User talk:Doc James/Archive 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured articles

FGM is the second FA I've seen you cause problems on, apparently in an effort to reduce the reading level. Before continuing, please open a discussion about this on WT:FAC and gain consensus. It's extremely time-consuming, especially because you won't reply to questions clearly.

You're introducing either poor writing or ambiguity, or both, and wasting a lot of volunteer time. For example, you changed the lead to say that there have been international efforts since the 1970s to persuade people to abandon FGM, rather than to persuade practitioners. That is somewhat childish writing (the kind of thing that would be fixed at FAC), and it lacks precision. The efforts of the aid agencies are explicitly directed at practitioners, rather than others who might support it.

The vocabulary at FAs is often chosen after a lot of reading and thought. The language about persuading practitioners, for example, grew out of a discussion with an academic reviewer. I had initially written "eradicate FGM," but that is language used by those very strongly opposed. The reviewer pointed out that it's not a disease, and asked me to change it, so we arrived at "persuading practitioners". That's just one example of how vocabulary that doesn't obviously have a lot of work behind it may, in fact, be the result of protracted discussion, not all of it on-wiki. Similar issues apply to many featured articles. It makes no sense to go charging in without being familiar with those issues and with the literature. You should therefore open a discussion at WT:FAC to explain and gain support for what you're doing. SarahSV (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have replied extensively and I have started a RfC to get further input. I agree completely that this has been way overly time consuming.
There are efforts to persuade those who might have their children FGMed and thus it is not just people doing the procedures that people are working to convince, it is entire communities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Practitioners are those who practise something, James. It covers those who initiate it and the circumcisers. Persuading "people" is meaningless (what else would it be if not people?).
The featured-article criteria require "prose [that] is engaging and of a professional standard", but this effort is introducing the opposite. Therefore, you need to gain consensus for this project of yours, not open an RfC about one word.
Also, can you say why you've chosen Tourette's syndrome and Female genital mutilation? There are lots of truly terrible medical articles out there. These two are odd choices. SarahSV (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes so I do not interpret the word "practitioner" that way. Google gives "a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine." which would not apply to the mothers or grandmothers requesting their girls be FGMed.
I have worked on both TS and FGM for years. In fact I have most medical FA's watched. First edited FGM in 2011 and TS in 2009. Both are important medical topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
As I recall, I wrote just about all of FGM, except for the medical section written by a gynaecologist, contributions from Johnuniq and peer reviews from lots of people, on- and off-wiki. FGM isn't a medical article any more than Smoking is. They're about harmful cultural practices. Here are the medical FAs. Just a glance at them shows significantly higher reading levels in the leads, and lots of jargon. Why aren't you trying to fix those? (Not that I'm suggesting you do.) SarahSV (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I have already worked to simplify the leads of nearly 20 of those. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There are lots that you missed in that case. Personally I want to learn new vocabulary, and so long as everything is linked, it's good. Wikipedia is about education. I don't want it to read like a patronizing patient information leaflet. But if your aim is to remove medical jargon, and words that 12-year-olds might not understand, you've got quite a bit of work left in those leads.
You do need to open a discussion at WT:FAC if you intend to continue, because what you're doing is violating the featured-article criteria, so you're running up against a well-accepted, long-standing consensus. SarahSV (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
We have this guideline Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable which talks about language use and supports efforts to make language easier. IMO the leads should generally be in simpler language with the body in more complicated language. Not sure if you would agree with that principle or not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree about trying to replace or explain unnecessary technical terms. But you're not doing that at FGM or Tourette's. You're replacing ordinary words and introducing errors or a lack of clarity. You've often acknowledged that writing isn't your strength. When someone for whom writing is not a strong point works on correcting other people's writing, it's a bit like me following you around to correct your medical edits. I wouldn't try to do that, because I would make mistakes.
Clear communication in writing is hard, especially in long articles about difficult topics. It takes more skill than is apparent in the end result. If someone makes it look easy, that's because they're very good at it. (I don't include myself in that. I struggle with it.)
Please go back to basics, and consider long-standing consensus. The featured-article criteria were introduced in 2004, and for over a decade they have required prose that is "compelling" or of a "professional standard". Not as if written for 12-year-olds. Not containing grammatical errors or a simplistic vocabulary. Articles written that way fail at FAC, and if those errors are introduced later they may cause demotion.
Therefore, to continue what you're doing requires a broader discussion at WT:FAC, not on individual talk pages where the main writers are clearly upset about what you're doing. SarahSV (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I will likely work on something Wikipedia wide soon. We already have Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
You said that above. But we have several talk pages for featured articles. The busiest is Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates (WT:FAC). That's a good place to open a discussion about your views on the "professional prose" criterion. You have said that you want FAs to be accessible to 12-year-olds. I have never seen that suggestion anywhere. But I could be wrong, or perhaps there's some middle position. The point is that it should be debated with the people it affects. SarahSV (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Were did I say "You have said that you want FAs to be accessible to 12-year-olds"?
FA's are part of the rest of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall where I saw it; perhaps you implied it, rather than saying it. Which reading age do you believe FAs should aim at? As for "part of the rest of Wikipedia," again, please see the FA criteria. That is a standard particular to FAs. SarahSV (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not think I implied it either. I have not stated an age as far as I am aware. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The above is why I said you don't reply to questions. I asked: "Which reading age do you believe FAs should aim at?" SarahSV (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends were? The lead should be geared towards early high school IMO and the body of the text late high school. Subpages can get more technical. But being complicated for complicated sack is something I disagree with.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Early high school would be 12–14, so what I wrote above was roughly correct (so close that I wonder why you wasted time with the back-and-forth). If that's your aim, that goes against the "professional prose" criterion. SarahSV (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It is an educational level not an age. We are writing for a general audience not professionals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

