User talk:Doc James/Archive 159

William Faloon's page
I'm not sure what you have against my William Faloon page, but it's frustrating that you keep deleting my writing, sources, and are now tagging with COI tags. I'm not sure what you have against this guy, but it's obvious that you have a problem with him. I have edited pages in the past, but am new to making a new page so I do anticipate having errors, but your mass deletion of things is absurd. Your COI tag is also completely unfounded. No one has paid me to write anything! I am simply interested in the transhumanist movement and William Faloon, a big player in the field, is one of the few people who doesn't have a page so I figured I'd go for it. I see now why he doesn't. People like you who are intent on shutting it down, even when references are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmelandon (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Jmelandon The issue is that you continue to add material that is not supported by the references provided... Yes you appear to be connected to the person in question as how else would you know those details / get their picture.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If you actually read the references instead of just deleting things, you would see all of the information is there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmelandon (talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Jmelandon Okay were does this ref give his birthday? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

William Faloon's Birthdate
"We were indicted on November 7, 1991 — my birthday," Faloon says. "People in jail were so apologetic, but I said, 'My birthday is the worst day of the year. You people are making it fun. Now I don't have to have people wishing me a happy one-year-closer-to-death.'?"

And

Faloon, born in 1954 to a Presbyterian family, remembers distinctly that "when I was 8 years old, I was told by my mother that everybody eventually dies. At that very moment, I refused to accept that concept."

From https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/bill-faloon-and-saul-kent-major-figures-in-cryonics-movement-start-a-church-in-hollywood-6969096

His birthday is right there in the text, again, if you read this you would understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmelandon (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That was not the reference you used by the text in question.
 * Next what about his picture? You said you took it? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies
Was looks at the old data at medicaid rather than the update to 2019. Thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (FYI: I still don't understand where you got the much number you put in to replace mine.  I think no number even half that was in ANY version of the medicaid data.)--50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per here in 2017 it was 7.4 USD per tab. Two tables per day is 14.80... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe check the rest of that change?
How does one tell when they're sleepy or distracted? Maybe rest before checking? Shenme (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Shenme "r" is right beside "t"... :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, keyboard typos. From my user page, "abd nabaged" had me cross-eyed until I saw the right-shift-left consistency.
 * Long time ago an (external) article made a differentiation between "sins of commission" and "sins of omission". They wanted to point out the found association between "sins of omission" and being tired/distracted/hurried/etc. Thus I use occurrence of unintended and especially uncaught errors to signal myself that I might need time away. Mistyping would be a sin of commission, and is explainable in all the ways that make us human. Typos not seen on review would be a sin of omission, and a possible time to hit 'eject'. ;-) (I'm paranoid about using Show Preview because... history) Shenme (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm really not shadowing you! I got there from Eosinophilic esophagitis from Atopy. This looks like problems with word prediction, like on cell phone keyboards. Instead of 'while' you got 'well' twice, as in "Well common,". Did you edit on 21:28, 2 October 2019‎ with a keyboard aid that betrayed you? One had already been fixed. I'll fix the other. Shenme (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Shenme no worries. That is just me making an error. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Tobico
Hi Doc James,

I would like to bring this user,, to your attention. This user has been inserting what seems to be his own case studies in Chinese and English Wikipedia to promote chiropractic. I have blocked him on zhwp indefinitely and cleaned up the citespams on enwp. Please deal with him appropriately if he resumes such behavior here. -Mys_721tx (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Mys 721tx thanks have left them a message. If they add any more will block. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

List_of_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans_winners
Hey Doc James,

The page List_of_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans_winners is being vandalized specifically changing 1966 winner to Ken Miles. The controversy has been explained in the article 1966_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans (probably due to Ford vs. Ferrari movie). I have reverted the edits last done to the page. However, 3 more reverts was done before me on the same topic.

