User talk:Doc James/Archive 87

Hi Doc James,

Would you please take a look at the Post Finasteride Syndrome Foundation page and offer your always judicious opinion? Right now the page is in a state where Yobol and Alexbrn have made efforts to criticize or delegitimize anything to do with the foundation or syndrome and it has a very strong POV. A single blog post written by a non-neutral author has made its way into the lead while AlexBRN deleted any mention of the foundation's substantive activities. Maybe the PFS Foundation would be better off not even having a page if we have editors like that who are going to imply they use sinister tactics and ignore the dozen or so MEDRS sources that support a similar viewpoint as the foundation. Doors22 (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Doors22 which article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, the article should be Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

JYTDog has now come back from a couple month hiatus after being topic banned and sanctioned for his behavior by arbcom. In the arbcom case, it was noted that he tag-teamed with Alexbrn which is happening again. I have attached the discussion here -->[[1]]

I won't make any additional edits for the time being to avoid being drawn into an edit war but your input and advice is needed more than ever. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

it was noted that he tag-teamed with Alexbrn ← it was not really "noted"; this was an accusation (by a troublesome editor using a disguised account) that got no traction in the case. Which is not surprising really, since it was a lie ;-) Basically, Doors, you need to stop trying to use Wikipedia in this pathetic attempt to advocate for this supposed "syndrome" of yours in ways that are not fully accepted in the established literature. Continuing to do so is only going to end up with you being banned - my suggestion would be for a topic ban on Finasteride and all related topics, however tenuous. Alexbrn (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks fairly balance now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, thanks for taking a look. The article is very short so my concern is that a single low-quality negative blog post from a researcher who participated in finasteride's original clinical trials takes up about half the entire article and the majority of the body. I think this pretty clearly goes against WP:RSUW. Do you have any thoughts to share on this? Doors22 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any medical reviews on the topic? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Foundation's website has a non-exhaustive list of published research [2]. A few meta-reviews worth looking at more closely are [3], [4], and [5] and there are others too. For whatever reasons, Alexbrn, Formerly98 (who spontaneously vanished), JYTDog, and Yobol have been editing over the years in such a way as to make the syndrome seem completely unsubstantiated. Much in the spirit of the encyclopedia, I'd like interested consumers to have easy access to the latest available information so they can make their own informed decision about whether or not it is worth it to them to risk taking the cosmetic medication. A proper balance is important to accurately inform readers but that's difficult to achieve when outnumbered.Doors22 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Does that first journal have an impact factor?
• Second one look good but does not mention "Post-Finasteride Syndrome". Just mentions the foundation as a funding source. It conclusions is that safety is unclear.
• Third one also looks good but does not mention the syndrome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• [6] According to this, the impact factor for the first journal is 3.4.
• I think the usage of the term 'Post-Finasteride Syndrome' is a semantic issue at this point, but I am not very familiar with how medical conditions get officially named. Each of those papers investigates the permanent side effects that have been reported from finasteride, but the term "post-finasteride syndrome" is the the informal term used to describe the syndrome that actually pre-dates the foundation. Not sure how to manage the naming conventions on here. [7] Here the NIH lists 'post-finasteride syndrome' as another name for the persistent symptoms sometimes associated with finasteride use but there has been debate as to whether this can be used as an official source.
• In any case, my main concern is mostly about whether that one blog post should be allowed to monopolize the article as my opinion is that it has been provides undue weight to an insignificant viewpoint. I hope the other articles helped provide some more context to bring you up to speed.Doors22 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Which blog post is that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the blog post that was used to justify the criticisms in the lead and the body of the article. Although it is not in the current version of the lead, AlexBRN wrote "This foundation has been criticized for their tactics in promoting the idea that this unconfirmed syndrome exists."Doors22 (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

not looking for medical diagnosis asking questions of a compilation of systems. Personal impression strictly. I'm inquiring about a woman how old is a proximally 76 years old who has a dry cough that produces thick stringy mucous, down to the point of causing her to choke at times. Very thin in stature how many pounds does j way what size is Janie (psuedonyn,janie)I don't know the exact weight but she wears a size 10 but that's to cover up a much slimmer waste it's obvious from the clothes and the way they fit on her and the way they drape, that she's probably around 6 or 4. yeah so anywaysshe's about 5'1" ft.. Janie live in an industrial area that produces many types petrochemicals and synthetic chemicals that. jenny has been in this area for 35 years in past history that have been various fires and explosions at the plants. not saying that this is cause of the problem but saying that this adds to the symptoms presented.it makes its way into the air. The name name the place called Pittsburg California close enough.

