Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 143

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145→Archive 150

Best wishes

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks User:Johnbod. To you aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

gday

from dusty hot plains of oz - have a great christmas and the rest JarrahTree 23:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:JarrahTree :-) Yes I do imagine you have a lack of snow down there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!
⛄ 🎅 🎄

Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! GSS (talk

User:GSS Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

Austral season's greetings
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Casliber that looks delicious. Looks like I need to come to your place... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Some banket letter for you!

I hope you like almond paste (if you don't, all the more for me). Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Narky Blert (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Narky Blert Thanks. Happy holidays. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Doc James: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

10 minutes to Christmas for us both, so thought I'd send this now. Wishing you all the best, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:50, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:TheSandDoctor likewise :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Doc James, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Whispyhistory (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

User:Whispyhistory thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bzuk. Likewise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Hi James. I hope you're well and having a good festive season. Could I trouble you to take a look at Asian Americans#Health and medicine at some point? In particular, I'm concerned about the statement that "For instance, in the early 1970s the US medical establishment did not believe in the usefulness of acupuncture. Since then studies have proven the efficacy of acupuncture for different applications, especially for treatment of chronic pain". Is that an accurate statement of the evidence? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry agree that some of the statements were not supported by the sources provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
As I suspected. Thanks to you and Roxy the dog for dealing with this. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Cannabis in the Netherlands

Unless Google, Wikipedia, and, above all, the Dutch policemen who yelled at me were all wrong, it is not legal, just tolerated as a "soft drug". It's a common myth, but not true unless some dramatic change of the law occurred in the last 3 years. (mleonard85032) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Ref for that and you want to add it we're user:mleonard85032 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_Netherlands (Mleonard85032) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you are requesting User:Mleonard85032? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess I got confused what you were saying, just forget the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mleonard85032 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Why was Dell Loy Hansen page deleted?

I'm genuinely confused as to why the Dell Loy Hansen article was deleted? I'm the user who contributed the bulk of content to that article and I have no personal relationship with Hansen whatsoever. It seemed the original document was biased in his favor and thus the flag for bias. However I tried to clean up the article by removing the more biased sentences and providing credible third party sources that discussed the subjects accomplishments and notability. Where did I go wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.77.187.137 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The article was not deleted. Instead, it was moved to Draft:Dell Loy Hansen. It should go through the Articles for Creation process in order to be returned to the main space of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder

Did you mean to mark that last edit you reverted as being vandalism? Dolive21 (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yah might not have been. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The edit summary does seem to explain quite clearly why it was removed. Has the image ever been tagged not to be removed without a consensus before today?Dolive21 (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
It is tagged now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I saw that, I was wondering, given that you seem to have been involved in prior discussions about similar images, if you knew whether it had been similarly tagged before and that tag removed? Dolive21 (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. Assumed they were the same as the prior IP but I may be mistaken. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Doc James,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks User:Donner60 :-) Same to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Alcohol (medicine) and Alcohol (drug)

Thank you for cleaning up my less-than-stellar edit of Alcohol (medicine). I wonder if you could take a look at the discussion at Talk:Alcohol (medicine) § This article is a POVFORK and should be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

User:BarrelProof there is nothing on that topic here Talk:Alcohol_(medicine) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Found it here Talk:Alcohol_(drug)#This_article_is_a_POVFORK_and_should_be_deleted. Will look as I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the bad link. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, James!

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , James,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kudpung :-) Likewise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Heading

Can you explain? The statement that "bendamustine is made from nitrogen mustard" is not correct and is not a statement with the same meaning as "bendamustine is a nitrogen mustard derivative". The first statement means that if you take nitrogen mustard you can make bendamustine. If you look at the original procedure (currently Ref 9) you will see that that is not how the compound was made. On the other hand the second statement means that "bendamustine is a variant of the nitrogen mustard structure". this is quite true. On this basis I will undo your correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SellaTheChemist (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

"It was originally made from nitrogen mustard" is the text in question which is the same as "nitrogen mustard-derivative alkylating agent". What do you see as the issue User:SellaTheChemist? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
This ref says "derived from nitrogen mustard"[1]
And this ref states nitrogen mustard is involved [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

getting book citation info from PMID

Hi Doc James,

How did you get the well-formatted book citation from the PMID for the Drugs and Lactation Database? I tried a half-dozen different methods and get errors or empty results for all the ones I tried. I've run in to this for several sources that have PMIDs but that are not journal articles, and don't seem to give useful results from (for example) https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi (or other tools).

