User talk:Doc James/Archive 82

Invisalign
emailed me this article and I didn't initially realize the editor it was referring to was you, because I didn't know your real name and I was just skimming. Maybe I've gotten too comfortable around here, but I promise though I'm not as experienced with medical pages, I'm one of the good guys that is just trying to churn out my 43rd GA.

So I wanted to posture it this way; I'd like to get the article GA ready and I've already brought most of the page up to the GA level. Is there a way we can get it GA-ready in a way you are comfortable with? A way that doesn't make me like the douchebag in the article? ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 05:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:CorporateM for the article to make it through GA it needs to follow WP:MEDMOS formating for a medical device. A GA reviewer will not fail it for follow the above guideline. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring specifically to section-titles. Are you saying you feel the current article is GAN ready? CorporateM (Talk) 13:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The cost issues in countries other than the US need to be addressed. Not sure if that is possible. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but also the Lead has poor grammar/copyediting, the Dental Use section is incomplete, etc. One thought I had was that in some cases where I have a COI, I have abstained from a specific section and a disinterested editor was willing to do just that one section that is needed to finish up the article. I've already brought almost the entire article up to GA standards. Would it suit you if I was able to find an editor willing to spend a bit of time incorporating those three sources up to GA standards that wasn't me and had no COI? CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re the article, good work, Doc. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a very superb article, especially given how often the press gets it wrong. It did leave me questioning whether or not the medical Wikipedia page it was referring to was legitimately unfair to a certain extent. I thought MEDRS encouraged us to use sources that are less than 5 years old, but it said Wikipedia was focusing on studies from 2009. It sounded like an issue that at least had some varying viewpoints and the opportunity to document the debate. But then it would take a lot of digging to figure out if those two studies were really the last word and The Atlantic seems to suggest that they were. I didn't look into it because it would just be combative and come across as revenge editing. We do often have pages that are very negative or very positive depending on the sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was based on a secondary source that reviewed these two blinded RCTs. There is now a 2015 Cochrane review that comes to the same conclusion more or less as us The prior sources were from 2012  and were a review of these same two 2009 RCTs. No further RCTs have been done since.
 * Yes I respected WP:MEDRS with respect to the issue in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just clicked on the first source you linked to from 2015 and it says in the short Results section "Results of metaanalysis indicated that BKP is more effective for short term pain relief. In addition, BKP is more effective to restore the AVBH (anterior vertebral body height), ODI and kyphotic angle of OVCFs." I'm not a doctor, but it sounds like it's saying the procedure is effective. CorporateM (Talk) 17:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this really an argument you want to have, CorporateM? You are wrong about the sourcing and science, and you are basically arguing the case for the worst kind of financially-driven editors imagineable, who not only didn't disclose, but edited directly, and hounded a Wikipedia editor in the RW in a spectactularly ugly fashion. You have nothing to gain from this and respect to lose. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is okay Jytdog. The comment above is strange because I never linked to. The 2015 Cochrane review I linked to is this one here. The source CoporateM links to is from the Indian Journal of Orthopedics which has an impact factor of 0.6  which is very low. Cochrane reviews have an impact factor of 6. Now yes impact factor is not perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically Corporate being a review article while typically required is not sufficient. We specifically do not use low quality review articles when higher quality ones exist. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to protect you, Doc James, you can take care of yourself. I am saying to CorporateM that what he is doing is self-destructive; I don't like to see people driving off cliffs. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes certainly. This case is about blinded versus unblinded studies. Unblinded studies are agreed by the enirely scientific community to be of lower quality as they do not adjust for the placebo affect. Surgery has a strong placebo effect. Thus it is not surprising that unblinded trials find benefit. The only two blinded trials however do not.
 * The company in question wishes to emphasis the unblinded trials. That is the problem with financial conflict of interest. These sorts of suttle shifts in emphasis are easily missed by a non expert. For example we know that acupuncture is better than nothing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying Doc - not sure how I got my URLs mixed up like that. To be clear, Jytdog's depiction of my comment as an attack you need protection from is really far-afield. It was just a passing curiosity, because sometimes we see corporations resort to repulsive tactics out of desperation when they are mis-treated on Wikipedia (and in other cases they really are just corrupt).


 * For my general edification, can you clarify how we objectively verify whether one Review article is better than another? I ask because a major problem on the acupuncture article is all these studies published in Asia that reflect a cultural support for the practice, but they don't use control groups. Control group studies do verify that it's a placebo (albeit a very strong one) - is there a part of MEDRS that will allow me to disqualify those articles that are not based on control groups? I don't have access to impact scores.


 * Regarding the Invisalign page, would that alleviate your concerns about subtle biases if I was able to find a regular editor willing to finish up the page? This worked well a while back where a GA reviewer asked me to add a Comparison to section, but I didn't really want to add content comparing them to competitors, so an editor was kind enough to finish up that last piece on a volunteer basis. CorporateM (Talk) 19:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not characterize your note as an attack. That is the second time you blatantly misrepresented things I have written. I wrote in response to Doc James saying "Its OK".  Shit and shinola. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I interpreted the following excerpt: "I am not trying to protect you, Doc James, you can take care of yourself" to imply that there was something he needed protection from, as if I was bullying him or we were in a fist-fight or something, but I was just expressing a passing curiosity about something I know very little about. The point was that it wasn't an attack on his character or edits, but something I was wondering about that prompted useful discussion. He corrected me with a proper source that partially satisfied my curiosity and there is an opportunity for him to teach me more about MEDRS sources (he's actually been teaching me more about MEDRS on and off for a while, though perhaps I have put up some resistance ;-) ). This is all useful dialogue. Thanks in advance for your patience Doc. CorporateM (Talk) 20:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries CoporateM Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:CorporateM I do not see this is okay. You already did it once here. We had a long discussion about organization of the article on its talk page. You appear to be going from editor to editor trying to find someone who is willing to put "your version" into place. I though we had agreed upon "dental uses" as a compromise. This is WP:Canvassing Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Doc, I think you misunderstood. I'm not arguing over the article-structure. I give up, you win ;-)


 * I'm surprised that you don't feel the article needs additional general improvement. The sentences in the lead are hardly comprehensible. The three MEDRS sources have a lot of content that is not represented and the Dental Use section is basically just one paragraph long.


