Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 138

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135 Archive 136 Archive 137 Archive 138 Archive 139 Archive 140 → Archive 145

Discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Suspicious editing by RemoD007

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Suspicious editing by RemoD007. ∯WBGconverse 02:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

added Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
readded Gogo Dodo
removed Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

removed Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

  • Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
  • Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
  • IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

  • Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Reversed edits...

Hi. Please help before I lose my mind. I've made some edits, which have been reversed incorrectly by an administrator. How do I reply to the administrator to tell them they've reversed my edits in error?

Thanks

Steven H Stevenhayward (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Stevenhayward We use very few capital letters. "Borderline personality disorder" is not "Borderline Personality Disorder" per our manual of style. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a general rule that conditions are not treated as proper nouns -- not just diseases such as schizophrenia and influenza, but more basic conditions such as anger, fear, fatigue, etc. They may be proper nouns logically, but they are not treated that way in writing. Looie496 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nora Volkow / Mind and Life Institute

I went to Nora Volkow hoping to find out more about the substance of her work for the government on addiction but instead found a paragraph in the lede talking about Mind and Life Institute and another about TEDMED. Seems kinda weird and out of place, wholly out of line with WP:WEIGHT. Maybe it doesn't even belong in the article. What do you think? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No specific thoughts. If you feel it should have lesser weight you could move it to the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Doc James, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Eleven years already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

suggested improvement

Hi James, thank you for you feedback. Perhaps this passage might work better? "Home care in the United Kingdom exists in a state of disarray as various private firms compete for government contracts in a race to the bottom which often results in elderly and vulnerable people being denied the care they are entitled to. The crisis has speed to hospital wards where sick, elderly patients who would usually receive care either at home or in specialist care homes, take up hospital beds whilst recovering from minor ailments such as colds and flu, meaning that less beds and services are available for emergencies.[15] Furthur backlogs of patients occur because elderly patients cannot be discharged into care at home until adequate provisions have been made, however as home care is largely handled by health care businesses who often go bankrupt or hand back unprofitable government contracts, the is not the infrastructure to care for sick and elderly patients in the UK.[16]"Fluorinated tears burn my eyes (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Which is ref 15 User:Fluorinated tears burn my eyes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your extensive work with cleaning up the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market‎ page, as this is a very important subject that I am deeply concerned about. David A (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:David A :-) Stuck in an airport and agree this is very important legislation that could have a significant effects on the Internet.
Discussion also occuring HERE about raising awareness further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for the information. David A (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I have now supported the first option, signed the petition, and donated money to help spread the word. David A (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
In case you are interested, Julia Reda, the heroine who has fought the most against and made the public aware of this totalitarian legislation, made a call for a common action day on August 26. I cannot post the Youtube link here, but you can visit her official channel to verify if you wish. David A (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks James!

Thanks for the tips as I dip my toe into the Wikipedia world cheers, Alan Cassels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.168.8 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability....

Any takes on the notability of DotLab? Regards,∯WBGconverse 15:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Looks like paid for spam User:Winged Blades of Godric. Based on press releases republished. Not notable IMO. Everything else by its creator also requires clean up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

New Editor

I was patrolling new pages and found this new editor: Behzad Azarmju M.D. I am guessing you like to welcome new editors with his/her skill set. Their first draft looks promising. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 01:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes looks like a good editor. Has been welcomed :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