She has a low amount of which she readily expends that energy in spirts.doesn't nap during the day but she will fall asleep if reading during the day not that all readers fall asleep only when the book in the material is really bad lol. mind you we are just trying to help a friend figure out what's going on with her getting appropriate diagnostics is not an easy thing in this day and age especially when you live in rural areas even some of the city areas because finding good Dr is very difficult. that's a good paragraph

Any information you can give me would be greatly appreciated.please respond at this email address thank you very much!

JPRN<ref>there is no reference material for this information the signs and symptoms without out during the course of remembering conversations with people of the 30's 40's and early 50's. at that time it would have been called consumption but not necessarily TB</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by JP R.N. Ret. (talk • contribs) 02:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry we do not answer these types of questions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I accidentally hit save too early when I was editing the OCD article, so there was one part that was definitely awkwardly worded in the middle of a sentence. I was about to fix it and then I saw you reverted it. There were some things in the way it was originally worded that I thought were confusing or inaccurate. E.g. The first sentence was lifted straight from the source verbatim. This sentence isn't worded correctly: "There appears to be some genetic components with identical twins more often affected than non-identical twins." That doesn't explain why they think it's genetic and it's not really true with that wording b/c identical twins aren't more likely to have OCD than non-identical twins unless one of them already has it. Can you tell me specifically ones of my changes you thought were more confusing than how it was originally worded and then I will leave those how they were? Permstrump (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is from the NIH.gov which is public domain and therefore perfectly okay to lift from.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We are trying to write the leads in easy to understand English. This is not easy "where people have certain intrusive thoughts thoughts repeatedly (obsessions) and/or feel the need to perform certain routines or mental tasks repeatedly compulsions."

This is easier to understand and more to the point "where people feel the need to check things repeatedly, have certain thoughts repeatedly, or feel they need to perform certain routines repeatedly"

IMO we should leave the definition of technical terms to the body of the article.

This is not particularly easy to understand either "The obsessive thoughts, images or urges are unwanted and elicit distress, whereas the goal of the compulsive behavior is typically to eliminate or neutralize these thoughts or to satisfy a rigid set of personal rules or rituals."

We specifically say "The leads of articles, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors."[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I see what you're saying in retrospect hah. Funny thing is I originally just wanted to tweak the one sentence about the twins, but once you're in there, all of the tweaks add up. I didn't know that about NIH though, so that makes sense. Permstrump (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes everything made by the US gov is public domain. But one needs to be careful because not everything on US gov websites is made by the US gov.

Agree we need to fix the twins thing as it can be read in different ways. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay added "both" to clarify the twin bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi: You had a question concerning the image:

"Not sure what it has to do with BPD?" 13:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Here the answer: The image was greeted with a warm welcome on the German sister site some months ago and has not been met by one single objection since. Young persons are the major group of those affected by the disease. Here, on the painting, they are - each on their own - sitting at the border between land and sea and looking out. Munch is known for his psychologically inclined paintings. I hope this is sufficient for an explanation. Could you please reinstall the image? You would do a service to many of those affected.--Saidmann (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That is insufficient support IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What kind of "support" would you like to read? By the way, there is an equivalent case in Major depressive disorder. Here the painting by van Gogh has been there for a long time. How can you accept the van Gogh but reject the Munch? In both cases there is an equally indirect connection between disease and painting. But that's what paintings are all about. They are indirect, but thought provoking. To use such paintings is established practice in WP, and IMO a good practice.--Saidmann (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Van Gogh was depressed and this painting is about depression. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody can see on the van Gogh painting that the artist was depressed. It is not even mentioned in the legend. Many painters suffered from depression. Can this be a reason to put up any of their paintings? No, the reason why the van Gogh is established in Major depressive disorder is the content of the painting. If you are still certain that you must revert the edit, I will present the issue in front of a panel of experts.--Saidmann (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are more than welcome to get a third opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Talk:Antioxidant#Order_of_material Wanted your input on this. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed a possible way around the problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Good afternoon Doc James

As a registered Wikipedian, could you please rename the current article Biological clock (aging) into "DNA methylation clock"? I have put this proposal and my reasons on the Talk page, but no response yet.

