User talk:Doc James/Archive 149

CHIVA method
Hi Doc James, I fully understand your attitude regarding the policy of Wikipedia, only allowing enties without conflicts of interests. In my case, I certify on my honour that I have not received any payment (or any personal advantage) from Dr Franceschi who is the inventor and promoter of this new cure of the veinous insufficiency. I already mentioned that my mother was suffering severe ulcers to both legs linked to varicose veins. After having been operated by a surgeon, Dr Bahnini, not only her varicose veins had quickly disappeared, but later both ulcers were healed after several months treatments without improvement. I then learned that the method used by the surgeon was called "CHIVA". Having a longtime interest in medicine and wishing to know more about that technique, my search on Wikipedia gave no result, wheras the subject was already treated on the web. Dr Franceschi's name had no entry on Wikipedia neither whereas I discovered in searching Google that his name was already often quoted in medical articles. Consequently, I felt motivated to gather all informations to feed Wikipedia for what I considered useful to both the encyclopedia and patients suffering the same disease as my mother. I hope the above informations will help answer your questions.Geiss (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Fei Xu
Hi Doc James, I'm active on WP:AFC and spent quite a bit of time verifying the content of Fei Xu before approving it, only to see the article deleted for being created by a sockpuppet. Now there's another draft submitted at Draft:Fei Xu. Could you run a checkuser to see if it's created by the same sockfarm, before I waste more time reviewing it? -Zanhe (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Zanhe yes will be a sock. There is money out for this article and paid editors are trying to collect. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In that case, could you block the sock and delete the draft? -Zanhe (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I have blocked. Still working up the rest of it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Prostate cancer
Thanks for condensing the references (concise is good). Although I believe the following line that you removed is important, because it describes actual pharmaceutical development for galectin-3 inhibition for prostate cancer. If we remove this line, people will be unaware that a drug is anywhere in pre-clinical or clinical development for this indication.

Inhibition of galectin-3 with GR-MD-02 (belapectin), developed by Galectin Therapeutics, increased survival in the TRAMP-C1 prostate cancer cell line model.
 * Do you have a secondary source per WP:MEDRS? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The authors of the paper are frem the Chiles Research Institute (Providence Medical Center) which is performing this pre-clinical and clinical investigation independent of the company. Galectin Therapeutics does not run this trial. The same team helped win the 2018 Nobel Prize for cancer immunotherapy (performing the initial clinical investigations for the development of anti-PD-1). This seems to qualify as a secondary source, no?
 * A secondary source is like a review article... Textbooks would also be fine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

In that case, yes, the secondary source is the review article in the journal Nature (Martínez-Bosch, Neus (2019). "Galectins in prostate and bladder cancer: tumorigenic roles and clinical opportunities") which includes the text and the reference, and talks about it in context. I just didn't want to repeat the same secondary source reference twice and figured I would reference the more specific paper instead. But yes this Nature review is the secondary source for the removed text.
 * Feel free to repeat the same secondary source multiple times. See WP:MEDHOW regarding how to do that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the help Doc James, I will look at the MEDHOW and re-do it with the secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Peripheral vascular system
Hi, does this textbook which I would like to add as reference to Peripheral vascular system qualify for Reliable Medical Source? -- It's gonna be awesome! ✎ Talk♬ 17:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes User:It's gonna be awesome it is a major medical publisher. Excellent book. Please add page numbers if you can. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I found the definition of "peripheral vessels" varies. Even the textbook doesen't seem to give clear definition about "peripheral vessel". I got confused.



-- It's gonna be awesome! ✎ Talk♬ 06:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is for what article? And what section? You are just trying to come up with a definition? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For Peripheral vascular system and peripheral artery disease. Moreover, amlodipine and nifidepine are both recommended used to treat Raynaud's phenomenon. However, dihidropyridine doesn't just work on extremities and capillaries. -- It's gonna be awesome! ✎ Talk♬ 06:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Vascular problems to the brain are not PAD per "Disorders of arteries that supply the brain with blood are considered separately as cerebrovascular disease." The term head is often used for the none brain part of the head. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I am absorbing the information and might then improve the related articles. Best regards. -- It's gonna be awesome! ✎ Talk♬ 06:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Weird medical claims
Recommend Calocurb be draftified for evaluation -- it has several indications of UPE and medical misinformation. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noticed the creator has an extensive history of UPE-looking stuff including Bargain Rental Cars and the like. Yikes. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bri none of the refs in the article really supported the content. Moved to draft and asked the user to disclose. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

