User talk:Doc James/Archive 107

Re. Epiglottitis
I'm just curious as to why you removed my recent addition to the article. I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that it was not accompanied by a reference, or otherwise sounded unencyclopedic. Although the statement I added did not cite a source by itself, I feel that the paragraph in which it was placed does corroborate what I had inserted (and the other parts were well referenced).

Sorry, I'm somewhat new to the world of medical articles - please bear with me. :) Kurtis (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes no reference was provided. Stating the specific risk of death (1% with early intubation, 6% without) is more useful IMO than just saying it causes death. Have also provided a ref for that.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Like I said, medical articles are in another realm for me. You're the doctor, I'll trust your judgement. ;) Kurtis (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Amnesty International India
Hello; I am a contributor to the page for Amnesty International India. I've declared my lack of COI with the subject, as has one other contributor. I have also contributed to this article, as well as helped clean it up considerably. May I understand why you think there may be COI with this article? I have disclosed (and do so again) that I have no COI with the subject. I am trying to understand what the process is you applied in putting that tag on. There are multiple external references to credible news sources, and the article makes no unverified claims (and is written in a style that adheres to policies of neutrality and fairness). Thank you. Amnemonic (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes agree you started the article in question. There appears to be a lack of following of the WP:TOU. And therefore the tag. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Doc James, thanks. I checked WP:TOU and I am not clear as to what violation of these terms you are referencing. I am not a paid contributor, but a volunteer, and I have no COI with the subject. The matter is, of course, freely licensed, as it's on Wikipedia. The references are well-sourced to numerous mainstream publications. Again, I don't mean to question your judgement, but I am an editor who would like to edit more, and to that extent, when you say you have a problem with COI on an article, it would be helpful for me to know exactly why, in order that I may then give my time to fix it. In general, I think specific explanations will help new editors work better, and more - and encourage them. Thank you. Amnemonic (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In general yes. But unfortunately not in these types of cases. And therefore you will need to wait. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your polite reply. However, you can see clearly now why it's so hard for new contributors to do anything substantive here. I'll wait and continue editing elsewhere. I'm happy to be checked and corrected - and I've responded well to the corrections - but it certainly is frustrating to have major edits immediately sent off into some kafkaesque waiting room for some indeterminate, opaque analysis I am excluded from (I assume this is a checkuser process, which, if it is, you should say so.) Amnemonic (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Doc, this looks crazy. If you've put a COI tag, you certainly owe the guy a statement about why you think he has a COI there. Do so soon, or the tag goes. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You two both know the rules very well and specifically what I can and cannot tell you on WP. User:Amnemonic is obviously an expert Wikipedian and not a new contributor.
 * Provided some more details on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm responding here as well as on the article talk page, Doc James. I am a new editor, in the sense that I have been volunteering in an organising capacity around Wikipedia for several years - help with chapters, events, etc. However, I have only intermittently tried my hand at editing. I do want to edit more, and this is my attempt to. I resent the idea that I was paid to do this, and I can assure you that this isn't the case - though I doubt that my assurance, or the absence of tangible proof, might help that. In any case, my knowledge of editing policies and Wikipedia processes comes from working to support Wikipedians over 10 years, from admiration of the project, and not from editing myself. I would sincerely like to *not* be penalised for having both an understanding of the policies and an enthusiasm to edit. Excuse me if I come across as angry, because I know you are only trying to do your job. However, please understand, that I am only trying to edit more, and nothing less.Amnemonic (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