Briefly, my concern is that the current article title "hijacks" the normal English usages of the term "biological clock" (normal contexts being "sleep-wake cycle", or "female infertility with advancing age") to promote a specific 2013 paper which describes a newly discovered DNA methylation pattern.

I have no problem with the 2013 research paper, but it has nothing to do with "biological clock" in the usual sense of jetlag or female infertility. If in doubt, please convince yourself by typing "biological clock" in a google search.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.103.75 (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay how about "epigenetic clock" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Epigenetic clock is not ideal. I believe the authors looked only at methylation, and that is only one epigenetic mechanism. But if you have a strong preference, I would not object to "epigenetic clock". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.103.75 (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This article could however expand to cover other epigenetic mechanisms of aging. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In principle yes. But it is a leap of faith to assume the current article has discovered the mechanism of ageing. All they claim do is to use methylation as a proxy to determine age. I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.103.75 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is just one potential mechanism. If it makes that claim it needs correcting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Doc James and Merry Christmas. Thanks for the renaming, and since then I think I have fixed all my problems. Can you please also change the name of the Japanese and Chinese wiki articles (I am not fluent in either language). Secondly, I think your redirect is no longer necessary because I have updated links from other Wiki Articles; there is a chance though that I may have overlooked some obsolete "Biological Clock ageing" links - so please check for survivors and eliminate them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.123.127 (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not have any special powers in any language other than EN. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

As the "Synthesis" section you deleted today[10] as the work of a Nuklear sock seems to have been added in 2011 by sysop Rifleman 82[11], I'm wondering if that really was the part you wanted to delete. I'm utterly unfamiliar with the issues and stumbled on this for quite unrelated reasons. NebY (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:NebY. I have restored. Looking into this case I agree I was mistaken.

These are a sock of Nuklear [12],[13] of which their are hundreds.

Most of what he adds is copyright infringement and thus we often just remove these sections on spec. Here is the full case [14] with more discussion here [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So much trouble caused by just one editor.<sigh> NebY (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This is more background but yes we are not sure how to address this issue. They simply move to a new IP address every couple of days and we simple keep deleting the copyright issues. This has been going on for years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Would be great to get User:Rifleman 82 opinion on this case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC) {{clear}}

Thanks User:Bzuk Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I understand that I may not be 100% right in what I do, neither of your edits have been 100% either "their" instead of "there" and leaving "the the" in to mention some of your errors. Please read and then edit rather than undoing.Solatiumz (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Solatiumz the issue with your text was it was not paraphrased enough.

Source said "National Health Service did not pay for the procedure, and also due to a 1949 British Medical Journal article that concluded that there was no medical justification for routine neonatal circumcision"

While we had "National Health Service (NHS) which did not pay for the procedure, and also a 1949 British Medical Journal article which concluded that there was no medical justification for routine neonatal circumcision."

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you suppose "a detailed review of the available scientific literature that addresses possible health effects of β-casomorphins and related peptides, and in particular β-casomorphin-7 (BCM7), a peptide sequence present in the milk protein β-casein." which concludes "that a cause and effect relationship is not established between the dietary intake of BCM7, related peptides or their possible protein precursors and non-communicable diseases."

becomes: "A 2009 review found little to no scientific evidence that A2 milk has benefits over normal milk."A better sentence would be: "A 2009 review found there was no established scientific link between consumption of A1 beta casein proteins present in milk and non-communicable diseases."

Essentially, what this review actually concludes is, that at the time of publishing, there was was insufficient scientific evidence to make any conclusions regarding BCM7 and non-communicable diseases. The review is by no-means all-inclusive that represents entire scientific consensus. It is's simply inappropriate to use a review to state false conclusions on A2 milk. There are many ways A2 milk may provide benefit over "normal milk" - and the review does not examine this.

