User talk:Doc James/Archive 47

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata
Hi DocJames! I'm contacting all the members of the task force because we need some more votes for our properties. If you have about 10 minutes please visit d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term. After they have enough votes I can create them and a bot operator can start gathering information. If you want to help with increasing the visibility of the data-project you can add   to your user page. All the best! (Watching your talk page and the task force talk page) --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you please
blank everything on my talk page but for your block notice?. An officious intermeddler is precluding my request for doing so, and I am unable to log in to do it myself. Thanks. User:Fladrif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.198.193 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm the "officious intermeddler", not to mention a "nimrod" and an "ass". Perhaps all of this high-falutin' invective proves the charming IP is Fladrif.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fladrif unless you can agree to stay civil and thus eventually return to editing there is little benefit to blanking your page. I think you have a great deal to contribute thus hope you take me up on this. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon Invitation

 * Likewise and thanks for the words of encouragement. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Pregnancy
Thank you for a meaningful edit summary. Please keep in mind they are necessary when you are interacting with a person who only occasionally edits a subject and may not know all conventions of a particular wikiproject. Otherwise your edits may look like a case of WP:OWNitis. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please join the discussion on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Medical Apps
Are you familiar with Medical apps? I certainly wasn't until I heard this story on NPR, and said to myself - this is something Wikipedia must have - but probably doesn't. I couldn't find anything - except perhaps what might be called "pre-spam." It will be a bear to write, attract lots of spam, and require very careful consideration of NPOV. Also being an expert might help - which is why I'm contacting you.

Once I've cleared the decks of other things I need to do (3 or 4 days?) I'll probably give it a go. Any help appreciated.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there are tones of them. Have not used any myself. Am a little skeptical of most. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump post about Evidence template and AnomieBOT
Regarding the template and AnomieBot's question  I could post something on WP:VPR, but I don't know if you would rather do it or not. And/or if you'd like to work on the template a bit first. If you want me to do it, just give me the go-ahead. Klortho (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I could do a draft and post it here if you'd like. Klortho (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes please draft something. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Draft is at User:Klortho/DraftVPPost. Feel free to hack away at it. Klortho (talk)


 * Posted to WP:VPR here. Klortho (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Yes and should all be merged into one. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert to Earthquake
Hi there,

You recently used a bot (TW I think) to revert a cut-and-paste section in the Earthquake article, but your bot also overwrote a subsequent edit that I had made to the article. Normally you would be warned and have to confirm before reverting multiple edits, but that might not work with bots, I don't know. I have fixed the article by redoing my fix, but left out the inappropriately copied section. I believe wiki-etiquette dictates that you should repair the page so that the inappropriate edit is removed but my subsequent proper edit remains. Anyway, I've fixed it already, but I thought I'd leave you a note because maybe you didn't realize that happened, or maybe your bot is misbehaving. Also so that you know I don't intend to get into a revert war with you over a redlink.

Cheers and happy editing! Ivanvector (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Will be more careful. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job!
A fantastic result for this thank you very much! TippyGoomba (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques
Hi again

Don't know if this is something you'd like to comment on, but I did see you'd made at least one edit to the article. There's a long discussion on Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques that might benefit from more input. No worries if you don't have time, or anything to add. Cheers. Begoon &thinsp; talk 05:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock conditions
Hi James. Regarding User talk:KhabarNegar, if you understand that the editor must now limit himself to those conditions (numbered 1-3), it would help if they are logged in WP:RESTRICT. Generally an editor who is under a new topic ban will go through a few rounds of misunderstanding before it sinks in. Having it logged can help. Also the logging will be informative to other admins if anyone else ever needs to enforce it. Your conditions don't say whether the ban includes talk pages. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did this bit of administration here. My understanding from the discussion was that KN isn't to edit the articles but can discuss the topics on the User Talk pages of individual users, and it's indef but appeal-able after 6 months.  If I messed it up (likely) please feel free to revert/correct.   16:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Zad Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everyone pitching in on this. There was almost no participation at the ANI, and I scratched my head over what to do, knowing something needed doing.  I'm not crazy about doing blocks like this (which are a bit strong) and I can't remember doing many of these like this, but felt that this method would actually get a resolution quicker than a series of timed blocks, and would get his attention so the solution would stick. I agree with Ed, we don't want to hammer him for good faith mistakes, topic bans are sometimes confusing.  Hopefully, this is something that can be lifted in 3 to 6 months, which I'm happy to leave to the discretion of Doc James. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  20:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting my comedones picture
Hi James - I left a note on the talk page of comedo: Hywel answered all my questions about anatomical skin stuff, and I'm going to re-do the comedones picture - but only an administrator can delete the one that I uploaded last weekend. Could you do that please? There's nothing massively wrong with it, but it's not good enough and I'll do a better one. Hildabast (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once you have the new one, you can replace the old one with it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

