User talk:Doc James/Archive 108

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

→

Archive 115

Edinburgh and 10 a Day

I came across John Clerk (physician) yesterday at CAT:PROD and that led me to the Edinburgh Pharmacopoeia which you had just deleted. You have indefinitely blocked the editor Ajmoore94 whose user page indicates that they are a "Wikipedia intern at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh." Please be aware that there's some good work taking place in Edinburgh as I heard from some speakers from there at a conference on Monday. The university has a Wikimedian in residence program and so perhaps the current resident – Ewan McAndrew – can help with further training and mentoring.

You may also be interested in a news item which is currently being considered at In the News. Please help us find the best way forward.

Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

user:Andrew Davidson there are ongoing copyright issues. User:Ajmoore94 has not once replied to the concerns being raised on their talk page. They are thus blocked until we can figure out why these copyright issues keep occurring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with that user myself but my impression is that they are fairly inexperienced and that their activity is irregular. Anyway, they have just posted a block appeal in which they start to explain and engage with the issues that concern you. As they are now networking with other experienced Wikipedians in Edinburgh, I hope that they will be able to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup agree and unblocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Doc James, Andrew Davidson, and Richard Nevell: Ajmoore attended the History of Medicine Wikipedia editathon today organised by University of Edinburgh and the Surgeons' Hall Museum. I was sorry to hear that, while she has been working as a Wikipedia intern at the Royal College of Physicians Edinburgh, it has been decided that the RCPE will not be continuing with their Wikipedia 'experiment' given some of the ongoing issues that have occurred in her time trying to get to grips with Wikipedia editing. While one must be always be wary of COI, Boosterism and Copyright issues, it is clear to me that the RCPE and Ajmoore were trying to go about things in a way that enabled knowledge to be added to Wikipedia whilst also trying abide by its central tenets. If they were remiss in that, I believe it was more to do with inexperience than anything else. While I can't pretend to know all the ins and outs of previous discussions re: Ajmoore's work (although I have been involved in protracted discussions on the RCPE page) It saddens me to hear that we have put an editor, and an institution, off from contributing to Wikipedia. And I wonder if we couldn't have done more to help new users see where they have gone wrong and assist them to go about things the right way in a constructive encouraging way.Stinglehammer (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: How can a "Wikipedia intern" not know about Wikipedia's copyright policy? Is there no training/education that goes along with the position? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: No I didn't receive any formal training until yesterday. Ajmoore94 (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I attended an event at another institution 3 months ago. The trainer at that event was blocked by an admin, which was not a good outcome. The keynote speaker at the education event on Monday, Melissa Highton, hoped that "Wikimedians will save us from Wikimedians". We have more to do in fostering collaboration rather than such conflict. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright issues occur, people loss their ability to contribute for a bit until discussion occurs, and than once cleared up people can typically return to editing. It is really not that big of a deal and is part of the learning process. Many of us (including me) have been blocked as we learned how Wikipedia works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Ajmoore94. So there's a large part of the solution, Stinglehammer. Interns are usually given some training before they start working on the job. Why was Ajmoore94 not given this? Andrew Davidson, your anecdote is not really useful for coming up with improvements in fostering collaboration unless we can look at the history behind the block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here's another fresh example that I just noticed while prod-patrolling. There's a Wikipedian-in-Residence at an Italian museum, Archeologo, who is being given a similar hard time, even though they seem to be doing due diligence via OTRS. To propose such good faith work for deletion via the prod process seems to be quite improper. I am not sure that Doc James's talk page is the best place for this, though. I see that we have an article about this – Wikipedian in residence – and will move over there. Andrew D. (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edits and communication.