COI

As far as I can tell from WP:COI, everything I am doing is appropriate (even self-citations are allowed when relevant! and I have no financial interest in these topics). I am happy to refrain from directly re-inserting Frontiers citations on pages where you remove them, as you do not feel they are sufficient. As per the suggestion on WP:COI I might recommend them for review or (re-)insertion by other editors. You have suggested that Frontiers in Neurology is not a sufficient source, but the reasoning behind that is based on Beall's defunct list (which as far as I can tell never listed Frontiers in Neurology, but had issues from a different journal under Frontiers control). Beall's personal opinion was that all Frontiers journals might therefore be suspect, but that is a personal opinion and not data... and current lists of potentially predatory journals do not include Frontiers in Neurology ( see https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/#F ). My understanding is that Frontiers in Neurology meets the criteria for a reliable source, and I would prefer to continue summarizing current research findings where relevant. I will take extra care not to insert any egregious citations. Sightvision (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Citing oneself is a COI. That together with this being a Frontier journal... Happy to get others opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
There is a COI dispute of some kind, so I will refrain from directly inserting the Frontiers citations on the pages where you removed them. Sightvision (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
"Citing oneself is a COI": agree, and Sightvision is singularly focused on a group of authors from a certain U.S. lab inserted here, here, here and here at least. I assume good faith, but this is a high proportion of their overall editing and it doesn't look good. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I am new, and starting in one place seemed like a reasonable thing to do. I was primarily working my way through the topics that were covered by the one review (and inserting text wherever related material existed but the applications of fixational eye movement analysis to the clinical conditions were not discussed, despite the relevance). As an example of my thinking, the reference I inserted here was updating a reference from 2009 with a literature review that is almost a decade more recent and more directly relevant to the sentence, from some of the same researchers as the original reference. My read of the WP:COI (subsection "citing yourself") was that self-citations were allowed if relevant and when conforming to other policies, hence my statement to that effect, which I think only made this worse. I felt my approach was meaningful, and I felt that starting small and approaching this from a single trajectory would help me learn the ropes. I understand now that this is problematic. I am also sorry for pushing back too hard on the Frontiers issue--I was reacting to what I perceived as scientific findings being discarded en masse (all journals related to those on Beall's list). I overreacted. I will make an attempt at learning all of the rules I have been pointed to before posting again, to avoid further concerns. I have semi-retired my page accordingly, but do plan to rejoin. I will take extra care at that time not to insert any egregious citations. Sorry for the inconveniences. Sightvision (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Sightvision not a huge issue. Wikipedia takes a little time to get the hang off. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

beta lactam in lede for amoxicillin

Why did you revert this?

The beta lactam fact is in the body of the article. Many pharmacology articles provide drug class or mechanism at the beginning of the lede. Sbelknap (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I moved it. I did not revert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Many articles about drugs have drug class or mechanism in the first sentence of the lede. You removed beta-lactam from the first sentence of the lede for amoxicillin. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The goal is to keep the first sentence easier to understand. So moved it to the infobox and a separate sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
How is it "simpler" to omit the drug class/mechanism from the definitional sentence of the lead? That hardly seems "simpler" to me. Many other articles include this information in the first sentence, and for a good reason. What wikipedia policy describes this rule? Why are you doing this for my edits but not for the edits of others? What is your goal here? Sbelknap (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

ringworm vs. athletes foot

Most readers will be unfamiliar with the term "ringworm." Most readers will be familiar with the term athlete's foot. Why are you removing athlete's foot from the lede, when this is the most common reason why the drug is used?Sbelknap (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think both are commonly used terms. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Ringworm is a broader category within which athelete's foot exists. We still mention ringworm of the foot [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
In the US, the term athlete's foot is the common parlance for tinea pedis. In my 30+ years of practice, I don't recall anybody saying "ringworm of the foot;" they say "athlete's foot." The term ringworm is heard occasionally, particularly from older people from the southern US, but much more common is for people to call this "a rash". In the south, one may hear tinea called "spots." Here is what UTD says: "Tinea pedis (also known as athlete's foot) is the most common dermatophyte infection."
If tinea pedis is the most common dermatophyte infection, and most lay persons know it as athlete's foot, then that term ought to be used in the wikipedia ledes for miconazole, clotrimazole, and terbinafine. Sbelknap (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Have added it here[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
In this case I agree with Sbelknap. In the US, at least, products are frequently advertised as useful for treating athlete's foot. I don't recall ever seeing an advertisement for treatment of ringworm. In fact, I have to admit that until now I was not aware that ringworm has nothing to do with worms -- the term is that unfamiliar. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Looie496 the link to athlete's foot was never removed. It was just adjusted to make it clear that athlete's foot is a subtype of ringworm rather than a different entity.
Adding this clarification to terbinafine[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Please consider joining our Trauma CoIN