The fact remains there is a scientific hypothesis, backed by several credible studies (including secondary sources that have been removed) and consumer experiences that suggest there are indeed benefits of A2-only milk compared to A1+A2 milk. Why you and others are trying to eliminate this viewpoint - but it IS a valid viewpoint. Currently the article reads that the A2 Milk is completely baseless without any evidence which is not true.Until it's fixed the article is simply bias. Aeonx (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No need to have this conversation in multiple places. We should continue on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it a pity, isn't it a shame? Being so aggressive, so less place for constructive discussion, so authoritative... what a shame. When one wants to improve an article actually based on false references that doesn't talk of the page's subject - and even on lies (when a reference is falsely used). So it's false, you know it and you stick on that. There are rules here, why not being capable of objectivity? It's scientific, it's easy. Read carefully the articles you use on his page, and not use false references. It's a shame for wikipedia itself to let that happen, what a pity. Jdontfight (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah? You wished to use blogs to support medical content. Not cool. The number of studies about Transcendental Meditation says nothing about whether or not it improves health outcomes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy holidays, and thanks to you for all your contributions this year! Mikael Häggström (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mikael Häggström :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind message on my talk page. I appreciate the effort put into encouraging me as an editor. I guess this is one reason that we like to send out our 'seasons greetings'. The Very Best of Regards and Merry Christmas,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. notified on behalf of Sathishmls -- samtar ^whisper 10:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Samtar Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently reverted my edit to the sleep apnea article because you felt that adding the word ResMed was a little "spammy." Perhaps you could explain why you think this. AFAIK, there are two main makers of CPAPs (Philips Respironics and ResMed), and the one in the picture is clearly a ResMed S9. The reason I added that information is that I felt it is important for the article to have the main manufacturers of CPAPs. I am going to be bold and add in something to the article so that people know what the main makers of CPAPs are. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the sleep apnea article. In the CPAP article sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Doc James! Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your help and your kindness. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

	🍁 Season's greetings 🎄
	Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for everything you do to maintain, improve, and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dr. James Heilman:As a user who created the Wikipedia article "Viorel Pais" I request deletion of this article due to the fact that the research activity of biologist Dr. Viorel Pais in clinical neuropathologic and dermatologic electron microscopy of over 40 years and recognized internationally was not taken into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordocyte (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure give it some time. Else if there are suitable references to support the statements it could be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The draft page allows us to test & try more freely. The price is: We all must be very careful to keep the discussion clean ;-). -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:DePiep will work on it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

yeah. The you box does not show full page width. More important: this is not to say agreement that the data should actually be shown this way (in some Data sheet section). IMO it still must be navbox-style, and no show in m.view. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15c}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks User:WereSpielChequers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Several articles written about sleep apnea on wikipedia contain inaccurate information. This includes inaccurate definitions, a big problem considering the number of individuals and even health practitioners relying on this information. Recent changes that were made on articles on sleep apnea and obstructive sleep apnea, were made to improve the quality of this content. They were subsequently reversed citing original sources being more highly regarded or for other reasons.

However, guidelines on [reliable sources] on wikipedia stipulate:

"Literature reviews, systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies."

Recent changes judged content of a webpage of the National Heart & Blood Institute (NHLBI) to be more reliable than that of the American Sleep Apnea Society. This does not follow the quality assurance guidelines of Wikipedia. While the NHLBI often provides content that does meet the criteria of "medical guidelines" and are peer reviewed publications, a public information page that provides information that is not referenced and contains no evidence of an author does not meet any verifiable quality standards. The health information page provided by NHLBI regarding sleep apnea does not represent any of the aforementioned specifications for quality. In contrast, the latter source from the American Sleep Apnea Society is maintained by an "expert in the field." Furthermore, some of the content in the original definition provided on wikipedia are different than information contained in the NHLBI article.

