User talk:Doc James/Archive 83

FILWISE
has edited a number of medical articles without adding sources. I see you warned FILWISE in 2013 more than a few times. Some of the added info seems rather dubious. Such as "runny nose" being a symptom of smallpox. I don't see runny nose in the source. I have looked at a number of FILWISE's edits and have yet to find one where a source is added. The edits are quite wide-ranging and I would be quite surprised if FILWISE is that competent in all those areas. Sometimes it seems that the edits are a simple rehash of material in the current article such as this. I suspect wp:competence. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes not sure what to do. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this addition to Template:Influenza acceptable? Jim1138 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is sort of okay. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:RTT
I think Category:RTT should have a link to some page with an explanation of the purpose of the category, or text outlining the purpose. Otherwise people will be puzzled and/or want to remove it. Or, like me, they'll come here! Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am guessing it has something to do with translation but yes i agree with johnuniq.. very mysterious! Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks good point. Described its purpose here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sensational project (WP:RTTS), thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to make all this noise, but there is a technical problem of some kind at WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT(Simplified). I thought I might be able to fix it, but the html is above my pay grade. The issue is that Template:TTF tabs is putting a heading and logo at the top, but that is obscuring the navigation links—when logged on in Firefox, the edit and history buttons are hidden, and when not logged on, other bad things happen. That's probably due to "margin-top: -120px" but someone at WP:VPT should be asked to fix it. It seems to work in Internet Explorer. It's trivia but it should be fixed. If wanted, I'll ask at WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Johnuniq does that fix it? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ouch, what a kludge! Yes, it works, but if you think many people are going to see a page using that template, it would be better to ask someone at WP:VPT to fix it. At the moment, a logged on Firefox user with the Monobook skin sees the logo overlap the "Progress (short)" tab so the final "ort)" is not visible. If not logged on, or if using the Vector skin, the logo is above the tab boxes and so is ok. In both cases, there are three large blank lines at the top. This is all trivia, and I guess your users won't have Monobook, so an optimum solution may not be worth the bother. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:CFCF made that template. Carl what do you think? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote the template only for vector (seeing as nearly everyone uses it), but there are some simple solutions that can solve the problem for everyone else. I'll add it to my to-do list. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 06:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Type-2 pericytes participate in normal and tumoral angiogenesis
If you search you'll see it's placed around as a citation, is it legit? I ask as a spam IP is posting it everywhere. I'll likely have reported them in minutes, but wondered if the rest should be removed? Jerod Lycett (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to be Special:Contributions/24.184.185.32. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Same paper is a different account a couple of days ago. Have blocked so that they can clarify. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/129.98.107.70
 * Special:Contributions/129.98.105.140

Hi Doc James
I figured that website would be a good reference for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaptopurine because Dr. Bressler is my gastroenterologist. He wrote the article https://www.trustedtherapies.com/articles/29-imuran-azathioprine-and-6-mp-6-mercaptopurine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuleMyOwnBalk (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have updated it with a better ref from AHFS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Email heading your way
It's a bit time sensitive. Hope you're in a position to respond. Thanks! Risker (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

olanzapine article
Can you please just link it to the article about suicidal ideation without trying to rephrase it? Suicidal ideation is not the same as suicidal or thinking too much about suicide. Suicidal thoughts = considering suicide. Suicidal ideation = not necessarily suicidal, but preoccupied with suicide and especially suicide scenarios. Thus the "ideation." We don't need to dumb this down, anyone reading the article about olanzapine should be capable of knowing what suicidal ideation is or can click on the link to read more. Otherwise it needs to be clear that the side effect is not feeling suicidal or suicidal thoughts (if you're a doctor you should know that "Have you had suicidal thoughts?" is a key question.)  —Мандичка YO 😜 21:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Wikimandia we should generally try to write in easier to understand language rather than medical speak. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideation is not medical speak at all: Ideation (idea generation). If we have to change it, I feel the simplest accurate phrase is "preoccupation with suicide."  —Мандичка YO 😜 21:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and suicidal ideations means "thinking a lot about suicide" or "suicidal thoughts" per this low quality source . Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would you want a low-quality source? —Мандичка YO 😜 23:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are lots of sources. Here is a good one.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, suicidal is suicidal. If you have a strong will to live, but you fantasize often about suicide, that is a cause for concern from a suicide prevention point of view. I don't see the use in differentiating between the two. Andrea Carter (at your service &#124; my good deeds) 09:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Teflon
Did you read the article. I think the testing that was done for the lawsuits against DuPont and DuPont's documented internal testing are quite convincing. Must the source come from a legal journal? Does it need to be peer reviewed? I'm new to Wikipedia editing, would you provide some guidance to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedgwoodblue (talk • contribs) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are making medical claims you need high quality medical sources yes. This is not appropriate to place the content so prominently or to use the huggingtonpost.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

