published test characteristic study met inclusion criteria, which found it had a sensitivity to detect colorectal cancer of <50%).1 It is therefore not included in this table."[10]
  • Concerning to say the least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Check your email.Send the message.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No need to reply to my 2nd email(about the reason about why it's false).Got the clue:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
So, basically this publication is an updated version of this report.Cheers:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
This[11] is the official source yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Gaurav Kotli

I saw you deleted Gaurav Kotli via A7. An older version of the article cited some Hindi newspapers that were removed. I can't read Hindi and can't tell just how useful they are; I just wonder whether you were aware that some news coverage may exist when you deleted the page? Huon (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion using Template:db-band. I supported the concerns and thus deleted it.
This was the source [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_119&oldid=1235458456"