Please contact me so we can discuss the edits and our discrepancies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4081:49D0:99CD:E0DC:6437:9091 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how I would do that since you have no account or email listed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind the idea that we can commuincate through this forum? Anyway, way to go for protecting the music in adelaide page, whatever your idea of vandalism constitutes is disgusting. What keeps getting deleted and then re-posted is an accurate description of what is going on in Adelaide at the moment. Leave it alone you shyster sock-puppet loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.59.72 (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Please remember "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." This app helps achieve this for those with intermittent internet access. Well we see relatively low usage of our online content in the developing world, 80% of downloads of the offline app are from these regions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing a draft

Can you please review Draft:Acute Cardiac Unloading.The draft was originally asked by the creator to be reviewed by me but I am no expert on these intensely clinical matters! Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay will look as I am able. Might take a week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Heading

Hey Doc James,

I saw you edited my recent edits on the ankylosing spondylitis page. I wanted to ask you what the rational was of deleting the secion:

Since 2009, Ankylosing spondylitis is a member of the more broadly defined disease Axial spondyloarthritis, which is an the umbrella term created to better diagnose, treat and study less severe forms and early stages of Ankylosing spondylitis .

I belief this information is relevant to add to the page as I think it is important to raises awareness for the new classification of the diesese. This new definition is especially important because it better defines the early steps of the disease and will make adequate treatment during the early phase of the disease easier and more available. As studies have shown that the early diagnosis and treatment of ankylosing spondylotis gives a less severe longterm disease progess, I think this paragraph has its right of existence in the introduction.

I am looking forward to hear what your thoughts are

Best Regards

rcde

A few things:

"ankylosing" does not need a capital letter

We only link a term once in a text

Moved the stuff about the 2009 classification to the body of the text were in my opinion it fits better[1]

We tend not to use "See also" sections per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help to select good sources for article

Dear sir,

I am new to wikipedia editing. I have recently edited wikipedia pages with recent clinical studies but they have been removed. So, if possible plz share some information which articles or information can be added. plz do needful

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracleboywork (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So this is a good article to use as it is a recently published review article[2]

The conclusions is "Heterogeneity observed in the methodologies of each study, the scarcity of relevant studies and the small sample sizes used prohibit reliable conclusions to be drawn."

You changed the conclusions to something different[3]. Not sure what you were trying to achieve?

P.S. If using pubmed you can limit your searches to just review articles. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Laximetry

Dear Doc James,

For the past few days, I have been trying to add a section concerning techniques used to analyze the ACL, more precisely arthrometers as there is no description of these medical devices used for Analyzing an ACL anywhere on wikipedia. Unfortunately, the paragraphs that I have written have been deleted despite having cited reliable sources coming from studies recognized by the US healthcare administration. I think that I made a mistake writing about these medical devices on the Anterior Cruciate Ligament page, should I create a page only dedicated to laximetry?

The sources I would like to cite are the following:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4896874/ : Article proving laximetry is a useful technique for analyzing the ACL

http://www.bjj.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/77-B/4/586.long : Laximetry using arthrometers, here is a sources proving arthrometers are more reiable than MRI Scans.

I await your response.

Yves1907 (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The first source while a review article does not appear to have an impact factor yet.[4] Will look at it further.

We tend not to accept single small primary source such as this [5] as references per WP:MEDRS.

You have not replied to questions about your relationship to the topic in question. Much of what you have written has been fairly promotional in nature.

I have just tagged all the images you have uploaded as not one has proper permission provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Doc James, My relationship to the topic is the following: I am a person passionate about skiing who underwent ACL reconstruction surgery twice before finding a doctor using arthrometers. Third operation was a success two years ago and I finally gained knee stability again. This is because during rehab, the doctor followed the state of the ACL during the past two years with an arthrometer and gave me precise info concerning the rehab. It is for this reason that I am writing about this, because I believe these medical devices do not have enough recognition nowadays despite the fact studies have proven the efficiency of using this technique. I agree that I have conflict of interest as these have been challenging moments in my life and therefore am maybe not the right person to edit an article about it on wikipedia but I want people to know that this method exists. Yves1907 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

All the images you have uploaded need proper release[6]. There is no evidence provided that they are under an open license / you have permission to release them under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ramelteon edit

I was reviewing the article on Ramelteon today and noticed that you added "It however does not appear to speed the onset of sleep or the amount of sleep a person gets", but I can't see any similar conclusion in the reference provided. My research has led me to a 2014 meta-analysis that found it was associated with significant improvements in subjective sleep latency and total sleep time. It is entirely possible that I missed the finding you refer to, can you point it out to me? Thanks Wikiangelo (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Page 84 says "Patient-reported sleep outcomes from all included trials are presented in Figure 41. Ramelteon dosage arms were combined for analyses (Figure 41).126 Ramelteon reduced sleep onset latency by 10 minutes compared with placebo. Ramelteon did not improve total sleep time or sleep quality over the 5 week study duration. Strength of evidence for sleep onset latency was low and insufficient for the other outcomes." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edition in Mama Quilla

