Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 124

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126→Archive 130

WikiHistory

Last week I changed a lot in the background program on the server. That large article de:Deutschland which took about 45 minutes before, takes now 7 minutes and a few seconds. I did this, because the engl. WP has a different characteristic than the german, it holds a lot more huge articles with a lot more edits. So filling the database was really slow (compared to german wikipedia). Now I know a lot more about C# (I still do not like that language), about the Wikipedia-API and the way that numbers are computed. Usually I run a test script which compares the output of APPERs original program with the new version before I upload the server program to the toolforge-server, but I did not do this today when I made just a small change (with bad side effects). Sorry for that. About 900 articles showed up that bad numbers, 357 in the engl. Wikipedia, the rest in the german, but they where all fixed about an hour later. --Wurgl (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for all your work on this. It is an excellent tool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Small change: As in my User:Wurgl/common.js you can add a variable 'WikiHistory' with the possible values 'info', 'view' or 'all'. So the small like with the percentage will show up on the "Page information"-page or on the main page of the article or on both. When not defined, the behavior is like before: Just on the article page. This variable should be defined before loading WikiHistory.js is loaded. --Wurgl (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Cool :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Doc James. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cardiac Arrest edits

Hi James, could you please review the intro to the section on "causes"? I wanted to remove: 

"The arrhythmias that lead to sudden cardiac arrest or death can be a result of cardiac and non-cardiac causes, which includes the following:"

It is a sentence (second paragraph in causes) that comes before CAD, but I do not find it clear. I was going to list the causes in this sentence, or remove it entirely.

Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarified to this[1] User:JenOttawa but feel free to adjust further or remove. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It makes more sense to me. I appreciate your help. JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sign versus symptom

Hi Doc James, You said in a recent reversion on Rett syndrome that symptom is widely used in many parts of the world for both 'sign' and 'symptom'. I notice this is not reflected in the Symptom article neither did you provide any evidence. Just saying. Regards. Richard Avery (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes will see if I can find a source and add it their.
This ref uses symptoms to mean both[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

hi

would appreciate you opinion here[3] thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

another

sorry to bug you again should you have the time Id appreciate your input on [4] thank you as always--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Always happy to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Seen?Winged Blades Godric 18:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Winged Blades of Godric yup. Just got up and making the first coffee of the day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No worries.Have a good day!Winged Blades Godric 18:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Synthetic

This isn't right. I'm pretty sure "manufactured hormone" can be either a natural hormone or a chemical analogue that is manufactured in a lab. Whereas a "synthetic hormone" explicitly refers to chemical analogues like progestins. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hormones can be synthesized inside people or animals aswell per biosynthesis. From my understanding we are referring to those that are made or manufactured. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... While I agree with your statement, I think your use of term "synthetic" may be a non-common use. I think the term "synthetic hormone" is almost exclusively used to refer to chemicals that are analogues of naturally occurring hormones. I don't think "synthetic hormone" usually means "a hormone that has been synthesized" (which, as you say, could basically be anything). NickCT (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I think there's another common term (i.e. bio-identical), which means a "manufactured" hormone with the same chemical structure as the naturally occuring hormone (i.e. not a chemical analogue. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with NickCT. Please see wikt:synthetic, where there are multiple definitions. Although def. 2 is where one says that it can be synthesized biologically, def. 3 is the most common usage in this particular context, in my experience. Thus, a hormone molecule that has been manufactured to be different in structure from the endogenous compound is "synthetic" in the sense of being "artificial", whereas the endogenous hormone is "genuine". "Manufactured" is really more about the process of making the substance, whereas "synthetic" is widely understood as being of a different chemical structure than the endogenous compound. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
If it is not endogenous, than by definition it must be manufactured. I do not like the term "man made" as it is not gender neutral. Synthetic as it has similar meanings that can lead to confusion is thus also not the best. Also not a big fan of "artificial" as that term also has various meanings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"Synthetic" may have different meanings, but I think in the context of endocrinology, "synthetic" has a very specific meaning. My sentiment would be to use the terms in their academic context but perhaps I'm being jargon-y.
I guess we could just avoid the issue all together with; "It is a progestin and has effects similar to those of the hormone progesterone." NickCT (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Back when I used to teach the pharmacology of diabetes, it was commonplace to talk about "natural" and "synthetic" insulin formulations. For Google hits, "synthetic insulin" comes up a lot more than "manufactured insulin", with the latter actually returning the phrase with "synthetic" as its first results. (And for what little it may be worth, I've heard of subcellular organelles described as "manufacturing" compounds as though they were little factories.) Anyway, just thought I'd offer my two cents. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: - Your two cents is worth at least 3 cents in my book. Insulin is a tough-y, b/c I think it has yet its own set of jargon. For instance, I think the term "Human Insulin" almost always means "manufactured" or "non-endogenous" insulin. Very confusing.
For the small-molecule hormones at least, I'm pretty sure "synthetic" means "chemical analogue". NickCT (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! (Maybe you get what you pay for!) And I agree with you about small molecules. Anyway, I hope it helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I much prefer using less techy terms in the leads. The more techy ones can be used in the body of the tex.
Nicks suggestion of "It is a progestin and has effects similar to those of the hormone progesterone." is perfectly appropriate aswell IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pondering. NickCT (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Pesticides with bed bugs