OTRS request
Could you take a glance at: ticket:2019050110000266

I saw a reference to Cochran and thought of you.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sphilbrick thanks and replied. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Circ and HIV
Thanks for your edit of my edit on Circumcision and HIV. I just want to be clear that you understand the concept of relative risk reduction vs. absolute risk reduction. Essentially, absolute risk reduction (often expressed as number need to treat or, in this case, number needed to prevent) is determined by the baseline risk. In areas of high HIV prevalence (and therefore high likelihood of HIV transmission) circumcision is a highly impactful preventive intervention; however, in settings like Canada where HIV is relatively rare, the impact is minimal and public health authorities (such as the Amer Aca of Pediatrics) do not therefore recommend circ to prevent HIV. It's important that people understand both the effectiveness AND limitations of preventive interventions. Isn't it important to make that distinction in Wikipedia? thanks and best regards, Peter Petersmillard (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Petersmillard yes am aware. Which text are you referring to? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

My edit: "It is important to note that the sites for these studies were chosen specifically because of the high HIV prevalence in those geographic areas and the impact of male circumcision on HIV transmission would be less in areas with lower HIV prevalence rates." Your revision: "Sites for these studies were chosen specifically because of the high rates of HIVin those geographic areas." Petersmillard (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Starting with "It is important to note" is not really encyclopedic especially without a reference. And it is also obvious. Greater potential benefit when a high overall risk. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will change the language and use an appropriate reference. Petersmillard (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting review of draft page for Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults
Hello Dr. Heilman,

A few years ago, you visited the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) to talk about how NCI could contribute to the cancer information presented on Wikipedia. I was charged with leading a team within NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison (OCPL) to devise ways of contributing to Wikipedia while adhering to both NIH’s guidelines for contributing to social media and Wikipedia’s policies for maintaining a neutral perspective and avoiding conflict of interest.

My team and I have been considering a few approaches, from adding references and addressing misstatements in existing articles to drafting full articles that do not exist currently as more than a stub.

Aside from a few minor edits to some NCI-related pages, our first project has been to enhance the Wikipedia page for cancer in adolescents and young adults, a page that had been a stub but was removed and redirected to the Childhood Cancer page on June 29, 2018.

On December 17, 2018, I submitted our draft page for Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults to Wikipedia’s Articles for Creation queue. I was somewhat mystified when the article was rejected as being written like an essay and that the reviewer said that the topic was already covered on the Childhood Cancer page.

I am writing to you today to ask if you would look at our draft page and let me know how I can revise it so that it won’t simply be rejected again.

I will be grateful for any guidance or help you are willing to give.

Sincerely,

Daryl DarylM at NCI (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Daryl McGrath | Science Communications Specialist | Office of Communications and Public Liaison | National Cancer Institute | 240-252-4547 | dmcgrath@nih.gov | www.cancer.gov
 * User:DarylM at NCI will take a look :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DarylM at NCI Okay have made a bunch of formating changes Draft:Cancer in adolescents and young adults.
 * Will work on it more in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

December 2018 "Nth most prescribed medicine in the US" campaign
Doc James,

First let me say thank you for your tireless work in the medicinal entries in Wikipedia. You're a huge contributor, a gentle editor, and a generous "could you check this" checker. It doesn't go unnoticed.

I see you made a flurry of edits to a number of medication pages in late December 2018, adding "XXX was the Nth most prescribed medicine in 2016 in the United States" to the intros, and referenced the CliniCalc.com website. As a medical outsider (I have no MD, no PhD, etc) I defer to you in evaluating sources. I do notice that they have changed the title to "top 300 of 2019" BUT the stats are still from 2016. Are you convinced this is a reliable source for information? I confess I would not have anticipated a thyroid medication (Levothyroxine) would be the #1 most prescribed medicine in the United States in any year. I know you also had some trouble with "DocJames" (vs you, Doc_James) so I wondered if these edits were truly yours.

Surely the FDA keeps a similar list somewhere, is that citeable?