RFAR notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,
 * Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry, but I think your judgement is a bit too harsh here, so I have to request input from the community as to the status of the block. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 21:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the notice. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc, I am stating (for the record) that I agree with Dennis's assessment, and I wish you hadn't made that block. I think it was harsh, and I think there was no block necessary as prevention to the project. Longtime editors deserve more credit. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

little question about Dopamine
Hi, Do you have any Idea about this edit? Regards,KhabarNegar Talk 04:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And Is it really necessary at all to have that in that article? I don't think so? is it?KhabarNegar Talk 04:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * , but I think its undue wight it can be removed, if we do have material specifically about this, I think it probably can be. Right now can be a bit too much for this particular effect.KhabarNegar Talk 04:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not really make any sense and is unreffed so hard to verify. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly peripheral effects of Dopamine is mentioned & the article is so popular, so I'm gonna ask for reference if no one asked I will remove that sentence. Regards,KhabarNegar Talk 07:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just happened to spot this query in passing... Might this review be useful ? 81.157.7.7 (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will read that to see what is int it, Thanks...KhabarNegar Talk 10:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:KhabarNegar also posted on my talk page -- let me try to give some context here. I've been expanding and rewriting the article recently.  My main interest and knowledge base is the brain functions of dopamine but I also felt a need to add information about the peripheral effects in order to make the article comprehensive.  I tried to base the material I added on good review papers, but I'm operating outside my area of expertise there and liable to make mistakes.  The sentence in question is from the lead, and the reference that supports it is in the body of the article, in the "Outside the nervous system" section (PMID 9457173).  The review that you point to dismisses the role of arterial dopamine receptors in hypertension, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is unimportant in conditions that acutely raise dopamine, such as hypoxia or when dopamine is used for i.v. injection.  However I'm certainly open to correction from people who know more about this than I do.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Looie496, As I reverted the I.P. edits I just wanted to feel O.K. about this revert and I have no Idea about this, so that's why I asked you too which I thought know this. I just wanted to see if I.P edits was right or not, Thanks:)KhabarNegar Talk 20:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