The more important point is that the original version on Wikipedia is less accurate, which can mislead readers and professionals. The latter version is more accurate. You can run the different versions by any sleep medicine expert to verify what I am saying. If the modifications to these articles are reversed then quality will be compromised. This will provide a disservice to Wikipedia by sacrificing quality and most importantly to it's readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.61.48 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you involved with the website that you are trying to use as a source? If the content is true you should be able to find a better source than that website. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am involved with the website and consider it to be a reliable source. As mentioned above the American Sleep Apnea Society website is maintained by an expert. The author has several peer reviewed publication related to sleep apnea and has authored a medical text book chapter on sleep apnea. If you don't believe the website is sufficiently reliable, I would suggest you leave all edits and add "citation needed." Otherwise the quality of the wikipedia article is being compromised for what I would consider to be arbitrary reasons. This is consistent with the experience of other users summarized in this article from MIT Technology Review explaining why too many Wikipedia articles lack quality and consistently Wikipedia attracts fewer editors. The actions to reverse changes to rectify content that is inaccurate only tells me there is too great a focus on rules rather than an effort to build quality and accurate articles. I am trying to help, but if you insist on leaving inaccurate content then I have already spent too much time on a futile effort that potentially compromises the public health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.61.48 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Since the website of the American Sleep Apnea Society was used as a source for the material shouldn't it be credited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.61.48 (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a sufficient source and you appear to be trying to promote it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What I am trying to promote is that the correct health information be provided! Wikimedia takes public moneys to support their work. There is an obligation to ensure the content is accurate. My suggestions to leave the changes without references remedy and obviate concerns about self promotion (which I strongly disagree with, as this is simply citing a valid source). But your unwillingness to heed these recommendations leave inaccurate content not limited to suggesting that sleep apnea is an "abnormal behavior or psychological event[s]." We both know this is false. Therefore, I must question the standard being utilized as it results in inferior content remaining in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.61.48 (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure trimmed that bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

I've been hearing from the elves that you've been a little worried about how Santa's list is looking for you. They say he's almost done with his second check, and so far it looks like you've hardly been naughty at all! Thanks for the work you do and the help and nice words that you have shared with me. You have brought joy into my work here. I wish you and your family Seasons Greetings and a very Happy New Year Gandydancer (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gandydancer I am sure Santa will get me on his next go round:-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

	Seasons Greetings
	Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.

Have a good one! -- samtar ^whisper 18:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Samtar :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop being childish and pushing your OWN version. No consensus, not stable. Grow up. -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Try the talk page. That version has been present for a month. Get consensus to take it down if you hate it so much. Otherwise I am seeing majority support here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And this rule you bring up "No testing in mainspace"? Really. We experiment in main space all the time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to use that one (which btw is only a few days old). After one month of trials and experiments, I have created Draft:Gout exactly for the purpose, so there is no need any more too. On top of this, I note that you are absent from the discussion lately while pushing your versions. That does not convince as "working towards consensus". -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Which conversation? You mean here were I was the last to comment [16]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you User:Pine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,You reverted my edit to the Priapism article.I know the sufferer and this works for him and has avoided a lot of issues.I think its important people know of this option.How about adding"A sufferer has reported success with etc etc with a warning to visit their Doctor to discuss beforehand" or something similarThanks, Fred Fred Hemry (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

We typically stick with sources as described at WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've noted that several IPs appear to be engaged in long term edit warring with your revisions re: capital punishment-related subjects, and have requested administrative assistance. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw this new user edit their user page with this edit summary and I thought you should know. There is a note on their talk page left by Nthep asking about it. BTW, Merry Christmas Doc James :) Yash! 16:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Yash!. I wonder what that means? Will look at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't revert back to the navbox. It is much easier with the series. However, if you think the navbox is easier, I will respect your opinion. --166.170.223.83 (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

We discussed it here a month ago and all involved though a navbar was a good move forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings and Happy New Year!