TS
Hey, Doc! Why'd you make that change at Tourette syndrome? The narrative no longer flows or makes sense ... is there a MEDMOS change I should know about ? I will now need to restructure all of the text to recover a narrative that makes sense. To talk about TS, you have to first understand what a tic is, and to understand TS, you have to position it on the spectrum of tic disorders, which also requires first a basic definition of a tic. Could we please return to the narrative that was reviewed at FAC? Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey User:SandyGeorgia I was just looking at how the majority of the classification section was talking about the DSM and ICD10 thus thought it fit best under diagnosis as the material is also discussed their. The WP:MEDMOS states it can go in either spot per Have restored as not a big issue. Best  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

do not remove entire sections from talk pages
while reverting priority changes, please do not remove new sections from the talk pages of the articles as they can provide topics and insights which are worth the discussion over them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been making a lot of articles top importance which are not. Thus I reverted you yes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi, thank you for your welcome message! regarding your recent edits in keratoconus, please see Talk:Keratoconus and give the editors some time to discuss the issue before removing the Cross-linking section again. FYI, I am a keratoconus patient and I don't have any business interest in these articles. k18s (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cochrane reviews are excellent. Happy to work with you. The info on cross linking was not removed just moved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:LEAD everything in the lead should be covered in the body of the article. Thus it should be in both places. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment on Talk:Keratoconus, maybe we should give cross-linking its own H3 section under the treatments, because its purpose is so different with other surgical options. also is it possible for you to find some side-by-side comparative photos of different types and sizes of contact lenses? I couldn't find anything free. k18s (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy
Hi Doc. I'm sorry you had to get involved at the Planned Parenthood videos article. I'm not really an edit warrior, or someone who spends much time on contentious articles at all. I had a feeling that it might revert to an edit war after the protection was lifted, and sadly that was true. I'm as much to blame as anyone, I guess, but it's still regrettable. Anyway, you said in an edit summary there that you "Restored last stable version before protection ended." I don't think that's actually what you did. CFCF has now twice deleted large sections of the article, and then immediately requested protection for his preferred version. It was not stable before the first protection, but I didn't object. Now he has done it again. I don't know if it is appropriate to request that my version be restored and then protected, but I thought you should at least be aware that what you thought was a stable version was not. Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored the last version that was present at the lasting ending of protection. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that. My concern is that in so doing you have--inadvertently, of course--taken sides in the content dispute.  The user who requested the protection first reverted to his preferred version, and only then did he ask for permission.  His goal was clearly to get that version locked in place.  This has happened twice.  I don't see why his preferred version should be the one that is protected when it was an unstable version when it was protected two weeks ago.  Why not the version you originally protected?  --BrianCUA (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a RfC get your version supported and we can switch to it.
 * I just thought that putting it back how it was at the end of the last protection makes the most sense. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Spamming at eye related articles
Sorry to open another section on your talk page, but I prefer to discuss this here rather than on article's talk page. it seems you know one of the persons who promote their practice here, but on corneal collagen cross-linking, you deleted epithelium-off and accelerated cross-linking sections and left the transepithelial section which somehow promotes the same person you mentioned at WT:MED. don't you think it is important to mention all the techniques on the article? should they exist as sections or can we explain all of them in a single paragraph? k18s (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to use high quality sources. This is a primary source of 22 people and is not suitable per WP:MEDRS. The other section is not supported by very good references either so happy to have them removed.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis article
I am not sure what I need to do to follow your advice about the talk page. As I mentioned in my edits (I hope): My edit continues to evolve based on the important feedback I have received, and I hope that it has attained success. I now have a much better understanding of the Wikipedia edit process. I am confident that I have no conflicts of interest: I am not an employee or healthcare provider. Having a diagnosis of ALS could label me as an advocate, but I am also a scientist with a PhD, and my perspective is not biased or minority. My zone of expertise is not directly related to ALS. However, it does help me understand the importance of Registry participation for advancing science on this topic. My current version of the Registry section is much shorter, and much less advocating. I have also added a link to the Wikipedia article on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. I believe that we need a Registry section rather than include it in the Research section because the Registry is not simply a research tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsreznick (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added a section header to your message. You should open a discussion at Talk:Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, explaining why your edits are justified.  It makes things difficult to follow when discussions are carried out in edit summaries and on user talk pages. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Jsreznick you need to stop edit warring and get consensus on the talk page in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Good morning, if you have time and lust, could you please comment on Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity? Thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No thoughts really. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Five minutes to help make WikiProjects better
Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Harej have not looked at it enough to comment formally. I really like the idea of work modules with respect to how people can help a specific project. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A whole drawer-full
Is this worth filing an SPI over, or too WP:DUCK for that? OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. I am not the least bit surprised. The articles this gentleman had built were impressive. An SPI may pick up additional accounts. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mee Healthcare
Can you tell me where you have moved the article to please? To what source is it too close? And since when does being close to a source entitle you to delete articles without going through the normal procecure?Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was basically word for word similar to the sources in many places. It is on your talk page. You must paraphrase much more. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That is not what talk pages are for. I'm quite happy to revise my articles, as you know. But it appears to me that you are deleting articles in defiance of the agreed procedures.Rathfelder (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The procedure is we delete obvious copyright issues. Please clean up the previous ones. Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That does not mean you delete the entire article without notice, does it? Why can't you delete the parts of the article which you are concerned about?Rathfelder (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the issue. The entire article was of concern. And more of your edits are of concern. And you have been warned in the past to stop copy and pasting. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Toxoplasmosis
I am not sure why you are being so sarcastic or why you have issue with the Neurology Journal. I thought that it was a respected journal. The paper was also appeared in the Journal of Neuroimmunology (August 15, 2015; Volume 285) Toxoplasma gondii seropositivity is negatively associated with multiple sclerosis. Would it be alright with you if I used the Journal of Neuroimmunology to cite the information? I have a sincere interest in the subject and am not trying to 'pull a fast one' but am trying to understand the issues surrounding being infected with T. gondii. l santry (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have placed the information in the research section, and apologize as I realize now that you were referring to the Torry & Yolken 2003 paper I cited. Peace. l santry (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All I am asking is that you use recent high quality review articles User:Santryl rather than primary sources. Please read about the two and what the differences are. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Brian Boxer Wachler Deletion
Because this thread has gotten so contentious, I'm not going to contest the fact that a mod rejected my request on the talk page for inclusion in the main thread. But I wanted to bring to your attention as a mod. I'm not a "sock puppet" and I think some of the initial folks that got up in arms about this haven't presented objective evidence to support their claims. I'm interested in this Doctor because his fight to have a military policy changed that excludes all individuals with Kerataconus (even corrected to 20/20 vision) from the military. I learned about this issue by watching the Doctor on Fox and friends and learned more on this from wiki and, in my day job i do public policy advocacy. While I'm hardly a medical expert, logic tells me that if the FAA allows a commercial pilot to fly after correction then one could do most jobs in the armed forces. I'm happy to volunteer to suggest edits to the page. Not asking you to overrule the editor who rejected my comment on the talk page, I'm just wanting to be heard, and I respect the process - clearly i know i'm writing to a physician, and you'll be able to judge properly whether my opinion has any merit. Jf3300 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Just feeling somewhat bullied by some of these zealots.