--Astroketh (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Astroketh have semi protected. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Onasemnogene abeparvovec; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — kashmīrī  TALK  12:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Sure User:Kashmiri thanks. Please stop attempting to suppress the common side effects and black box warnings attached to the worlds most expensive medication such as here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suppresing anything. Please stop sticking unnecessary information, and using incorrect terms, to the lead section. Medical articles have a set structure and please follow it. — kashmīrī  TALK  12:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes medical articles do have a set structure. And that is what I am following. Your description of black box warnings as "unnecessary information" is concerning. The lead is to be a summary of the articles most important contents. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Kashmiri, your point is not clear or objective, perhaps you should take a look at what Doc James is indicating--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Watching two regular editors template each other is a thing that speaks for itself. NO, medical articles do not have a set structure: you are both wrong. Guidelines are guidelines, and medical articles have a suggested structure, subject to consensus as with all matters of guideline interpretation. This is lame: both of you, please stop using an incorrect interpretation of a guideline as an excuse to edit war to impose a personal preference. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * True not set structure, simple recommended structure. Dispute is not really about the recommended structure though... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. We are still friendly and, templates aside, I hope our debate, heated as it is, does not cross the boundaries of good taste. As to the article itself, we are discussing relative weight of certain information. It is only a pity that Doc James did not respect WP:BRD. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I just took a quick look at the page. What a title! I wonder if they named it by typing randomly on the keyboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ona-SeMN (Survival Motor Neuron) oGENE (Gene)        abe-PARVO (parvovirdae dependovirus)-vec(non-replicating viral vector). :) --Astroketh (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As User:Astroketh says, the name indicates what kind of medication it is. The super complicated names means it is a super complicated medication :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think they are charging by the number of letters in the name. (Said facetiously.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Psychosis page
Just a note to keep you "in the loop" regarding my criticms and proposals for the above. I will not be editing it again until some sort of consensus is achieved, perhaps via the "Psychosis talk page". I have patience and time, but I think action is required in regards to all that I have said there.

Jonathan Colkett 20:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please make sure to read WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit
First undo purported 1. changed meaning? 2. POV? My additions were to provide a point of view which is supported by modern science. Second undo was for poor sources? I added more robust sources, and I can find more to support my edits, but you don't explain what makes them poor.

If you think the article is great as it is and doesn't need more balance, because it portrays the issues relating to my edits as unquestionable facts that are in no way under dispute, then undo my edits, fine. Your rationale for undoing my edits is not justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyvail (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MEDRS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you say fur is hair...
Am curious about why the hairs on my legs don't grow as long as which on my head? --Somatic dyspenea (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are various types of hairs. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

User:It's gonna be awesome
+, who went bananas on their Talk page. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yah using a bunch of socks :-( Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Martin Urbanec I have a bunch of coding projects but do not have the technical ability to mentor anyone... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Heading
Please cite these "classic," "reputable" sources for this image as depicting bipolar affective disorder so that we can have a robust discussion about your personal choice as to what is appropriate for depicting a medical condition.
 * They are listed in the talk history of the page in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Misleading prices
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles.

James, since you seem to be the sole editor involved in adding "wholesale developing world" prices using the International Medical Products Price Guide and (retail) prices for the US using Drugs.com, I think you should explain how you arrived at the figures quoted in the articles. Particularly how you worked out a "per dose" or "per day" price or how you chose which formulation or tablet size or syrup strength to pick when you quoted the price. Were you using Supplier prices or Buyer prices or both? I think the figures given are all wrong and misleading and should be removed from all our articles. -- Colin°Talk 18:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure. This is based on the Defined Daily Dose of 1.5 gram (so three tablets).
 * Have updated from 2014 to 2015 so changed "The wholesale cost in the developing world is between US$0.14 and US$0.52 per day." to "The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$0.40 per day as of 2015."
 * The updates were minor adjustments just going to show that medication prices do not generally make wild swings. The prior prices were useful. The current prices are a little more clear.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll replay at the linked discussion. A major issue is that none of the prices I have examined match what our article claims. Not one. -- Colin°Talk 08:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

"Good" source
Could you please tell me what is bad with this source, and show me a "good" one? --Saidmann (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is just a Youtube video advertising Rezum. Why should we have a link to an advert? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Because a) there are no other web-images of comparable quality, and b) a source from the industry is not even frowned upon in scientific peer-reviewed publications. Why should we have different standards in this respect than high-quality journals? --Saidmann (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Bladder Cancer
Hi Docjames,

Can you please give me your opinion on the article Bladder cancer.

a. What are the current limitations?

b. What needs improvement?

c. Other suggestions.

