User talk:Doc James/Archive 103

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 * Need to vote on this yet. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My current thoughts on the candidates User:Doc_James/ACE_2016. More to come with time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My thoughts: Y U NO RUN? Guy (Help!) 01:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * +1! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe next round :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote submitted. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Community Tech Team Voting: Improving Offline Wikipedia
Proposal is up for the community tech team here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would love to see this fixed aswell Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mammalian meat allergy
Hello Doc James - mammalian meat allergy has received a lot of media coverage in Australia recently. (eg  )

I wanted to read what we say about it here and came across Mammalian meat allergy and Alpha-gal allergy. Just wondering if you could check to see if these articles are same topic, should be linked or maybe merged? (Sorry to leave it to you but subject is beyond me - and also if this has been already discussed somewhere.)

JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

PS I only added 3 refs - don't know where the first one (Fibromyalgia) came from - an edit conflict? JennyOz (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree and merged. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. JennyOz (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Fitbit revert
Hi, I saw you reverted my edit on the Fitbit article. Can you explain why you did that? --VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the best available evidence on the effectiveness of these devices.
 * Not sure why you removed it? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason why I removed the info from the page is because the information is not (sufficiently) relevant to the article. The effectiveness of activity trackers in general used in treating obesity is better placed in the activity tracker article or in the obesity article. The information is not about Fitbit and therefore in my opinion does not belong in the article.
 * Does my reasoning make sense?VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is sufficiently related. It is about activity trackers like Fitbit. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is about activity trackers like Fitbit; why not place it in activity tracker instead?VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Content about health
Doc James,

The content you mention that I posed yesterday contained references to peer reviewed studies published in medical journals and referenced on Pubmed. I'm not clear as to your note.

So did you delete my posts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex Pro DJ (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a small primary source from 1997. The note on your talk page is to use a secondary source.
 * In fact we have an excellent one here which I will add. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

MSTB here again
Uhm. Er.... Sigh. Oh well. http://thermo4thermo.org/. --76.220.16.9 (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  Ozzie10aaaa (talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Doc James, Happy Holiday/New Year!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Ozzie10aaaa :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hodgkin's disease
Hi Doc James, Sorry to intrude on your revisions of the Wikipedia entry for Hodgkin's Disease. One of my college assignments asked that we edit and revise an entry, and me, not having any experience revising Wikipedia articles, did not know that there was a paragraph limit to summaries. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jensen L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellojen (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Also not sure why you removed the references to NCI and the World Cancer Report? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Clonazepam edit
Please clearly define your objection to my citation of Stahl's Essential Psychopharmacology. It is up to date, it is both a reference work and used as a textbook (which are not prohibited), and is written by an established authority in the field. If you have a clearly justified objection, I'll gladly desist in applying my edit; otherwise I am not here to flatter the personal preferences of other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheshireCat930 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not support the content you added. Have adjusted so that it does. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Open access tag
Does it work in all languages and if not can you work to make it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! (Better to reply two years late than never.)
 * Does open access work in all languages? I dunno. If it doesn't, can I make it? I'm not sure how to make any template work in all languages, and I have other priorities anyway.
 * Maybe try to visit Template talk:Open access and ask your question there instead!
 * P.S. I once used to think "open access" meant "no subscription required". But now I suspect it's not so simple. I suspect that "no subscription required" is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make an article be "open access".
 * Cheers,
 * —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Q232932 might be helpful in finding translations.LeadSongDog come howl!  00:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

HMB FAC will close soon
Hi Doc James. FAC nominations normally close around 2 months after they're opened; since the 2nd HMB FAC began on October 18th, there's only about a week left before the current nomination will be closed. Can you follow up on my replies to your comments at Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive2 when you get a chance?

Also, I wanted to say thank you for taking the time to do a thorough review of the WP:verifiability of the medical statements in the article. I really do appreciate it.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 04:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Seppi333. Will take a look tomorrow. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the summary of our edits to the HMB article over the past day. I'm willing to further modify the statements in the lead that you revised, but we need to discuss how to go about doing that at the FAC so that we keep the lead and body statements consistent with each other and the cited sources.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 02:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Methadone correction
Wouldn't that be appropriate for "Simple English"? But the actual English Wikipedia article should use the more appropriate formal wording? Reminder: You reversed "orally" back to "by mouth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.215.114.147 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I restored "by mouth" which is fine here on EN WP. "Orally" would be for Latin Wikipedia or is it Ancient Greek WP. Always have trouble keep the two straight.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

HRT for menopause and hot flashes
Good question re hot flashes. I think I got mixed up in the article with peri/pre/post menopause HRT use. I will take a closer look at the full text for suggestions on peri and premenopausal usage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20154637 Could there be a more recent version or updated suggestions for clinical practice somewhere else?