MERS-CoV restructuring
I've noticed you sometimes restructure articles in need of it. Could you express your opinion on ways to improve the MERS-CoV article here? Thanks ComfyKem (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have weighted in :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Image, etc.
Glad that got sorted. You might consider Dennis Brown's suggestion on the Arb page. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have had an offer of guidance by another admin which I have accepted. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the dubious distinction of being the only admin to get the bit based on a promise to complete 3 months of mentoring afterwards, in CSD. It was technically unenforceable, but I completed it  within what I felt was the highest standards of good faith, thanks to help from Boing! said Zedebee and DGG.  You are in good company and I understand it from your position, if that means anything.  And it is the shortest distance between these two particular points. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  00:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which admin? Malke 2010 (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Disclosure and acceptance are two requirements that I don't think the community is going to bend on. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  01:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Will wait and see what arbcom's position is. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This adds to my concern that you don't understand the expectations of the community. This isn't about the Arb committee, this is about the greater community. It isn't likely that Arb is going to take the case which means they will stay completely out of the case.  They can not refuse the case AND tell someone they can't file an RFC/U, policy doesn't allow it.  What will stop an RFC/U isn't Arb.  It is the trust of every individual that is inclined to do so.   You're a good editor with some admin issues that eminently solvable, but I'm telling you from experience that the rest of the community is going to consider this insufficient, almost insultingly so.  I've tried to craft a reasonable compromise that contains the least amount of inconvenience to you yet one the community would accept.  I am confident they will not accept "secret mentoring", which to the public is indistinguishable from "nothing".  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  01:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd listen to Dennis Brown if I were you. He's made some excellent comments so far. I've seen him in other settings on talk pages and he's very good at assessing situations. So is Silk Tork. I'd pay close attention to what he wrote as well. I don't think you're a bad fellow but you do seem to have some issues when it comes to listening to others. You tend to be dismissive and go on your way with things as you see fit. You don't seem to realize people are trying to help you. But let me add, a mentor is not going to be there to buddy with you or help you get by. He's there to protect Wikipedia. And that's what this is really all about. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Initiating DOTS will calm reasonable concerns; once complete, it will settle the issue. Least drama. -- Scray (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sure all my actions (both admin and none admin) will be scrutinized by many going forwards. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Facial Palsy UK
Hello, I hope I am doing this correctly. Thank you for your diligence on Wikipedia. The charity Facial Palsy UK is an official charity set up to support people with facial palsy, it is backed by an extensive team of medical professionals and is neutral with no promotion of individual hospitals or practitioners. We get enquiries from all over the world because we are the only charity to support anyone affected by facial palsy for any reason. We are desperately trying to raise awareness for people affected by the condition, they have been until now been without much support at all, even the medical profession see the problem as cosmetic when it has an immense psychological impact. I see Cancer Research UK is linked under Organisations on the cancer research page, so I don't understand the difference. Our only purpose is to reach out to people and support them. Before the charity was set up I had the website www.facialnervepalsy.com which was created with support from surgeons and health professionals across the world. However, I did not add timeliness to the website or make it clear the information was checked by medical experts. I see you have removed this link also now, it has been on Wikipedia for two or three years and has helped a lot of people because they found others in a similar situation, facial paralysis is an awfully lonely condition to have. I do feel that it is right this should be removed now though because Facial Palsy UK is the better site, it does have every page marked for timeliness, we are recognized as an authority on the subject and every page has been checked by experts in the field, you can see our extensive medical advisory board on the website. There is so much poor information about Bell's palsy on the internet, such as facial exercise programmes, someone even brought out an iPhone App, yet it is so important that people are seen by a medical expert rather than try to do exercises they find on YouTube or download in an App. We are trying to sway the tide of bad information out there and ensure people take the correct medical advice. Some beauticians in hairdressers are even setting themselves up with neuro-stimulators and saying they can cure Bell's palsy, this is the kind of thing we are up against. I would urge you to look again at our website, we are experts, we are neutral, and we absolutely have the best interests of the general public at heart. Thank you again and I do understand your caution, but for the sake of people affected by the condition I would request you take another look at our charity website. We are notable and have been featured in papers such as the Daily Mail, The Mirror, etc. and on the BBC News. I notice you don't mention the use of botulinum toxin in Bell's palsy patients, the page also does not mention having MRI to rule out other causes. We have one case study who was diagnosed with Bell's palsy and 8 years later they finally did an MRI and discovered a tumour! We also have case studies who have had Bell's three times. One of our trustees is in the video on the NHS Bell's palsy page. Some of the stories we hear are shocking, and health professionals are simply not aware to look beyond the obvious. Would really appreciate your help in including us an authority on the subject because we do have more information than Wikipedia does and we will be adding to our site continually. We should not be excluded when the Moebius Research and other Bell's palsy site are allowed, in my opinion. I do understand Wikipedia gets spammed to death though and appreciate your caution! Thank you.86.151.21.240 (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Karen Johnson (Charity Coordinator) Sorry I wasn't logged in Kittyscavern (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Karen Johnson
 * We are trying to write an encyclopedia rather than curate a collection of external links. As previously mention DMOZ curates external links and we link to them. Maybe suggest adding your site there? If you wish to improve the content on Wikipedia there is a group of use willing to help. There are no other Bell's palsy sites listed here ? And have trimmed the ones on the other page. Cancer Research UK is not listed as an external link in our cancer article  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay will do as you suggest, but I still don't understand the difference between our website and the ones listed here, I understand it could be because they are on Dmoz but why wouldn't the Bell's palsy link be on the Bell's palsy page in that case? I'll ask our medical advisory board for suggestions on how to improve the information you have, the main thing for us is that people are not misinformed and they can access quality medical websites.  I will try DMOZ again, thank you for your help. Kittyscavern (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The main difference is simply that the Bell's palsy article is more rigorously maintained, because it is more important -- it draws over ten times the page views that the facial palsy article gets, and it's a much more thoroughly developed article. Our group of article-maintainers is quite small, and we tend to focus our efforts on the articles that are most important.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration regarding you
Hi Doc James, this is a courtesy notice to inform you that a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=561761159#Jmh649 request for arbitration], which named you as a party, has been declined to be heard by the Arbitration Committtee. The Arbitrators generally felt that this was not yet ready to be heard by the Committee, and other steps in the dispute resolution process (such as an RFC/U) should be utilised, please feel free to view the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=561761159#Jmh649:_Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.3C0.2F7.2F0.2F0.3E Arbitrators' comments] for further advice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