Thank you for your attention,
 * Riventree (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the question is about this edit and others like it ☆ Bri (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Riventree yes this is based on US government info. If you read closely the data was published in 2019 but for the year 2016. Yes thyroid meds are very commonly prescribed. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (both) for checking this. I am glad this is from a solid source. I hope I didn't give any offense by asking. CliniCalc.com just didn't smell right Riventree (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. I would not use that source for medical recommendations but this is social information which does not need as good of a source. We could use the US data directly but it is very poorly presented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

OTRS plea
Another OTRS that could use your insights. ticket:2019030610004748 While I suspect someone without medical knowledge might be able to help, I think it is quite likely you are in a better position to know how to help than most of us.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sphilbrick happy to reply :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks!-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Dental anxiety
Hi Doc James, Thank you for your message. As you might be aware, we are a group of La Trobe University Oral Health Science students who have been asked by one of our professors to improve this Wiki page. We are very new at this whole editing thing so appreciate your help. Myself and one other group member have been asked to specifically look at the 'causes' section of this page. Basically we need to show that we have contributed in some way, shape or form in the editing history of the page. Thank you for your message about using secondary sources instead of primary ones. We will endeavour to gather information from secondary sources to further improve this section, as we believe that it still requires some improving in terms of both layout and content. Any and all feedback is appreciated.

Kind regards, Anika Niehaus
 * User:Anikaniehaus welcome and thanks for joining. Yes sticking with secondary sources are important. Let me know if you have any issues access the ones I left on your talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Anne Akiko Meyers Undisclosed Paid Tag
Hi Doc James – I recently saw you added a tag for UDP on Anne Akiko Meyers' page. Could you please elaborate on your concerns? You will see on the talk page that this tag has previously been discussed and removed by third party members. Thank you! Pianolover1979 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Concerns remain regarding text in the article not being supported by the refs beside it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is vanishingly rare (as in non-existent) for an article created entirely by volunteers to have a professional headshot released to Commons by the subject's manager. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I realized this is declared ☆ Bri (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup but still a COI concerns. Bunch of content is poorly referenced User:Bri Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft or Tags?
Hi, Doc - would take a quick look at Pediatric Aids in Zimbabwe. I'm trying to get some of our NPP backlog whittled down, and came across that article. My first thoughts are to send it back to draft so the author can apply proper MOS or better yet, find a mentor who can help. Apparently, the article was reviewed by peers (a student article, perhaps?) but there's just too much that needs fixing for me to start dropping tags on it. Maybe could help with the MOS part, but I need you to look at the medical content. Thx in advance Atsme Talk 📧 04:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Atsme agree send back to draft for more work. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Croup Pseudocroup
I think you are confusing Croup and Croup Syndrome/ Pseudocroup. Please check literature.
 * No not confused at all. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

deletion/cleanup
Frank K Tittel (Frank K. Tittel) has been recreated via articles for creation, and peripheral mononeuropathy needs copyediting, mainly to comply with WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. Vycl1994 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Vycl1994. Deleted and blocked the first. Did a bit on the second. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hydrocodone
In of Hydrocodone, you changed

to

Well, would you kindly make that (a) grammatical and (b) consistent with the refs. Note that the article does not discuss a "long acting formula" (which should be "long-acting formula"), so if you want to keep this language it needs definition or clarification. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you want to add a "-"? Done. And we link to long acting in the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Tonsillectomy
You keep removing text I have added about tonsillectomy. This has the effect of exaggerating the evidence for the benefits of tonsillectomy and ignoring evidence of potential long term harm. Can you explain why?

The decision to undergo tonsillectomy is not trivial and should be taken in the light of accurate information on the risks and benefits in both the short and long term. This information is now largely absent from Wikipedia.

The best evidence on short term benefits is provided by systematic reviews of RCTs. Given the absence of RCTs with years or decades of follow up the best evidence on long term benefits is provided by large (retrospective) cohort studies.

Obstructive Sleep Apnoea and Sleep Disordered Breathing

What Wikipedia says: "Tonsillectomy improves obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in most people."

Truth: We don't know if tonsillectomy improves OSA in adults. We know it has a small effect in children aged 5-9 years with polysomnography confirmed OSA We don't know if tonsillectomy improves OSA in children aged <5 years. We know that: "PSG recordings of almost half of the children managed non-surgically had normalised by seven months"

What the evidence says: Adults: no RCT evidence Children: RCT evidence shows improvements in polysomnography parameters and in "quality of life, symptoms and behaviour as rated by caregivers". These are subjective outcomes rated by a third party in unblinded studies. No evidence relevant to children with OSA not confirmed by polysomnography. No evidence relating to children aged under 5 years. No