 * I don't think there is a good opportunity for us to work together productively, so I was hoping you would be more comfortable with someone else that is not conflicted taking a shot at finishing it up. I mentioned it repeatedly here, but you never responded.


 * Can you please let me know if you think there is a better way to pursue article improvement? CorporateM (Talk) 00:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your proposal still contains all the details you state above that you gave up on. That is the issue.
 * By the way are you only paid when you get the article to GA? Is that the reason you push so hard? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Translation attribution
Template:Translation attribution has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved to my userspace. Delete away. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * Thanks for the heads up. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dravet syndrome?
Do you think we should rename severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy to Dravet syndrome? Thanks. Andrea Carter (at your service &#124; my good deeds) 21:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes sounds reasonable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voting. :) Andrea Carter (at your service &#124; my good deeds) 22:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Crappy source on e-cigarettes
I don't intend to argue about content on the Arbcom page that'll come with formal mediation once the Arbcom case is concluded (unless topic bans are imposed that obviate the need for mediation)  but you ask a reasonable question so I thought I'd answer it here. Diff, and the whole preceding conversation is relevant. This is not why I've started the Arbcom case, though. I started the Arbcom case because of the behavioural issues on the page which I described with diffs in my presentation to Arbcom.— S Marshall T/C 22:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:S Marshall Yes I agree with you this source sucks.
 * I have trimmed it and the other popular press sources around it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would have made that simple change myself, if your MEDRS colleagues had let me.— S Marshall  T/C 22:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your welcome User:S Marshall. I have stopped paying much attention at ecigs. Ping me for simple stuff like this. It is easy. We do not use popular press for medical information (and likely should not use it for much else either) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What do I need to change to get my edit about patent US8,063,026 okay with you?Richard8081 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm referring to the Urinary Tract Infection article.

What do I need to change to get my edit about patent US8,063,026 okay with you?
 * Hello . Doc James is far more qualified to answer your question in detail than I am, but I will give you a preliminary answer since he seems to be off-Wikipedia right now.You tried to add content about a patent on a medical treatment. The simple existence of a patent is entirely insufficient for mention on this encyclopedia. The vast majority of patents do not result in any effective or successful product. We need references to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to discuss a patented device or treatment in an encyclopedia article. In the case of medical devices and treatments, we have especially high standards for sourcing, which are described at WP:MEDRS. Any medical related content that does not comply with that guideline is highly likely to be reverted. I believe that Doc James left you a message on your talk page with several links to pages explaining how medically related pages should be edited. Please read all those links and follow that advice carefully. Doc James can correct any errors I have made. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

okay, no problem, I'll add it back with a reference to a peer reviewed journal article documenting that the stuff is safe and efficacious. Clair Brown, Richard Katz and Michael McCulloch. ’Yeast Mannan Oligosaccharide Dietary Supplement In the Treatment of Chronically Acute Urinary Tract Infections: A Case Series’ UroTodayInternational Journal, Published June 27, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard8081 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note we are looking for a high quality secondary sources such as a systematic review. A case series does not show efficacy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on your reading of the case study, do you feel that it does not show efficacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard8081 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a good enough study design to show efficacy. So no it does not. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Trypanosomiasis
Doc James maybe you want to update this page. It has a tag from 2013.--Lucas559 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that article needs work. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks User:Rubbish computer I find it fun most of the time :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Research Enquiry regarding epilepsy
I was reffered to you by someone else.

Are there any recent studies concerning risk assessment (namely the risk of seziures, both epileptic and non epileptic) in the use of hypnotic or hypnotheraputic techniques? The context of my asking is a discussion that took place at You Tube's help forum concerning whether videos containing actual or purported hypnotic effects should be flagged as harmful or dnagerous content. It would also be appreciated if you would be able to provide links to what the current regulatory situation in regard to the use oh hypnosis is from a clinical perspective. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:ShakespeareFan00 The answer is yes it is a well described but uncommon phenomena. Ref is here . This is a newer review States present in 2% of people with epilepsy.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are also cases of "pseudo-epilepsy" (formally known as "psychogenic non-epileptic seizures"), which interacts with hypnosis in a very complex way. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely different condition though and one in which long term problems do not result from the "seizures" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, The second link might be useful in updating articles. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ADHD article in Polish
Doc, I started to slowly translate and adapt the excellent article on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to Polish (pl:ADHD), section by section. Our Polish article used to consist of lists of symptoms, poorly-sourced paragraphs and was generally of little use. I'm letting you know in case anyone at WP:MEDTRANS is also working on it. It's not marked in the Google document and I don't want to get in anyone's way, it's a daunting task and it might take a while, so if TWB guys and gals want to join - it would be great.

BTW, while I'm at it, I identified a number of problems with the English article (mostly missing page numbers) and I corrected most references (full list of authors, names of authors of a particular article where in the English original there was only an editor cited and such; what can I say, I'm a ref nazi these days). I marked all of such spots in the Polish version and some of them in the original, when I'm done I'll try to mark all of them using in-line tags in the English article as well(page needed and such). Also, (the main author of the English article, I believe).  // Halibutt 10:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Halibutt Thank you for taking this one :-). The main authors were User:ADHD and myself. Seppi did become involved recently. If you want the En version translated by TWB we would be happy to send it out. Would love to have you lead the translation efforts into Polish actually. Let me know. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly can help with the Polish translations to some extent, let me know what I can do. OTOH my wiki time is limited lately so I'm not sure I can lead anyone but myself. Oh, and a big thank you and lots of wikilove for what you do. :)  // Halibutt 21:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Halibutt We have a bunch of completed translations here that need merging. If you could help with that it would be excellent. We can than begin sending out more. Just let us know which ones you wish.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to look at this immediately emerging situation
Issue: User completely reverting Talk comments of one User: A User that was in a recent edit war/block situation has taken it upon himself to completely blank out the Talk comments of this editor, see last two Talk entries here Talk as it should be versus The world according to… DePiep. See also here the edit history, where you see I had to experiment with his reversion, to believe my eyes, that he had actually reverted my entries. (Note, I do not know technically what he did, as the first violating edit of his, at 22:45, 18 August 2015‎ (DePiep, +4,687)‎, appears to be an addition. I simply know the result was to delete all my Talk entries of today.]