Hi, I saw your revert with quote as I was about to change a lot more in the section. Oddly enough I see the quote when comparing revisions, but not in the wiki article itself. My gripe is with the selective misrepresented/misreading of the sources in this section to make it appear as if insecticide use is not a viable source of management, whereas as I read it, it is the main method used in combination with mechanical treatments, with as second effective treatment sealing of the entire building and heating the entire space for a few hours. The two most used sources here both state problems with both mechanical and chemical treatments. Yet vacuuming, using mattress coverings, or drying is said to be 'effective' in the article, but not in the sources (rather the opposite). If 'effective' is defined as 100% eradication of the pests in all situations all the time then no method is 'truly effective'.

As it appears you are on point on this, I will edit what I was going to do more slowly and with more explanation. Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

They are not nearly as effective as they once were, that is fairly established. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think even the ones that interfere with sexual reproduction have resulted in the bugs ,utating to produce more offspring so that some still reproduce!! But as I understand it, DDT remains effective, but it can no longer be used. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I would imagine DDT is still effective as it is not allowed to be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing for ArbCom election

Hi, I removed your statements promoting particular candidates from your ArbCom election reminder notice on WT:MED. If you want to plug particular candidates, it would be best to divorce that promotion from what ought to be neutral get-out-the-vote reminders to participate in the election process. (Also, I don't think that editors at WT:MED are, on average, particularly dim; I'm sure they're capable of skimming the candidate statements and reaching their own conclusions.)

If you want to share your views on particular candidates or recommend particular votes, maybe you could create a user subpage (or a section on your userpage) which you can link to in a comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

We have a bunch of candidate guides Here

I guess I could have created one and linked to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Doc James you have sent me a nice message before so I am reaching out to you.

I am a professor at Johns Hopkins University. I am now the Director of Biomedical Engineering there. It is a wonderful thing. Is it possible to have the warning on the wiki page for Michael I. Miller removed. It appeared after I added the Directorship myself which was announced July 2017 by the University. Everything on the page is accurate. It currently says it is an advertizement but everything is stated as exactly true. Warm regards and thank-you for doing what you do. I am trying to help my department become modern like Computer Science at Stanford and at Oxford. Mim.cis (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mim.cis So to clarify you are the subject of the article in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

yes, the article is about me.