Thank you

--Astroketh (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Astroketh I think it looks good :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hard Palate
Hi Doc, can you or a peer have a look at Hard Palate please? It appears the reference's translation (Romanian → English) missed the mark. Thanks! Ran0t0 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Ran0t0 sure let me see if I can find an EN ref. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

RM
Hello, could you tell me what RM means? Wipur (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Wipur it means WP:RM. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Marginal zone B-cell lymphomas
Doc, I am not clear as to what your suggestions (i.e. " "Wondering if we should have a one to three paragraph overview for each of the three types in the body of the article. And than move each type to its own subpage") mean in terms of what I should do for the article Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma (MZL}. Do you suggest 1) placing a 1-3 paragraph overview at the beginning of the description for each MZL type; 2) a 1-3 paragraph overview at the start of the MZL article; or 3) have the MZL article overview the three subtypes and make each of the subtypes a separate article? Prior to my update and expansion of the Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, there were 4 Wikipedia articles on this: Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, MALT lymphoma, Nodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma, and Splenic marginal zone lymphoma. Marginal zone B-cell lymphoma and MALT lymphoma are the same clinical entity; the Nodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma consists of 3 lines and 3 citations, the newest of which is from 2008; and the Splenic marginal zone lymphoma article's latest citation is from 2006. These Marginal zone B-cell lymphomas have recently (2016) been reclassified into the three types, extranodal, nodal, and splenic, with the extranodal type having numerous subtypes. My idea was to reflect this update by combining the four separate articles into one. The advantage of having one article devoted to the three types is that it describes the similarities in their mechanisms of development and other features. If one article on MZL is preferred, I would combine the MALT lymphoma, nodal, and splenic articles into the MZL article. If an overview MZL article plus separate articles on each type is preferred, I would merge the Extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma part of MZL with the MALT article to make a asingle Extranodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma article, merge the Nodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma part of MZL with the nodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma article, and merge the splenic marginal zone B-cell lymphoma part of MZL with the splenic marginal lymphoma article (termed splenic marginal zone B-cell lymphoma). Please advise me on you view of on these questions. joflaher (talk) 1O:38, 29 November 2019 (Eastern Standard Time, USA)
 * User:joflaher I was thinking having something like the following. But your call...

Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma
"Most of the details go in the above."

EMZLs are a from of MZL in which malignant marginal zone B-cells initially infiltrate MALT tissues of the stomach (50-70% of all EMZL) or, less frequently, the esophagus, small intestine, large intestine, rectum, conjunctiva of the eye, nasal passages, pharynx, lung bronchi, vulva, vagina, skin, breast, thymus gland, meninges (i.e. membranes) that envelop the brain and spinal cord, or other organs. These EMZLs are classified into subtypes based on the organ(s) involved. For example, EMZL of the stomach is termed primary gastric EMZL. Regardless of subtype, these EMZLs share similar pathophysiological (i.e. disordered physiological processes that cause the disease) and histopathological (i.e. microscopic featues of diseased tissues). However, the subtypes differ in presentation, progression, severity, treatment, and instigating factors.

With maybe another paragraph or two overview but all the specifics in the subpage. And the same with the other two types. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please at least explain why you are reverting or undoing when you do it thanks
everything in the titleWalidou47 (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to add refs that support the content in question. You known that... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Rabies vaccine article
I've been working on the Rabies vaccine article for a school project. I saw that some of the information included in the introduction isn't found anywhere else in the article. Would moving the short safety paragraph of the introduction to the actual safety subsection, then just putting a brief summary of that in the introduction be alright? Or is there a reason that the safety paragraph is in the introduction with invisible comments? Jmg613 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Jmg613 have added the safety details to the body of the text aswell. It should be in both places. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect
You created Daily defined dose as a redirect to itself. If you meant to target some actual existing article, please edit the redirect. Otherwise, it will likely be deleted soon. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:R'n'B. Have fixed :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Remove COI Tag
Hi,