Exact wording of the Cochrane review: ''In otherwise healthy children, without a syndrome, of older age (five to nine years), and diagnosed with mild to moderate OSAS by PSG, there is moderate quality evidence that adenotonsillectomy provides benefit in terms of quality of life, symptoms and behaviour as rated by caregivers and high quality evidence that this procedure is beneficial in terms of PSG parameters. At the same time, high quality evidence indicates no benefit in terms of objective measures of attention and neurocognitive performance compared with watchful waiting. Furthermore, PSG recordings of almost half of the children managed non-surgically had normalised by seven months, indicating that physicians and parents should carefully weigh the benefits and risks of adenotonsillectomy against watchful waiting in these children. This is a condition that may recover spontaneously over time. For non-syndromic children classified as having oSDB on purely clinical grounds but with negative PSG recordings, the evidence on the effects of adenotonsillectomy is of very low quality and is inconclusive. Low-quality evidence suggests that adenotonsillectomy and CPAP may be equally effective in children with Down syndrome or MPS diagnosed with mild to moderate OSAS by PSG. We are unable to present data on the benefits of adenotonsillectomy in children with oSDB aged under five, despite this being a population in whom this procedure is often performed for this purpose.''

Long term effects

What Wikipedia says: "Tonsillectomy does not appear to affect long term immune function" This is referenced to a meta-analysis of studies of biomarkers of immune function (serum Ig's, SecIgA, cellular immunity, Ag specific Ig). Some studies have no control group and are simply before and after studies, some are cohort studies. The total number of individuals in all the included studies was 1997, follow up testing was carried out at different time points but in most cases was less than a year (132 months in one study). This analysis is therefore not very long-term and is greatly underpowered to detect differences in disease incidence.

What the evidence says: Clearly incidence of disease is of more interest to patients than an underpowered analysis of effects on biomarkers. We don't have long term follow up with any RCT of tonsillectomy. It is inconceivable that we ever will have RCTs with years of follow up. The best we can do is a (retrospective) cohort study of children who did have tonsillectomy compared with those who did not.

There are three large retrospective cohort studies several orders of magnitude larger than the study cited above to support the suggestion that tonsillectomy may be associated with a higher risk of future illness.

One study included 1.2 million children of whom over 40,000 underwent tonsillectomy, followed up for 1 to 21 years. I cited evidence from Byars et al which found a higher incidence of respiratory, infectious and allergic conditions later on in life in children undergoing tonsillectomy.

An Australian study observed an increased mortality in young adults.

A study of 179,875 Swedish patients observed an increased risk of autoimmune conditions such as thyroid disease, rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease and type 1 diabetes.

I can send you all three papers if you are interested in reviewing them. None is utterly free from potential confounding but all are much more robust than the study which is currently referenced in Wikipedia.

Conflicts of interest: None. I am an academic clinical epidemiologist and I receive no payments for undertaking tonsillectomy or for undertaking research into tonsillectomy.

TTM314 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained why repeatedly on your talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Ping :) regarding Talk:Eric M. Verdin
Hi, you may be able to help at Talk:Eric_M._Verdin. Feel free to remove this message without comment; it is merely meant as a surefire ping ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi,

Can you please clarify what your edit summary, "we do not provide for the other" means?

Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ubcule We do not list the brand name for the other image and do not really need to as it is in the image. Apologies typing error. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact it was in the image was why it was mentioned in the caption. The container most prominently says "Xalatan", with Latanoprost in smaller letters underneath; the caption makes clear that this is the brand name of Pfizer's version, at the same time covering an aspect of its marketing. Ubcule (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * People can see it in the picture. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's essentially the same point you made above.
 * If one was to follow that logic consistently, it could be argued- probably more strongly- that the remaining caption itself isn't necessary, since the words "Pfizer" and "Latanoprost" are visible anyway. Of course, the same should then apply to numerous other image captions as well. Ubcule (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

OTRS request
This ticket: ticket:2019052010000051 has nothing to do with medicine, but I trust you will see why I thought of you.

If you want to decline, I'll understand.

I'll also be intrigued by your reaction, it occurs to me that there may be something to it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Sphilbrick happy to take a look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!
... for reverting my massive duplication on Mirtazapine. Oh my gosh, what a mess! I'm going to go back in and carefully put back the one sentence about veterinary use.which is all I was trying to add. My kitty's vet prescribed it to control her hyperthyroid tendencies, which were causing her to burn her calories too fast and lose weight. Regards, --Thnidu (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Moved it to the body. Use in animals is minor and thus in the body is sufficient. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Primary source identification.
Hi, I identified this paper as a primary source. I want to ask if my identification is correct? Thanks. -- It's gonna be awesome! ✎ Talk♬ 18:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's a primary source.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-- It's gonna be awesome! ✎ Talk♬ 18:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup agree with User:Seppi333 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation request
Hi,