Dear Doc James: We are writing to thank you for your edits to our Wikipedia entry on childhood trauma as a risk factor for suicide. We are new to Wikipedia and were surprised to see all of our edits gone within 24 hours of adding them, but grateful for the opportunity to learn. We noticed your professional background and your work with students and Wikipedia, and would like to invite you to join the Early Childhood Trauma Collaborative Innovation Network (Trauma CoIN). The Trauma CoIN is a growing network working to address early childhood trauma. We seek innovative solutions to addressing the wide-reaching impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), helping people and communities heal, and preventing ACEs in future generations. Our Wiki subgroup is working to channel the expertise of our members to ensure current science of trauma and resiliency is represented on Wikipedia. We would love to explore how we might bring your expertise and wisdom into our network. Would you be willing to have a brief exploratory conversation with us? Many thanks for your consideration, Trauma CoIN Babblinon (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Babblinon your group will need to follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. Best place to start is by reading those.
Happy to discuss further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Help

Doc James: My Sandbox page contained a new complete article entitled "Transient myeloproliferative disease." When I attempted to move the article to become a Wikipedia page, the move was not allowed because the page title is already in use. The "in use" page referred to is "Myeloproliferative neoplasm," a page which does not deal with nor mention the disorder of transient myeloproliferative disease: "Transient myeloproliferative disease" is clearly misdirected to "Myeloproliferative neoplasm." I note that the "Transient myeloproliferative disease" page that I made is now a Wikipedia talk page. Would you please help me establish a "Transient myeloproliferative disease" page and delete the redirection on "Transient myeloproliferative disease" to "Myeloproliferative neoplasm?" Thank you for your past help and attention to my currant struggle. jolflaher (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

User:joflaher sure no worries. Done.
Also done some organizing per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Doc James. jolflaher (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing medicine articles by iws

Hi! Just wanted to let you know, that I created a tool, where one can get missing WP:MED articles for that language by iws. And there is also a link to Content translation. Data is static. I plan to update them once a week. It they would be live, the tool would become pretty slow. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Edgars2007 this is cool. What does the number beside each mean?
I typically use this tool to look at the ones that are ready to be translated.[4]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Number of Wikikipedias, that have the article. Yeah, I was also thinking about integrating Category:RTT, but haven't thinked of how. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Health and war

Hello James,

We met at Wikimania in London a few years back, I was helping Cochrane UK. I hope you are well. I have been doing research on health and war and think there may be something to say about the relationship between the two. I am not quite sure how to approach this though as a section within an article/ new article?

Within the "War" article there is talk about the effects of war, but no talk about how health can be affected by War. I am from Syria so this subject is close to heart and I have just finished a position doing research on this. I think this is important and I acknowledge I was paid for similar work so I do not want to do anything wrong Wikipedia wise. I would appreciate your help and assistance.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosabo (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Amosabo the big thing will be do we have sufficient high quality secondary sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Political violence, collective functioning and health: A review of the literature Why isn’t war properly framed and funded as a public health problem? There are a few amosabo t@lk; 11:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Amosabo Do you want to draft a couple of paragraph summary of the topic? It could than go in the war article and the health article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure amosabo t@lk; 20:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Bupropion edits

Hi Doc James,

Would you kindly look at my edit and Jytdog's revert in the bupropion article?

I added a statement on efficacy, with citation of a high-quality meta-analysis to the main article and also to the lede.

Jytdog reverted my edit, with this comment in the revision history (FRINGE pushing anti-psychiatry POV, added only to the lead, and to the first paragraph at that.)

Thanks,

Steve

Sbelknap (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

UDP

Hi, there's a recent proposal on articles tagged for suspected undisclosed paid editing. Brandmeistertalk 13:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Wise-Anderson protocol

This not a secondary source? [5] Just wondering .... cheers Ratel (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Ratel to which edit / article do you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You removed the article Wise-Anderson Protocol (well, turned it into a redirect actually) on the basis of "no secondary sources". Admittedly the article did not contain the NYT source. Ratel (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes the article contained zero secondary sources. The NYTs well a secondary source is a weak one for the medical aspects of the procedure in question (we tend to avoid the popular press). I could find zero review articles on the topic. Will add the NYTs to the CPPS article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Found a review but it does not appear to call it by the name mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, the term is not used much. However, the Wise & Anderson duo are, AFAIK, the people who pioneered this treatment in men with CP/CPPS. I guess we may have to wait a few more years for the review studies to catch up. Ratel (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

androgen replacement therapy

fixed, initially titled "testosterone"

I just bailed on editing the "androgen replacement" article, because a TBAN would appear to prohibit me from editing this article.