My comment (on deletion thread talk page):

Strong Keep I believe that edits to the page on August 31 were akin to vandalism BECAUSE the objection raised was over self citing and the edits gutted the page entirely. I think the page should be kept and the edits suggested by one of the other users should be made and a discussion then had with the relevant mods on other revisions. My research indicates the doctor is noteworthy (a simple google news search combined with a google scholar search reveals that, and the page serves an important purpose. I'd be happy to help suggest edits to the mods. There is a very real interest in this doctor's work because it is unique and therefore noteworthy. If only 10 sources were poorly cited, to gut an entire page seems inappropriate. Aren't we supposed to be focused on working together to get pages right? The solution isn't deletion, it's editing. Jf3300 (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2015


 * The fact that he appears to have paid a bunch of people to promote him and his ideas is concerning. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

TARGIT - Debate
Hi Doc,

On Sept 2, you removed the "debate" section in the TARGIT posting. This debate sited many sources in both the Lancet and Red Journal. And is seems appropriate to acknowledge that there is significant debate surrounding this technique within the medical community. As is, the entire topic has been written by the original authors of the study; and hence is a very one-sided view of TARGIT. They go so far as to claim all those countering their position are "scientifically weak". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.250.248 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes these articles have issues. I have been meaning to go back and clean it up. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks User:Winner 42. No reason not to have a bit of fun while fighting tooth and nail to save WP from turning into a heap of spam :-) And the really amazing thing is he pulled them off... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mail
Doc J.,

Caught you via the page on diabetic foot ulcer, which has this interesting quote:

"Complications in the Diabetic foot and foot-ankle complex are wider and more destructive than expected, and may compromise structure and function of several systems: vascular, nervous, somatosensory, musculoskeletal. Thus, a deeper comprehension of the alteration of gait and foot biomechanics in the Diabetic foot is of great interest, and may play a role in the design and onset of preventive as well as therapeutic actions."

