User talk:Doc James/Archive 99

Cushing's Syndrome edits
Doc James, I am going to respectfully point out that the last time that you removed my edit and pointed out that you prefer secondary sources, that you neglected to realize that I had included three of them. Footnote 18 included a brief review of the literature. Footnote 19 was a retrospective review of a large cohort study. Footnote 21 even used it in the title of the paper. The listing of footnotes is comprehensive on this narrow area using both primary and secondary sources that include from material 1972 through 2014, and is uniformly and consistently showing a very high correlation of those people suffering from Corticosteroid abuse or addiction, now grouped under the formal DSM V designation of Other (Corticosteroid) Use Disorder. This is hardly the questionable material that you are seeking to keep from edits. I will respectfully ask that you put it back before I choose to report vandalism.68.196.183.199 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you added this mass of primary sources from the 1980s a second time after being requested once not to. Feel free to report all you like but please stop using masses of old primary sources. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Visibly obvious Cushing’s syndrome is associated with 83% of the patients in older peer reviewed medical literature that have been described as either abusing corticosteroids or having a corticosteroid addiction, which would now be more correctly described as having a corticosteroid use disorder. Newer peer reviewed medical literature uses the term Factitious Cushing’s Syndrome to characterize what used to be termed abuse and by definition the correlation is 100% with a 0.7% incidence having no supporting underlying medical condition, however, the more modern literature fails to address the concept of medically prescribed addiction where the DSM V criteria of a Corticosteroid Use Disorder is met while having an active prescription for an underlying medical condition.

We have have one review in the bunch from the last 10 years. Next question is what text from that review supports the text you added? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of the discussion of footnote 18 included a review of all literature on the topic from 1966 through 1997 with respect to DSM diagnosis and the appearance of Cushing's syndrome. footnote 19 was a retrospective review of a large cohort of 860 patients that identified 6 as factitious. Quite frankly, there isn't a single piece of literature that refutes my position that I have been able to identify, and this includes my discussions with and in front of thousands of people that are actively taking these medications that I am choosing not to cite. There was almost unanimous support for my position among that population, and only a single comment to the contrary across over a year of regular discussions. In this context and with an admitted paucity of literature on the topic that all arrives at support for my position, I have to ask what is it that drives you to take such a position?68.196.183.199 (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What drives me to take the position that we base Wikipedia on high quality secondary sources? The consensus of the community of medical editors as explained at WP:MEDRS
 * You need to provide me links to the sources you refer to "footnote 18" I cannot verify. The request is just that you accurately reflect recent high quality secondary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Statins
This showed up at In the News (rejected) but may be of use to you or one of your talkpage stalkers. See here and here. The Statin article may need to be updated. The sentence "It is, therefore, of concern that exaggerated claims about side-effect rates with statin therapy may be responsible for its under-use among individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular events." is odd to me, I didnt realise there were exaggerated claims about statin side-effects? (In that, where I am they appear to be universally beloved) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good evidence for secondary prevention. Decent evidence for primary prevention in those at high risk. Not supported in those at low risk. Where the cut off is between high and low risk is debated. But yes say that Lancet article earlier today. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Second_Formic_War
MannyWolfe (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)MannyWolfe
 * 1) The page was deleted within 2 hours of the content in question was posted.  Is there no grace period, where you warn and suggest revisions?
 * 2) The section that was copied were 1 1/2 paragraphs of the book description, which is posted on every site selling the book: Tor (the publisher), Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.  I believe this may fall under the category of Fair Use, or at least allowable content under the Wikipedia guidelines.  At worst case, the attribution should have been changed.  I do not believe the page should have been deleted.
 * 3) The copyrighted material was only a fraction of the page, and there was a previous version to revert to.
 * Just because something is all over the internet does not mean you can copy it word for word. And the plot made up about half the page. Please always paraphrase going forwards. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my point. (a) I was quoting the book description from the publisher, mistakenly attributed to a retailer instead of the original. I have seen that being used in the past on other Wikipedia pages; I am not aware that it is prohibited (might it be fair use, a small quote used in review). (b) It was partially paraphrased; compare the second half of the second paragraph. Can you restore the page so I can edit it properly? Thanks. MannyWolfe (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can email it to you. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Not easily, as I have not set up an email address with my Wikipedia user. Can you un-delete it?  MannyWolfe (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rule is we do not un delete stuff that contains copyright issues. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was pointing out that I disagree with the the copyright issue; that small excerpt is fair use, and is the blurb distributed by the publisher to be used on other sites. In other words, not a copyright violation, or at least, not unambiguous.  Read them and compare.  If you disagree, restore the previous version and let me edit that.  MannyWolfe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Fair use
 * Your case does not fulfil the criteria. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood. Can you restore the previous version instead of entirely deleting the page?  MannyWolfe (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