I removed the COI tag from Dr. Panda page as the content that was added previously removed. However, you added the tag back. Now that the page does not have any content that was previously updated, why does it still hold the COI tag? Sonder000 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your connection with the topic in question? And how are you certain all the paid content was removed? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The page was purged by some user and barely has any information. Also, it does not read like an advertisement and the information provided is strictly factual. I checked. Hence, the page may require attention but the COI tag does appear appropriate. Sonder000 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay trimmed a few more things and removed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Stomach cancer
Doc James, The article Stomach cancer deals primarily with adenocarcinoma of the stomach. Shouldn't this be stated at the beginning of the article by mentioning this as well as the other (rare) but medically important types of stomach cancer, i.e. the lymphomas which, unlike stomach adenocarcinoma, may be cured with antibiotic therapy? joflaher (User talk:joflahr) 6:21, 6 December 2019 (EST)


 * User:joflaher We discuss the different types "Most cases of stomach cancers are gastric carcinomas.[2] This type can be divided into a number of subtypes including gastric adenocarcinomas.[2] Lymphomas and mesenchymal tumors may also develop in the stomach.[2]"


 * Have moved it sooner. Have also added some more details about gastric lymphoma to the article. Ie that they are often curable with treatment for H. pylori.


 * By the way were does this talk about B cell lymphomas https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25052386 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, thanks for the changes to Stomach cancer. I assume that my incorrect citation for B-cell lymphomas has been corrected. If not, please tell me where you found it so that I give the correct citation. joflaher (User talk:joflahr) 4:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:joflaher was added in this edit.
 * I move the content lower in the article here Stomach_cancer
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

additions to botulism page
thanks for letting me know about how to use the talk page. This will let us talk through how to best expand the iatrogenic botulism. The medical knowledge about botulism is scattered and inconsistent between countries and even between "thought leaders" in institutions. I feel wikipedia provides an excellent venue to aggregate the available information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skye Bravo (talk • contribs) 03:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

December 7, 2019: The entry reads under injection reads, "...use of inappropriate strengths" which is clearly not accurate based on hundreds of documented cases of botulism post-Botox at FDA approved amounts. I can produce as many peer-reviewed citations as necessary to establish this point. To NOT include this vital perspective, is to allow consumers to be educated with a half-truth....YES, botulism can (and has) occur from inappropriate uses and YES, botulism HAS occurred with standard of care doses and FDA approved doses.

It would be a fallacy to assume something is true based on assumptions, rather than intensely-researched medical facts. Getting a second opinion from another person who lacks the same intensely-researched medical facts does not make the original premise valid. It makes two misinformed physicians. What I am offering to you (and the world) is EVIDENCE to chip away at the IGNORANCE that has grown around botulinum toxin, a substance developed by the US military to use in biological warfare and a substance that remains a Select Agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skye Bravo (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Skye Bravo were do you want to have this discussion? Probably best is Talk:Botulism. I will continue there. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

traumatic brain injury
Doc James, I just sent you an e-mail message. Carl Masthay, St. LouisCmasthay (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Cmasthay. Let me see if I can find a reference for it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

“Medical citation needed “
Hi @ Doc James, I have come across a few pages where “ medical citation needed “ was quoted. Could you please tell me the criteria, like is it the accepted medical books or any particular literature expected to cite here? Angunnu (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Angunnu sure. Instructions here at the top. A major medical textbook is fine. Remember to include the page number :-)  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Popular culture section in thalidomide
Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thalidomide&diff=930229911&oldid=930192743

I thought you don't need references for plots of TV episodes and movies, because their plot sections on wikipedia don't have references. See Wall-E.

MDaxo (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MDaxo the question is, has that TV show had a significant effect on the awareness of the disease in question? Otherwise it can go on the article about the TV show but we deem it to be trivia within medical articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Article Edit
Hello! My name is Daniella and I edited the article “Cauda equina syndrome” in which I added information about this disease in dogs. You edited the article and removed about 5,000 characters from my work, and I was wondering why, since the view history just addressed “moved to subapge”. Could you please give some more information about this edit? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniellaR07 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DaniellaR07 Moved it here Degenerative_lumbosacral_stenosis. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Heading
I am fairly new to editing, so I hope I am in the right place -- I want to report a user Walidou47 for posting fake info -- see my analysis here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rutherfordlad