Hallo!: any search engine with the key words connected to the edition I've done will provide you with the references, I didn't include it, because of its brief content and 'trivial pursuit' nature, but it are enough reference, please check, and revert deletion! This is the way the academies of languages search for a new term or acception to be included in dictionnaires, it's time consuming, hard work, but deletion is very easy, and many times, harmful. Don't destroy someone else's work because you don't want working on checking its accuracy. Regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

One of our core policies is WP:V. Please add references as it will help your additions stick. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Here

A discussion regarding your reinsertion of that project banner (here) has been expanded at VPR. To centralize the discussion, please comment there. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Seriously User:Xaosflux? I self reverted 6 minutes after making the edit as I had missed the discussion being removed from the archives and closed.[7] And than you 8 hours latter restart the discussion without mentioning that.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There was error on my side, apologies for the confusion - adding an apology to the other thread and closing it. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I think / hope we are reaching a reasonable compromise regarding the issues in question. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

hope this will help

User talk:Doc James/Archive 107#trying......has been about 2 weeks since,(not to mention more than 2 months since the beginning of the year/for 2016 stats[8]), therefore[9]i hope this helps--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have people working on it. Hopefully a week or two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sneddon's syndrome

Hi Doc James, I notice this issue:

• one form of IgA pemphigus' is Subcorneal pustular dermatosis or Sneddon–Wilkinson disease.
• According to this link, Sneddon-Wilkinson disease has alternative eponyms:
  • Duhring-Sneddon-Wilkinson syndrome
  • Sneddon syndrome
• Sneddon syndrome is another article.

I'm waiting for you advice and action. Regards --محمود (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if that source is correct per [10] and [11]. Have updated the Wikipedia pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

Wikipedia specifically sites peer reviewed journals as ideal sources for citations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_primary_and_secondary_sources_for_biology_articles#Scientific_journals). Many of these articles contain a discussion or comments section. Where and when is a secondary source absolutely required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.228.255 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

High quality secondary sources are generally required for health care content per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

For healthcare dietary supplement ingredients, often the research is scant and there are only primary sources or low quality secondary sources. Is it possible to use primary sources with qualifying statements, or better to not write anything? An example I have been trying to improve from what I found originally, but am still troubled with, is citicoline for amblyopia. Thanks.David notMD (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:David notMD Which ref are you wanting to use for what text? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Text is ""Citicoline improves visual function in patients with glaucoma [18] and may improve amblyopia("lazy eye") when combined with eye patch treatment.[19]" Ref #18 is a review. Ref #19 is a clinical trial. There are no useful published reviews for citicoline and amblyopia. There are five clinical trials, of which Pawar is the most recent.

Pawar PV, Mumbare SS, Patil MS, Ramakrishnan S. Effectiveness of the addition of citicoline to patching in the treatment of amblyopia around visual maturity: a randomized controlled trial. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014 Feb;62(2):124-9. doi:10.4103/0301-4738.128586. PMID 24618483; PMC 4005224.

P.S. As a reminder of my situation. I am a consultant to dietary supplement companies. My clients do not know I edit Wikipedia entries. None have ever asked me to do so. None of my current or past clients have expressed any interest in citicoline for vision.David notMD (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave it out if there is no review looking at it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Going to do that.David notMD (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Page : Pathophysiology of Parkinson's disease

Dear Doc James,

I wanted to discuss the reason behind changing the title of the page from "Neuronal Death in Parkinson's Disease" to "Pathophysiology of Parkinson's Disease". By definition, the word "Pathophysiology" would have to deal with physiology of the disease as well. In my opinion, the details on this page relate more to the contents under the "Anatomical" on the Parkinson's Disease page than to the "Pathophysiology" section. I present my point based on the details in the journal article by Bartels and Leenders What do you think?