hi
I know your busier than most of us, I was wondering about, thank you as always--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have emailed again. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:INCUBATOR
I invite you to comment on my idea of article incubator. The idea is not new and details of the previous version can be found at WP:INCUBATOR. I would be glad if you enhance it with your experience. Feel free to improve upon the proposal that I have placed. Anasuya.D (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Will look as I am able. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jim
I am a physician-epidemiologist-medical researcher, adjunct prof at U of England. I have thus far created one article (on Unicirc, a surgical instrument for adult circumcision). How does one become a medical editor? Thanks, Petersmillard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 01:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To become a medical editor all you need to do is begin editing medical content :-) The main things to read before you start are WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. Let me know if you have any questions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Quackometer as a reliable source?
Curious edit you made: is this blog really trustworthy for WPMED? --Zefr (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Zefr the content added is about marketing and not about medicine. Am on better internet now and will see if I can find something better. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly this, at the bottom of the article, by vitamin C academic experts at a state university. On a separate but related matter, you and I have both been working on improving articles for individual nutrients, such as the B vitamins. The Linus Pauling Institute (LPI) has well-developed review articles for each nutrient as entries for their 'Micronutrient Information Center', which is one of the few university-based sites for such information, with the food sources information derived from USDA. Do you accept LPI as a valid nutrient source? --Zefr (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It depend what it is being used to support. Will need to look at it further. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocking me
was indefinitely blocked for using a second account (for the sake of privacy, I'm not going to link to it here) which he acknowledges is his; however, the checkuser that blocked him provided no evidence of any wrongdoing and hasn't even stated how he violated the WP:SOCKING policy.

If his block isn't repealed by the checkuser, I assume he will appeal his block to ARBCOM. Assuming that happens, if neither the checkuser who blocked him nor ARBCOM provides evidence of the two accounts interacting in a manner that violates WP:SOCK AND his block is upheld by both entities, I'm going to permanently retire from editing Wikipedia on principle. I intend to make this clear to ARBCOM if a second appeal of his block is necessary.

To make it perfectly clear how serious I am about this and to enforce my permanent absence, I intend to ask every admin in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks to indefinitely WP:BLOCKME; however, I'd prefer to be blocked by an admin that I know and trust. You are the first person who comes to mind who meets those criteria. So, I'm asking you: if it comes down to it and I ask you to follow through, will you indefinitely block me?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Seppi. I was alarmed by your message here, and I tracked down what is going on. Please don't do anything rash. In particular, please wait and see what ArbCom says about it. There are two possibilities that I can see: violation of the socking policy, or just a careless but good-faith mixing of two accounts, sort of like editing while logged out. I kinda think that it's the latter, and this is the sort of thing that can be worked out via an appeal. Please understand that the indefinite block of Sizeofint is not the same thing as an infinite block. The block can be lifted any time if ArbCom determines that whatever happened is not going to happen again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah User:Seppi333 we are not there yet. I have of course commended on talk page. I am currently on holidays. One is not supposed to out someone unless their is clear evidence they are causing harm. One is allowed to have alternate accounts (of which I know a few other medical editors have). The work I have seen of User:Bbb23 has typically been reasonable. Bbb23 can you please email the evidence of harm you have on User:Sizeofint? ( I will ask User:Sizeofint for permission on their talk page for you to send it to me). Waiting for a night bus to Banaue Rice Terraces so will be on for the next few hours but than off line probably for a few days.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I alarmed you. This was an unintended consequence of my intended goal: to enter into a non-cooperative game with a credible threat in which one of two outcomes (Sizeofint being unblocked or presented with the evidence against him) was the Nash equilibrium.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries! I'm very happy that it worked out. My main concern here was that I did not want you to become collateral damage. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

After an independent review I have unblocked both accounts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to conduct a review of the block; I really do appreciate that you took the time to review the case and set things right. While I'm obviously not privy to the details, on the face of it, this block appeared to be a gross misuse of admin tools which completely ignored procedural due process; in particular, if Sizeofint's block was to remain upheld, he has a right to know what he did wrong and the evidence that supports that finding.  If he had not been unblocked, I would not have continued to edit Wikipedia if neither of those things was disclosed publicly, or at least privately to him.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sizeofint made the error of editing the same article with two accounts. Thus Bbb23 measure is a common step. One needs to be super super careful with alt accounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV
James --the article is a mess. It is poorly organized, written in unnecessary technical jargon, and contradictory. Would you be willing to edit if I do a new version in a sandbox? Peter Millard, MD, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to begin editing the main article live. This will give the wider community an opportunity to provide feedback. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Review articles
Thank you for the notification, it was helpful. How do you find review articles - I am interested in psychiatry, psychology and management. Thank you for pointing out the citation feature in edit box, it is a relief. Is there any tools wiki/off-wiki that helps to format citations for articles. Kindly do reply about review articles and how can it be searched in google, with example or any other previous diffs given as advise is good.117.213.17.1 (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Travelling. There is the citoid tool in the left panel that can also help with formatting diffs.
 * To find reviews I generally use pubmed.com and on the left limit the search to "review articles". Works about 95% of the time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