There are many problems with the article, which contains errors and omits important info.

The most immediate improvement would be to add a citation for a new meta-analysis in a high-quality journal. Here's a suggested sentence:

In men with low testosterone, use of testosterone replacement therapy improves a man's erectile function (ability to get erections of the penis) and increases a man's sexual desire and sexual satisfaction but it can also cause erythrocytosis (too many red blood cells). [1]

Here's a link to the Ponce article https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/103/5/1745/4939466?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Sbelknap (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup I added something similar a few days ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

ref

  1. ^ Ponce OJ, Spencer-Bonilla G, Alvarez-Villalobos N, Serrano V, Singh-Ospina N, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Salcido-Montenegro A, Benkhadra R, Prokop LJ, Bhasin S, Brito JP (March 2018). "The efficacy and adverse events of testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials". J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. doi:10.1210/jc.2018-00404. PMID 29562341.

The Question of Suicide as a Medical Condition

I am bias in this topic (as is the only genuinely strong motivation to contribute on a wiki). Generally I see neurology as more akin with computer science, than at all with medicine. Having noticed you're quite active on Suicide and responded to related notion on Talk:Suicide and as a doctor, would you disapprove of the notion that the grammar used to talk about mental illness could help more people feel less ill if it evolved to be more neutral on whether they want to identify with or consider a part of them or consider morally acceptable whatever neurological conditions and chronic thoughts they might or might not experience? I mean, periodic suicidal thoughts may be a type of illness if they are unwanted, however if an individual's sense of morality can agree those thoughts should be present at the rate as well as circumstances that these thoughts are, then should suicide, attempted suicide, or suicidal thoughts be assumed to be some sort of "medical" condition to be instantly treated?

Also, even if the majority of sources use a particular grammar when describing a topic, does that mean WP:WikiVoice should adopt that same grammar even if said grammar involves an order of ideas (the flow, or; syntax) implying certain moral imperatives. Or, should a NPOV wiki always try to convert descriptions of any topic into its own grammar as dry of moral suggestion as possible?

I remember having a dispute with you once on Talk:Kombucha. I'd like to come off more cordial. I do feel my moral code offended by the wording of the article, so, if not too inconvenient, could you wait a week or more before replying to this post? I do look forward to a thoughtful reply, just with some space of mind. Don't forget to ping me. Eaterjolly (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't NPOV mean to dryly state the positions? Due-weight means how much detail each POV gets, too, no?
An article about homicide wouldn't teach forensics? An article about religion wouldn't teach conversions?
Why should an article about suicide, teach suicide prevention? (even without implied force against an individual's will)
Eaterjolly (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, I did mean no rush when I said no rush : )
Thankfully, I could just fight back my anxiety and wait awhile before reading the response.
Eaterjolly (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
We typically present negative health conditions as negative health conditions. You could try a RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Important essays for new types of content

Here they are! mw:Everything is a wiki page & User:Risker/Risker's checklist for content-creation extensions. CC: Bluerasberry --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 12:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Penicillamine mechanism of action

Do you have access to doi:10.7326/0003-4819-97-5-652? Looking at the penicillamine article, that ref is used to support this as a treatment for scleroderma. But this use was listed under chelation therapies, whereas googling around suggests this treatment targets some aspect of collagen formation. Is that a metal-mediated process? Our article doesn't state the mechanism of action in this context and I don't have access to that article full-text. Should this use be merged in the DMARD paragraph, which ends with a comment about an effect on collagen? DMacks (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That ref is from 1983 User:DMacks and is a primary source. We should fine a better one.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi from User:Xinbenlv

Hi Doc James,

It was great to meet you in Cape Town, and here is to say hi! Xinbenlv (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Xinbenlv. Likewise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

gastritis ref

why did you remove this reference. I think that this almost certain that overeating or binge eating causes some problems with stomach, including gastritis. Vs6507 00:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

User:VS6507 this ref https://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-symptoms-of-mild-gastritis.htm is not suitable per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2017