Cochrane review systematic analysis results strongly discourages post-menopausal use. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25754617 Thanks for catching this! JenOttawa (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes the paper is from 2010
 * Here is a 2015 review of a narrower question.
 * And a 2012 update of the prior Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks for the references. I will spend some time, hopefully early next week, going through these. JenOttawa (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Oxytocin (medication)
Please restore my improved edits like this one:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxytocin_(medication)&diff=755100369&oldid=755100079
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxytocin_(medication)&diff=755099888&oldid=755099661
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxytocin_(medication)&diff=755100079&oldid=755099888

--Gstree (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDMOS we use medical uses rather than indications.
 * Have restored the other two. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nephrotoxicity of paracetamol
Hi, First of all, thanks for the note. I wondered why there is no word lost on nephrotoxic effects regarding paracetamol. While there are indeed different opinions, for me it seems apparent that paracetamol may display nephrotoxic effects. Check out PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/?term=nephrotoxicity+paracetamol&filters=Review My edit was rushed, agreed that it needs to be specified and properly sourced. I would appreciate your help to adequately mention possible nephrotixic effects of paracetamol use. Kind regards, Liechtenstein96 (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In those with severe kidney problems one needs to be careful. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Acetaminophen's nephrotoxicity is certainly relevant to analgesic nephropathy. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And it only appears to occur in overdose and rarely at that.
 * Should be in the paracetamol overdose article but not the main one. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Paracetamol toxicity
Doc James, I noticed that you opened an individual GA reassessment of the Paracetamol toxicity article, but hadn't gotten around to notifying the various WikiProjects related to the article, as required in the GAR procedures. I've taken care of that step for you, since it looks like you're pretty busy at the moment. The primary author hasn't edited Wikipedia in over a year, but I'm going to add a notification there just to be complete about it, though I don't expect participation from that front.

If there isn't adequate response to the issues you've raised in the next little while (I'd allow an extra few days past the usual seven in order to get us past the Christmas holiday), I imagine you'll delist the article; if there is a response, then naturally you'll need to work with the people who are improving the article so they address everything you think needs going over for it to get back to GA level, since the ultimate purpose of GAR is to get the article being reassessed back up to GA status if possible within a reasonable period of time. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:BlueMoonset the article was passed by one of our most famous socks. A number of issues present. If anyone jumps in will add further issues. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Doc James, even socks can have a good day; that's not itself a reason to delist or even necessarily to reassess. What matters is the article today and any current issues, including the templated one in the article itself. I do hope some people show up to work on the article, but it doesn't seem to happen that often with GARs these days. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure but their are issues beyond it just being passed by a sock, specifically issues with references. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Refs
If your intention was to discourage me from editing anything that you "own", you've succeeded. Such a trivial complaint, sir. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 21:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And such a trivial change User:Ceyockey. Why rearrange elements in references to make them not like standard.
 * If you want to add stuff to templates feel free, just please stop rearranging them. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was using visual editor - stop accusing me of something I DID NOT DO. Idiot.  If you don't want people editing your articles using visual editor, put a note about that in the article.  Complete idiotic accusations.  Did you even look to see that I was using visual editor.  Stop blaming me for the deficits of the tool.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting to know it maybe a problem coming from VE.
 * Will look into seeing about getting it fixed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Replicated the issue with VE on here
 * Brought it to the attention of WAID here
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Unintentional block to my IPs
Great. While I just correcting the link as I was originated from the same town where the stateless foreign children are living. I have been blocked by you with my edits been labelled as disruptive. You didn't even let me giving any explanation at all too. Is this how Wikipedia works? By blocking people without letting to hear their explanation first? You have misusing your administrator rights and I feel sad with the behaviour of certain administrators in this encyclopedia today. 128.90.59.44 (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously have no trouble changing your IP address and know your way around :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the similar IPs will be used again and again. Then after your block I can't edit it anymore. Please explain why you revert me? 128.90.59.44 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Stateless Filipino children"? The children are in Malaysia. The Philippines exists so they are hardly stateless. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read this. 128.90.59.44 (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO regarding the caption it is simply best to go with what the uploader presented. Have unblocked two of your IPs.
 * As an obviously long term editor why simply move from IP to IP? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding and I'm sorry for any inconvenience. That's because some editors like to threatening me previously and I feel very unsafe to reveal my real identity and as well if I want to using my real identity like adding picture like in your userpage. 128.90.59.44 (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay no worries. Happy editing :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