Our Ottawa tech startup's Bio_Sole(R) technology platform uses parameters of a person's gait to determine unique identity. We also believe that the technology will prove effective in determine biomarkers for disease progression, and we hope to be awarded a Michael J. Fox Foundation research grant for Parkinson's disease research this fall. Obviously, diabetes has been on our radar for future disease research, as is fall prevention for the elderly and neurodegenerative diseases in general. Beyond biomarker detection and predictive analytics, the technology platform should allow for a cloud-based patient population auto-triage, all of which should improve patient outcomes while reducing health care costs and inefficiencies.

If you're interested in learning more, I can be reached at sdoyle@autonomousid.com. I'm not a wikipedia editor, although I am a frequent user and financial supporter of wikipedia.

Cheers,

Stephen

S. Doyle VP Strategic Planning autonomous_ID — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.229.149 (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Stephen. We basically generally only include stuff one it is supported by a high quality secondary source per WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Stephen seems to be referring to this self-published site. Interesting tech and application, but we'd still need secondary sources to be able to address it. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,

Thanks for the message. Where do I disclose this information? All of the work I do for The Hibbs Lupus Trust is voluntary. I receive no payments.

Thanks you.

Paid Editing.
You are required to disclose per the WP:TOU - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhibbs1978 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Johnhibbs1978. By your username I assume you share some affiliation to the charity though? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Wachler
On the discussion of this page, there seems to be a contingency of users who have some type of motive to delete this page despite the doctor meeting the notability criteria. As a physician yourself, you can easily search pubmed for Dr. Wachler's peer-reviewed publications. There used to be over 200 independent sources listed between media and peer-reviewed publications. Most of them have now been removed and only 3 of the 200+ independent sources remain.

Would you be open to helping? If so, here is a brief list of some peer-reviewed publications. Thank you most kindly in advance for your consideration JJ Jjacksoneverst (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Boxer Wachler BS, Scruggs RT, Yuen LH, Jalali S. Comparison of the Visian ICL and Verisyse phakic intraocular lenses for myopia from 6.00 to 20.00 diopters. J Refract Surg. 2009;25(9):765-70

Vicente LL, Boxer Wachler BS. Optimizing the vault of collagen copolymer phakic intraocular lenses in eyes with keratoconus and myopia: comparison of 2 methods.J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 ;36:1741-4.

Vicente LL, Boxer Wachler BS. Factors that correlate with improvement in vision after combined Intacs and trans-epithelial corneal crosslinking. Br J Ophthalmol 2010; 94:1597-1601

Schallhorn SC, Farjo AA, Huang D, Boxer Wachler BS, Trattler WB, Tanzer DJ, Majmudar PA, Sugar A; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Wavefront-guided LASIK for the correction of primary myopia and astigmatism a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(7):1249-61.

Boxer Wachler BS, Christie JC, Chou B, Chandra N, Korn T. Intacs for the treatment of keratoconus. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1031-40.

Sharma M, Boxer Wachler BS. Comparison of single segment and double segment Intacs for keratoconus and post-LASIK ectasia. American J Ophthalmology 2006;141:891-95.

Chan CC, Boxer Wachler BS.Reduced best spectacle-corrected visual acuity from inserting a thicker Intacs above and thinner Intacs below in keratoconus. J Refract Surg 2007;23:93-5.

Chan CCK, Sharma M, Boxer Wachler BS. The effect of inferior segment Intacs with and without corneal collagen crosslinking with riboflavin (C3-R) on keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:75-80.

Yuhan KR, Nguyen L, Boxer Wachler BS. The role of instrument cleaning and maintenance in the development of diffuse lamellar keratitis. Ophthalmology 2002;109:400-3.

Boxer Wachler BS, Korn T, Chandra N, Michel F. Decentration of the optical zone: centering of the pupil versus the coaxially sighted corneal light reflex in hyperopic LASIK. J Refractive Surg 2003;19:464-5.

Nepomuceno RL, Boxer Wachler BS, Sato M, Scruggs R. Use of large optical zones with the LADARVision laser for myopia and myopic astigmatism. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1384-90.

Bailey MD, Mitchell GL, Dhaliwal DK, Boxer Wachler BS, Zadnik, K. Patient satisfaction and visual symptoms after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1371-78.