Please have a look, and restore the Talk to where it was before this problem editor did his erasure? It is urgent because others have been pinged to reply to the latest discussion (i.e., he needs to be reverted, and stopped from re-deleting Talk, before others begin to edit the wrong page.) Thank you for your attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Will try to figure it out User:Leprof 7272 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you and good luck. If busy, and can delegate, fine with me. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Latest, after brushing you off, and swearing at me, he deleted the Talk section where the dialog was going on, see . You call how to proceed, but I ask that his Talk page deletions be reverted, and that he be prevented from returning that edit. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Initial matter settled—Talk page restored—but not before he let you and me have it, mdr—see closing Talk section here,  (my slap at end, yours in the middle). If your time permits, perhaps look in here, to make sure Admin Bagumba's reversion stands. He looked in because he was on the recent block, unbeknownst to me. Cheers, Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DePiep does lots of good work. I am trying to figure out what the issue was. Please keep in mind that infoboxes are developed really slowly. Per community consensus bold is almost never used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Omega 3 psychosis article
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3238074/

Here's a study by the same authors in the Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, is that better? I got the information from my textbook but yeah that wasn't a very reputable journal.

Ralphlauren55 (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated it with this 2013 review article on the topic from the BMJ . What do you think User:Ralphlauren55? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

hi
I know your busy, but it has been some time since the Dyslexia article was finished (for the reassessment)and I have gotten no response from Keilana,(a week ago) what should I do? thanks,(BTW Doctor joeE indicated One wonders why these questions weren't raised at the time of the original GAR, which wasn't that long ago --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Ozzie10aaaa yes usually these just run for a week or two. User:Keilana? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Argh, I've been running ragged with EMT shifts and being sick, it slipped my mind. I'll start to take a look tonight but please be patient. :) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 04:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

possible ANI/keilana

 * The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix itGood_article_reassessment.....Talk:Dyslexia/GA2 the age of the citations is consistent with Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine),... Doctor joeE indicated One wonders why these questions weren't raised at the time of the original GAR, which wasn't that long ago..shows not acting with good faith


 * During the time period of the review was left on my talk page, I consider this intimidation there was never a response as to why it was put there ...this diff shows the reviewer had been informed of the completion of the review and instead of giving an opinion on the article decided to leave this note, that is not good faith


 * the above two points I believe show poor use of administrative power (I would ask for the individuals administrative privileges be reviewed for temporary suspention)... 1)therefore I have considerably slowed down my contribution to WP MED Special:Contributions/Ozzie10aaaa in contrast to my daily contribution prior to Aug 20...2) since this is not the first time ive taken a case to ANI will do so pending your opinion? thank you.....(to be clear I am still willing to have a GA reassessment(with a new reviewer)), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Ozzie10aaaa I do not think it is a good idea to bring this to ANI.
 * Some of these are valid comments that would improve the article. Are you able to improve the references as suggested?
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am, however if youll notice it indicates, ..on over a period of a few weeks/months after downgrading the article and then having a re-review down the line its going to or is already in the process of delisting?...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No I do not think we should delist it as the comments were slow in coming and have stated so. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * if that's the case I will get to each comment and immediately implement the needed corrections...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Ozzie10aaaa it does not need to be done immediately but I appreciate your enthusiasm :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * and I trust your opinion, thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell none of Keilana's actions here were administrative. Admins don't have any special role in the GA process.  Thus an appeal to ANI would likely be dismissed. If there has been any misbehavior, the place to discuss it is WT:GAR. But along with Doc James I really think it would be more productive to carry on with the process. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Lead (Naloxone)
Thanks for providing the explanation regarding the change. We agree that Narcan is a widely recognized name, however, the requested edit (which still includes Narcan) is due to the brand not being marketed since 2009. In addition, Evzio is a major brand name, as it is the only FDA-approved form of naloxone at this time. There is currently a wide misunderstanding of this information around the brand names, and since many people rely on Wikipedia for valuable information (particularly in the lead) it’s in the best interest of the community to provide the most accurate information here. Is there a more appropriate way you recommend adjusting the lead to include these points?

Best, Janel Youngj5087 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This new brand is in the infobox to the right. The brand name is currently used in only one country the USA. Wikipedia is global. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

PubMed and similar databases: search question
It's been a good while since I did any medicine-related searching on PubMed, and I don't even remember the names of other databases and other resources that might be relevant for an optics/ophthalmology question. Could you check your favorite database(s) to see if there's anything already getting into the journals that's related to the Enchroma company's colorblindness glasses? Quick background reading. Or if you're not the best person to ask, could you point me to someone better? I'd be interested in writing an article on them, but all I can find with a Google search is routine news sources, not good secondary coverage. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's okay for me to chime in: I don't think there are any good secondary sources, or even any primary medical-related sources, but the EnChroma system is discussed in http://www.enricot.com/home/Chroma%20Paper.pdf (Tanuwidjaja, Enrico, et al. "Chroma: A wearable augmented-reality solution for color blindness." Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, 2014).  Google Scholar is often a useful adjunct to PubMed. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes nothing on pubmed. Probably too early for an article on it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger
I suppose a merger between WikiProjects Epilepsy and Medicine is in order. Deafness and Autism get their own WikiProjects because there is also societal aspects to those conditions. Plus, a lot of Deaf and Autistic people reject the idea that those conditions are medical "problems." In epilepsy, there isn't really that. Yes, there is a societal aspect but practically no people with epilepsy would reject a side effect free cure (as opposed to the large amount of Deaf and Autistic people who would reject a cure). There is no such thing as Epileptic culture (there is Autistic and Deaf cultures).

