Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 122

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125

Draft:Ronald H. Winston

A draft Draft:Ronald H. Winston is in review. The AFC script says that you deleted Ronald H. Winston in September as WP:G5, WP:G11, and WP:TOU. My question has to do with the G5, which is a blocked or banned user, because this would mean that the draft is being created by a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user. Please either file a sockpuppet report or tell me who the master account is so that I can file a sockpuppet report. We appear to have a persistent self-promoter. (Winston Diamonds is notable, but that doesn't justify spam.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC) ::The drafting editor has a story on their talk page that I don't find plausible. I think that I will be reporting them at WP:COIN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I conclude that the drafting editor is really acting in good faith, but good faith is not enough, because they are an employee, even though editing Wikipedia is not in their scope of employment. As such, they mean well but are tying themselves in knots anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Doc James has posted he's on vacation so I'll take the liberty of answering first. The creator of the other article was Jeremy112233 who we now think is/was a WikiExperts agent. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I remember Jeremy112233 as a paid editor who was blocked for socking, but I don't recall a connection with WikiExperts. Why the sudden change? - Bilby (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Two wikilinks to direct tagging that I know of are in the LTA writeup, previous reply–along with extensive behavioral notes related to WikiExperts COO. Pretty sure at a deeper level it involves confidential info (OTRS and Checkuser). ☆ Bri (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. We had an extensive checkuser on Jeremey112233 and found that there was socking, but Jeremey112233 was the master. That was years ago, so new checkuser data would be stale. I checked your link - all I see is Jemeremy112233 being added as Wikiexperts with no explanation. I certainly remember Jeremey112233, but I'm not seeing any evidence of a connection with Wikiexperts, and so I remain curious. - Bilby (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I went though the old COIN discussion, and that seems better. I'm not concerned in trying to defend Jeremey112233, as he was clearly a paid editor and ran an extensive sockfarm. But I remain curious as to how the account was connected to Wikiexperts so many years later when that connection wasn't determined at the time. - Bilby (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion and CSD G12 criterion

Hi, Doc James.

I am writing you concerning Nalaka Gunawansa the page you just deleted per CSD G12. Actually it is not applicable per CSD G12 policy, which unambiguously stated:

Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion.

I need not mention Wikipedia is both free content and in public domain. Second; I clearly understand the user copied it from another newbies' draft, but they if we assume good faith they are both working towards the same thing and the user whose draft was not accepted can easily improve it in the main space, since nobody owns an article. If there is any policy or guidelines I am missing I am willing to know it, but clearly not G12 and no where this is even slightly supported in guideline about copying within Wikipedia. Thanks –06:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Ammarpad they need to attribute the source of that content. The second author is claiming credit for the work of the first. Unless of course they are the same person behind the accounts.
So you realized that their was another draft here? And than you assisted them to get around the other conclusions? Basically this is a deletion not simple for a "mere lack of attribution".
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This ref "the lead member of the team that pioneered successful liver transplant in Sri Lanka."[2] Does not even support the first sentence. Claims to be the lead but his name is second on the paper? Strange no? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
To your first reply; I and you know they should attribute, but this is a new user (DinukaH2 (talk · contribs)) who obviously doesn't. No 2, We don't know whether they're the same person or not (and we have no reason to know), but my concern is on the applicablity of speedy G12, (as policy) where it says it doesn't apply in clear and unambiguous manner. To your appended comment; per WP:TPG, you should've given me at least 30 minutes to respond first, because you're now raising different objection to what I actually want us to discuss. But my answer is; I actually don't know that another draft exist, and many users who submit articles to AFC tend to create more than one or submit both in draft and their sandboxes. Hmm, and second, I don't know why my objection to what policy doesn't say will summarily be labeled as "helping" new user (whom I never interact with) to circumvent a procedural process. Your second comment will surely drift this discussion from what it is really for, so let us discuss the deletion and, If you're accusing me for "helping" or "subverting" process you can talk to me separately as I talk to you for this wrong deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
So you see, you don't even left me to reply but you are eager to bomb-comment the thread. Please which Wikipedia policyor guideline says if lead contain unsourced claim it should be deleted via WP:G12? Are you now saying it is deleted because you found unsourced claim or because it is found in second paper not first?Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You state "I clearly understand the user copied it from another newbies' draft" which make it appear like you know it existed before.
Looking at your other work at WP:AfC I have some significant concerns as you appear to pass a lot of promotional stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Please Restore this page: Nalaka Gunawansa

Hi, Doc James.