chloramphenicol
Thanks for your edit on chloramphenicol. Spoke to my hospital pharmacist due to conflicting online information and found to my surprise that we are able to purchase it here in the US. Was less expensive than I would have suspected as well. You corrected some misinformation in my brain and I'm not sure that there is a kinder act as far as I can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick1701 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Maverick1701 no worries. This is one of the joys of editing Wikipedia. I have learned a great deal during my time here aswell :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Nausea
Sometimes I come across an editor who has a proprietary interest in an |article article, and insists that the way they have composed the article's prose is sacrosanct. Often, that editor's prose is nonstandard or nonencyclopedic, sometimes because their first language is other than English. I don't like to get into edit conflicts over prose, but your prose and wording choices are not helpful to Wikipedia, Doc. One sign of unhelpful reverts by English-language learners is that they choose to explain their reversion of my work with an edit summary which does not give a specific justification for what they have done. You have given the edit summary of "adjusted." You reverted nearly all of my edit, which took me over an hour to complete. Writing you this message is taking another hour I will never get back.

My first question is why you think the word "nauseate" is a noun? It's a verb. "Nauseate" is not a synonym or cognate for "nauseant," and its use in such a context is confusing to the reader, and a sign of diminished literacy in its editor. The fact that you have reverted my correction of your prose to your incorrect form is disturbing to me. Wikipedia does not need your insistence on incorrect form, either. Most people reading Wikipedia are native English speakers, and will find your version of English prose to be an impediment, slowing them down, and reducing comprehension. I correct this type of prose every day on Wikipedia. It is perfectly fine to write bad prose one time, so that others may correct it. The Russians, Germans, Hispanics, French and others let my edits stand, but I did have a problem with one editor in Delhi. Only very rarely does an editor "stand up" for their substandard prose and incorrect usage.

My second question is why you have reverted |my my rewording of "some serious causes do occur" to "some serious conditions are associated with nausea." "Some serious causes do occur" is not ungrammatical; it contains neither spelling nor punctuation errors; however, it is vague and appears to be the wording of a nonfluent English writer. I could take it upon myself to write Wikipedia articles for non-English Wikipedias, but, like you, my writing would at times be awkward and nonidiomatic. What I would never consider doing, though, is insisting that my non-native prose had precedence over a native speaker's idiomatic version. Do you believe that you are going to prevail against the entirety of English Wikipedia? You don't own this article, and I can tell that you are not a medical professional, and that you rarely read medical journals in English. For instance, you insist on "surgical problems" over "surgical complications." Really?

Another question is why you have reverted my re-ordering of a list of potentially serious causes of nausea. The list was a random, "dog's breakfast" collection of possible causes. I grouped the list by systems, for comprehensibility, with the digestive system in sequential order (which is standard practice), and with surgical complications last, as they are due to another person, and you reverted to your version. Your version also includes the phrase, "as a sign of carbon monoxide poison," instead of "carbon monoxide poisoning," which is simply terrible prose form, being redundant (we know nausea is a sign), and while in your country, the expression "carbon monoxide poison" may be standard, that is never how English-speakers in English-speaking countries, within or outside of the medical profession, express the term.

