User talk:Doc James/Archive 155

Archive 150

←

Archive 153

Archive 154

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

→

Archive 160

Merging pages

Doc James, the following pages are in my opinion problematic: Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, MALT lymphoma, Splenic marginal zone lymphoma, and Nodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma. However, all of these lymphomas are classified as marginal zone lymphomas; marginal zone B-cell lymphoma and malt lymphoma are the same disease; and marginal zone B-cell lymphoma correctly describes the disease as comprised of three forms, nodal marginal zone B-cell NHL, extanodal marginal zone B-cell NHL, and splenic marginal zone B-cell NHL but these three forms are now termed nodal marginal zone lymphoma, extanodal marginal lymphoma, and splenic marginal zone lymphoma. It might be better to consolidate these four pages into a single page termed Marginal Zone Lymphomas. I have written the following introductory pagraphs for such a new page:

"Marginal zone lymphomas (MZL) are a heterogeneous group of lymphomas that derive from the malignant transformation of marginal zone B-cells. These cells are lymphocytes of the B-cell line that reside in the marginal zones of the germinal centers of lymph nodes and spleen. They are innate lymphoid cells that normally function by mounting rapid antibody-forming immune responses to antigens such as those presented by infectious agents and damaged self-tissues.

"In 2016, the World Health Organization classified the marginal zone lymphomas into three different forms. 1) Extranodal marginal zone lymphomas (EMZL, also termed MALT lymphoma) are lymphomas of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), i.e. the mucous membranes that line the surface of the stomach and/or less frequently other sites throughout the body. Cases of EMZL that involve the stomach have also been termed gastric MALT lymphoma and gastric MZL. 2) Nodal marginal zone lymphomas (NMZ) are lymphomas that are confined to lymph nodes, bone marrow, and blood. 3) Splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL) are lymphomas confined to the spleen, bone marrow and blood.. While all of these forms involve the same type of malignant B-cells, they show differences in their pathophysiology, distinctly different tissue involvements and clinical presentations, and somewhat different prognoses and recommended therapeutic treatments.

"Marginal zone lymphomas represent 5-17% of all Non-Hodgkin lymphomas with the extranodal, nodal, and splenic forms accounting for 50-70%, ~10%, and ~20% of all MZL cases. These lymphomas MZL occur primarily in older patients (median age 65-68 years) and usually are indolent diseases that often can be treated initially by a watchful waiting strategy. However, nodal MZL carries a somewhat worse prognosis and any of the three MZL subtypes may progress to a more aggressive disease at a relatively low rate, e.g. about 3-5% over an extended period of observation. Many cases of extranodal MZL appear to be caused by the chronic simulation of the immune system by chronic inflammation such as that caused by bacteria infections and autoimmune diseases. The associations of gastric malt lymphoma with helicobacter pylori infection of the stomach and extranodal MZL of salivary glands with Sjögren syndrome-related inflammation of these glands are prominent and well-documented examples of this relationship."

References

User:Joflaher if they are all the same than merging sounds perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder

Hi. I noticed that you recently edited this article (Borderline personality disorder). Another editor recently edited the article 22 times in a row after your last edit on this article. I noticed that person's last edit was unnecessarily wordy (diff here). The same editor has made a number of other changes (to the article), including what seems to be adding symptoms of BPD that were not previously in the article. Also, another edit changed two wikilinks from "Psychosis" to "Reality" here and here. The editor also changed a wikilink for "Depression (mood)" to "Bipolar disorder|manic depression" here. And so on. There are probably other instances I am not mentioning. I'm wondering if you or, someone else familiar with the topic, could check the accuracy of these edits. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure will take a look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Baclofen article