Mim.cis (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay so you should not be writing about yourself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article and have edited to a more neutral point of view. Unfourtunately, this editor is creating articles and editing articles about his colleagues. It appears that he may be inserting the research that they have done. Personally, I don't have a problem with the research being added, but the editor needs to declare his association with the topics that he is editing. I believe he is acting in good faith but doesn't understand the policies that well. You're an administrator-what is the best way to approach this? He is an expert in his field and to think that he is spending time editing is encouraging-but how to handle this? Best Regards, Bfpage (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC) aka Barbara (WVS)
More bad news. Computational anatomy was written by Miller Mim.cis and is chock full of his research. It's an impressive article but there will always be a problem with people, who in good faith, believe their research is so important (and it may be) that WP seems like the best way to get out the info on their research. This is really too bad.
Group actions in computational anatomy - full of his research Bfpage (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Bayesian estimation of templates in computational anatomy -full of his own research.
First step would be tagging with the Template:COI. Yes this is unfortunate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Tag each of his article in which he has inserted his research? He's created 26 articles and has been warned on his talk page about his COI. Is there a way to extract his references to his own research in these articles? Do you have a magic administrator's tool? He's made over 4000 edits. Bfpage (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes tag each. Other searching for his name no easy way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll tag them. There is an easy way to find his research, btw. It is time consuming but using the browser to find all the instances of the word "Miller" in the article reveals all his research. It is possible to 'surgically remove' (pun intended) all references to his research - but OH so tedious. I really don't want that job....and I'm not volunteering because it would take weeks to go through each of the 26 articles filled with his research. Can you assign it to someone else? Bfpage (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
People are often able to get away with this sort of issue much more on obscure topics. With respect to assigning stuff, I do not have that ability :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
my own opinion on this is that it depends on the importance of the subject, the importance of the research, and the POV. One thing that must be avoided is a person adding a ref to their work for articles where they are just one of the dozens of people who have written papers on it--that's REFSPAM. A second, is excessive detail, but that can be a problem even without direct coi. A third, is making more articles than necessary. That seems to be the immediate problem here-- I think the articles on Baysian estimation.. and Group action... must be merged; covering them in the main article seems enough. But I'm no expert-- David Eppstein. can you help us with an opinion on this? DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not particularly close to my interests, either — I know what a group action is, but I know very little about anatomy. On the other hand, I'm suspicious that a lot of this is formalism for the sake of formalism or for the sake of making trivial content look impressive by throwing in lots of complicated formulas rather than because the formalism tells us anything useful about the subject. In particular, "group action" is just a complicated way of saying that something is symmetric. It's useful as a way of formalizing that when you have complicated symmetries that you need to understand. But in this case, beyond the usual symmetries of 3d space and the approximate bilateral symmetry of the human form, where are the symmetries that would be needed to apply group theory to the subject? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
As it happens, I know next to nothing about group action and the other mathematical concepts – but I'm familiar with the biomedical aspects of the topics in those pages. It looks to me like cruft. I think that the primary interest would be in terms of pure mathematics, so the degree to which it is or is not notable there should be the deciding factor. There is no literature on these formalisms having anything to do with developmental biology and its underlying mechanisms, so it's pretty much a fancy description that has no demonstrated relationship to how organism development actually happens. As for applications to medical imaging, I don't think that any kind of imaging actually draws upon it. The image of brain structures at Bayesian estimation of templates in computational anatomy might be an interesting proof of principle in some context other than Wikipedia, but it has no relationship the the predominant source material about aging of the brain. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching the discussion here, and I want to bring up another concern I've been having. The opening message in this talk thread seems to me to have the writing style of a person from India (although of course I could be wrong). According to his bio page, Michael I. Miller was born in Brooklyn and educated in the US. From the account's user talk page, there are also bio pages that were created about at least two other faculty members in the same group at Johns Hopkins: Sri Sarma and Nitish V. Thakor, both from India or of Indian background. Aside from the obvious appearance of promotion of the research program there, this makes me suspicious that there may be multiple individuals using the same registered account (although I realize that this behavioral evidence is thin.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