Do you know which of the illnesses among Paget's disease stands for the Paget's disease in Palpitation? -- It's gonna be awesome! ✎ Talk♬ 09:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:It's gonna be awesome Paget's disease of bone as it may cause high output heart failure. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! I gonna update the internal link! -- It's gonna be awesome! ✎ Talk♬ 10:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Salmonella Serovars
Doc James, I am inclined to think that referring to serotypes as just 'types' is somewhat misleading especially within Salmonella for which there are many species, subspecies and serotypes. I also do not feel that it is particularly advanced language that a reader would not understand the context of. Please let me know your thoughts but I think its worth keeping as serovar / serotype. Thanks TobyBrann
 * We say "The two main types of the subspecies enterica are ST1 and ST2" so we already specify that we are talking about the subspecies... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Relationship to author?
Hi! I just noticed that I have a comment from you asking what my relationship was to some author. I don't know him, I just was reading literature for a project and found those articles.

I have thought for a while to contribute to Wikipedia because I use it frequently to search for articles, and in fact, I was going to add more things on topics that I know, but I didn't imagine that this would be some kind of a witch hunt for no reason.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencemola (talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sciencemola the concern is that that author appears to be using multiple accounts to add articles about themselves.
 * If you are not associated with those other accounts than no worries. If you call a simple request regarding COI "a witch hunt" maybe we do have a concern.
 * Regardless please make sure to read WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, My name is Sumit. I want to create a wikipedia for a person I know, but I noticed that you deleted the wikipedia of that person already. I recently attended a conference in Gurugram, India on about life by Dr. Paras Daithankar and found him really inspiring. I searched him on wiki but couldn't find any article about him, then I tried to create then only to find if it was deleted already by you. I also found a draft about him, so I made some edits in the draft. I just wanted to know if it is ok to move his article to main space, as I mentioned that I know him as a motivational speaker but I don't personally know him.Thanks Sumitpatelster (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see Articles for creation. Once you think a draft article is ready for publication in main space, you can submit it for review at Articles for Creation by adding the code  to the top of the draft. Personally, I have the impression that the article about Dr Paras is not ready. It seems to be written a bit too much like an advertisement, and some of the cited sources do not seem very "reliable" and "independent". It may be helpful to review WP:IRS and WP:GNG. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Sumitpatelster were do you disclose your relationships to the subjects you write about? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:BarrelProof Sure i'll definitely check the article before submitting for AFC. I have one question, Should I move this article to main space or should I use AFC. I can't see the original article but it seems from the history that it was there on mainspace for quite a long time, however i agree with you that this article needs cleanup. Any suggestion will be appreciated.
 * I strongly suggest using the AFC submission process, since it includes a review step by experienced editors. I think the article needs a lot of improvement and should be checked by some experienced editor(s) before it would be suitable. The draft article evolved directly from the mainspace article – it was moved from mainspace to draft space on 20 April 2019 by Doc James. (I also did some cleanup of the article and made some comments on the article's Talk page). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Doc_James Yes sir, I know him. I have attended his motivational session recently as i mentioned above, but if you are asking me if I know him personally then the answer is no. I don't know him personally. Will it still come under COI? I am not getting paid for this though. What should I do please help me in this. Thanks Sumitpatelster (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like you don't have a COI at all. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There appears, however, to be money out for the creation of an article on this subject. So yes you should definitely not move it to mainspace. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment about High-intensity focused ultrasound
Hi, I have to revise with care the insertion in High-intensity focused ultrasound by a group of students I have followed and I am following. Now I noticed you edited the page after this insertion and for this reason i did not put it at the top of my list, I assumed that something really wrong would have been noticed but an expert user in the field like you, but maybe you were mostly focused on the other insertion. I am sorry they did not tell me about the critical situation of removal, but I guess they assumed they did not save correctly and just resaved, Before I start to read the sources, check the copyviol again and give a clear feedback to them, do you have any comments? Thank you in advance. Have a nice day.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also I was thinking about adding some alaternative names such as "Focused Ultrasound Surgery" in the incpit, what do you think?--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am currently reading this review as an additional source for the ablation and real-time imaging but I am still not sure.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Alexmar983 I have not been reviewing in detail. Just trimming the most obvious primary sources. Currently travelling. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you trimmed stuff in the other insertion, not this one. But they were posted at the same time so i wanted to be sure.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)