cite pmid
Tell me what has changed - the citations are exactly the same, but standardized. John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Thu 22:02, wikitime=  21:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "standardized"? They were already all similarly formatted before this edit contracted some of them One of the difficulties is that this new format does not work across all languages of Wikipedia. Thus when the articles are translated into Panjabi for example  the ref does not work.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant standardized across Wikipedia, not just this one page. I only stopped because it was dinner-time. I can't imagine how it doesn't work in Punjabi, it's a standard wp feature. I've got better things to do though. John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Thu 22:23, wikitime=  21:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have asked for further input on this question here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine . It does not appear to be a standard feature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
User_talk:SilkTork Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Pumpkinsky. Thanks for the heads up and I appreciate you bringing some of these concerns to my attention. You are indeed correct that some of my page protections have been inappropriately carried out. And I have received some excellent advice regarding this issue from fellow admins here that I will apply going forwards. I have apologised to User:Ched both publically  and privately regarding my inappropriate revert of his block. I realize very clearly that I should not have undid his block and agree to never overturn another admins block without clear consensus going forwards.


 * With respect to "edit wars", reverting the addition of poor content per WP:BRD and starting discussion on the talk page is not editing warring (even if one reverts a couple of times), at least not by my reading of the rules. I do not feel that I have "hounding new users" and would be happy to look at evidence of such. If you see issues in the future I appreciate you or others bringing it to my attention. I do provide a great deal of feedback to new users as well as provide real life outreach to people interested in Wikipedia. A few of these people have turned into excellent long term contributors.


 * With respect to users changing, I made some overly personalized comments when I initially started. This issue was brought to my attention a couple of years ago and as far as I am aware I have done well not commenting on users as per No personal attacks policy. As mentioned above I am sure that I will have many people providing me advice going forwards. Anyway I hope that we can both return to working on content / improving Wikipedia together. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Responding to the ping. Yes, I can confirm this, and I did accept an apology both publicly and privately from Doc James.  TY again.  Not sure there's any more for me to say here.  Best to all. — Ched :  ?  00:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at this discussion here: Administrators%27_noticeboard Pumpkin Sky   talk  11:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Art of clinical self-defence?
Hey James - Thanks for resisting the temptation to merge the dreaded yellow exudate that adorned Mononucleosis. Urghhh!