It seems you regularly revert additions to the Baclofen article whenever people make misguided attempts to mention its purported uses wrt alcoholism treatment. Yet when I place in a small reference to the negative findings from the University of Amsterdam (research which is mentioned in the article, as if it is yet to happen) in an attempt to curb this speculation, you hastily revert it as well, bundled in with the other edits? If you don't think the source is high quality enough, advise a better one. Or at least give a good explanation for the revert so I can fix it up. It's absurd to leave a mention of something as if it is yet to happen, when in fact the research took place years ago (yes, I know "yet to occur" things that have already happened lurk all over the Wiki -- and yes, it makes articles look stale and sloppy). As is, it just makes it look like the University of Amsterdam just got a $750,000 windfall and the solution to alcoholism might be right around the corner. It's too optimistic.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 12:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah now I see the talk page has been debating it for nearly ten years without anybody coming up with a decent workable solution for the article space. You'd think IAR would kick in at some point, and the article could end up giving at least a decent idea of the results. I don't care enough to wade into this one.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 12:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Peace and Passion good point. It was the mention of its use for drug misuse in the lead that I had concerns with. Have restored the content to the history section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Please take more care not to wrongly revert

Please take a little more care to read the sources provided for edits properly before summarily and hastily reverting edits. You incorrectly reverted my edit twice because you hadn't taken the time to read the source properly. I have reverted both of your 'reverts'. It would help us both not to waste each other's time like this. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I am looking for the other bits in the source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Good. Please look first and then when you're sure they can't be found revert, rather than overly-hasty reversion which I have to undo because you've not read closely enough. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please keep the references better formatted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stick to the point. By the way, it's usual when you've made a mistake to apologise, rather than hubristically attempt to pull rank. I repeat: please take more care to read references properly before incorrectly reverting editors' changes. You should know this, and certainly shouldn't need reminding of it by someone like me, with 250 mainspace edits. You might also want to revisit WP:OWNERSHIP Fortnum (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Fortnum, you are way out of line, bordering on a personal attack. Go back to Talk:Gout#cks.nice.org.uk and calmly make your case using direct quotes from the source. Yelling at someone on his talk page for his good-faith efforts to follow WP:V and WP:MEDRS is inappropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not 'out of line', as you put it, for asking for someone to read more carefully before reverting edits. My case has already been made by using the sources properly and changing the article accordingly. It was, in fact, Doc James who incorrectly reverted an edit because he thought it the correct policy to 'revert first, read second'. As you can easily see by the edit summary, if you bother to look properly. 'Good faith efforts' do not involve knee-jerk reversion of edits before actually reading the source properly. 'Good faith efforts' also don't involve thinking you have the authority to 'tell someone off' about the formatting of references. And you also probably still wonder why the pool of regular wikipedia editors shrinks...

I have no doubt that Doc James is big enough to fight his own battles without needing you to go into bat for him. As for accusing me of 'yelling' - stop being so melodramatic. I'm not going to enter into any further discussion about this: I have more pressing things to do. And so should you. Fortnum (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;

And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,

or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;

'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."

--The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Good lord, you just quoted song lyrics at me. Are you 14? Fortnum (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

No need to call me Lord. Guy will do.

"I'm not going to enter into any further discussion about this": --Fortnum 20:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

(Continues discussing it, just like the song predicted he would): --Fortnum 22:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, the best way to stop discussing something is to stop discussing it. I'm just saying.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You're not great at parsing text. I said I wasn't going to continue discussing the issue in hand. I haven't continued it, and neither shall I. There is no need - Doc James was in the wrong in incorrectly reverting an edit because he hadn't taken the time to read the source properly, and the edit summary is clear for anyone to see.

I was replying to your comment. I now also find that I'm not exactly alone in my experience here. So we'll leave it at that. Please don't quote any more song lyrics at me: it was irritating when my teenage children did it. Now you've starting linking YouTube videos... As I say - you people wonder why wikipedia cannot attract and retain new regular editors. Just read this conversation, and you should find your answer. Hubristic, holier-than-thou 'editors' who make much of blue-linked [WP:x]] articles whilst missing the point of them entirely. If you want to continue this discussion (i.e. the discussion between us, not about the substantive matter of which I will not speak further) then do it on my talk page, rather than continue to do it on someone else's: an action which you have previously criticised before enthusiastically doing it yourself. Thanks Fortnum (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Our content has developed and improved to such an extent that many readers don’t feel they have any more to add. This is the most important factor, in my view, for the tapering off of new editors joining. It was predictable and inevitable. Editors arguing and disagreeing over content has existed, naturally, since day one of Wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Literaturegeek: There are actually two distinct classes of new users who complain about how mean we are and how we drive new users like them away (but without actually leaving), and they require entirely different approaches.