While Deaf and Autistic people may see themselves as non-medical, people with epilepsy most often see epilepsy as medical. Epilepsy is a deadly disease, autism and deafness are differences disabled by society. So I support merging. Andrea Carter (at your service &#124; my good deeds) 08:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Not sure how complicated this would be... We already have a neurology task force so maybe just merge into that one. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose. Andrea Carter (at your service &#124; my good deeds) 15:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Another sock IP at Ketchapp
You asked to be informed of any more sock IPs at Ketchapp. IP made the following edit removing the majority of negative content from the article:. It traces to the same region as other previously blocked IPs, such as. ~ RobTalk 12:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks protected the page for a year. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You unilateral move of the Norplant article
Since you were involved in the RM discussion for the Norplant article that closed just a couple of weeks ago with an admin's conclusion that "it's clear that there's no consensus to re-title this article at the moment", I think it was highly improper of you to start moving that article around to new titles without any further discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:BarrelProof. It was not two weeks ago but one year and two weeks ago and I had forgotten all about it. I will move it back and start another move discussion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops – yes, I just noticed myself that it was a year ago. Thanks for the polite response. I was unable to move it back, but I submitted a request at WP:RMTR. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I got it moved back. Consensus is generally to go with the generic term for stuff. As this one appears controversial happy to create a formal move discussion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I personally think is the better title at this point – I tend to think of "Norplant" as being more well understood in colloquial English, but I can see the merit of using a more objectively accurate name (and a redirect will certainly be present that will help). I just thought it ought to get discussed before being moved. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries User:BarrelProof started the discussion here Talk:Norplant. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Obesity Picture
Hi James,

I'm the original author of the image found on the Obesity article, which you've then edited to combine the pictures as seen on the articel. As the image is from my teens, I'd like to replace it with something newer, and at the same time better quality. I can see that you're a very busy guy on here so there's no rush to get around to it. :) - FatM1ke (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:FatM1ke sure that would be great. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - Just advising you that I've updated the source images for the image used on the Obesity article. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any further questions. FatM1ke (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Eye care in the United Kingdom
The item from Which is not spam. It's one of the few sources of information about the commercial optical market.Rathfelder (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not look like a realiable source to me The other issue is you do not paraphrase enough.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

In the UK I think you will find that Which is regarded as a very reliable source within its sphere of expertise - the consumer experience.Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would second that comment Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Has already been restored . Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Second Sight Medical Products ‎
Can we resolve this dispute properly? It appears to me you are in danger of breaching the rules about editting wars.Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would recommend that you go through WP:AFC. The article has already been deleted twice. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Your RFC
An admin should know how to create an opening statement for a RFC properly. "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template." --Neil N  talk to me 00:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:NeilN was interupted before I had finished. Meant to have my arguement in the section here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You will need to sign your opening statement or the bot will likely pick up everything up to your existing signature. --Neil N  talk to me 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:NeilN. Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Neil N  talk to me 01:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Bravo
…on the welcome and directions given to new users. You are gentler than I would be, but that is why you are so accomplished here. I will write more with regard to possible additions and clarifications to your message, but I do think making an included, overt statement about "no doses" near the top of the list is important, also stating that toxicity and contraindication content should always appear in ledes of dangerous agents (often, only efficacies appear, esp. in cases of recreationally used substances). Otherwise, some direction on identifying quality sources—a phrase on how to pick a good textbook, e.g., "text should be up-to-date (within last 5 years), and be widely used by medical schools and research universities"—might also be helpful. Cheers, more later. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I remove dosing info when I find it. Is not a super common problem though thankfully. Agree with need to cover side effects routinely in the lead. Which message do you think needs updating? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic
Dear Mr., I am writing you today because I would like to publish Tunisian Arabic in Applied Linguistics and I knew that you have done the same with Dengue fever. I know that you are probably working with the Board of Trustees now. However, I ask if you can review my work and see if he meets to GA requirements. Furthermore, I ask if you can explain to me what I should precisely do in order to publish such work in Applied Linguistics. --Csisc (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note User:Csisc. First one needs to make sure that the journal in question is willing to publish this article under a CC BY SA license. From here I am not clear if that is the case. Are you working with someone at the journal?
 * The costs of open access publishing is fairly step. WRT feedback on the article I would ask someone who works on this type of article. It is outside of my area of expertise. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The work can be published under CC BY SA License as shown here. I am not currently working with someone from the journal. However, I am working with two linguists. --Csisc (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing it listed? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See Copyright: Open Access option for authors. --Csisc (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you copy and paste the text below? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the part talking about open access:
 * OPEN ACCESS OPTION FOR AUTHORS
 * Applied Linguists authors have the option to publish their paper under the Oxford Open initiative; whereby, for a charge, their paper will be made freely available online immediately upon publication. After your manuscript is accepted the corresponding author will be required to accept a mandatory licence to publish agreement. As part of the licensing process you will be asked to indicate whether or not you wish to pay for open access. If you do not select the open access option, your paper will be published with standard subscription-based access and you will not be charged.
 * Oxford Open articles are published under Creative Commons licences. Authors publishing in Applied Linguistics can use the following Creative Commons licences for their articles:
 * •	Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC-BY)
 * •	Creative Commons Non-Commercial licence (CC-BY-NC)
 * •	Creative Commons non-Commercial No Derivatives licence (CC-BY-NC-ND)
 * Please click here for more information about the Creative Commons licences.
 * You can pay Open Access charges using our Author Services site. This will enable you to pay online with a credit/debit card, or request an invoice by email or post. The open access charges applicable are:
 * Regular charge - £2000/ $3200 / €2600
 * List B Developing country charge* - £1000 / $1600 / €1300
 * List A Developing country charge* - £0 /$0 / €0
 * Visit our Developing Countries page for a list of qualifying countries
 * Please note that these charges are in addition to any colour/page charges that may apply.
 * Orders from the UK will be subject to the current UK VAT charge. For orders from the rest of the European Union, OUP will assume that the service is provided for business purposes. Please provide a VAT number for yourself or your institution, and ensure you account for your own local VAT correctly. --Csisc (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * However, I should pay £2000 for publishing Tunisian Arabic. I also ask if I can publish the paper in Open Linguistics which is a peer reviewed journal which is not indexed in Thomson Reuters database and does not have an impact factor in 2015. More information are given in this call for paper part. --Csisc (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and it does not mention CC BY SA. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned here. --Csisc (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry not seeing it? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. License
 * The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license as currently displayed on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/., except that sections 2 through 8 below will apply in this respect and prevail over all conflicting provisions of such a license model. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the author hereby grants the Journal Owner an exclusive license for commercial use of the article (for U.S. government employees: to the extent transferable) according to section 2 below, and sections 4 through 9 below, throughout the world, in any form, in any language, for the full term of copyright, effective upon acceptance for publication.
 * --Csisc (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it does not say CC BY SA license anywhere. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I can publish Tunisian Arabic in Open Linguistics. Now, I ask about what I should do before publishing the work in Open Linguistics Journal. --Csisc (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would be good to write the journal and see if they are interested :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. I will write them and see if they are interested in publishing the work. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Editor has said that this will be a kind of plagiarism. I ask about how you proved that this is absolutely not a plagiarism. --Csisc (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Csisc it would need to be published under a CC BY SA license. Than the top contributors would need to be contacted to see if they are interested in joining as authors. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The main four contributors were contacted and like to join the work as authors. --Csisc (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. I will write them and see if they are interested in publishing the work. Thank you. Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Editor has said that this will be a kind of plagiarism. I ask about how you proved that this is absolutely not a plagiarism. --Csisc (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Csisc it would need to be published under a CC BY SA license. Than the top contributors would need to be contacted to see if they are interested in joining as authors. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The main four contributors were contacted and like to join the work as authors. --Csisc (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You will need to sit down with the publisher and explain the situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Tinnitus, bidirectional relationship?
Dear Doc James, On your edit comment for the Tinnitus article, you seem to say there is a bi-directional relationship between Tinnitus and depression. I know that's what you learnt at college but it doesn't mean it's true. Most of the scientific articles (e.g. ) I've found just relate depression as a comorbidity; but do not take the risk of saying it's a cause. Some others do, like this one, clamming anxiety exacerbates tinnitus, without being clear about the meaning of "exacerbate" (- does it permanently make tinnitus louder and with more frequencies ?).