Wishing you a happy holiday season and a Merry Christmas. May your new year be happy and prosperous. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you User:SuperHamster the same to you :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this article: Co-proxamol which was merged with Dextropropoxyphene in 2008 as the medication was withdrawn from several markets. This combination still in the market in many countries. So, I suggest reintroduction of the article.--محمود (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably fine to have the combination of dextropropoxyphene/paracetamol covered at the dextropropoxyphene. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I messaged you some months ago about myself updating the images I have on the Obesity article - I did, but noticed you were away so didn't get in touch. I have created an image identical to the one on the article (two images with a black border, as it appears at present) that I plan on uploading a new version of, but I figure I'd advise you first before I go ahead and update it, since it's your image. Alternatively, I can just upload it under a new name. FatM1ke (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes feel free to update. And thanks for the images User:FatM1ke Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Done! And amended all the articles to the correct details for the image / adjusted information on the commons page. Let me know if you find anything I've missed. FatM1ke (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of the Therapeutics Initiative.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Is used here [17] so strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You might not remember, but on December 12 I reverted someone's edit on Urinary tract infection. That was a complete mistake and I apologize for that, and I also apologize for responding so late. I was a bit distracted that day using STiki and I was speeding through diffs. Hope you can forgive me. Regards, CatcherStorm ^talk 13:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:CatcherStorm no worries and happy holidays :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A relatively new editor has been adding a great deal of information based on what some other editors consider a questionable source: Template:Find a Grave; more importantly is a tendentious history WP:TE in constantly reverting back to a preferred version, thereby hitting the 3R rule. Can you help; I have already set up a talk page discussion on the topic of Robert Taylor's death. I do not want to go any further, for the time being, on dealing with the numerous other articles that have been revised to have a great reliance on the Find-a-Grave website as a reference source. Sorry to involve you in a sticky issue, especially during the season of good will. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Bzuk am a little distracted per the below. Will look when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to establish an account at Wikipediocracy.com and to offer some frank off-wiki commentary about the recent decision of the WMF Board to purge you from its ranks. I hope you will do this! best, —Tim Davenport /// Randy from Boise on WPO /// Carrite (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Carrite. Will look into it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have participated there for several years and am still alive to prove its lack of long-lasting effects. Just take alot of what you read with some scepticism and understanding of the multiple backstories. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

....The advantage being that one can say there things that might get one into trouble here and that one won't have busybodies or foes tampering with one's statement or drumming up diffs for some future on-wiki harassment. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that editors have gotten into trouble on Wikipedia for comments made at Wikipediocracy. One might be freer to say what one wants but some actions, like outing, on WO will have consequences on WP. I don't think Doc James would ever do this but it is inaccurate to portray WO as some kind of safe haven. Many editors on WP read WO but do not post there so one can expect to remarks there to filter back here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

nous avons tous les temps nous devons parler... vous savez mon email (si vous voulez mon numéro), im un bon auditeur, votre ami--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Thank you for everything you do for the movement, on-wiki and off. Not to get too personal, but you inspire me to be a better Wikipedian. J-Mo 00:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jtmorgan for your words of support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

James, I am truly shocked to hear of this development and hope that you will be able to tell all the Wikipedians who voted for you what actually happened. I thought long and hard about who would best represent me as an encyclopedia editor, and voted for you. Until I learn more about the circumstances, I will simply say: Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all that you have done for this encyclopedia and for accurate, freely available medical and health information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:Cullen328. I am not sure if this turn of events will bring about demands for greater transparency within the movement but I definitely hope so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am also shocked by this news. Thanks for your service to the encyclopedia. Like others, I am mystified by this turn of events. Best wishes for a Happy New Year. Jusdafax 15:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Democracy
		For your work and efforts to maintain and protect the democratic structures in our movement. .js (((☎))) 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi James! Thank you for your work. Best wishes for the new year and cordially Greetings. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes from me too, whatever may be going on! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Whenever you want to talk .... DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You or one of your medical colleagues might look at Clyde cancer cluster. Its a case of WP:MEDRS, at least it seems that way to me.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

have looked (was maintain after [18])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for letting me know. I thought the policy was merely peer reviewed articles. Since I first read this reference, I have tried different things to help a relative with strabismus. Perhaps this may interest you. Possibly there are some review articles out there you have access to, such as [19] which unfortunately is not in English. I think there is a gap in this article--the psychological/bonding dynamic as it relates to strabismus influenced neurology. Here is my situation:

In my case a relative of mine had congenital strabismus (severe infantile esotropia). However, despite repeated surgery, beginning in infancy, the corrections would not last. Corrective glasses were also tried and did not help. Hence even more surgeries were needed over decades. Now no more surgeries can be performed due to the extensive work already done. I worked with this relative by experimenting with binaural beats (theta especially helps) and eye exercises with one eye closed to change eye dominance. Both were able to change eye dominance. It seems that going back and forth over the weeks has reduced the strabismus, no matter which eye is dominant, though left eye dominant has better alignment. Reading tended to make the right eye dominant, so we had to cut back on that in order to keep a left eye dominance for longer. As eye dominance shifted, sometimes there was a ringing in the ears sound which when on for no more than 5 or 10 minutes. Eye dominance changes were associated with new memories coming back, spontaneously--which were previously repressed. Different patterns of thinking (associated with paternal or maternal influences) also alternated. Additionally, there was growth in metacognition and self-awareness of underlying or conflicting thoughts or feelings. Yet another thing that helped was maintaining consistent eye contact with my relative, especially during times of increased emotion. We were also able to get some improvement with EMDR style eye exercises. This improvement is lasting, although as you can see there are multiple independent variables here. But they all deal with similar dynamic.

Reading in textbooks in back early December, I found a discussion of how infants learn eye tracking by interacting with their mother. It makes sense that someone with strabismus would have difficulty learning this, with different types of bonding or parenting practices potentially adding another risk factor. One textbook was concerned that certain mothers of infants with congenital strabismus respond to this by avoiding all eye contact with their infants.

Communication or coordination across brain hemispheres has long had some extra challenges for this relative of mine, who did exercises similar to EMDR for an amusement as a child. While my relative's eyes would go straight across one way, they would skip one the way back. Working with the EMDR style exercises, I have been able to get them to travel smooth both ways, after my relative first experiences the emotion that is common in EMDR style exercises.

The improvement in alignment which my relative has experienced since we started experimenting with this has been lasting. I am of the opinion that there are probably some sufficient quality articles touching on some of the topics I have brought up. Some cases of strabismus improving spontaneously, such as after placement out of an orphanage into a foster family, may also touch on these. Perhaps you know of quality sources? I improvised what we did and am not part of any anti-establishment quack cure movement or anything like that. It seems straightforward to me that what we did helped strengthen left and right brain hemisphere communication and therefore also eye tracking. Please also understand that I am not anti-surgery, but rather that I think lack of brain hemisphere communication can sabotage benefits gained from surgery.

I will check here later if you want to reply here in stead of my talk page.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

1975 is a little old for a reference [20]. We have an excellent review on the topic here [21]. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Here: [22] Jdontfight (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

My position is similar to that of User:Alexbrn Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User_talk:Winkelvi Same to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:Cullen328 best wishes to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

	Hopp(y) Gnu Ear
	Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Best wishes! Be Safe! Buster Seven Talk 06:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thks User: Buster7. Always good to spend the holidays with my wiki family :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears, off hand,

• from the public statements given by Patricio Lorente apparently given on behalf of the board ("From our viewpoint[...]"; "Announcement about changes to the Board", Wikimedia-l, 31 December 2015),
• that the majority of the WMF board had expectations ("[...] expectations for Trustee conduct, responsibilities, and confidentiality") that were not agreed to by certain members of the board,
• that these expectations may have included a non-disclosure agreement ("It is typical for board members to be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, and this is the case for all WMF trustees."; Go Phightins! and Tony1, Wikipedia Signpost, 30 December 2015),
• that community-selected board members are "selected from candidates approved through community voting" (Bylaws, article IV, section 3(C)) not "appointed to the Board by the existing members" as has been asserted by Patricio Lorente apparently on behalf of the board ("Announcement about changes to the Board", ibid.),
• that the People of Florida, through their elected, appear to have preferred the public policy of the State of Florida to be that community-selected members only be removed from the board by the community itself ("If a director is elected by a class, chapter, or other organizational unit, or by region or other geographic grouping, the director may be removed only by the members of that class, chapter, unit, or grouping."; Fl. Stats. sec. 617.0808, added by Chapter 209-205, Laws of Florida, SB 2330),

And further,

• as a constituent and elector in the most recent "community voting" selection of board candidates,
• as one of the electors who voted in support of your selection,

I therefore say,

• that I disapprove of your removal,
• that you make a public statement clarifying your position in the "multiple conversations" referred to by Patricio Lorente,
• that you make a public statement clarifying the positions of other participants in the "multiple conversations" referred to by Patricio Lorente, as you see just and fit,
• that, should this resolution of the board be unlawful, you should take up your duties to the Wikimedia Foundation as member of the board, and move a judge of the courts of Florida to enforce the Wikimedia Foundation articles of incorporation.