Timenotpass (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes pathophysiology is a slightly broader topic and that article should include further broader details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

• Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (16 February 2017)
  • Development of documentation for Tracks A & B
• Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (24 February 2017)
  • Introduction of Track Leads for all four audience tracks
• Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process (2 March 2017)
  • Seeking feedback on documents being used to help facilitate upcoming community discussions

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help

Response to talk page warning

This is a friendly note in response to your warning on my talk page to ask you to assume good faith. I will raise the substantive arguments on the article talk page - which I did previous to making the original edit - but I feel you have been too hasty in jumping in with warnings. Your original revert of my 2 edits reinstated my fix to the reference and appeared to take no notice of the fact I had already started a discussion on the talk page - this was me clearly engaging the WP:BRD process and your reversion does not appear to have been carefully considered.

Posting warnings on talk pages of established editors generally just inflames the situation, and I find it better in the first instance to engage with a personal note. Please don't conflate my constructive editing with some of the more pointed editing by some on these difficult articles. While not a prolific editor I have engaged in multiple discussions over the years on Circumcision and Abortion so know these are difficult articles. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  12:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC) ^{Edited 15:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)}

It is an exceedingly controversial topic. The content you removed has been in the article a long time. You need to wait for consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Misquotation of high quality secondary source

The meta-analysis by Belknap et al addresses the *reliability* of adverse drug event reporting in finasteride clinical trials. The material you have deleted accurately describes the conclusion of Belknap et al. The text reverted too is in error.

Take it to the talk page. Your editing such as this [12] is becoming disruptive. That section is specifically about "sexual function" not about the safety profile generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the revert loop on your edit at WP:ANI yesterday evening. Using my phone with the desktop site, especially with the watchlist is as problematic as ever. The watchlist loads, I wait, I click, then the page re-jiggles itself and [rollback] jumps to the point where I clicked... *sigh* Sorry. Cabayi (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries User:Cabayi. Have had that happen myself. I have a request in to have it fixed. IMO new buttons should not move older buttons during the loading process. Should not be to hard to fix, the problem is just finding someone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Institute for Juvenile Research Wikipedia entry

3-12- 17 Good morning, I was writing a small book on the issue of fetal alcohol exposure and decided to give some of my experience as the Director for the Institute for Juvenile Research (IJR) for a few years as I thought the history of IJR was relevant to the discussion I was putting in the small book. Accordingly, I went to Wikipedia to check on the entry and I found the concern that because I was a major contributor to the article I might not have a neutral point of view and it may require clean up. I appreciate this concern, however when I was the Director of IJR it was of some concern that in a major textbook on the history of psychiatry after World War II, Schowalter had credited IJR as being the birthplace of child psychiatry. It also concerned me that the history of IJR was not on Wikipedia as there was a lot of great work done in this organization long before I got there. So, I put in a small contribution on IJR. As I did not think of myself in the same league as Franz Alexander or Julius Richmond (former Directors of IJR), I did not include myself as a Director. Suffice it to say for reasons I am not clear of, someone apparently later inserted my name, so you can imagine my surprise about that insertion.

I don't know what to tell you about the concern about my not having a neutral point of view other than I do not have any conflict of interest here. Having been on several Institute of Medicine (now called the National of Medicine) committees and on a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, I am very familiar with conflict of interest declarations. So, I was the Director of IJR for three years, but that does not define my professional career - in fact it is a small part of it - so I am not so attached to my short stint at IJR that I am blinded or some how biased favorably or unfavorably about the place.

I just thought the history of the Birthplace of Child Psychiatry should be available on Wikipedia. I am now retired from the University of Illinois and I am in the status of a Professor Emeritus, so in my mind I am even further removed from any slanted point of view regarding IJR. I hope this talk helps but if not remove the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlcbellmd (talk • contribs) 12:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As you worked there yes you have a WP:COI per how Wikipedia describes it.