You've probably already heard about this very famous sociology study. Don't you think a parallel could be made with tinnitus patient; as they are told by their entourage and their ENT doctor that tinnitus comes from their anxiety ? Doesn't it make them feel anxious ?

My goal is to do a review of scientific articles in order to clarify what those claiming anxiety/depression is a cause actually mean; and find how anxiety-caused-tinnitus are different from tinnitus caused by acoustic trauma (symptom description + physiological response). Would you be interested in joining your efforts with me in this task ?

Kind regards Galeop (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Galeop This ref says tinnitus can cause anxiety
 * Risk factor for tinnitus include depression per
 * If you can find high quality sources that discuss the issue in further detail we could add clarification to the body of the text. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Doc James Yes, tinnitus can cause anxiety. But can anxiety cause tinnitus ? It's not so sure.
 * About : saying that something is a risk factor implies association, but not causality. As I was not so sure either, I asked David Baguley himself (his email is in the paper []), and that's what he told me.
 * Best regards -- Galeop (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

your edits (summarized as "formatted")
Hello,

I'd like to discuss | your reversion of my edits to the BPD article, which addressed the overuse of one particularly vague (and subjective) adjective in the article, by sometimes replacing them with more apposite & descriptive adjectives. I have noticed that many medical sources avoid this overuse. I believe my edits improve the overall quality of the article, as the overuse of "negative" sounds both robotic, lazy and profoundly lacking in nuance (especially when the idea is to describe something as nuanced as emotions) and am going to restore them for now so that further edits don't get in the way of doing this easily in future.

I'm also wondering how your edit summary, "formatted", would be considered to describe these reversions. As Clubjustin4 pointed out above ("July 2015") it's "helpful to others if you [describe] your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary."

If you have time/inclination to reply, please do so on [User_talk:TyrS| my talk page]. Thanks -- Ty  rS  04:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The term used in the sources is "negative emotions". Thus we should use a similar term to avoid confusing people. Repeating the use of the same term makes the content easier to understand. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Altered edit
Hi, Is this the forum where I reply? I'm very new! The breast cancer edit I made was to add a journal article that was more recent than the previous one (I did not delete the previous) and I believe the article discusses the importance of contraception in the breast cancer debate.

Kind regards, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmhayes78 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome user User:Jamesmhayes78. Lets have the discussion here Talk:Breast_cancer. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Global Alliance for Self Management Support for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Global Alliance for Self Management Support is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Global Alliance for Self Management Support until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I helped someone create this page 5 years ago. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, This is Dr Manuel Serrano, I did not remember Dr James, but yes probably was him who helped me to create this page. It is a network and it is not for self promotion or for profit causes. I was editing some other page with references based in my research experience in social support and I was surprised that was considered vandalism?