37.23.192.109
Since you appear as a recently-active administrator at Special:Log, I was wondering if you would consider addressing this IP's disruptive behavior. Constantly reverting the vandalism isn't really the best way of causing the problem to actually stop. Thanks. Dustin ( talk ) 07:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my request. With this type of vandalism, AIV doesn't always cut it. Dustin ( talk ) 07:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Dustin V. S. that is strange. −
 * This person has an unusual user page  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. :) The page includes a link to http://autism.exposed/ourmine; the target page of that link is strange, but I recall that OurMine hacked some Wikipedia accounts not-too-long ago. Dustin  ( talk ) 07:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Turns out that it was vandalism added by an account hacked by OurMine. I should have checked the page history first. Dustin  ( talk ) 07:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You know what, now I'm just not sure. I'll just settle and say it's strange. Anyway, thanks again for helping with the vandalism. Dustin  ( talk ) 07:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They trimmed  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Benzyl benzoate
Since few or no edit summaries are there to help, I take it that your view is that benzyl benzoate is first and foremost a drug, and the article should be approached as such. And other articles as well. --Smokefoot (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also an insect repellant. If there is sufficient content on other uses than we can have more than one article on the topic. It is an "essential medicine" per the World Health Organization so yes its medical uses have importance. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And the absence of edit summaries? That is a matter of an editor's status or what? --Smokefoot (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes sometimes I forget to use edit summaries consistently. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Stunted Growth
Emailed you separately on references. They are all there but quoted the paper/report of reference at the beginning of paragraph rather than every sentence. Happy to do differently.

There was a typo in the WHO reference (f of pdf was missing), but I haven't managed to edit it on the talk page that you sent back to me even if I save it. Is there a way to do so or should it be done only in the final edit of the page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audaces~itwiki (talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Audaces~itwiki. Emailed you.
 * You can edit it on the talk page sure. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Turner Syndrome
Would it be possible to provide an external link to our resource in the "External Links" section: Understanding Turner Syndrome (http://understandingturnersyndrome.org). It's available free online and in print via our National Center for Prenatal and Postnatal Resources at the University of Kentucky and has been reviewed by the following: Judith Benkendorf, MS, CGC, ACMG Joseph R. Biggio Jr., MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham Melissa L. Crenshaw, MD, FAAP, FACMG, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine David Flannery, MD, FACMG, FAAP, ACMG Chris Houk, MD, Augusta University Susan Howell, MS, MBA, CGC, Children’s Hospital Colorado Harold Kleinert, EdD, University of Kentucky Melissa A. Parisi, MD, PhD Beth A. Pletcher, MD, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Cindy Scurlock, Turner Syndrome Society of the US Roopa Kanakatti Shankar, MBBS, MS, Children's Hospital of Richmond at VCU Virginia P. Sybert MD, University of Washington and Group Health Physicians Angela Trepanier, MS, CGC, Wayne State University Daynna J. Wolff, Phd, FACMG, Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics Medical University of South Carolina

The copyright is maintained by the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation and the university, and it's also unique in having photographs of individuals with Turner syndrome across many ages and ethnicities.

Best,

User:Sjh38

And I apologize if I'm doing this incorrectly since this is my first time really trying to contribute. Thanks so much! Sjh38 (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC) sjh38


 * It would be better to raise this question at Talk:Turner syndrome, where other editors can see it. Doc James does not have any special power to make this decision. Looie496 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it as it does not add much. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hyoscine
Thanks for the edit, although the first edit corresponds to a literal reference from a newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.88.89.129 (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To which edit do you refer? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyclosporin
This edit is quite disturbing. You are correct that ciclosporin is not about the fungus, but it is definitely about the natural product. Even patients taking the medication will also be curious from where that medication came from. Like it or not, the scope of this article is wider than the medication. It is also about the natural product. Boghog (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The medication was NOT discovered in 1969 the fungus was discovered in that year. I have moved that content to the fungus article lead. The medication was discovered from the fungus in 1971.
 * We have "Ciclosporin was discovered in 1971 from the fungus Tolypocladium inflatum and came into medical use in 1983."
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And the natural product is not spelled one way while the medication is spelled another. They are simply different spellings in different parts of the world for the exact same thing. Which IMO is sufficient. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two separate issues here. The less serious one is the spelling.  Far more important is the scope of the article.  I was objecting purging of information about the drug also being a natural product.  At least you have reinserted that phrase back into the lead.  Thank you. Boghog (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was working to clear up the year of discovery (1971 not 1969) as I determined that the latter was the discovery of the fungus not the product itself.
 * Agree we should keep what it was discovered from. And happy to also have that it is a natural product in the lead sentence.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Arrow
Done --Nevit (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Nevit :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

User:DrRahajNelson
Hello James,

On this account's talkpage, you left a template saying that you blocked them indefinitely, but it appears as though you have only blocked them for 72 hours. Just letting you know of this so it can be fixed if it was a mistake. Cheers. 73.96.114.191 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks. Fixed.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Using Systematic Reviews vs Primary Sources
Hi James, I have come across many different instances where systematic reviews are cited in a wiki article, but the content came from a primary citation used by the systematic review.