Please stop edit warring, like you are doing now on Posttraumatic stress disorder. If you change an article, be prepared that not all editors will agree with you. Since reasonable arguments against your change were brought forward, even if you happen to disagree with them, the burden of obtaining consensus for your changes is still on you. Your edits till that moment are disruptive, and you are hereby requested to stop edit warring without obtaining prior consensus for your version. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Debresser, I happen to overhear the conversation on this talk page. I don't necessarily agree with User:Doc_James's edits on Posttraumatic stress disorder but up until now, User:Doc_James's edits doesn't violate WP:3RR so I wouldn't call it an edit war? And oops, it seems so far the consensus is on the User:Doc_James's side with size-one-sample Xinbenlv (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Xinbenlv In answer to your question: "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule" (from the WP:EDITWAR policy opening). And your oops refers to an edit which was made after my post here, so that my claim of consensus was correct at the time. Not that I am confident that one more editor on his side means that one can already claim "consensus". Plus that editor did not partake in the discussion, so as far as I am concerned is simply edit warring instead of contributing to consensus forming. Debresser (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Debresser you had not taken part in the talk page discussion at PTSD until after you posted here. I see you have now joined the discussion which is good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

new one

[7]..([8][9]thanks, sometimes 'strain' is used[10][11])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

CEASE therapy 'for' autism

Hi Doc

While I'd agree that there are plenty of unevidenced treatments on the market for autism I think CEASE is worth including as it has been increasingly in the news of late. The College of Naturopathic Physicians has issued a prohibition on its members offering the treatment after conducting an investigation into three of its members. In the UK the Advertising Standards Authority has upheld two complaints about different CEASE therapists for making misleading claims. Also in the UK, the Professional Standards Authority (the body which accredits the register of members of Society of Homeopaths) has asked the SoH to ensure its members aren't making misleading claims in their marketing material.

The page linked to, CEASE therapy, is referenced.

Hoping this can be re-added, thanks JoBrodie (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a major newspaper that has covered it User:JoBrodie? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Hi Doc think The Guardian's piece on it is pretty good "More than 120 homeopaths trying to ‘cure’ autism in UK" Exclusive: the ‘cure’ involves detoxing children of vaccines and antibiotics held responsible for the condition from 27 April 2018 - it is specifically about CEASE therapy, has a quote from a UK autism society expressing concern both about the practice of CEASE but also its accompaniment of linking vaccines to autism. It also references the fact that a regulatory body has pulled up the Society of Homeopaths on their members' marketing material about the treatment and has an acknowledgement from the CEO of the SoH that they are addressing this problem - there are additional references in the CEASE therapy article covering the situation in other countries, particularly BC Canada, too (I have one to add from Ireland too, from a few years ago). Best wishes, Jo :) JoBrodie (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay with a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - have re-added JoBrodie (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

chemical irritants asthma article

I have a quick question: you changed "perfume" to chemical irritants in the asthma topic. Now I understand that perfume falls under this, but is wikipedia for "normal" people or (only) for people with a higher education? Chemical irritants is something that many people will not understand or they will not see it as something that contains perfume. (chemial irritants for many people is "dangerous chemicals from factories" or something, they will almost never link it with for example perfume or incense). So should it not be a good idea to have perfume also mentioned? There are many out there who do not know these things just because MDs are often too much sticking to their "work language" rather than using regular words. Just a general question I have. The asthma article is a good one, but it lacks some basic (understandable) explanation for some things. Personally I would leave chemical irritants but than add "e.g. perfume or incense" between brackets to make it more clear. Also: you added chemical irritants now but what about air pollution and tobaco smoke? They can also be seen as chemical irritants.... Garnhami (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Garnhami good point. I have added it back with a better reference.[12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

suicide

I don’t have the rights to edit the sucicide article, but I think it would be a good idea to have helpline numbers on the article. Just a suggestion. Holkno (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Holkno Has been suggested and consensus was against for a number of reasons. One is evidence of benefit is poor. Two is we are global and which number would we provide? We do not localize like Google dose. Google already provides the numbers and they are localized. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, those seem like good reasons. I just wanted to see if anyone had considered it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holkno (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Any tips for biological and medical information on non-English wikimedia projects.

Greetings Doctor, 

     If one comes across medical and biological information on non-English wikimedia projects, those information are included on en.wikipedia only if a English language source --- say, journal article --- on the topic is found? -- Ktsquare (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Typically yes User:Ktsquare that is better. There could be reasonable exceptions though. Any specific example? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_138&oldid=1045690308"