I've respect for you and your experience here and hope we can solve this case on this talkpage amicably. I am requesting you for the second time to restore this page Nalaka Gunawansa which you incorrectly deleted. The first request above you completely derailed the topic with off-topic replies and accusations. I also received your 30th October email and ready to discuss its content but not in this thread. This thread is for only the above page you incorrectly deleted per G12 either because you misunderstood the policy or you didn't revisit it for a while. I know you're an experienced admin, but we all make mistakes. What however can differentiates people is what they do after they're shown the mistake. Therefore, I want you to understand copying whole draft to another draft on Wikipedia is not copyright violation, it is termed "duplication" and cannot be deleted via G12.

Moreover, beside that fact, both drafts were written by the same user who is newbie. This, further substantiate what I told you in the above thread; that newbies often copy duplicate the drafts they write or their sandboxes. Read the author of the article reply to my questions here on his talkpage and another reply on my talkpage.

Finally, here is an example of admin who restored content that was copied duplicated within Wikipedia, and you're well aware per policy real copyright violation cannot be restored. – — Ammarpad (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify "both drafts were written by the same user" Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah see it now. They admit to using socks (which was fairly obvious). User:DGG declined the draft here[3]. It is not deleted just returned back to draft. And no you do not get to pass it again. It is way to promotional and is not suitable for mainspace.
The bigger issue is that you pass a fair number of promotional articles before they are ready. This is not the only one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
1/ Copying the earlier draft to Draft:SLVS Group without modification is not in my opinion a good faith move of an article.
2/ I've seen it done, but it is not usual to use G12 for copying within Wikipedia,; we normally add the necessary attribution: see WP:CIA. DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree not sure why the draft was moved and a new one created for a third time.
Yes G12 is not usual but multiple issues here including socking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I have just deleted all versions and redirects. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:EchoCase

Template:EchoCase has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference style in Miscarriage

There is no way to use a medical textbook and reference each page that contains information as a separate entry. I have used this referencing style in dozens of articles where a bibliography is used. References to this source will be used extensively in this article and if we use the referencing style you recommend, the reference section will quickly become populated with the same textbook (with different page numbers) to end up being confusing and unnecessarily long. A book needs to be cited once and then page numbers indicate exactly where in the book the information has been found. There is no guideline that states that a certain type of referencing system is required. In this article, and others that I have written, this type of referencing has been acceptable to copy editors, bots, other medical editors. The reference you identified as being adequate is from a 2005 paramedic textbook. The reference you removed was from a Post-graduate, medical gynecological textbook published in 2014.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
(1) That template does not work in a lot of languages (2) only two pages were being used from that textbook. (3) The reference was not removed but the formatting changed. (4) Which 2005 paramedic textbook do you refer in what edit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

pharmacokinetics, and warning for fluphenazine

you deleted it.. ? pharmacokinetics, half life of fluphenazine, after 1 injection on 9 patients, it didn't decrease to 50% after 26 days (test from 1990), the test that says it's for 2 weeks is from 1985 and it does not seem to be good.

also you've removed a warning which is from the leaflet it self.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay44 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You added "which is like zombieness even after stopping medication." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Revert

I want to let you know that reverted 2 of your edits (at vaccine controversies and shingles). If you want to revert my reverts feel free, I won't edit war. The reason I reverted at shingles is that lead is describing the effectiveness of Zostavax, which is no longer the only approved vaccine, and because shingles outbreaks don't occur. At vaccine controversies I just thought the old wording was better but it dosen't matter much to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is a second one. Is there any evidence the effectiveness is different? With respect to vaccine controversy, does not matter much to me either. Started a talk page discussion of the use of the term "outbreak" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The new one is around 90% effective, they are telling people to get the new one even if they have already gotten the old one cause the new one is so much better. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is a Washington post article discussing the difference in effectiveness (the recommendations for revaccination haven't been made official yet) [4]
Do we have recent review articles that comment on this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This ref says "(from 96.6% at year 1 to 87.9% at year 4)"[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if there are any WP:MEDRS on this yet, my point is that the article should not say "the vaccine is 50% effective" when a more effective one also exists. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

PPI / Gastric cancer risk

Hi

The study I referenced from Gut journal describes an increased risk of gastric cancer form PPI use.

I want to put this information on the PPI page.

How do I do this?