Here is the text at the page Abortion (deleted):

Help pregnant women
Women thinking on abortion are under pshychological stress before and after abortion, based in scientific research papers. So one of the ways to avoid antiabortion violence is providing social support to pregnant women thinking on abortion. Some networks of researchers and organizations as the [Global Alliance for Self Management Support] are working to connect women with local resources using technology and social media for those under psychological distress and thinking on abortion. There are pages both in Spanish and in English. Referral places, non for profit and non linked to religious institutions are: lare located in the United States as Option Line, Stand Up Girl, Spain as Red Madre and Pensando en Abortar or Latinoamerican Countries as Centro Para la Mujer and Centros Ayuda Para La Mujer Embarazada
 * Yes the first bit was moved to elsewhere in the article were psychological effects of abortion are discussed
 * A references is needed for "So one of the ways to avoid antiabortion violence is providing social support to pregnant women thinking on abortion."
 * We do not typically from links to support organizations without evidence that they are notable. We need independent sources. Hope that helps. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out this is not considered vandalism at all, and I applaud you coming to discuss here so that we can see what we can salvage. Wikipedia is very clear on conflicts of interest, such as writing about yourself or your organization. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Chronic venous insufficiency
In CVI, I was attempting to locate an article to link Phlebetic lymphedema. Which from what I gather means "vein swelling". Would linking to Lymphedema be adequate?

BTW: I also linked Hyperpigmentation and piped Venous ulceration to Venous ulcer Cheers Ping me with &#123;&#123;u&#124;Jim1138&#125;&#125; and sign "&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;" or message me on my talk page. 19:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the only ref I can find that seems reasonable.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite
…positive feedback from the Admin overseeing the deletion merger discussion (User:Sandstein), the further discussion of the merger of the PBC Foundation and main disease articles was preempted by one editor, and the PBC Foundation page was deleted (by User:Jytdog, despite repeated personal requests of him not to).

I should now ask what noticeboard would be best to hear the case—where the issue is the premature closure of the discussion, and declaration of consensus of at best (at the time) two editors overruling the poor new Jrfw editor.

That poor treatment is only part of the issue though—I think the article was (i) inaccurately, indeed falsely tarred-and-feathered by one editor as not having available sources (it does, and I have since provided them), (ii) the articles are both better served by the content remaining separate, and (iii) the patient population in the U.K is far better served by being able to find a high-profile WP article, that directs them both to the WP disease article page, and to the foundation. (One simply cannot argue that the needs of the disease page and the organizational information are copacetic: adding further content to make clear what the organization can do is at the expense of the focus/brevity of the disease article. That is why charitable organizations have their own pages.)

Administratively, a 3:1 merger decision is not a broad editor consensus (esp. when the principle discussion was 1:1). It is simply shameful to ramrod that result when both the initial issue of good article sources was addressed, and when other another seasoned and informed editor came on board to help make the original article move toward being a better article. Moreover, the article, while overlapping with medical issues, is not a medical article per se, and so the standards to which it was held, initially, were likely overzealous: it is an article about an organization, and the question is whether it is a notable organization, and it most certainly is, judged solely by the citations that are available for it (pro and con).

Bottom line, I think this was a premature and poor decision, and I think user Jytdog had it in, either for the poor Jrfw editor or the article, and so ceased seeing reason about it before I came on the scene. The only thing we are aimed for, at present, is an outcome allowing one editor to say "I won." This is not what we are supposed to be about, and I need to know how to alter course, administratively or otherwise.

So, what do you think is the best way to address matters? Is there a less combative way to undo this one editors heavy-handedness, which amounts to seeing that traces of the old are removed (and so discussion is made more difficult, so that the merger cannot be undone)? Can you, or someone else, mediate? Or, at worst, what is the best noticeboard venue to take this to?

Your advice asked, as an experienced hand here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Le Prof, people are upset about AfD outcomes all the time. People that go ballistic like you are doing, when things don't come out their way, drive themselves right off the cliff and get blocked. btw  I have it "in" for nobody.  I work with the consensus.  Sandstein encouraged you to try to build a new consensus to not merge or unmerge.  The time for the first is past, but there is still the opportunity to do the second.  However what you are doing, is no way to build a new consensus.   And I will add, that if your goal is to help the new editor, the behavior you are demonstrating is a prime example of how not to react to an AfD that doesn't go your way.   Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Noting for the record one point, and one continuing inaccuracy: First, we cannot follow Admin Sandstein's advice ("try to build a new consensus to not merge")— .: it is true, as this editor says, "the time for [that] is past"—only because this editor rushed to delete the article, etc. Second, I was not present at the initial AfD, so nothing went against me. I simply came upon the issue, immediately after, and asked that we not rush to complete it (and did substantial work offering good sources, etc.). In response to this, no good faith was shown. All caps only appeared after being repeatedly ignored, and when it became clear that this editor was rushing to change the playing field, by deleting the article before the renewed discussion had ended.

Otherwise, this same editor has defended his lack of respect, repeatedly, and knows this could all go away, if he would return the Foundation page to the main article space, so all could easily find it (that is, self-revert his rush to delete it while discussion was still ongoing). As long as that disrespect for the spirit of the process stands, and so disrespect for the two constructively and collegially engaged editors stand, I have nothing further to say in reply to him.

Doc, your advice, as I said, is asked, as an experienced hand here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing this. The rush to delete and then merge the article when it was in the process of being improved shows Wikipedia bureaucrats at their worse and is a poor example of the consensus and co-operativity we should aim for. The article after improvements was much better than so many others and there is no benefit from putting all the 1000's of notable patient support charities in with their diseases. Or am I wrong here?  I support the reverting of the merge  -- I have no connection with the PBC Foundation -- but as a professional would like to see a clear entry point for people wanting to find support for their disease.  Jrfw51 (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

One can still work to improve the content in question. One is also free to userfy the previous content to work on it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The content sites here
 * The closure to merge is here
 * The merged content is here

WP:AVDUCK
Doc, you know the stick needs to be dropped and you have the ability to stop the disruption caused by the 3 editors named at ANI. The disruption is escalating. I have now wrongfully been accused of defamation and you need to oversee this insanity. JPS is removing images, it appears a sock is now involved (actually the behavior demonstrates what the essay is all about), there is some serious tendentious editing taking place without consensus. I already know you don't approve of my editing but I'm asking you to step up to the plate and do the right thing now. JPS, Ca2James and Quack Guru seem to think the only consensus they need is a nod of ok from each other. Well, WP:Wikipedia Essays suggests otherwise. ATG created an essay in his user space as a counter to AVDUCK so they need to move on and stop trying to alter the meaning of AVDUCK. Since JPS also has a different vision of what the essay should look like, he needs to create his own essay or help ATG improve his fairytale essay and get it into namespace.