But FAs have to adhere to the FA criteria. Please don't keep ignoring that point.

As an example of the problems, at Epidemiology of obesity (not an FA), you've just changed: "In 2014, a Lancet study estimated that the number of overweight adults in the world was 2.1 billion in 2013 ..."

You wrote instead (with the edit summary "simplified"): "In 2013, an estimated 2.1 billion adults where overweight adults in the world ..."

The first version is better and clearer. The attribution was removed, which told the reader why they should pay attention. "Adults" is now there twice, and "where" instead of "were". You added an odd construction—that "2.1 billion adults where overweight adults in the world" (as opposed to where?). The earlier version referred to the "number in the world", so that construction made sense, though it could have been tightened.

So someone has to fix that, and if they fix it in a way you don't like, or if they restore the old text, you'll edit war. If you do that often enough to an FA, the writer will walk away, and it will stagnate. If you want to make texts clearer, first find articles that really need it, then hold a discussion and team up with others (Guild of Copy Editors?), so that things are done well and systematically, and so that FAs aren't damaged and the writers aren't left upset. Find out about reading levels and which vocabulary is appropriate for those levels. If this is done carefully, with a team, it could be beneficial. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the issue with adult twice thanks. However, imagine if every sentence started with (1) the journal the statement was from (2) the year of publication (3) may as well add the first few authors, Wikipedia would be horrible to read. We do not need to say "Lancet said" "JAMA said" especially in the lead Gah
This consumes even more room when technically one is supposed to sell out abbreviations the first time you use them. So you should have "United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The reason I attributed that figure to UNICEF is that it's unclear how valid the figure is, and I want to signal the source to the reader. The agencies fund surveys, and the figures are offered as percentages of the national population; every year the figures increase because the populations do. And there are lots of countries not counted; the Congo, for example, is absent from the figures, but Iraq is included, though the percentage is tiny.
I like the Lancet attribution for the same reason; otherwise as a reader I'd want to know where that figure had come from. It's a judgement issue. In developed articles, the writers know the strengths and weaknesses and where attribution makes sense. SarahSV (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

HMB

Can you edit the article lead and make changes to the text to simplify the langauge that you think is too complicated? I'm not really sure how to go about addressing your comments at the HMB FAC about the lead being too complicated because I don't know which statements in the lead that you were referring to. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Seppi333 will try to get to it today. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Alright. If there are any technical sentences that you'd like me to work on simplifying, just point it out to me and I'll work on rewriting it in a manner that we both find acceptable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Levofloxacin

Elequine is a Janssen-Cilag brand name of levofloxacin sold as an oral dose outside of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl0173 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure and we only mention one brand typically in the lead and that is the first one. I have no opinion on others being placed in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:LDV Intern

Hi. You blocked for two weeks, but templated for indef. I've taken the liberty of making the block indef and changing to promo hard as the username is a position at a company and against USERNAME. They seem to think they should have been warned against making promo edits when they signed up. Huon declined their unblock request while I was adjusting the block. Peridon (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Great thanks User:Peridon Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing my edits

On erythromycin, specifically, you removed my edit and wrote "works by stopping bacteria from make protein". This is an objectively bad sentence, that replaced my objectively fine sentence. Please abstain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Searrss (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes that should be making protein. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit to article on dental carries