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutherfordlad (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You are referring to "Some

people with atrophic gastritis may be asymptomatic. That said, symptomatic patients are mostly females and signs of atrophic gastritis are those associated with iron deficiency: fatigue, restless legs syndrome, brittle nails, hair loss, impaired immune function, and impaired wound healing. And other symptoms such as: delayed gastric emptying (80%), reflux symptoms (25%), peripheral neuropathy (25% cases), autonomic abnormalities and memory loss are less common and occur in 1%–2% of cases. Other psychiatric disorders are also reported such as: mania, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, psychosis and cognitive impairment." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Rutherfordlad the first part is on page 3 and the second part is in table 2 of the second reference? Did you look at the full paper? Have restored... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Closed

 * Editor Does Not Play Well With Others

Just an FYI. Maybe you can talk some sense into User: ‎Freeknowledgecreator. They're busy reverting a rather small, uncontroversial change on HIV/AIDS denialism and not interacting well with other editors, including veteran editors. They could use a talking to since they're being rather silly and starting to get hostile. It seems they haven't read that WP:WHALE is humorous and not supposed to be taken all that seriously. Thanks, James. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The user who left that comment above edit warred to restore a message on my talk page that I do not want there, after I made it clear that I do not want it there. That is offensive and insulting behavior and I reserve the right to respond in a "hostile" way to anyone who behaves in a way that is obviously offensive and insulting. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See violation of WP:5P, WP:CIVIL, and WP:FOC here . Talk about inappropriate. You do not get the right to "reserve" the right to respond in a hostile manner (ever!) on Wikipedia. That's not how we do things here. You were the first person to be insulting and should apologize. No other editor has ever treated me with such disrespect in my years here, it is a significant aberration. That's a pretty loose definition of "edit warring". I think you should reread that policy. The conduct you have displayed is simply unacceptable, FreeKnowledge. Res Ipsa Loquitor. Regardless, you have been reverted (and not by me). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

User:TylerDurden8823 and User:Freeknowledgecreator I have looked at the situation in question. I think Tylers change of drug to medication makes sense as it is clearer. Freeknowledge I agree that if you remove a comment by someone else from your talk page they should not return it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair enough to me. Free, you should still learn how to interact much better with other editors. Yikes. Talk about losing your mind over nothing. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not accept harassment from you or anyone else, and nor do I consider it "nothing". If other editors support your change at HIV/AIDS denialism, I'll leave it in place. Continue to harass me, however, and I will respond as necessary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like a bunch of this could have gone better. I would suggest you two de escalate. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes James, I agree. This editor really pissed me off with their inappropriate interaction and serious attitude problem (and it usually takes someone really stepping out of line to tick me off). Free, I'm glad to see you're starting to speak more sensibly. That's a good start. I suggest you deeply reflect on your serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues and bad attitude. You may not "consider it nothing", but it was. You escalated when it really didn't merit it (I mean, my God, you were arguing over one word-and an equivalent one at that...).


 * Please learn how to interact with other editors, check your attitude, and stop being so hostile. Also, please read WP:WHALE. Trouting and whaling fellow Wikipedia editors is not harassment and you displayed a serious attitude problem in response to that (which tells me you missed the point of it entirely). To quote the trout page "Apply this template to the user talk page of someone who thoroughly deserves a whacking with a wet trout. This template is intended for humorous use only!". Got it? Good. A veteran here for ten years should know better. This is supposed to be a collaborative environment, and your behavior on the HIV/AIDS denialism page was the complete opposite of that (I'm not the only one who think so) and it really rubbed me the wrong way. Don't be a dick, especially when considering what you wrote on your user page excerpt about reading the Bible bringing you peace (swearing at other people in all caps doesn't seem very Christian or peaceful, it smacks of hypocrisy when you behave this way). Idk what crawled up your behind and I'd rather never find out. Good grief. What an overreaction (to one word...seriously? Wow.). Case closed, keep away from me foever, FreeKnowledgecreator. All the way on the other side of Wikipedia, if you please. What matters is the original issue on the article is settled. Now I can move on and never have to interact with this editor again. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Restoring a comment to my talk page after I have made it absolutely clear that I do not want it there is a form of harassment. Continue to harass me, on my talk page or by any other means, and I will respond as necessary. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, it escalated because you were being a dick. Grow up. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Grow up yourself. Harassment doesn't include an excuse to the effect that you can harass someone if you don't like them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't excuse my actions. I owned up to what I did (like a grown up). You have yet to do so. It's obvious you haven't learned a thing. That's a shame. You are just ridiculous, my friend. You have my pity.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)