You referenced a source by Carl Bell 5 times in the first creation[13]

It is not that big of a deal though. We just tag it so an independent editor can review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Addendum to Institute for Juvenile Research entry talk

As the Institute for Juvenile Research article is in question, I am a quandary on how to proceed. I guess I will not use the Wikipedia reference for the Institute for Juvenile Research in the small book, I can easily find another one but it may not be an on line reference so the reference will have less accessibility. Thanks for your diligence, I certainly don't want Wikipedia to be tainted with garbage. Carlcbellmd (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I generally discourage people from using Wikipedia as a reference. One could link to it for further reading but generally better to link to the primary source in academic work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Diverticulitis

I've reverted your revert of my edit to diverticulitis. I cannot find the terms diverticulum or diverticula defined anywhere else on the page, even though it's not a general knowledge term and it's used multiple times. PriceDL (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Re second revert, can you explain your issues? The history page is not ideal for this and I really don't understand the issues. As I've mentioned, I cannot find diverticulum or diverticula defined and diverticulosis refers to a condition, not the aanatomical feature. PriceDL (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess we can have a section on terminology. Though defining terms is more of a dictionary thing.

Added here Diverticulitis#Terminology Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced this is an optimal solution. Now if you read the infobox image caption and don't know what diverticula are you have to go to the bottom of the page, and you still need to read the definition provided in the context of the lead otherwise you don't know what the pouches are. Also, this solution doesn't meet WP:MEDMOS because diverticula is not explained the first time it is used. PriceDL (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I would be happy with it not being explained in the lead if not for the fact that it's technical and used in the infobox image caption. PriceDL (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay added the clarification to the caption. Let me know if that works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable solution. Thanks. PriceDL (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Circumcision

I feel my edits, particularly with respect to UTI and renal scarring, were highly relevant. They were fully sourced from systematic reviews or meta analyses. This information would be relevant to a parent seeking full information on whether or not to choose neonatal circumcision. As you certainly know, scarring can lead to reduced kidney function and possible kidney failure later in life. Wikipedia seeks to provide balanced, complete, encyclopedic information. A simple reference to a textbook stating that risk X does not justify a procedure Y does not accomplish this. I urge you to reconsider your reversions of my edits. While I appreciate your extensive work in medical articles in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is a collaborative project.Tetsuo (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Tetsuo The refs did not mention circumcision specifically related to renal scarring. Ie do those who are circumcised have lower rates of renal scarring? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The circumcision article already indicates that circumcision is associated with lower rates of UTI but fails to point out that UTI may have serious, permanent, consequences. General readers (parents of babies) may presume that UTI is just a brief infection treatable with antibiotics with no lingering consequences. 15% scarring from UTI is a significant risk. It was not really within the scope of the systematic reviews to investigate whether the infants showing renal scarring were circumcised or not. It is possible that there may be an individual study examining that, but I don't think there is going to be a systematic review or meta analysis.Tetsuo (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As the review articles do not specifically mention circumcision in relation to renal scaring, we do not know if circumcision affects the rate of renal scarring. Belongs in the UTI article and not the circ article IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why remove the infobox answer

Hi there,

I'm new and could not for the life of me find a way to replace that terrible photo, so I had to remove the whole infobox and add the better confirmed treatment photos which are also non-branded into content.

If you can replace the 'up the nose treatment' image with one of the other ones in the infobox, then please do.

That photo makes makes everyone in the community look like idiots if showing that as the main photo for Low level laser therapy.

There is a tiny little bit of weak evidence for up the nose treatment whereas are there are 27 Randomised controlled clinical trials with a dozen several systematic reviews in world class journals and a recommendation statement from MASCC for oral mucositis treatments.

See here the medscape article: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=966129913418833&id=109931359038697

And several US insurance companies now declare Low Level Laser "medically necessary" for Oral Mucositis because the trial results finally can't be ignored any more and is becoming recognised and going mainstream to help thousands of patients.

Thanks for your time, kind regards, Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrayshaw (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay. User:Ibrayshaw done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

YouTube

Re this edit: please avoid making a string of edits designed to imply that anything sourced to the Daily Mail is automatically wrong. This is making a WP:POINT and there are, amazingly enough, some things in the Daily Mail that are right. When a situation like this occurs, it is better to add "citation needed" unless the material is a BLP violation. The edit to YouTube left a gap for no good reason. There is no formal ban on using the Mail as a source, and there should be an opportunity to replace the sourcing if it is causing a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It was an April fools joke [14][15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because it was in the section marked YouTube#April_Fools. Personally I'm not keen on listing the annual April Fools joke on YouTube, but there was little point in removing correct information about the 2012 joke simply because it was cited to the Mail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay I see your point. I guess it is kind of funny. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)