First there is the good-faith new editor: Put yourself in their shoes. Wikipedia has a bunch of weird rules, and you feel like everyone is unfairly ganging up on you. Try to be tolerant – within limits – of any behavior that is driven by frustration. Keep patiently explaining why Wikipedia is the way it is and why you are opposing their edits. Try to help them to get past this and grow into a productive editor. Remember the mistakes you made when you were new.

Next there is the flame warrior: He may be new here (or sometimes he is an old flamer wearing a new sock) but has had years of flaming in YouTube comments, On FaceBook and Twitter, etc. and is eager to start a wiki-battle at the drop of a hat. The best advice for dealing with the fighter is to simply not get sucked into another one of his battles, but sometimes it is entertaining to make fun of them for a day or two and then to stop reading what they write. Flamers and trolls hate it when you stop paying attention to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Reply to Fortnum: I expect "So we'll leave it at that" should be parsed as "I fully intend to continue flaming Doc James. Guy, and anyone else who disagrees with me". Nobody was making personal comments and nobody was attacking anybody until you decided to pick a fight with comments like "hubristically attempt to pull rank". I know an experienced flame warrior when I see one, and your flamethower has the paint worn off the trigger.

That being said, I am getting bored with mocking you, so I am not going to bother reading your predictable next flame. And unlike you, when I say that I am going to stop responding I actually stop responding. Turns out that it is easy to do if you simply don't bother reading whatever pithy flame the flame warrior shits out next. Have fun shouting into an empty room.

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You're not mocking me - you're just exposing yourself a little. For someone who doesn't 'respond to flames' you get yourself awfully wound up about nothing on someone else's behalf. You probably also think you've not 'made any personal attacks', either. Anyway, you're right. You should find something else to do. And so should I. 14:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

ADHD Symptoms

Those symptoms are the DSM criteria. There are other diagnostic criteria, such as ICD-10

https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/F01-F99/F90-F98/F90-/F90.9 - Chrisvacc (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Chrisvacc they are not the exact DSM criteria. We cannot use the exact criteria as they are copyrighted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

But it's still the DSM criteria. It's just the DSM symptoms reworded to avoid copyright. What I'm saying is I think it's a good idea to point out since there are various different criteria for diagnosis. - Chrisvacc (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The DSM does not own the symptoms. The diagnostic criteria are more than the symptoms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

OTRS request

Can I ask you to take a look at ticket:2019082810006731

The requester suggested it be deleted although in fairness did suggest another option.

I think they may be right but it is not my area of expertise (coincidentally, I had a visit from a vet today, but the subject was another vet, not the practice per se.)

My concern is that this may not be a simple edit.

My supposition was that this article, created in 2003, was originally titled "veterinarian" and someone moved it to "veterinary physician". However, I looked at the move log, and I see a move from "veterinary physician" to "veterinarian", but no other moves. I must be missing something.

There is also collateral issues as the term is also used in Veterinary medicine in the United States.S Philbrick(Talk)

veterinary physician has been used per [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway started a move discussion Talk:Veterinary physician Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, Thanks.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

signs/symptoms infobox

Doc James, wouldnt it be a good idea to create an infobox [3] specifically for signs/symptoms... example-Category:Symptoms and signs: Nervous system (Id go ahead and do it, I just don't know how to produce the page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa we sort of merged the signs and symptoms one into infobox medical conditions. What do you think is missing from the latter infobox? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

where would an article like Lhermitte's sign go or fit in as its not a medical condition, similar articles could go under an infobox that indicates signs and symptoms, the infobox could have some familiar information including, what is it a sign of?...IMO[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa what do you think about using the "differential diagnosis" parameter such as Lhermitte's sign? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

yes I guess that could be done, your right--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

We could add other items specifically for symptoms to that infobox if you want aswell... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

no not with the good idea your indicating above however for clarity it might be wise to indicate on template use ddx for signs and symptoms...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