86.171.162.156 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm kind of wondering quite where (or how) "Natural history" nice[.]org[.]uk/glandular-fever#!backgroundsub] should snick in to the recommended page structure. Somewhere/somehow in between the  "Signs and symptoms" and "Pathogenesis" sections perhaps? 86.171.162.156 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Natural history is part of the signs and symptoms usually. I by the way really like the yellow exudate. A great picture of mono. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I feared as much. Could you just wait until I'm done? (Though I'm not sure how long that'll be...) Cheers, 86.171.162.156 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There was already one there. I just re placed it with a more clear image. Did not place it in the lead due to your concerns. Are you okay with were it is now? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see I shouldn't have mentioned that. I'd really prefer if it could wait until I've finished (the other illustration has been considered ok until now). 86.171.162.156 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We do need to get it all merged though. The picture is nothing without the smell that goes with it though :-) Feel free to hide it until you are done. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll hide it when I get to that part of the page. I plan on taking a 24 hour break now, so feel free (of course!) to do anything technical you want for the merge.


 * As a general point, when trying to focus on quality I get MEDMOS-type concerns about losing directness for our broader readership. Can I ask you: Do you think the balance is ok in the opening Signs and Symptoms paragraph I've just inserted here ? Thanks in advance, 86.171.162.156 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Will look in a bit :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, give me a few days maybe. I'm trying to work out ways of simplifying the emerging draft of the (age-related) "Signs and symptoms" while providing some details of best evidence. I'm not there yet, but working on it... :-) —86.161.250.204 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the Signs and Symptoms section (which I had still only partially revised). I appreciate that your revisions are "per usual", so to speak. However—and I say this with great respect for your work—I am far from sure that the current version is more readable than the structured one on which I'd been working. My rationale for trying out the use of footnotes was to include more detailed information that could be of more interest to professionals without necessarily troubling the general reader. I decided to try a bullet point approach in order to give some structure to the age-related presentation of symptoms without using a rigid system of subheadings. I have given quite a lot of thought to this over the past few days in the interests of general reader friendliness, but I do realize there are pros and cons with those approaches (e.g. it makes editing more troublesome, and I'm not sure about access issues for disabled users). At the same time, I'm afraid to say that I don't feel comfortable continuing what I was doing within the current extended prose format. Sorry, 81.157.7.7 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The WP:MOS is here with further details for medicine here WP:MEDMOS and advises against bullet points. I agree the issue around providing a general overview for lay readers and further details for professionals is a difficult one. What we usually do is use subarticles however. And example of which can be seen here at obesity. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway will look at it more when I have time :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hadn't thought of a sub-article for this. My own feeling is that providing key pieces of evidence-based information regarding signs and symptoms of a disease with mouse-over notes in the main article might be rather more convenient for rapid consultation than having to consult (go to and scan) a whole extra page. (Though, I do realize that there are pros and cons.) I have been finding it a real challenge to structure this highly age-related section in a genuinely user-friendly way: hence the idea of trying bullet points. Plain prose would of course be fine for a straightforward piece written mainly for professionals. But I haven't been able to make it really user-friendly in that way for our very broad readership. Oh well... 81.157.7.7 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding: As regards structuring, one of the pages I'd looked at as a possible model is Coeliac_disease, an FA which uses a combination of subheadings and bullet points. However, for some reason (maybe for no really good one...) I just didn't really feel comfortable with a series of subheadings like Adolescents and young adults - Older adults - Infants and pre-adolescents - Incubation period. But maybe that would have been a possible way to go? 81.157.7.7 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * James, I've tried to develop a compromise solution I feel comfortable working with (I actually prefer the subheadings to the bullet points). See what you think.  81.157.7.7 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now why didn't I think of this...?! Thanks, —81.157.7.7 (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk-page rewelcome James. I'm afraid I'm not really a new recruit though... More of the same, just a changed IP, 86.161.251.139 (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Shoot. Well welcome again. All these new productive IP addresses are getting my hopes up. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, James. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding: Thanks for the understanding and encouragement. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)