Varley GA, Huang D, Rapuano CJ, Schallhorn S, Boxer Wachler BS, Sugar A. LASIK for hyperopia, hyperopic astigmatism, and mixed astigmatism: safety and efficacy. Ophthalmology 2004;111:1604-17.

Hiatt JA, Grant CN, Boxer Wachler BS. Establishing analysis parameters for spherical aberration following wavefront LASIK. Ophthalmology 2005;112:998-1002.

Hiatt JA, Grant CN, Boxer Wachler BS. Complex wavefront-guided retreatments with the Alcon CustomCornea platform after prior LASIK. J Refract Surgery 2006;22:48-53 26.

Chan CK, Boxer Wachler BS. Centration analysis of ablation over the coaxial corneal light reflex for hyperopic LASIK. J Refract Surg 2006;22:457-71.

Chan CC, Boxer Wachler BS. A comparison of CustomCornea myopia algorithms for wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis. Arch Ophthalmol 2008;126:1067-70.


 * User:Jjacksoneverst we have a bunch of brand new accounts promoting this person and we have good evidence that a bunch of them are being paid to do so.
 * Someone really really wants to keep his page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Procedure high-five
While I don't think Curly Turkey's comment was all that uncivil, it is refreshing to see an editor who seeks to change others' behavior by identifying what he believes to be the problem and asking politely. Procedure-five. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it was not that uncivil agree. It however was simply overly personalizing the conversation. Thank you for your support User:Darkfrog24 :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Blogged
Hi, I think the problem was not advertisement I think the problem was just me. I want to give other interested users the chance to inform of an other lengthening system. And I just copy sentences from their website and I didn't know that this is advertisement or a conflict. Would it be possible that I can try it again without making advertisement for a company just for people who want to know more about other things? It is the first time that I want to write something on wiki and I didn't realize that it is advertisement. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.2.224 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC) It was really not my attention to make something which was forbidden. would it be possible to help me.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.2.224 (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes your edits do look spam like. Please be careful. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Typo
Did you mean "fine" instead of "dine" here? --Djadjko (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Buccal exostosis image and usage rights etc
Hi James. A while ago I was asking for your input about consent forms for clinical photography. I'm finally starting to photograph any interesting stuff I see (it is mainly a matter of time to do this in a busy day).

Anyway, just wanted a final check with you that this consent is appropriate and will not be deleted from commons:



The only potential issue I can see is that commons seems to now be using a new version of the license by default (4.0 not 3.0). Maybe I should update the wording of the consent form.

Regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned you at meta:Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Stock_photos_for_health_organizations. I have nothing to add right now, except that you might be interested to know that I also am seeking a process for model release. I live in New York and have an appointment this month to meet a Wikipedian who is a lawyer in the fashion industry. This person has experience with model releases and might be able to help draft something. You are doing something interesting with your image upload - thanks a lot for drafting this. You and Doc James, so far as I know, are the only people to have attempted something like this. James I would like a copy of your text also if you would share.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * here is the google doc of the original consent form if this helps you at all . Regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. WP does not need the consent forms but if your college ever asks you will need to have a collection of them. I recommend putting a copy in the person's chart and keeping one in your own personal file. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK will do. thanks, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

inappropriate behavior from ip user involved at defecation talk page
Hi, I'm messaging you because I see that you are an admin and also because you commented on the video discussion on the defecation talk page. The ip user 98.117.33.218 in that discussion whom was promoting the inappropriate video has in retaliation to my stance against his posted a graphic video on my talk page (see history because I removed it) to harass me as well as posting the same video on his own talk page I assume for shock value to disturb others who might visit his talk page. I was tempted to leave a warning message on his talk page but decided it would be pointless as his behavior is so blatantly inappropriate. I thought it best to contact you to decide the best course of action and handle it because I'm not too familiar with policies about this kind of behavior on talk pages./ Kap 7 (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Disregard my message above ... looks like it's been handled today and the ip was handed a 3 month block and video taken off their talk page. Hopefully if they come back they decide to be more constructive. Kap 7 (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Serum-derived bovine immunoglobulin
THANKS! I see you did some work on the EnteraGam article and merged it with Serum-derived bovine immunoglobulin. Thanks for the help. I thought about putting it there in the first place then decided to create a separate article. I just removed a paragraph from the intro as the information is not in the source. It was part of the original SDBI article but the information is not in the citation. Thanks again. --Austinoiliosdigranting (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Prolonged labour
Do you envisage this article expanding? How much is there to say on the subject?Rathfelder (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think more could be said. What are your thoughts? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)