Tooth decay

Doc, you undid my revision of the article on dental cavity in which I had replaced the image of the decayed tooth with a diagram. I felt the photo of the rotted tooth was a bit graphic and that we didn't need something quite so dramatic as the lead image-- you said you could "barely see" the image I had replaced it with. I don't understand: the new image was too small? Isn't that easy enough to adjust rather than reverting to the former photograph? Help me out here. Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The prior image is better IMO. It is not that graphic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
James, Your comment was, "Prior was much better, can bairly see the new one." (sic ) The implication was that you could not see the new diagram, which I am happy to adjust if this is the case... You may not perceive the image as graphic (!) but to anyone doing research on carries it comes across as VERY graphic (i.e., a real human tooth in a state of serious decay). While I am a total advocate of giving the masses what they want (You want an image of a decayed tooth?? Here you go!) I am not (yet) convinced that a photograph of a real black and decomposing tooth is what our readers are hoping/ expecting to receive here. Can I convince you that an itemized diagram of decomposition would be a better idea (and ultimately more encyclopedic) than a non-itemized photograph of a basic "rotten tooth"? Because I am thus convinced. Which is why I worked on creating it, and for no other reason. Your thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I also do not find this image to be very compelling. The old image showed dental carries well. I see many cases like this and in fact it is not that extreme. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

splitting biosyntheses

various compounds have their biosynthesis section oversized. they can be split into their pages and referenced. example: norepinephrine is synthesized from dopamine, which is synthesized from tyrosine. only the dopamine to norepinephrine part can be left in the page, contrary to the current overdetail starting from tyrosine. do you accept my proposal?Minimobiler (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? I do not typically work on this type of content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Doc James,i have just had a read of Bronchiectasis, the lead is not good, my concerns are on the talkpage, as a recent contributor thought i would let you know, thanks. ps. plus i like sening people kittens

Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Have replied there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

EHS

Hi, I notice you deleted the description "pathological" from the lead of electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The article only discusses the pathology, real or imagined, while any claimed non-pathological sensitivity is more closely related to dowsing. Can I ask why you deleted it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not seeing the words as adding much. Not sure how it relates to dowsing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It relates to dowsing in that the influence reported by dowsers is often thought to be magnetic or electromagnetic in origin. However dowsing is not a pathological condition. EHS is treated as a pathological condition, for example its article comes under our medical guidelines. Thus, when discussing a claimed sensitivity to low-level electromagnetism, one needs to disambiguate between the non-pathological and pathological sensitivities. This disambiguation was what the word "pathological" achieved. Put it another way, does removing the word really make a tangible improvement? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Dowsing is not refereed to as "electromagnetic hypersensitivity" though? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
No. Some theories describe dowsing along the lines of "a sensitivity of the motor neurone system to low-level (static or DC) electric or magnetic fields" but never as a "hyper" sensitivity to (oscillating wave or AC) "electromagnetism". The term EHS is definitively reserved for the pathological condition. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Anemia

Why revert the anemia page? It wasn't "fine before", not only the laymen uses wikipedia and the definitions we use on the site should be a strict as possible with explanations if required. The old anemia page is misleading and thus confusing for medical students and those who are trying to learn about anemia at more than just a cursory level. I included citations and didn't write anything incorrect. Example: alpha thalessemia with two gene deletions exhibits an anemia with INCREASED HEMATOCRIT yet there is still an anemia. Per your incorrect definition this is incredibly confusing. People need to understand that the hb and hct are correlates and that there are clinical scenarios where a direct correlation would lead to the incorrect conclusion.

Umraja (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the talk page User:Umraja.
Much of those details you mention belong in the body of the article not the lead IMO. We also need the reference you are using to support part of what you are adding.
Discussion is here
We also say "It can also be defined as a lowered ability of the blood to carry oxygen." which covers "alpha thalessemia"
Clarified to "total amount of red blood cells" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I have left a message for you in the talk section for the page: Mistra Council for Evidence-Based Environmental Management.

Look forward to feedback.

Karolin Andersson (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

K Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

thank you

[1] it goes w/out saying you inspire us all to do better, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

West African Ebola virus epidemic is impressive. You are the one deserving of praise :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to "target countries" discussion

Hello, Doc James! You can help the product team at the Wikimedia Foundation create a new list of countries and metrics to replace the "global south" concept in our process with something more relevant. Interested? Learn more about this discussion and share your perspective. (This message is available in more languages.) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

User:JSutherland (WMF) thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

what do you mean by "Need independent sources"?