(I can link to the summary of the study on the Gut website. Dr. Mark Porter, writing in The Times of London yesterday, quoted the findings too but that page is behind a paywall...)

Thanks Stephen McAteer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.64.106 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Helminths, multiplying in my mind...

Many thanks, Doc James, for rewriting my rather clumsy paragraph at Ascariasis into plain English. Though I started editing Wikipedia in 2004, I've only been studying in healthcare for a relatively short period of time, and haven't yet got the knack of avoiding "medicalese". Thanks again for that. Yours, Tristessa (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Tristessa de St Ange thank you for joining us :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Need help

Hi James, can I please know who was the creator of Dhairyam? an article you deleted few months back per G5 and it’s back under different title as Dhairyam (2017 film). Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 02:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Got him, a possible sock of RohithKumarPatali (talk · contribs) remember? editing in the same area and creating articles for films mostly directed by Kiranraj K. GSS (talk|c|em) 02:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Anything new enough for an SPI? Or should we simple block and delete all content created by them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven’t looked into the evidences but he’s showing very strong sign e.g. editing in the same area, recreating their deleted articles, same style, promoting Kiranraj K etc. I think we can simply block him and delete all contents created by him. GSS (talk|c|em) 02:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Have blocked. Please feel free to nominate the articles they have created for G5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Done two of them but not sure about Dhairyam (2017 film) and Humble Politician Nograj. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 03:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Good Article Nom review underway for Egg allergy

This an FYI/invite because you've edited the article in the past. The reviewer started off with a copyright violation concern, but I was able to make a convincing argument that it was in reverse - the website content he found had been copied from Wikipedia. I expect to be able to address the reviewer's issues/comments in a timely fashion, but wanted to give you an opportunity to add your own thoughts. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure thanks. Will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Opioids, naloxone, and naltrexone

Opioids like heroin and morphine are competitive agonists. Naloxone and naltrexone are reversible competitive antagonists.

  • The "competitive" term means that these compounds bind to the primary/orthosteric binding site at their target receptors, and therefore must "compete" with each other when binding to these receptors (i.e., a competitive agonist and competitive antagonist can't be simultaneously bound at the same receptor). A large dose of a reversible competitive antagonist will displace a competitive receptor agonist from its target receptor, and vice versa, after being administered.
  • The "reversible" term means that the effects of an antagonist can be "reversed"/overcome or "surmounted" by increasing the concentration of an agonist (i.e., taking a large dose of an agonist of the same receptor which is targeted by a reversible competitive antagonist will overcome the effects of the antagonist). In other words, one can OD on a receptor agonist while under the effects of a reversible competitive antagonist.

The clinical significance of this is that opioids like heroin and morphine can overcome the effects of naloxone and naltrexone when these opioids are taken at sufficiently high doses, regardless of what dose of naloxone or naltrexone is administered beforehand. In contrast, it would not be possible to OD on opioids if an insurmountable opioid receptor antagonist were administered beforehand (NB: opioids with non-opioid receptor targets would still be able to affect the body/brain through their secondary targets in this case, but they wouldn't cause lethal respiratory depression via excessive mu-opioid receptor activation because a high dose of an insurmountable antagonist would always block this drug effect). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Likely why we are using larger and larger doses of naloxone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's almost certainly the reason why large doses of naloxone are given when an OD is suspected. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

List of medical schools in Asia

Hey! I wanted to ask you a question before I started working on the List of medical schools in Asia. Although its technically not "medicine-related", I wasn't sure who to ask so I came here (hope you don't mind me doing so). A lot of the entries in the list are red-linked and in my opinion, non-notable. Is it best to just remove those entries altogether, or should I delink them but still keep their names in? Or perhaps there's a guideline regarding notability of universities that I'm supposed to follow? I worked on a different list here yesterday, so if you have any other suggestions, they'd be much appreciated. Cheers! Jiten talk contribs 08:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hum. Not sure. One obviously wants to remove fake schools from the list and unlink those that are not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I suppose no one would be opposed to just cutting out huge chunks of red links. Worst case scenario is that I remove an accredited and notable university from the list which would probably get added back in later on. Jiten talk contribs 09:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Talk:Calorie_restriction#Unknown.2C_unknown.2C_unknown.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

why u deleted this page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaurav_Kotli ThakurSaabji (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Same as in the emails. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nitrous oxide / open access journal and stuff

Something I saw off-wiki made me think that there's some advertising going on around use of nitrous oxide in ambulances. I wonder if some recent SPA edits here are related? Could you take a look? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