what indications do you have in mind? And, do you see any indications of this in the actual articles, either the bio or Computational Anatomy. (the emphasis in earlier versions of the bio on just whom he worked with when seems very typical of academics, not paid editors) DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me, too, like these are academics rather than paid editors, and I haven't really dug into the articles to look for indications there. I'm going by the writing style of the opening comment in this talk. Here are my specific indications, and they are all just hunches. It just doesn't sound to me like someone from Brooklyn who has had advanced education in the US. "It is a wonderful thing" (kind of flouncy by US standards, but typical Indian style); calling it a "warning" instead of a tag or label or message; "It currently says it is an advertizement but everything is stated as exactly true" (using the word "advertizement" misspelled and not as used in the actual template, an odd syntax to everything is stated as true, plus thinking that truthfulness means it isn't an ad); and hyphenating "thank-you" – these are all things that, when taken together, do not sound to me like a highly-educated native US citizen. My guess is that a couple of academics are each editing from the same registered account instead of creating individual accounts. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

How can I initiate that discussion? The data is an external link to an authorized website (youtube). I created the video for credit toward an objective within medical school. It has been viewed by at least one of the faculty (and maybe more), and has been well received within the YouTube community. I was initially hesitant about linking my personally created content to Wikipedia on external links, but after seeing several low quality external links I have changed my position. However, of my personally created content, I have decided to only link content when my video is more complete, and/or has gathered approval of the educational YouTube community.

Out of 500+ videos created, I have only linked one other video to Wikipedia and it was well-received.

I hope you’ll check out the video link that you deleted and re-assess it’s value as an external link. I will not upload it to Wikipedia commons, but I will keep it available to the public, for free, forever. Tmbirkhead (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Tmbirkhead (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how that formatting occured. I composed on my iPhone. Tmbirkhead (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Tmbirkhead why not upload to Wikimedia Commons? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to retain ownership, and I also enjoy the comments, thumbs up, etc, that come from the YouTube-educators format.

I have seen many articles with links to relavent videos and external links outside of the wiki-infrastructure. I can see a need to protect against misuse, but when a quality product is linked (for free), I have benefited from this in the past. Tmbirkhead (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you upload to Commons you still retain ownsership. And putting videos on Commons does not mean you cannot also put them on Youtube.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Two questions: will the views (and comments, etc) from commons be counted, as they are on YouTube along with the analytics? And is there a wiki policy against external links to YouTube?

If there aren’t policies against it, I’ll take the wiki-article giving guidance on the subject of external links.

If I have broken with the general guidance in some way, I’ll promptly fix it. If not, I’d appreciate your acknowledgment by reverting the deleted edits on Hepatic encephalopathy. If I have broken a rule, illl promptly show you hundreds of articles that are in violation. Tmbirkhead (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I’ll add one other bit of info. I did not only link my video. I linked a video by another YouTube creator that is probably the most viewed of videos on the topic (although a much shorter video with less content). If the RULE is to upload to commons, I’d violate copyright by doing that. Tmbirkhead (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes views on commons are counted.
With respect to adding it yourself, you need to read WP:COI. And you will need to get consensus.
With respect to copyright yes you can only release content you own under an open license. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
On the copyright side of things, did you create the base slides yourself? Or are they from class? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I created all of the base slides myself, when/If I use images in my videos, I have always obtained permission and added citations within the slides when appropriate.

I added the request edit to the talk page. I appreciate your mentorship in this process! Tmbirkhead (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Tmbirkhead (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility of note 3 in the HMB article

Hi James. I was wondering if you thought a layperson could interpret the first sentence in this note, which was written in rather technical language until yesterday. I tried to rewrite it in a manner that a non-statistician could interpret. I didn't try to simplify the 2nd sentence, which is the range for the point estimate (i.e., a 0.352 kg increase in mass) based upon a 5% significance/95% confidence level.