We could also put the things that result in the symptom under "cause" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think your original idea of ddx is better, however with an indication on[5] that parameter is used in signs and symptoms, such as

• differential = (please indicated in articles signs and symptoms different causes here) or [6]

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ozzie10aaaa stay safe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Need a bit of clarity

Hi, J - if a police report says a person died from multiple dog bites, that is not actually the ‘’cause’’ of death is it? I would think the person suffered multiple dog bites but the actual cause of death would be something like the carotid artery was severed and victim ‘’bled to death’’, or died of ‘’cardiac arrest’’, or something like that, correct? The bite itself doesn’t kill you, does it? (Forgive my laypersonitis) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The cause is a pathway of events. Yes it would be the "dog bites" as the primary cause. Everyones heart stops eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Medical article with unsourced treatment suggestions

This request is prompted by an OTRS message but frankly you don't even have to read the message. ticket:2019082910008442

I removed a sentence from Esophageal spasm on the basis that it was unsourced. However, I note that the entire treatment section, which includes fairly specific and significant suggestions, is unsourced. I mulled over removing the entire section as unsourced but if it's all good advice, the better option of course is to add appropriate sources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes that article needs work. Will take a look and see what I can do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Self-promotional edits?

Hi Doc. I'm contacting you about this as I've gathered from previous work done by you at Keratoconus and elsewhere that you're experienced in this area. The edits made by Deeshant_Sharma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Keratoconus and Andrew Lam (ophthalmologist) reek of self-promotion. What do you think? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Robby.is.on have posted on their page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

Hi, my edit to the MDMA page, which you reverted, was made after reading the source material quoted in full. Since it was a meta analysis, I also read all of the source material contributing to that study, which took a few hours, before I made any changes. The edits I made were factually correct, the info I added was not already on the MDMA page, and the point I was making is explained multiple times in the source material. If the source is accurate enough to prove the points being made in the first place, it must follow that it is also sufficient to prove the point I was making. The source material specified made it clear that (specifically) polydrug users and those with pre-existing depressive illness were not screened out of the study, which was partly based on casualty visits made by people self reporting polydrug use. There is not (and there can not be) any conclusive proof that MDMA was solely, or even partially, responsible for causing any ongoing depressive illness, without the prior exclusion of every other potential causative factor in test subjects. As I'm sure you are aware, this is not currently possible, firstly due to the illegality of any such research being undertaken, and subsequently because the only viable test subjects available have, in the majority of cases, used more than one drug before presenting at casualty. Pre-existing depressive illness is also discussed in the source material, which states that the 'chicken and egg' paradox applies in this case: Is it likely that depression may have occurred in the absence of the drug? Are people with depression more likely to attempt to self-medicate by using MDMA in the first place? These are all moot points which are not just 'unknown', but currently 'unknowable'. Measurable chemical changes thought to be produced directly by MDMA are reversible in humans, a process which is completed within a week of commencing abstinence of MDMA, in almost all cases. Baseline levels are ('normally') restored within 24-48 hours. Even the oft cited 'tuesday blues' effect, some days after taking MDMA, has defied all attempts to quantify or measure it. Chemically and functionally, there is no measurable deficit, and no reason to expect any deficit to occur many days after the drug and all active metabolites have been excreted. What would the mechanism of action be to cause such effects long after leaving the system? Why do the symptoms not manifest earlier? Chemical cascades leading to apoptosis would again have been completed days before. The doses used in tests on rats and mice are almost invariably colossal and have been administered for prolonged periods without any period of abstinence, conditions which would be extremely unlikely to occur in even the most determined of humans. Nevertheless, the damage caused to rat and mice brains is often cited without adequate explanation, and used as an analogue for human brain matter, which it is provably not.