We do have an article specifically on the medical uses Nitrous oxide (medication) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Morgellens disease

I wish someone would look at these videos I recorded. To me it's real. I feel bugs crawling under my skin. My skin didn't heal and the sores had weird scabs. I recorded these bugs when they seemed active. I tried to show doctors and they called me crazy. I got rid of these bugs with herbs and body cleanses. My skin is healed and I don't feel them crawling anymore. Everyone even my family didn't believe me. That was why I recorded these thing which if it's not real please explaine why I have video of these things. Maybe the video isn't real but I would like for someone to watch and tell me that it's not on the video when I see it. I have no mental illness in my family and I'm not crazy. Just give me a chance to show what I'm seeing or not seeing but at least let me show these videos. In person too so I can point out what I see and then you all can tell me it's not there .. that's all. Birkholzbob (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't classify this as made up.. because it just may not be made up I might have proof that it's real. Keep an open mind. Please Birkholzbob (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We just reflect the best avaliable literature. It is not us you need to convince. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

trimmed per socking

Just curious, but what does it mean: "trimmed per socking" ? I noticed you removed some synthesis information on a few pages, but why should it be removed? Garnhami (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Was added by a long term sock. Most of their work was copyright infringement / poorly referenced. Thus we tend to remove "synthesis" sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Revdel on my user page

Hello there,

Recently a user vandalized page I was on. I rolled back his edit and now he is vandalizing my user talk page. An example of an edit he made is here. Could you please revdel all the edit summaries and revisions if possible as they contain swear words in a way that bypass the filter (if any)? I would also be fine with it if you remived just the inappropriate summaries at your discretion. The vandalism has been constant so the page has been protected for a while. Thanks for your help. --Sau226 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Sau226 did a bunch. Let me know if I got them all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
You did Doc James. Thanks for all the help--Sau226 (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

From France : A medical thesis on the veracity of medical articles on Wikipedia ...

Hello Doc and sorry if my english is not very good.
I discover by chance that Sebastien Antonini has just produced (2017) a thesis that should (if not already spotted) should interest you: Study of the veracity of medical articles on Wikipedia (Doctoral dissertation, Aix Marseille University), PDF, 282p. ;
It concludes from an analysis of the error rate of 5 articles of wikipedia in the medical field studied, that the rate of veracity is high : less than 2% of incorrect information, and more than 82% of confirmed information by scientific references ; Wikipedia according to the author can be considered as delivering encyclopedic information very often reliable, but nevertheless (and we specify it well) without guarantee of exactitude (which implies prudence and critical spirit) and not being able to replace the opinion of 'a health professional.
I think we are still very far from our "ideal", but that 82% is a good news and show us ther is advances to the access to knowledge " medical "in the French-speaking world.
We still have a gap of 2% improvement (for the articles studied by the thesis, but in reality we know that there is also a lot of article to create and improve, illustrate, etc. There are not only mistakes to be corrected ... We are in the continuous improvement of a work that will never be finished, and still far from our ideal ... but where would be the pleasure if not)
So thanks to french medical contributors and thanks to you for your work on the english wikipedia. Diderot, d'Alembert and their friends would have liked to work with you on Wikipedia I'm sure ; let's go on --Lamiot (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Lamiot that is wonderful news. Congratulations to the editors on French Wikipedia :-) I of course agree we could be a lot better, still so much more work to do. And always happy to collaborate. By the way the offline medical app in French is now the second most used after English.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Nitroglycerin (drug)

The lede left the incorrect impression that GTN might explode. I added content explaining that it could not explode, and why. I will watch this spot to learn why you reverted my edit. Comfr (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What ref are you using? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Comfr you are correct, the source does say that. My apologies and restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Now I understand. You were concerned about references. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Comfr (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

FDA content is public domain

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

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

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[1]

References

  1. ^ [1]
User:Whywhenwhohow That is for content created by the FDA, not content that is submitted to the FDA.
This was written by GSK and submitted from my understanding[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James:
The FDA states that the contents of the FDA website are not copyrighted unless otherwise noted. The document does not contain any such notice. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Let's get the opinion of User:Diannaa who is more of an expert in these things than I. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It would appear that your GSK attribution is in error. The content is from the FDA Briefing Document[8]. There is a separate GSK sponsor briefing document[9]. None of the documents contain a copyright notice. You can see the full list of documents at "2017 Meeting Materials, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee" Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay yes I see that you are correct. I stand corrected. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hydrogen peroxide is good to drink ...