sock
have reverted on Dysautonomia due to MEDRS...two different accounts--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Will look in a few hours. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those sources are borderline. Would be best to replace them with something better agree. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright infringement flag on article The church of St. Anthony of Padua, Belgrade
Can you explain what triggered the copyright detection software? Is it the content of the page itself, or is it the external link - http://beogradskonasledje.rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/k4/crkva.pdf? If it's the latter, that external link is directed to a document published by "Завод за заштиту споменика културе града Београда" - Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments of Belgrade, and http://beogradskonasledje.rs is its official website. The pdf is freely accessible through their website, and should thus be freely shared through their official link. Apribic (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay so you have copied from that document with some minor paraphrasing. Is that document under an open license?
 * Just because something can be freely "viewed" does not mean it can be freely "shared". Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, what I've done was I translated the original wikipedia article you can find on the Serbian page: [] Mind you I have nothing to do with the original article and have not contributed in it in any way.
 * Could you direct me to exactly what paragraph/section triggered the copyright infringement sw?
 * I've found what paragraphs cause the issue on the article page. Basically this is what's going on. The article was commissioned by the city of Belgrade. A team of writers write the articles in Serbian using the government approved sources (i.e. the .pdf that is triggering the copyright SW). Another team then translates the articles in multiple other languages (English being the first in line). Some students like myself are then asked to upload the articles to Wikipedia (I didn't actually translate the article). What probably happened is the person translating the article used the original .pdf (which was written in Serbian as well as in English).
 * So, if the original .pdf is published by a government agency - Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments of Belgrade, and it is used for a wikipedia article commissioned by the Belgrade government then we shouldn't have any copyright issues. Apribic (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Apribic Okay so to get this clear, you did not write the article in question, the article was written by someone else, you then uploaded the article.
 * But the same group you are working with also had written the original article as found in the pdf?
 * What copyright license is the "Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments of Belgrade" work under. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just uploaded the already written article.
 * I spoke to some people in the organization and it seems something like this has already happened on another article. The Institute (or another agency) will issue a statement that the original document is covered under the appropriate type CC licence.
 * Apribic (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay the instructions are at WP:PERMISSIONS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog's grounding in biology and statistics
Hi Doc James - your name occurs frequently on Jytdog's page, so I wonder if you could help convince Jytdog that my proposal is genuine - see below.

Hi Jytdog. I have seen you are a keen editor on Wikipedia, and that you are driven by a desire to implement strict Wikipedia guidelines. May I politely ask you one question: what are your qualifications regarding biology and statistics? This is a genuine enquiry (Assume good faith) and I look forward to your answer. 86.154.102.102 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again Jytdog. By ignoring my question and instead now deleting my random example for faulty biological statistics (the 9% immortality nonsense on Mediterranean diet), you are indirectly giving me an answer, namely that your biological and statistical qualifications are not yet at Nobel Prize level.


 * Therefore I would like to offer you a Tutorial to train you in how to read a biostatistical paper. And then in future you would not simply delete badly cited papers, but you would actually be in the position to fix the problem. Interested? We can do the Tutorial here on your page, or we can do it on the Med Diet Talk page using the BMJ paper as a worked example. 86.154.102.102 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Regardless of how good the statistics look, the results of many primary sources simply cannot be repeated. Boghog (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "BogHog" - I love your name! Brilliant. Nevertheless, you are trespassing on my conversation with DocJames. You had your chance. 86.154.102.102 (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently on holidays. Can you provide the dif that concerns you? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Brain tumor
Why did you add that text to the introduction to Brain tumor (without explaining why in the Edit summary)? Those are just generic symptoms of mass or swelling in the brain that are found in other conditions. I can't find anything to support "The headache is classically worse in the morning and goes away with vomiting." in the cited source either. --Nbauman (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cited source says "Brain Tumor Symptoms Morning headache or headache that goes away after vomiting." as the first symptom mentioned. This is not a generic symptom of swelling in the brain as for example meningitis or encephalitis does not classically produce this. And most masses in the brain are brain tumors. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Android app for Slovene
Hi, Doc James. I'd be interested in developing the Slovene version of the app. Can you give me some instructions how to go about this? --Eleassar my talk 21:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be really cool User:Eleassar :-) Have emailed you. Basically the intro page needs to be translated as seen here.
 * We on EN Wikipedia have improved all the leads of the articles that are listed. Would be good to have the leads translated for all the ones in red. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If I get it right, we just need to localize the payload (e.g. the leads for starters) and the rest (packaging, posting on google play) will be being taken care of by Kiwix? Tia and regards SmozBleda (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes basically an intro page is needed, plus a logo, and the intro text found on google play. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Butorphanol for Migraines
In response to your invitation, I'm dropping you a note. In my own discipline (mathematics), the thought that textbooks are more reliable than peer-reviewed research articles would be held by a vanishingly small minority. If it's a review article you want, how about "Guidelines on Migraine: Part 3. Recommendations for Individual Drugs" by Sharon Scott Morey Am Fam Physician. 2000 Nov 1;62(9):2145-2151? Far from rejecting opiates out of hand for migraines, this article acknowledges their uses. In particular, Morey says: "The clinical efficacy of butorphanol specifically for migraine has been documented in two published reports. Recommendation: Clinical experience and expert consensus concur that butorphanol represents a treatment option for some patients with migraine (Grade A recommendation)."