I am tempted to revert your entire reversion of my work, but in Wikipedia we discuss things. Please respond with a cogent argument explaining why each of your reversions should stand. Note that your non-native speaker status is, to me, not an automatic impediment to editing English Wikipedia. Many excellent articles here are in fact written mostly by non-native speakers with an fine ear for idiomatic English. The difference is in knowing one's limitations, and not exceeding them.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure so:
 * Why not mention food poisoning as a cause?
 * Why abbreviate intracranial pressure as ICP without spelling it out first?
 * We tend to keep headings shorter and thus the removal of "serious conditions associated with nausea"
 * Why not specifically mention chemotherapy?
 * Connection is really bad right now. Agree with you on "nauseate" and removed it.
 * Gallstones in and of themselves do not really cause outside of biliary colic so trimmed that one. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Music of Adelaide
Your from Canada and your editing a page about Music in Adelaide? Mind your own business and leave Adelaide to people from Adelaide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yep 001 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hum. I protected the page in question following a request. Appears it likely needs protection for even longer. Looking more closely I am seeing a lot of socks including the account above and this has been going on for months. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process
''Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.''

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:


 * Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (15 December 2016)
 * Introduction to process and information about budget spending resolution to support it
 * Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (23 December 2016)
 * Start of search for Lead Architect for movement strategy process
 * Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (8 January 2017)
 * Plans for strategy sessions at upcoming Wikimedia Conference 2017
 * Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (11 January 2017)
 * Introduction of williamsworks
 * Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 February 2017)
 * The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
 * Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (10 February 2017)
 * Tracks A & B process prototypes and providing feedback, updates on development of all four Tracks

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Initial announcements review • Get help


 * A few thoughts:
 * We need to develop offline access more. Kiwix is doing amazing work and this needs to be expanded. We have a great opportunity to improve WP awareness among those only half connected to the Internet before the Internet comes to them in full (or only as Facebook which may unfortunately likely be the case)
 * We need to maintain our independence, which means we need to get a better handle on undisclosed paid editing. This is not going to be simply but it is going to be key to the protection of our brand and achievement of our mission. We have a duty to protect our readers from being mislead.
 * While per recent research incivility is uncommon we should continue to work hard at making editing WP a pleasant experience. While this is important it should not be done in exclusion of addressing other problems and bad faith contributors should not be allowed to hide behind our good faith. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

email ping
I got a ping you sent me an email. I haven't located it. If it was a heads up that you have edited Childbirth, I have seen that, and am following. If there is more I need to know, please let me know.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Sphilbrick you replied to my email :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I must have misread the timing, I did get the COI one, meant to followup but have been busy. I thought I saw the ping minutes after seeing your revert of the revert of my removal, and thought it was related, but just a coincidence.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
You reverted my edits on NPD and D. Trump. I can provide an alternative source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-warn-about-trump.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/an-eminent-psychiatrist-demurs-on-trumps-mental-state.html

Let me know what you think — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgtx1986 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are simply letters to the editor. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, but they are written by psychiatrists who debate whether he has NPD. I believe this is enough of a reason to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgtx1986 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Would need to see more than a letter to the editor. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for doing the move for me. My timing was a bit off, I came up with the idea of Management of cerebral palsy just before I had to travel. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Docjames
If Docjames is a different user, why does that user page redirect to your user page? HalfGig  talk  12:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure. This appears to be the edit. User:Paine Ellsworth is this typical practice? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that was mybad. Another editor had tagged the Docjames talk page with the This is a redirect template, which populated a category I watch.  I placed rcats on the talk page and redirected the user page thinking it to be a shortcut to your user space.  Both user and talk pages have been corrected.  Thank you,  HalfGig, for the good catch!   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  06:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding content about health.
Hello Doc James, thanks for your help. There's something I don't understand: I added some new text in Lead Poisoning with specific link to officials documents, some or most of them official research. Authors and Research Institutes are correct and verifiable. Why there is somethink wrong and my text was rejected? Of course I'm trying to be in line with wikipedia rules, so I apologize for my mistakes. --Krik63A (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at the sources and they appear to be power point presentations and primary sources. We are looking for review articles. The third source I am not sure it supports the text it was added to. Started discussion on the talk page of the article. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

YOUR BLOCKING
CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND WHY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4081:49D0:99CD:E0DC:6437:9091 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