Int21h (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC); Edited by Int21h (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Int21h: Those are interesting and mostly good comments I would agree, just one question: Why Florida? Isn't California law relevant for the WMF Board? --.js (((☎))) 17:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@.js: Yes California law is relevant, as their HQ is there, but Florida law is relevant because they are a Florida corporation. In California, WMF is a foreign corporation as Florida is a foreign state. Int21h (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer obviously. The processes they followed appear to fit with the by laws. Whether the by laws are okay is another question entirely I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Silence?

You really ought to say something. The implication of both Jimmy and Patricio's public statements is that you did something very bad which caused you to be removed from the Board. I can hardly believe that, and I would be full of sorrow if it were true. On the other hand you haven't denied this, so I don't know what to think. Peter Damian (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Peter Damian I agree and am working on a reply to the statements made by Patricio and Jimmy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic, and hope your New Year is as happy as it could be, under the circumstances. [23] Peter Damian (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

We'll leave the light on for you at Wikipediocracy in case you get tired of the BS Brigade's obfuscation, chatter, and refusal to explain their actions to the community who voted for you. Say your piece here or there, but say it — that's my advice. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"still open" - so (when) are you planning to shut it? --.js (((☎))) 21:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not my call, but obviously there's no clock running. Just a reminder that the option is out there. There needs to be some kind of statement, in my view, because the board is very clearly setting a precedent that will undercut community control of 3 seats in the future unless the matter is hashed out. Silence means taking a loss and being bullied away. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your efforts in improving and expanding Wikipedia's medical coverage, both here, and through initiatives like the translation task force, worldwide. Your work is an inspiration to us all. Happy new year! The Anome (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 

Hear, hear! Happy New Year to you and yours.

– SJ + 19:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Happy New Year, Doc, and thank you for everything you've done on Wikipedia and for its readers. I know they're the people you always have in mind. All the best, SarahSV ^(talk) 23:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Doc James,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks User:Liz. Same to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Doc James Thank you for observing to my edit in line of doses , thank you to notice me to that point .I hope Not to remove the whole edit as instead you can reediting my paragraph with removing of the dose ( thank you )Other point that the cephalosporin is not used to treat cellulitis as I have seen your paragraph.Other Like in VRE you can remove the dose with reediting the remaining if you not like the whole.

Second about copy you are taiking about , you search through google book download( Illegal site to download or even reading ) BUT I possessed & bought those refrances and I mark it exatly to those refrances as it is in much if I can rephrased or not , I not pertaining this to my BRAIN .

You cannot copy word for word from sources. And yes cefazolin and cephalexin are extensively used to treat cellulitis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

please dont Take you arrogance !

Dear doc james , we are So Medical proficient , Dont say yes and then you close the talk icon .First not all patients will come to you because you are ER Doctor are at severe cases of cellulitis , rather than that you have to think about organism & severity ....So , not all patient they will admit to give theme cefazoline I.V. or I.V. Drugs , rather than mild to moderate you can start with confident with P.O. erythromycin or clindamycin ( pertaining to organism cause ) . even though the first line I.V. is Oxacillin then cefazoline ...

Accept my greetings

Please discuss here. – Smyth\^talk 14:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Doc James,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks User:Rubbish computer same to you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

James, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Thanks User:Sam Sailor :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

	Wikimedian of the future
	The politics and posturing is just steam puffing in the wind. Maybe in the coming year our movement will evolve a more Keynesian focus on our open knowledge goals. I look forward to collaborating with you on something interesting that will last significantly longer than our accounts here. Fæ (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Fæ agree completely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Doc James: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. North America1000 08:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Thanks User:Northamerica1000 same to you :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)