Thanks,

Sbelknap (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Sbelknap I use the method described here WP:MEDHOW specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/How_to_edit#Older_editor. I am using the cite tool just above the old fashioned edit box. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Anorexia nervosa

Hi. Just wondering why you reverted my edit. “Anorexia” simply means loss of appetite. It is a symptom, not a disease, and can occur in many situations. It is therefore incorrect to call “anorexia nervosa” (which is a specific disease) “anorexia” PointOfPresence (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Words can have multiple meanings. If a word means both a disease and a symptom, one of those meanings is not necessarily wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

epidemic?

Doc James should the outbreak be moved to epidemic? ( CDC now calling an “epidemic” that so far has produced 613 cases and claimed 371 lives in the DRC[3]....and DRC Ministry of Health more recent numbers[4])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa which article are we looking at? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
2018 Kivu Ebola outbreak(perhaps its still too soon…)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no strong felling one way or the other. It fills the definition I imagine. "outbreak" however is a more common and understood word. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

MS

Doc, I'll admit that I didn't look far enough down the article before adding the maps to the Geography section, and that you've now updated the graph. However isn't the DALY map much more appropriate in the Geography section? The Prognosis section doesn't talk about distribution at all whereas it's the main emphasis of the Geography section. Chris55 (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Chris55 The map of disability adjusted life years is more about where negative outcomes occur and thus IMO better fits under prognosis. It is not just geography. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I presume you mean "where" and that is precisely geography. Chris55 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Geography is more a discussion of geography as a cause rather than about negative health effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Instructions for Kiwix offline Wikipedia with battery pack

Hey

I remember a year or two ago seeing some instruction (I think maybe you wrote?) for a Raspberry Pi Zero running Kiwix with a battery power backup. I looked on the Kiwix site and Googled it and can't find it, do you have a link? I want to show it at an education conference where I'm trying to get a table.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:John Cummings it is here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Doc James: a few questions:
  • I'm a bit confused if 'Internet in a Box' is a different project to Kiwix or not?
  • Does having a battery attached allow you to use mains power and then a battery if mains power is lost? Or trickle charge from solar?
Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
IIAB is hardware. Kiwix is software that runs on the hardware along with a bunch of other stuff. This also has an operating system as it is a computer. Yes one can power it with a small battery. Have shipped a few hundred of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much for the explanation, John Cummings (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Apicomplexa vs. Parasites

In the lede of the doxycylcine article, the term "parasites" is overly general. Apicomplexa is precise. In the tradeoff between "common" and "precise", the term parasite seems a bridge too far.Sbelknap (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The lead should use more common terms as much as possible. Apicomplexa is not a well known word. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Bacteria, fungi, and nematodes are all parasites. The use of "parasites" here does not meet your "common as possible" criterion because it fails to provide useful information.Sbelknap (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
We could go with "and other parasites". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that works. Good idea. I made that edit. Thanks.Sbelknap (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You said my contribution was spammy. BUT...

(it's this contribution to the Breastfeeding page. "Dozens of mobile apps exist for tracking the habits of breastfeeding mothers. One such app is "Breastfeeding - Baby Tracker."[1] These can be effective tools for visualizing and reminding a nursing mother which breast she nursed on most recently, which can help avoid problems with engorgement later. ")

...but I put it on Wikipedia for these reasons.

1. I have spent over 10k hours of my life breastfeeding five children. 2. Having a tracking app is useful because it can help avoid problems with engorgement later. Which is exactly what I wrote. 3. I figured this information out on my own through trial and error. It was not fun. 4. I am in no way affiliated with the app. 5. The app is free and has no ads. 6. It is the ONLY app available that also has a useful widget which also is located in my android device's menu tray. 7. I once wasted two hours of my life trying to re-find this app. Between baby #4 and baby #5 it was renamed. 8. I only cited a specific breastfeeding app (there are literally 50+) because I thought that that was what one was supposed to do: cite-cite-cite. 9. If it's so "spammy", why not delete the reference to this particular app but leave the general information about the app existing because it is relevant, valid, true, and totally neutral. 10. Wikipedia has a serious lack of female contributors. I am a woman, a new contributor, and also postpartum. I am still learning the culture and style of contributing. Why such terse criticism? Kchallis (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If there are dozens of apps, then linking to just one of them is promotional in effect, even if that was not your intent, Kchallis. If it is appropriate to discuss these apps, it would be far better to provide a reference to a reliable source that discusses these apps as a group, rather than your personal favorite. The best place to discuss this matter is Talk:Breastfeeding. As for Doc James being "terse", I can attest that he is one of our very best and most reliable editors on medical topics, and has to deal with an absolute flood of bad medical content. He simply does not have the time for lengthy explanations of such matters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Please also read No original research, which is a core content policy, Kchallis . When you write "I figured this information out on my own through trial and error", then that is proof that the information does not belong on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Got it. Duly sourced. Learning formatting. Steep learning curve. Matching terseness. Feel good? Kchallis (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Cerebral folate deficiency in Folinic acid article