MSG edit
If you want to paraphrase the Obayashi and Nagamura (2016) article then be sure to keep the wording accurate to the study findings. Your wording is misleading based on the study results. Obviously, that review article shows that the research findings are inconsistent/mixed and thus they conclude that more research is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFN001 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref concludes "we conclude that further studies are required to evaluate whether or not a causal relationship exists between MSG ingestion and headache" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Music of Adelaide
Re a previous RPP for Music of Adelaide. Letting you know the disruptive editing of the page restarted just after the protection expired. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks and protected for three months. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock?
I'm not very familiar with their habits and behaviour but both users don't look new as per their editing pattern so please see Sockpuppet investigations/MusicLover650. Thank you – GSS (talk |c|em ) 10:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Work has been very busy lately. Yes as they are a paid editor they will simply create a new account and continue. Not sure what the long term solution is. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Paternal age WP:MEDRS
Hi, you left a comment on my talk page calling my attention to WP:MEDRS. Was this automated? Because I referred to WP:MEDRS on the talk page (accompanying my edit to Paternal age effect), and you would need to be more specific if you think I did not handle this correctly. -- Ruben (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure you used some review articles but you also used a bunch of primary sources. I have trimmed many of these. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now seen the trimming. The comment sounded automated, that's why I ask. Should we have the discussion about inclusion on the Talk page of the article. Because I disagree in some cases, obviously, and think there is at least heavy incongruity what remains per status quo (often old, small-sample primary studies) and what you've just removed (newer, better, bigger studies, sometimes of a size that is more than five times the existing literature). Ruben (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. You will also notice a tag at the top of the article suggesting that more primary sources be removed and replaced with high quality secondary ones. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience. As I said, I'm new to this. Let's talk here: Talk:Paternal_age_effect. Ruben (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

We're number 1!
Doc James, Wikipedia is not tailored to the USA. C'mon, I'm sure you know this :-) I'll dig up the policy if you really want.  Something about global point of view or needing to internationalise articles.  I've seen it. Great floors (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure I agree. We are slightly more tailed to the EN speaking world though of which the USA is a major component. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * NPOV policy says this is a problem and should be corrected:
 * "The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is ... an ongoing problem that should be corrected ... they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter"
 * From Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. Great floors (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is NPOV to include some details about the US and Europe. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And the article does this.  The special treatment of one country in the intro violates the above policy and must be removed.  The info will still be in the article.  The only change is that the USA gets treated like a regular country. Great floors (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the largest EN speaking country in the world. So mentioning it a bit is not undue weight IMO. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention undue weight. You keep changing the topic (and not citing any policy to support your ideas).  The NPOV policy doesn't have a USA exception.  Please give me a relevant policy that supports giving USA special status, or stop reverting my applications of the NPOV policy. Great floors (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Get consensus on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

trying...
--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * seems resolved, I was already considering "Plan B"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Insomnia changed to '"trouble sleeping"
I saw you changed my "insomnia" edit on organophosphate poisoning to "trouble sleeping". Is there a policy change where medical terminology is being deliberately eschewed in favor of plain language? I have not kept up with the policy areas as much as I should, so I must have missed it. I want to be aware of any such change if it has occurred. Thanks, I'll check back here for the reply. Ratel (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes per WP:MEDRS we generally use easier to understand language Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So it's more correct now to insert trouble sleeping than simply insomnia ? Seems unwise. Ratel (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Insomnia and trouble sleeping are more or less the same. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It just seem unwise to be discarding the actual name of wp articles in favor of simplified language. Taken further, you need to alter all medical-sounding wikilinks this way, e.g. pooping ... where does it end? Ratel (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It ends at an 8th grade reading level. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pooping it is then Teeth.png Ratel (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Acne pictures
Hi James, I know you've submitted some photos of patients with acne before. Any chance that you have more per the ongoing FAC discussion? Multiple editors have called for additional high-quality images demonstrating how acne looks on people with varying skin tones and of varying severities (which is entirely reasonable but few images exist in our database and obtaining such photos is not exactly my forte'). If you can help or point me in the right direction, that would be great. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * With acne being so common should not be hard to get more images.
 * Here is one
 * Here is a useful search engine for OA images. You still need to check the license of each journal before uploading. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)