If I go to the trouble to attach this to the migraine article, will you once again delete my work? If so, I guess I'll leave the article as it is, so that those whose who've tried NSAIDS and found them completely ineffective, have tried ergotamine and suffered frightening hallucinations as a result, and have tried the triptans and had them raise their blood pressure to dangerous levels can read the article and despair that there are no other viable options. 97.126.192.173 (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just reading the article on Mirapex and noted that there are a number of citations of articles reporting clinical studies. They're not review articles and not textbooks. Please get to work and remove those abominations from Wikipedia. Thanks in advance for your vigilance. 128.187.112.7 (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We try to use reviews from the last 5 or 10 years. 2000 is a little old. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Technical question
In this edit you changed a "Main" to "See also". Just wondering why. AFAIK there is no other "pelvic pain" condition in men other than chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS), so a "Main" link seemed better. Ratel (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Males can get acute pelvic pain from trauma or infection. This article is not just about chronic pelvic pain of which there are also other causes. CPPS is a diagnosis of exclusion. That means you have ruled out stuff like a prostatic abscess or mets or colon ca. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then perhaps the article should mention the cause/s of acute pelvic pain in males as well. Ratel (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree it should. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Your wrongfully made revert
I am citing here your response to my Talk page to ensure you get to see my response under it, because if you do not follow up on this matter or give a reasonable clarifying answer to my questions on your motivation for removal of my contribution, I will further pursue this matter on a higher level. The subject is article 'Leukemia' which you left in a state (through your revision oldid 740990409) that essentially strips out the contribution I made on your motives I am now disputing here.

References Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We tend not to use primary sources, even if peer reviewed and in a high quality source. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________

It seems to me you have some sort of agenda/interest for keeping out this information that I contributed, because as you said 'please only use high-quality reliable sources as references'.. the source I added is high quality and of a recognized standard, please refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(journal) Please explain on which facts you based the judgement the source isn't satisfying, or how you think your personal opinion on that source, a medical-scientific journal, should prevail above the given fact the source is used in many wiki articles and generally regarded reputable.

Besides that, it (the publication) also refers explicitly to other research throughout the journal, evaluating their outcome and therefore this source also tends to review the current understanding of leukemia (not completely only a primary source, therefore it should be considered we will 'tend to' deem it good enough.) I think because this is one of the recommendations for reliable medical sourcing, you got nothing left to allege the source isn't appropiate. You also didn't need to send me 'instruction' templates about medical references, because I 'would be new to adding them', therefore further implicating my adding of information/source was incorrect - at the basis of this issue lies your own mistake as you incorrectly reverted it based on misinformation about the reliability or standard of the source.

Additionally, to further invalidate your claims the source isn't sufficiently reputable: the source, cell.com which publices the journal, also represents the The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). Stem Cell Reports is the official journal of the ISSCR. This already proves it's reputable status through proving it's a recognized journal medium by the medical-scientific industry. --Blooker (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I request that you read WP:MEDRS and than use review articles rather than primary sources. You are free to ask for further opinions on this matter. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This 'primary source' as I stated, does mention other research with direct journal references and evaluates/concludes their outcomes. It builds on known previous research and therefore is not primary. I would like to see if you have a constructive answer that upholds your arguments after noticing that. --Blooker (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the source. It is not a review article but a primary source. Sure primary sources touch on other research that relates to the work they have done. We still do not accept that as a review article.
 * This is obvious per statements like "we modeled the human leukemia predisposition disorder Shwachman-Diamond syndrome (SDS), caused by constitutive homozygous or compound heterozygous loss-of-function mutations in the SBDS gene, required for ribosome biogenesis"
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Mediation please
Hi Doc James, Could you mediate on this matter please:

Talk:Ageing

Thanks. 86.170.123.24 (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

as said on the talk page it dose not say In either http://www.surveyophthalmol.com/article/S0039-6257(03)00086-9/abstract or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14499819 what you stated so I thought you were putting in something that was not there the ref states Limitations in existing studies of the epidemiological aspects of refraction are attributed to both technical and statistical procedures. Early influences of ocular parameters on refraction are identified accordingly as prematurity and may or may not be involved. Attention is paid to familial and genetic influences, and infants and toddlers are examined as a group separate from schoolchildren and teenagers, who are likely to have experienced significant periods of near work. The effects of sex and geographical distribution are considered both for younger and older age ranges. Special attention is paid to anisometropia, which is shown-apparently for the first time-to increase appreciably among presbyopes. The connection between refractive errors and ocular pathologies is reviewed, and possible means of preventing early onset myopia are examined. Presbyopia is addressed with reference to its geographical distribution and hypothetical links to accommodation insufficiency. it did not say most people require reading glasses by age 45–50 or if they live near the equator so I thought you were putting in something that was not in the ref same thing for https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18675268 and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014483508002078 it did not say also you make me think you are the ip users 86.154.101.3 and  86.170.123.90

update: talked to another editor I trust turns out I really did not have access to the full publications I think sub only Truscott 2009 review states what is says In talk but for the Weale 2003 review quote (if they live near the equator) I think it was not made clear on wiki. I also do not know if linking refs that are only available to view full with accounts are normal thou but regardless I think and effort should be made to find full versions of the articles that you view completely without a account (Plmokg22345 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC))


 * Am on holidays. Will look as I have time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have commented. Ping me if further questions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure how to ping you, so hope you will see this. Two points: You have misquoted the source by replacing "require reading glasses" (Truscott 2009) with "benefit from reading glasses" (Doc James 2016). Could you revert this please? It is a minor point and I will not insist if you are reluctant.
 * Secondly, both the Weale 2003 and Truscott 2009 reviews say that near-equatorial populations become presbyopic earlier (in their 30s) than people living in temperate regions (late 40s). This effect was first described in detail in 1979, and it is thought to be due to ambient temperature rather than genetics (I myself suspect lighting levels as the culprit, but that is another matter). Plmokg22345 removed this information, and you have now supported her removal, based on the fact that the NIH website does not mention the Weale/Truscott reviews. So my general question here is, does one medical website "overrule" two medical review papers on Wikipedia? 81.131.171.98 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Weale 2003 is a little old.
 * Ophthalmology is a slow-moving field, it seems. Note that the NIH website has also not been updated since 2010. 81.131.171.98 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Truscott 2009 is here and I will look at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We should not be quoting text we should be paraphrasing it. Using others work word for word is not allowed "most people require reading glasses by age 45–50"
 * Now you tell me... Those two pr4nksters have been busy deleting medical material on the pretext that "the source does not say this". 81.131.171.98 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Were does Truscott mention the "near-equatorial populations"? Can you quote the exact passage here please. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Truscott 2009 (unlike Weale 2003) does not explicitly use the term "near-equatorial" himself. Instead, on page 244, he discusses ambient temperature as a factor in hastening presbyopia, and in support cites Miranda 1979, who discovered the geographical factor:

''' Miranda examined the hypothesis directly and found a linear correlation between mean ambient temperature and the age of onset of presbyopia (Miranda,1979). "Miranda, M.N., 1979. The geographic factor in the onset of presbyopia. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 77, 603–621".''' As a matter of curiosity, Weale and Truscott do not cite each other's work (are they rivals?), which has the scientific advantage that the geographic/temperature conclusions are independently replicated. This independence is the reason why I cite both reviews. Thanks for getting back to me promptly despite being on holiday. 81.131.171.98 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hum. A study from 1979, has it been replicated? With central heating and air conditioning ambient temperature in much of the world is whatever you set it at. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was replicated by Weale 1981. If you go to Google Scholar, you will see the Miranda (1979) paper has been cited 65 times, and the Weale (1981) replication 35 times. Since then there have been a bunch of local studies in the tropics which you will easily find on PubMed.
 * Your remark on air-conditioning and heating is intriguing but hardly relevant for the Miranda/Weale presbyopia studies in the 1970s and 1980s - no-one outside America had air conditioning, and central heating was uncommon even in western and southern Europe, let alone in the third-world countries they analysed.
 * Given that Weale 2003 and the NIH 2010 website are "dated", here is a recent review, in a journal would also fit thematically into the Ageing article:

Sophia Pathai, Paul G. Shiels, Stephen D. Lawn, Colin Cook, Clare Gilbert (2013) Review: The eye as a model of ageing in translational research – Molecular, epigenetic and clinical aspects. Ageing Research Reviews Volume 12, Issue 2, March 2013, Pages 490–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2012.11.002

Quote from Pathai et al. review: '''As the lens protein α-crystallin decreases with age in the human lens, there is a steady increase in the stiffness of the lens centre (nucleus), and this loss of elasticity may account for the loss of accommodation and hence presbyopia (Glasser and Campbell, 1999 and Truscott, 2009). The age at which an individual becomes symptomatic varies, and is related to the refractive state of the eye (Abraham et al., 2005). An ecological study suggested high average temperature can accelerate the onset of presbyopia (Miranda, 1979).''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.123.64 (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay sounds good. So we have "The cause is lens hardening by decreasing levels of α-crystallin, a process which may be speed up by higher temperatures." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fine with your suggested sentence (but mind your spelling of "speeded"). Could you please implement it on both the Ageing and the Presbyopia article? If I do it, I will be sabotaged again by the two pr4anksters. You carry more weight. Thanks. 86.170.123.64 (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are fast. I am impressed, again. 86.170.123.64 (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Passive Smoking Reference
I find that the warning about not use by primary sources as references in Wikipedia is subject to incredible selection bias. In this case I was directly responding to multiple citations from primary sources. Indeed I was responding with a study directly critiquing those very sources. How can you remove my reference on these grounds and let the others stand? You know what? I'll take care of it for you and just remove those as well. I imagine you will support this change given your insistence on secondary sourcing only.Darkthlayli (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes if you want to replace other primary sources with high quality recent secondary ones I encourage you to do so. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Dexketoprofen
Are the warnings/cautions and other user information at Dexketoprofen proper for a medicine article? - Brianhe (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Brianhe it was copyright infringement so deleted it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That figures; I should have checked. Thanks. BTW are you coming to the conference in San Diego? We have not yet face to face yet but I will be there and would like the opportunity to do so. Brianhe (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am unable to make it. Will you be at Wikimania in Montreal in 2017? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My magic 8-ball says "the future is cloudy" :)  Brianhe (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The American Heart Institute
I just realized The American Heart Institute was heavily edited by a serial COI editor and sockmaster who has been indeffed. Thought I'd throw it over to you to have a look. - Brianhe (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that much content. Likely just needs to be rewritten. Do you feel the article is notable? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

About epilepsy
It's a translation of this passage: "eum nostri non modo maiorem et comitialem, uerum etiam diuinum morbum (...) uere nuncuparunt, uidelicet quod animi partem rationalem, quae longe sanctissimast, eam uiolet" -> "We rightly call this not only the "greater," or "epileptic," but also the "divine" disease (...) obviously because the disease does violence to the rational (by far the most sacred) part of the soul". --EntroDipintaGabbia (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * K Thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Astigmatism
Hi Doc

Just to let you know that your change of primary topic for Astigmatism and Astigmatism (eye) has been reverted by, on the grounds that it may be controversial, so if you want to pursue that it's probably best to list a discussion for it at WP:RM. Thanks! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Amakuru and User:Dicklyon please do a google search and let me know how far down you need to look before you find an article with is NOT about astigmatism of the eye. It is fairly obvious what the main topic is. When you search for astigmatism thankfully Google is smart enough to put our article on Astigmatism (eye) above Astigmatism (optical systems) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your request
I don't know of any user by that name, at least not spelled that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23 I do not know if I sent you a user name? I can send you user names though if you are interested. Has to do with Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Always bear in mind that I have large numbers of sock masters embedded in my brain, and spelling things out is more likely to trigger the correct synapse. In short, usernames would be helpful. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure sent. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not familiar with the master. Second, of the three accounts you mentioned, one is stale. The other two do not appear to be related to each other. Based on the master's LTA page, it seems unlikely that either account is related to him, but I don't know how old the data is, and I don't necessarily have a high degree of confidence in it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Microbial resistance
Thanks for the improvement on my edit—it keeps the straightforward tilt of my additions. I'd like to link "medications" to the article Pharmaceutical drugs. It is, after all, prescription antibiotics and their loss of efficacy that are the main subjects of the article. "Medications" include over-the-counter drugs, and in some locales, herbal remedies. Tapered (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In many areas of the world antibiotics are mostly over the country. One can buy over the counter antibacterial and antifungal creams in North America even.
 * Medication already redirects to pharmaceutical drug. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)