My motivation for writing that note was to give someone an idea of the rate at which daily HMB intake increases muscle mass over time, which the meta-analysis didn't explicitly state. One could easily figure that out by dividing the estimated increase in muscle mass by the sample-weighted average duration of the studies from this note (NB: the meta-analysis didn't compute a sample-weighted average duration, I computed that manually): i.e., .352/6 = 0.059 kilograms/month (0.129 pounds/month), which translates to an average increase in muscle mass of 0.71 kg (1.55 pounds) per year. I figured that stating this rate in the article would be construed as WP:OR, so I didn't explicitly state it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Will look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Seppi333 Simplified a bit more. I think two decimal places should be sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Current note 3

The meta-analysis found that the average increase in muscle mass due to HMB supplementation was 0.35 kilograms (0.77 lb).[1] The 95% confidence interval for the estimated increase in muscle mass due to HMB supplementation is 0.11–0.59 kilograms (0.24–1.30 lb).[1]
The randomized controlled trials contained in total 147 older adults in the HMB treatment groups and 140 older adults in the control groups.[1] The studies had durations of 2–12 months and the average duration of the studies, weighted by their sample size, was approximately 6 months.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Meta-analytic systematic review September 2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

WikiProject importance ratings

Hi, re this reassessment - the "Top" importances were due to the activities of one individual, but have you seen the other similar "assessments" that they made? I think that they may all require review. Not being a chemist or medical expert, I am reluctant to revert even a single change. See also my post to Christian75 at User talk:Christian75#Importance ratings, not just Chemistry. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In a bunch I looked at no importance level was added. I generally put medications at mid to low. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
You must have looked at a different bunch. Their very first edit set importance ratings; out of their first ten edits to talk pages, only one (Talk:Etoperidone) did not set an importance. There are plenty more; early on, they mainly set low and mid but later they became more bold and used high and top with increasing frequency - out of their last ten edits to talk pages, only one (Talk:Androgen deprivation therapy) did not set at least one WikiProject to either top or high. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

My images

Hi, i created two Gifs for article, Nystagmus#Diagnosis, a butterfly. today i read Oscillopsia. if you think my gifs are wrong for nystagmus please remove them. thanks.--Mr.Polaz (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Now you need a rotational one :-) User:Mr.Polaz Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
So you think my two gifs for nystagmus is correct?--Mr.Polaz (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
One direction should go a fair bit slower than the other. Maybe increase that part a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, sure, you know for 3 years one or two times in month i see like that gifs for half second, they are what i see but if you think it's not correct i fix them. but please tell me exactly what i should create for Oscillopsia?--Mr.Polaz (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I think these two images would be fine on that page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Move them or reuse them?--Mr.Polaz (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Reuse them would be good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

MS Walid

Have you heard of MS Walid? Is he notable? He has been a naughty boy.

The IPs geolocate to his area, of course. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:JzG if they had edited recently I would block. All that is left is the clean up now. Gah... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Yup, mainly complete now, but just wondering if this is actually a noted authority. I don't think so, but I don't want to degrade content. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
If they are all primary sources, which the ones I looked at are, delete away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Doc James! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ozzie10aaaa :-) Same to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

medical equipments

hi doc James,

Is there any interest to use {{Infobox medical equipment}} in articles? for example.... adding this template to articles of {{Surgical instruments}} --محمود (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

you removed what i added to diazepam

I added rectal gel because a suppository is a solid dosage form that is inserted into the rectum while a rectal gel is not solid clearly you are not a real doctor if you do not not know the difference between a suppository and a rectal gel trust me i am not a doctor and i know the difference between a rectal gel and a suppository as i have taken laxative suppositories and they look very different from the diazepram rectal gel but the laxative suppositories look like the photo on the suppository article you should read the article on suppositories wikipedia has a article on them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.153.34 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

We can just go with rectal and include both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VoneCone

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VoneCone. Winged BladesGodric 14:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks will take a look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
On a side-note, if you don't intend on replying on the linked ticket, can you please transfer it to me? More on email:)Winged BladesGodric 17:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Winged Blades of Godric Done :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

OTRS request

I hope you could take a look at ticket:2017121510003638, it relates to Immunoglobulin M --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what they feel is incorrect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Harvinder Chandigarh's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim Carter 13:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_124&oldid=1252110090"