Hi, Doc James! You've reverted my edit, stating "Removed small primary source, already at folinic acid deficiency". Where is "Folinic acid deficiency"? I haven't found neither such article nor such section in an article. I believe a mention of folinic acid treatment of cerebral folate deficiency is quite justified. After your revert, there's no mention of folinic acid deficiency at all in the article. ---CopperKettle 14:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:CopperKettle I meant folate deficiency. As I look further at the literature I agree it deserves its own page. We just need to stick to secondary sources of which there are a good number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Good day! I've found a review that mentions the role of cerebral folate deficiency in autism, and folinic acid in autism therapy. I would be grateful for your opinion on whether this merits a mention in the article. The review's lead author is Geir Bjørklund. I've posted a quote from the review on the article's discussion page. Cheers, --CopperKettle 09:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
At Talk for Cerebral folate deficiency I have expressed my own opinion that the article by Bjorklund et al is not sufficient evidence. David notMD (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Separate issue: It appears that Bjorklund has since 2011 used two User accounts and more than 20 IPs to write this article about himself. The article is flawed, as is his science, but I don't have the energy to work on an article that gets <10 visits a day. David notMD (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

And FYI - I am retired from my consulting business. David notMD (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

If the multiple accounts are currently in use, it would be appropriate for someone to post about it at WP:SPI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It's sort of a no harm, no foul situation. His (English) article gets about five visits a day. It's the only article posted to by all the IPs, which typically are each only used for one day. David notMD (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Common words do not need defining

Vertigo and tinnitus are common words. It insults the reader's intelligence to give a childlike definition. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Neither vertigo nor tinnitus are common words. Very few members of the general public know the actual meaning of vertigo based on my experience of asking thousand of individuals over the last 20 years as an ER doc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Are you a paediatrician, perhaps? Children might not know them but adults with a standard education certainly do. Meanwhile, you are edit warring. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I'm not a physician, nor do I even play one on TV, but I just looked at the page, and perhaps simply blue-linking the words would be sufficient. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
We should be writing articles in easy to understand language per WP:MEDMOS, this is especially important for the leads. People should not have to go to other pages to figure out the meaning of words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
People know these words. See for example google ngrams.[6]. "vertigo" and "dizziness" are basically equally commonly used. Do you think people don't know what "dizziness" means either? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Well vertigo and dizziness do not mean the same thing. Dizziness is a non specific term which people understand better but if you ask a person with dizziness "are you presyncopal, vertiginous, or neither" most will look at you blankly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
So? That is not the point. If you think vertigo is such an uncommon word that it must be defined, then as it is as widely used as "dizziness" (and also "migraine", "flu", even "headache" is not massively more common), you must also think these words need defining. Whether people know the word "presyncopal" is obviously irrelevant, as you well know.
Also making a dishonest 3RR report is very immature. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion is NOT how common the words are used but how commonly they are understood. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
So offer some evidence. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
agree w/ Doc James, this is rather obvious--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
There has been an effort to simplify the leads of our medical articles over the last 6 years. We have managed to bring the complexity down from over grade 15 to just over grade 12 reading level. (article in publication)
A grade 12 reading level is not child like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Having made that earlier comment here, I feel that I should thank you for pointing out the specific program to adjust the grade reading level. I had forgotten about that, and I now see that my earlier suggestion had been ignorant of it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing, ignorance of consensus, and efforts to own articles

Are you pleased with yourself? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

please, no harassment Wikipedia:Harassment--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Appeal for your review

On User talk:Wizenthorne, after my decline of his unblock request with some advice, has finally formulated a reasonable and thoughtful appeal that explains his actions, motivations, and path forward. He seems sincere in his desire to be a positive contributor here (we need more of those). What's your impression? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Anachronist their on Wiki contributions are promotional plus I was forwarded further concerns that fit with this. Happy to share if you email me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he explained why he wrote in a promotional fashion, made promises about future behavior, and asked for a second chance. If you have additional information that warrants keeping him blocked, I defer to your judgment and won't proceed further. I've seen editors start out like this and become good contributors when they understand how things work here — that's why I asked you for your impression. 15:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like they need more time to come clean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Addressing edits made by a COI Editor who is now blocked by Wikipedia

Hello, I'm trying to see what would be the best thing to do here. At the end of last year, I made some edits for a wiki article of a research institution I work at, which means I have a COI issue. Soon after, you contacted me and let me know of the COI issue and told me that I need more outside sources. Not too long after you said that, another editor swooped in and deleted most parts of the wiki article without any warnings. That editor is indefinitely blocked by Wikipedia to edit any further now, so I don't know if I can contact the person to address his/her concerns directly. Unfortunately, the comments are really unhelpful by themselves so I can't address them fully on my own; for instance, his/her comments said things like "PR crap" or "bunch of low quality pics."