When I called for the RfC, the intention was to help improve the essay by getting input from the broader community. It was not my obligation to do so - I did it because I truly want to do the right thing. The taint that was created by Project Med editors over the very first essay is still unjustly haunting AVDUCK after we made drastic changes. It represents the opinion of the editors who created and co-authored it therefore it is not subject to the same scrutiny as an article or PAG. I'm asking you to please intervene and stop the disruption caused by those 3 editors who refuse to DROPTHESTICK before it escalates to ARBCOM, especially based on the history I've had to endure with these same editors. It's pretty obvious what's happening now and I don't think it will be difficult to prove that I've been targeted by the same editors who have stood in opposition to my edits dating back to Griffin, all of which is based on their misapprehension of my intent, or perhaps it's all punitive or retaliatory because I took the initiative to hold certain editors accountable for their double standards. If I put it all together - Griffin, Kombucha, AVDUCK, the MfDs, Griffin's AfD, the RfCs, COIN, Racz and ARBCOM - well, it isn't going to demonstrate the best example of WP:AGF by the same few editors who have been hounding and harassing me. All I'm asking is that you act fair and reasonable with regards to this low-impact, harmless essay that has brought out the worst in those 3 editors. They need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop the tendentious editing and disruptive OWN behavior. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 17:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking here you may have hit 4 reverts in 24 hours. Appears to be an issue over the image which per the talk page have some justification. Do not have time to look into it further right now. If you could provide three key diffs that would help.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the Monty Python witch gibberish that JPS added in the caption of the scale image. It was irrelevant to the essay and certainly doesn't belong in the caption of a scale image.  A vandal  reverted me and restored the caption, .  I reverted the vandalism.  Another editor suspected the vandalism was the work of sock and filed a SPI.  The next day, JPS removed one of the main images for the essay without consensus .  I restored the image  because it helps define the essay.  JPS reverted me  falsely claiming that it defamed a UK union which is utter nonsense so I restored the duck image. The images are licensed under CC share-alike, but to try to appease the doubters, I removed the text from the flag and added my own and uploaded the composite image.  Also, a prior consensus approved keeping the ducks when the whole "duck" theme was challenged.  The tendentious editing by JPS has been nonstop, and while bold edits are encouraged to improve articles, he wasn't improving the article and along with AndyTheGrump, created a BATTLEGROUND.  Quack Guru did not persist with his disruptions.   Bold edits are not encouraged for namespace essays per WP:Wikipedia Essays, and they certainly aren't encouraged when there is controversy but that never stopped JPS.  If you look at the edit summary you will see the tendentious editing was caused primarily by JPS and AndyTheGrump. Quack Guru's edits were reverted by AndyTheGrump because he added Andy's essay to AVDUCK without permission.  The essay became chaotic so I filed an ANI.  Then JPS filed his false claim at BLPN, .  Doc, you know full well what they were doing and why.  Just the fact that they created so much disruption over a low-impact essay that wasn't hurting anything speaks volumes.  I don't see how you can ignore such behavior regardless of how much you may dislike me. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is actually further disruption shouldn't you raise it at the currently open and active ANI you started for the very same issue you are bringing here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

SJP, something has to be done because Andy just posted this to me at ANI - "You are beneath contempt, and the sooner Wikipedia gets rid of you the better." Apparently, we have a shortage of admins who are paying attention to what's really going on, and allowing attention to the real problem to be diverted where it doesn't belong. To tell an editor they are "beneath contempt" is enough to get them banned from WP. What he said to me is unforgivable. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 07:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup. I said that. In response to the umpteenth example of vacuous blather from Atsme, all full of assertions that I'd done this or that, and no verifiable evidence that anyone but her thought I'd done anything wrong - in which she chose to demonstrate the contempt she holds the Wikipedia community in by asserting that an RfC that she herself started wasn't valid on the grounds ""The RfC has proven nothing because... there were only 1 or 2 oppose comments that were substantive...". You can of course see the RfC yourself, and judge the validity of the responses. She is incapable of accepting any criticism  as anything but evidence of a conspiracy against her (see e.g. this comment  about Bishonen, who has had no involvement in this dispute beyond a single posting in the ANI thread), and seems incapable of even keeping her arguments straight. One minute she is condemning my essay as "disruption", and the next minute she is insisting that she has no objection to it. She is a liability to the project. She needs to go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Honestly Atsme, and I'm sure it's not intentional but this actually does look alot like WP:ADMINSHOP. I see you mention that Doc James may not like you but I don't really think that's the case. Doc James you can answer this, Can you really do anything here and are you really even supposed to? It's been brought to the community at ANI and now someone is specifically asked there if ATG should be banned. Doc James is the admin and I trust their experience in that regard but it seems to me that ANI takes precedence here over that of one Admin. Which again Doc James will really need to answer that. It's my personal view that ATG hasn't done anything wrong.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am seeing some issues here with Atsme.
 * The two links of "vandalism" are not vandalism.
 * Many people see issues with the image being used and working through proper channels to get it addressed is not wrong
 * I very much dislike it when people assume I know what others are doing and why. I edit a lot of different topic areas.
 * There is an ongoing pattern of Atsme accusing others of badness without sufficient evidence to support it
 * While the comments by User:AndyTheGrump were not appropriate their appears to have been baiting. Would recommend they cross out that bit.