For example, I am presently editing Cholecystitis. I have updated the article to reflect the research from the newer Cochrane review. The wikipedia article also uses this cochrane review to state a couple of "facts" pertaining to the surgery.

(pasted from the cochrane review) "The main reason for conversion in early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is inflammation obscuring the view of Calot’s triangle (Peng 2005), whilst in the delayed group it is fibrotic adhesions (Lo 1998; Peng2005)." These studies are a prospective randomized study and a retrospective observational (single institution) study.

(pasted from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecystitis page) "For early cholecystectomy, the most common reason for conversion to open surgery is inflammation obscuring Calot's triangle. For delayed surgery, the most common reason was fibrotic adhesions.[31]"

Ref 31 in the wiki page is the Cochrane reference I am updating. On a quick glance, other reviews in the literature are using the same primary sources to present this info. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4716068/ This info seems to be well accepted by the scientific community, but I can see this type of citation error being a problem for more contentious issues.

Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this when I come across it? In my experience with writing for scientific journals, we would cite the primary source and not the review. Since wikipedia does not use primary sources would we just remove this info from wikipedia? The gold standard would be to dig out a systematic review and use it, but of course this is not always possible :)

Thanks very much! JenOttawa (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:JenOttawa we accept this info based on the review. We expect that the authors of the Cochrane review looked at the primary research and determined what was notable and correct and what was not. They would have included the notable and correct stuff. We use reviews partly because 1) it helps determine notability 2) provides one more level of review for correctness. Reviews often make statements based on more than just the sources they reference aswell. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. This makes sense. I will update this particular article accordingly.JenOttawa (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So basically if a primary source is summarized in a review we will summarize the reviews interpretation of the primary source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

VE bug and truncated google book urls
Thanks for the heads up re VE. I thought I noticed the empty via field before but this is worse. If I use VE I'll switch to source and trim the empty fields.

The "&pg=PA***" at the end of the google book urls will lead to the specific page cited. (The remaining code isn't needed.) My concern is that some readers may not know that one can open the book and go to the specific page, but this also makes it easier/faster. Should I not do this when a single page is cited? βox73 (৳alk) 22:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC) typo βox73 (৳alk) 22:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * user:Box73 I agree putting in the specific page in Google books is super nice and do it whenever I can :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, not sure why it doesn't go to the exact location, is here Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Earflaps (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

 * Thanks User:Johnbod :-) Hope all is well. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cataracts
Hi

The whole point of a clarify tag is so that someone can clarify it, not to return it to something which is still unclear by removing the tag?

So, without access to the text (as Google will not let me see it) I cannot get context. When I place that tag, I expect someone to find a way to clarify that which is unclear?

Secondly, I just noticed that you reverted other good edits done at the same time. I am reverting yours so you can re-edit it and only affect the edit you wanted to revert. (if you have access to the ref'd book's text, of course I would be only too happy for you to email it to me so i can do the work :) )

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is unclear what you want clarified? Research has been done and it has been found that people who cannot read have less ability to get cataract surgery for their cataracts. Quotes like this go on the talk page not in the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "quotes like this".
 * QuackGuru has put the quote from the original document on the talk page
 * I have fixed it by quoting directly - it had been changed from "who are illiterate" to "cannot read"
 * I am still perturbed that two experienced editors reverted more than one edit and refused, point blank, to just fix that.
 * Maybe you have been here so long you shoot first and ask later ... Chaosdruid (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored to it how it was before. We use easier to understand language here rather than quoting from sources generally. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

heavy smoking increasing the risk of lymphoma
You removed the only reference to research on heavy smoking increasing the risk of lymphoma with the comment “Was supported by a secondary source already.” This doesn’t seem like a reason to remove the information. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lymphoma&type=revision&diff=753923552&oldid=753900967 Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks User:Gouncbeatduke. Have added back smoking based on a recent secondary source.. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Rubbish computer likewise :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Bzuk Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a wonderful time of the year!

 * User:Atsme thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Doc James: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --  Dane talk  08:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * Thanks User:Dane, likewise :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)