I've been using the article's Talk page to basically make my edits again with more credible sources, and the editors I've been working with have been very unhelpful. Their comments are really general and vague, and they keep saying the same things about citing secondary/tertiary sources, which I have done in my latest draft. I'm beginning to think if I'm not allowed to edit wiki pages at all because of my status? I would think people who are experts or are associated with the institution would be very knowledgeable about it, although of course they need to work with the editors to stay neutral and unbiased. Thank you! Irenepark89 (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Whatever you do, do not attempt to contact that editor privately, please, because you could get blocked for that. I suspect the editors at the talk page are just not being sufficiently clear. WP:PSTS describes those kinds of sources. You are permitted to edit, but you just need to follow WP:COI in how you do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
You may also find it useful to look at WP:GNG, specifically where it describes "independent" sources. It's about whether or not to have an article on a subject, but the way it describes what makes a source useful might help explain what those editors have been telling you about source selection. WP:Expert editors gives a good picture of what Wikipedia expects of such editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not try to privately contact the editor. I went on the editor's talk page and found out that he/she recently got blocked by Wikipedia and learned that the editor has gotten in trouble for similar offenses before and has VERY strong stance regarding COI. He/she believes that anyone with COI should not be allowed to edit, basically. It's frustrating that these big edits were made without ANY warning, and the comments in general have been EXTREMELY unclear, which is why I almost feel like the Wikipedia staff does not want someone with COI to contribute. If there are issues with my edits, I expect the editor to provide specific comments rather than a general, sweeping comment like "PR crap" or that the claims are not from reliable sources. In my latest draft, I cited news articles from reliable outlets like Forbes, SF Gate, and MIT Tech Review. The citations were mostly used to cite neutral facts, like when the institution was established, who provided the seed money for the new building, etc., rather than an opinion. Not sure what else the editors want? It's hard to work with someone when the expectations are so unclear. Irenepark89 (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you ran into this situation, and I hope it doesn't leave you discouraged about editing here. At this point, you can safely ignore everything that the blocked editor said to you. I think the links I gave you above are useful in terms of the right way to do things according to how it works here. If you comply with those things, you should be just fine, but if someone disagrees and fails to make the reasons clear, you can get advice at WP:Teahouse. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
As the PR person for the place it is best practice to suggest changes on the talk page only. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Novel research about certain infectious nature of COPD

I believe it's important for the public and professionals to know of the infectious potential of certain COPD pathogens from this reputable journal research in the introduction on COPD page for good faith reasons. Genschmer, Kristopher R.; Russell, Derek W.; Lal, Charitharth; Szul, Tomasz; Bratcher, Preston E.; Noerager, Brett D.; Abdul Roda, Mojtaba; Xu, Xin; Rezonzew, Gabriel; Viera, Liliana; Dobosh, Brian S.; Margaroli, Camilla; Abdalla, Tarek H.; King, Robert W.; McNicholas, Carmel M.; Wells, J. Michael; Dransfield, Mark T.; Tirouvanziam, Rabindra; Gaggar, Amit; Blalock, J. Edwin (January 2019). "Activated PMN Exosomes: Pathogenic Entities Causing Matrix Destruction and Disease in the Lung". Cell. 176 (1–2): 113–126.e15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.12.002. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); External link in |doi= (help) You deleted my edit in the introduction paragraph for COPD. Do you have a suggestion on how this research must be communicated to the public without having to scroll and read through many lines and paragraphs of text?

This is early stage research. Specifically it says "transferring a COPD-like phenotype from humans to mice in an NE-driven manner"
It is unclear what clinical significance this will have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Pervasive refusal syndrome article

Regarding all of this that I reverted, any thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn looks like it could use some work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm wondering about the changes by Adamrichards1078 (talk · contribs) and InkyElise (talk · contribs) before that. They keep talking about updating the name of the topic and using newer research. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Zinc deficiency article

Copperkettle and I have been discussing zinc and depression, which led me to the Zinc deficiency article. I was dismayed about how many of the references are primary - mostly clinical trials - and am considering deleting refs as not MEDRS, but for many of the named conditions/diseases that will leave no references. I would look for secondary sources as replacements, but some of the conditions/diseases may have no citations. From history, I saw you have been active at this article in the past. Any advice? David notMD (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:David notMD agree we have a lot of poor sources. I would support trimming aggressively. Have removed some vandalism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Curlie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Curlie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curlie until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zanhe (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zanhe: Doc James only created a redirect. You should notify whoever expanded it to an article. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I realize that and apologize if anyone finds the notification offensive. The notice was automatically generated by Twinkle, which is unfortunately not that smart. The actual creator is an IP, so there's not much point notifying them. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries User:Zanhe :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_143&oldid=1049147208"