 * Some likely see me as involved with the issues in question and therefore I will not become involved with this as an admin. ANI definitely does take precedence and this is being dealt with there. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 13:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PS - You got your wish - Racz was delisted as a GA - your efforts in "fixing" it worked. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course if the article ever gets into decent enough shape, there's no reason why it shouldn't be re-nominated for GA. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is way better than it was I agree.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Measles order
Thanks for reordering measles; I'm not sure why I did that! Thanks for leaving me a note about it, too. Sorry to have made work for you. HLHJ (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic
Nice piece in the The Atlantic, Doc James! I think you did a great job representing Wikipedia editors. It was disappointing to read that studies have found this an unfriendly environment to new editors. But it was great to see a well-written article on the problem of paid editing, especially in the medical area. It's such an enormous project, it's hard to see any massive changes happening in the short term. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well done James. Beautifully researched and written by Joe, too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks agree. Yes one of the problems with paid editing is that it makes the core community less friendly to new editors. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Refs
So, the American Journal on Epidemiology is not I'm the list of recognized sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanislav.kirilov (talk • contribs) 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Stanislav.kirilov it is not the journal that is the issue it is the type of source. We are looking for "review articles". Please note review article is not the same as peer reviewed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. content is discussed here Alzheimer%27s_disease. This is a recent review on the topic  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Great work

 * Thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

widget
Hello! What about widget?--Мұхамеджан Амангелді (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Мұхамеджан Амангелді as per here I would like to see a sharable set of templates, gadgets and widgets developed.
 * The first step is likely to get consensus that the community 1) wants this and 2) the community sees it as a priority.
 * If we can get this sort of consensus we can bring it to the WMF for resources to bring it about. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that enough votes? kk:Уикипедия:Форум/Ұсыныстар--Мұхамеджан Амангелді (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello?!--Мұхамеджан Амангелді (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean like the ones here yes ? The hope is to make them work easier on other languages. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you--Мұхамеджан Амангелді (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We are going to need a large number (100s of Wikipedia) who feel this is important before we will be able to find tech time to build it. This is a start. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh OK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Мұхамеджан Амангелді (talk • contribs) 03:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Phantom Phenomena
Hi Doc James,

I take your point, however, given the fact that Tamar Makin (Oxford) is one of the world's leading researchers in the area of phantom limb phenomena I am comfortable with informal interview material in which she is being quoted. I will see if I can locate the original research. One of the most interesting sources for information about developments in pain research is Lorimer Moseley's Body In Mind website. http://www.bodyinmind.org/

The Body In Mind site is meant as a science education site for the lay public. It offers intelligent discussions of approaches to the theory andtreatment of pain that are not overly technical. Tamar Make has an article on "Rethinking the role of the brain in driving phantom pain".Neurorel (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)neurorel
 * With respect to health claims we try to stick to systematic reviews. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion. The addition I made to the Recent Research section for Phantom Limbs is not a "health claim". It is a research (by Tamar Makin, a neuroscientist at Oxford) on the nature of the changes that take place in the brain after amputation. Neurorel (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)neurorel

The material I added to the section on recent research (Phantom Limb) is not a health claim. It is from a recent research report on the nature of the plastic changes in the brain after amputation. Neurorel (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Neurorel
 * We still typically try to use secondary sources for that type of information. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Page
I'm curious about how this page was created. Was this a script or similar?

I'm trying to find a reasonable source for a script that will provide a reasonable approximation of "the recent major non-anon contributors to this article". Someone suggested this page might be what I'm looking for? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The data was gathered by Andrew West a computer scientist and Wikipedian. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This tool used to give a person the breakdown of an article by who had made the most edits and who had contributed the most bytes. Appears to be down now.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks precisely like what I'm looking for... but as you say it doesn't appear to be operational. I'll keep pinging it, thanks for the link!. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

E-cigs
Just to check, did you know you'd zapped Cloudpjk's addition just before your edit - bottom of the diff? , Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So they added However some tobacco industry products, while using prefilled cartridges, resemble tank models.
 * I removed the UK a report commissioned by Public Health England found that in
 * User:Johnbod I do not see it being sapped? And that content is still their? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, must have looked at the wrong diff somehow, sorry! Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood
I noticed the page protect due to the content dispute on that article, so I also took the liberty of adding some s to most of the recent editors making changes on the abortion stuff on the page from this month. It's pretty clear that things are getting a little outta hand. :P Cheers =) -- slakr  \ talk / 04:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks appreciate it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Seizures
Hi Doc,

We currently have an article on epileptic seizures and reflex seizures neither of which link to the other. Is this redundancy or two different subjects?

jps (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reflex seizure is a type of epileptic seizure
 * Could be merged into the causes section of the latter Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about PMID
I asked this on the forums, but did not receive much help. I noticed you expanded a number of the references for my changes by hand, thank you. Do you know why the cite pmid shortcut is not working? Is this temporary or is there a different shorthand I am not aware of? Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Plumpy Humperdinkle Yes we need a tool that automatically goes around and switches "cite PMID" to "cite journal". A simple way to expand the refs is here WP:MEDHOW Doc James  (talk · contribs · email)

seeking help on editing an article
I do not understand what was wrong with my effort to add a section in the article about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis to describe the US National ALS Registry. Please give me more explicit feedback so that I can accomplish this important change. I am a patient with ALS, and I want to encourage my fellow patients to join the Registry and thus improve research about this disease. Jsreznick (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Jsreznick yes the ref works so appears to be an error. Have added some details about it Best  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a couple of tweaks to the edit. Let me add, in relation to the first edit, that Wikipedia never gives recommendations -- only information.  We can state that X recommends Y or that the majority of physicians recommend Y, but we can't recommend things in the voice of Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:129.98.105.140
Hey, can you check the other contributions of that IP. I don't know enough in the field to determine accuracy of the citation it's adding everywhere. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Jerodlycett. They are using a single paper across dozens of pages. Likely they are one of that paper's authors. We get this fairly frequently unfortunately. Reverted all their additions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

 * K Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)