Hi! I was quoting the result of the university study which produce the GMO. What do you mean by "need independent sources"? An independent source from what? And why the text has been removed since it wasn't copyrighted and it included sources? If we can't cite a study, I wonder what would suffice. What about that https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/07/gm-crops-could-replace-fish-as-source-of-omega-3-fatty-acids/ or that from sciencedirect http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221403011500005X or that from the independant : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11375296/Genetically-modified-crop-successfully-fed-to-salmon-say-scientists.html Uiiosa (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

There was concerns that what you added was similar to http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/camelina
"Current plant sources of omega-3 PUFAs, e.g. Flax seed, do not produce EPA and DHA; instead they produce shorter chain omega-3 fatty acids such as alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). ALA does not confer the health-beneficial properties associated with EPA and DHA, despite also being an omega-3 fatty acid. Not all omega-3 fatty acids are equivalent"
Which of course it was word for word while at the bottom it says copyrighted 2016 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts

The Medicine Barnstar
Thanks for the great work that you are doing and would continue to do for medical content on Wikipedia, its offline app, as well as on WikiJournal of Medicine. DiptanshuTalk 08:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:Diptanshu.D :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Unambiguous copyright infringement: H.E. Dr. Abdulrahman M. Al-Ibrahim

Dear Dr. Heilman,

I have received an email from the office of the Governor of Saline Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC) Saudi Arabia, notifying me that their draft submission of His Excellency, Dr. Abdulrahman M. Al-Ibrahim had been deleted as his biography appears on the Global Water Summit website here: http://www.watermeetsmoney.com/speaker/he-dr-abdulrahman-m-al-ibrahim/ and is reserved by copyright. I've copied the message below for your reference:

For your information and ready reference the following messages "Doc James (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:H.E. Dr. Abdulrahman M. Al-Ibrahim (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.giievent.jp/gwic307103/speakers.shtml)" and "RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:H.E. Dr. Abdulrahman M. Al-Ibrahim (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.watermeetsmoney.com/speaker/he-dr-abdulrahman-m-al-ibrahim/)" appears on Wikipedia for our submission.

I am an employee of Global Water Intelligence who organises the Global Water Summit (here: http://www.watermeetsmoney.com/the-organisers/ ) if you want to verify my identity you can email me on cp@globalwaterintel.com. I just wanted to let you know that i personally requested this biography from the Governors office, that Global Water Intelligence do not own the copyright of this biography, and Global Water Intelligence is happy for the biography to appear on Wikipedia, as far as i am concerned it is free from copyright regulations. If you need me to add some disclaimer text to the website to state this then just let me know.

Best regards, Camilla Prem Global Water Intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.247.183 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Will leave this to User:RHaworth as you have notified them here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Health benefits

Just wanted to share some ground shaking "health" news, believed to be true primarily by some college-age millennials who are still trying to sort things out. <---humor (I promise that I will not try to include it any of your articles although I'm not above sharing it at Happy Hour)...^_^ Atsme📞📧 18:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Life expectancy for Ankylosing spondylitis?

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ankylosing_spondylitis#Life_expectancy.3F

I thank you for reviewing my edits on these medical genetics topics. I'm not a doctor but I work with medical genetics as an autodidact and I have a strong background in scientific research. So basically I know how to find medical literature and understand the statistics, but not always the physiology. --Deleet (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ref says "It can be concluded that at least a third of the patients with ankylosing spondylitis have a severe course of disease and a reduced life expectancy." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Article

Dear Doc James,

Thanks for taking a look at the Gut and psychology syndrome article and making edits to make it a balanced article. I did notice that a large portion of the article has been deleted? I'd like to restore the parts of the article which state the food lists, etc. Since you've taken an interest in this article I wanted to reach out to you so the topic can be presented in a balanced way. Thank you very much.

Angela Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela Taylor Baltimore (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That portion of the article was unreferences.
The concern is that you submitted a draft that was declined.[2]
And than you moved it live anyway.[3]
All well linking to your own website. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I will give you a barnstar if you can rephrase that in Haiku form... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Doc James' talkpage is full of sublimities.
Part the first
The Doc is the best
With quick rejoinders for junk
Like one I just read.
 