The causes of Major depressive illness are still not well understood, but inasmuch as it isattributable, the root causes are multi-factorial and highly complex. Therefore it is impossible (and frankly disingenuous) at this time to make implications that the two things (MDMA and persistent depressive illness) are positively correlated. The exclusion of that critically important - if not fundamental - caveat from any explanation of the sources seems to me to be both morally and factually wrong, and the highly selective nature of what is included, or not, is a perfect case for why such issues should not be decided arbitrarily by any one user (ie yourself). I have not yet restored the page to include my additions, and I won't until you've had adequate time to reply. With all the above in mind, what possible reason did you have for the wholesale removal of my additions to the page? Please be aware that I will not be drawn into any kind of 'flame war' with you. If after reading this and replying, we still disagree about the edits, I suggest we take it to arbitration where independent others can make the final decision. Thanks Codeye (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I condensed it to "is associated with" as that summarizes that association is not causation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Your bad grammar

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Measles&diff=prev&oldid=913321369 again. It's embarrassing. Graham Beards (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Max Wheelwright

Hi,

You were the deleting admin for Thomas Max Wheelwright. I just came across User:Vips.vipulshah/sandbox and Draft:Thomas Max Wheelwright which look suspiciously like material that was previously deleted from Wikipedia because of hardcoded reference indicators like "[19]" which don;t link to actual references. It looks like displayed text that was copied from a deleted article. Is this similar in substance to the deleted article? This looks very much like undisclosed paid editing and possibly sockpuppetry. Thanks. --

Thanks deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Allopregnanolone

Why do you change the allopregnanolone page? Allopregnanolone is not known scientifically as brexanolone...this is a Sage Pharmaceuticals trade name. Let's keep WIKI accurate, not an advertising platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids (talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do you continually change the allopregnanolone page? Allopregnanolone is not known scientifically as brexanolone...this is a Sage Pharmaceuticals trade name. Let's keep WIKI accurate, not an advertising platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Neurosteroids That is incorrect. Brexanolone is actually the USAN and INN not a brand name.[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

You just can't keep from posting erroneous information! Are you being paid by Sage Pharmaceuticals? Brexanolone is indeed a trade name used by Sage, whereas the marketed form is called Zulresso. Please get your facts straight and stop changing the allo page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you even look at the references provided User:Neurosteroids? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Allo and barbiturates

FYI:

Steroid hormone metabolites are barbiturate-like modulators of the GABA receptor. Maria Dorota Majewska, Neil L. Harrison, +2 authors Steven M PaulPublished in Science 1986 DOI:10.1126/science.2422758 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. We tend to stick with review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Zulresso and DEA

FYI:

https://www.empr.com/home/news/dea-schedules-postpartum-depression-treatment-zulresso/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurosteroids (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Also not a great source. But may be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Neuronetics Banners

Hi User:Doc James. I’m reaching out on behalf of Neuronetics, a client of mine at Vault Communications. I appreciate your efforts and expertise as both a trusted and respected physician and editor on the page, and wanted to respectfully inquire about the banners that have been added to the top of the Neuronetics article. Might you be willing to connect with me on that within the Talk Page? If you prefer not to, can you kindly let me know and I’ll do my best to collaborate with other editors in the community in hopes of better understanding, and hopefully resolving, the current issues on the article page? I certainly understand how busy you are and know you may be focused elsewhere, but I wanted to reach out to you directly as my first step. Thanks for your time. MD at Vault Communications (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Spintendo is already helping you out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Doc James. I appreciate your time and input. User:Spintendo recommended that I reach out to you directly about the banners as a first step since it looks like you are the editor who added them, but I understand how busy you are. I’m more than happy to work collaboratively with him and other editors moving forward. Thanks again. MD at Vault Communications (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved page

Hi, i just thought i should notify you of my contribution on Edd Branson article you moved to Draft space. I noticed that the original creater of the article is currently blocked on suspected paid editing, i then looked in the article and removed unsourced claims to clean it up as the tag suggested then moved it back into Article space. I then thought of notifying you as the Admin who is looking into that case.Gukura (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It is still mostly undisclosed paid editing. Your relation to the topic? You picking up this job? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hurungudo, which will probably resolve this matter one way or another. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Gukura has been blocked as a sock, and so I will return the article to the draftspace.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

User:SamHolt6 thanks as always :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)