If you have time, please examine Hydrogen peroxide#Use in alternative medicine. I worry that Wikipedia is implicitly advocating this app.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Adjusted it a bit to "no evidence of effectiveness and in some cases it may even be fatal" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr Claude Franceschi

Hello Doc James I am not familiar with Wikipedia's way of communicating. I was wondering if I could discuss with you an issue regarding a removed page in italian language on Dr Franceschi. The page is in waiting state in my sandbox. Thank you.Geiss (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure. What is your relation to the subject in question? Deleted it appears due to concerns of COI.[10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Repost

Reference style in Miscarriage I am sorry that we didn't get to finish up this discussion before it was archived. I apologize if this is the 'wrong' thing to do on a talk page. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no way to use a medical textbook and reference each page that contains information as a separate entry. I have used this referencing style in dozens of articles where a bibliography is used. References to this source will be used extensively in this article and if we use the referencing style you recommend, the reference section will quickly become populated with the same textbook (with different page numbers) to end up being confusing and unnecessarily long. A book needs to be cited once and then page numbers indicate exactly where in the book the information has been found. There is no guideline that states that a certain type of referencing system is required. In this article, and others that I have written, this type of referencing has been acceptable to copy editors, bots, other medical editors. The reference you identified as being adequate is from a 2005 paramedic textbook. The reference you removed was from a Post-graduate, medical gynecological textbook published in 2014.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
(1) That template does not work in a lot of languages (2) only two pages were being used from that textbook. (3) The reference was not removed but the formatting changed. (4) Which 2005 paramedic textbook do you refer in what edit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Many, if not most, templates that are used on the English Wikipedia do not translate into other languages, as I have discovered in my own translations of medical articles - and the translation has to be edited to compensate for this difficulty.
As per my usual and expected practice of contributing content, I was not finished with the book reference and adding content when it was removed. Medical textbooks are such excellent sources of medical content that it is difficult to add all the relevant material in just one editing session. This is especially true for me since I often use and add content from such sources over the period of days.
As for the 2005 paramedic ref used in the first paragraph of the article:
Some recommend not using the term "abortion" in discussions with those experiencing a miscarriage in an effort to decrease distress.<ref><nowiki>{{cite book|last1=Greaves|first1=Ian|last2=Porter|first2=Keith|last3=Hodgetts|first3=Tim J.|last4=Woollard|first4=Malcolm|title=Emergency Care: A Textbook for Paramedics|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2Z3cMX7owGwC&pg=PA506|date=2005|publisher=Elsevier Health Sciences|location=London|isbn=0-7020-2586-0|page=506|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160426205606/https://books.google.com/books?id=2Z3cMX7owGwC&pg=PA506|archivedate=April 26, 2016|df=mdy-all}}</ref></nowki>
Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
One can reference single pages with "cite book" just use it multiple times. This template has been installed in more than 100 languages by User:CFCF
Medical textbooks are good sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Heading

Thank you for being so concerned as to remove my peer-reviewed articles, but simultaneously blindly accepting biased articles written by men in psychological denial published in exactly the same peer-reviewed journals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnethicalSurgery (talk • contribs) 02:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not the name of the journal, it is the type of article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for contributing comments that helped guide Egg allergy to Good Article status. I intend to move on to Milk allergy. About the genetically modified content I added to Food allergy, I also added it into Soy allergy (with minor changes), but do not intend to paste it into the other common food allergies. I did soy because that is already identified as a commonly occurring allergy trigger and is the only plant in those lists (US, EU, Japan) which is also approved for genetic modification. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance

Hi Doc Thanks for the guidance ASRASR (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries :-) User:ASRASR thanks for joining us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest

From the primary source: "A phenotype-driven approach to molecular autopsy based in a multidisciplinary team comprising clinical and laboratory genetics, forensic medicine and cardiology is described. Over a 13 year period, molecular autopsy was undertaken in 96 sudden cardiac death cases. A total of 46 cases aged 1–40 years had normal hearts and suspected arrhythmic death."

Okay and a secondary source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017

WikidataCon 2017 group photo

Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries.

WD-FIST explained

And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there.

Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands.

Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I saw the news yesterday but only watchlisted the article since it hadn't been updated. Thanks for updating it! Banedon (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Banedon thanks for bringing it to my attention :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_122&oldid=1146826506"