Can't compete with Doc James' free verse but I might lay this on an editor someday:
Part the second
Your draft was declined
The 'pedia is not here
To serve up your spam
Warmly - Brianhe (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:Brianhe :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Analysis Stuff

Hi James - sent you a LI message just now about some wiki analysis I have done and am going to write up - be great to get your input! Cheers,

Garymonk (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Garymonk. Have replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Keratoconus

Hi, can you please take a look at Talk:Keratoconus#Misleading lead. I would like to know your opinion. k18s (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth at medical articles

I see that you've already reverted some of his poor sourcing. I can't get this account blocked yet, but it is indeed a sock account. He is making the same type of edits he usually makes, including poor sourcing to medical content. It would be good to keep an eye on him until he is blocked. Right now, he is crippled; by that, I mean that it appears to me that he can only access the An Inconvenient Truth account from a certain location without WP:CheckUser identifying him. As is clear by this discussion and these discussions, he wants me to take him to a WP:SPI so that a WP:CheckUser can prove him innocent. As noted by others, a negative result from the WP:CheckUser tool does not necessarily prove innocence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Flyer22 Reborn looks like issues dealt with yes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think what Amitryptiline is should be in the first sentence,

so people know right away if ti is SSRI, tricyclic or benzo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granito diaz (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It is a medication first of all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

How old is Tom Cruise listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How old is Tom Cruise. Since you had some involvement with the How old is Tom Cruise redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

CXL

Hi, can you please help me in improving the CXL article. I have made a draft on my sandbox User:K18s/sandbox please let me know what you think and feel free to edit it if you have time. thank you. k18s (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess the first thing would be to stick with recent review articles in pubmed indexed and respected journals along with position statements from reputable government bodies.
We do not really use case reports [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I have found a good source for adverse effects. what do you think about trimming the current Procedure section and moving all the less researched subjects to a Research section? I actually hope doing this would allow us to expand the research area, mention other methods and other uses of CXL, like treatment of infectious keratitis. by the way, how can I add a CPT code to the {{Infobox medical intervention}}? k18s (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
What is a CPT code?
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
See this and this. k18s (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay link for the CPT created. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
That was quick! Thank you. k18s (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed your edit here. I will take that as you approval and will make the changes. k18s (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I think adding the research section is reasonable. Some of it needs references though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Dental carries

Doc, I opened up an RfC regarding the lead image for the article on tooth decay— the feedback so far has been in pretty strong support of using a diagram rather than the photo. Would you like to add your own thoughts to the discussion? If so, please have a look and do so. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah thanks User:KDS4444 I missed it. Have commented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Allan Johnston (psychiatrist)

Dear James, thanks for your recent edits of this article. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, s please feel free to advise me. I'm familiar with the work of Dr Johnston through my interest in medicine and Rugby League. I would like to restore some of the edits you made particularly around the research section which you felt wasn't supported by the citations. I had done some of the editing work myself and felt it was well supported by references & citations. Before editing this further I thought I would contact you directly to ask if you would consider replacing the research content which was supported by direct citations to the work. Is this the best way of contacting you to discuss? thanks Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenHutchinson (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

We need sources that comment on this person. The whole thing looks rather spammy so I tried to clean it up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Page

As mentioned with regards to the Cambridge Audio page on Class XD amplifier. The White Paper is a Cambridge copyright free document but I can no longer find the page that I tried to upload and on the main Cambridge Audio wikipage it now says the Cambridge Class XD page no longer exists and can't link to it - have you deleted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andburslem (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This says copyrighted [5] not copyright free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Photographs of children

You might find this article helpful, re: photographs of children, for future reference. SarahSV (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes an important perspective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It's worth considering because of the potential for bullying. Parents may not see that aspect when they give consent, and the children are almost always too young to know how to complain to the Foundation. SarahSV (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes so best that the child be either unidentifiable or have a picture that looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Precordial Catch Syndrome Edits

My apologies for undoing your edits on Precordial Catch Syndrome. I wasn't looking closely enough to realise that you had split a paragraph rather than removed information from it. I should've been paying better attention there. I don't entirely agree with the changes to the first paragraph, though. Moving the colloquial name from the lead to the infobox seems unnecessary. As can be seen at Tuberculosis, "consumption" is included (and bolded) in the lead, despite the fact that it is almost never referred to that outside of the historical context. Would it be fair to include the term in the lead and the infobox? Also, you changed "non-malignant" to "non-serious"; is there some sort of nomenclature issue with referring to it as non-malignant, or is there some other reason for that change?

Anyway, thanks for reverting my mistaken edit. R. A. Simmons Talk 18:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Non malignant means not cancer. While true what is more accurately meant is non serious.
I guess we could put Texidor's twinge in the first sentence. It is not very commonly used and was never the official term unlike consumption. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Legionnaires' v Flu?

Thanks. We train several thousand people each year on the control of Legionella bacteria and Legionnaires' disease in the work place and this is a question we get asked regularly by students.

Thought it would help... but seems not!

Yes please do not link to your website again. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_101&oldid=1141758617"