User talk:Doc James/Archive 112

ageing page uneeded section

I was wondering if you think the effects of aging section, on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageing is unneeded. the page already covers effects of ageing in other sections of the page, and dose it better, the section is just a list. Seems redundant to me for that section to exist.

I provides an overview Ageing#Effects_of_ageing does. The other section more provides the underlying mechanism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I get that but I am wondering if that overview is even needed. to me it is not the rest of the article provides more detailed information of what ageing is and about, the effects of ageing section dose not and like I said is basically just a list which makes me think it is not really needed to me

I think it is useful personally. Have you asked for further input on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

no I have not I wanted to get replies as soon as possible and I notice on a lot of talk pages questions can go unanswered for years which is why I am asking people who edit the page directly like you. to me the overview is not really useful the rest of the article goes into detail of what ageing is about and it's effects as well having a overview which is just a list of different things, some of which are talked about in more detail seems redundant and unneeded to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankeyman (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

We tend to organize article per WP:MEDMOS. We have a section that presents the symptoms and we separate that from the one that discusses discusses that mechanisms that may bring about those symptoms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lankeyman: Why the removal of information and/or sources to Hypogonadism and Late-onset hypogonadism (no wp:ES)? You removed/changed the wording to hypogonadism to state that testosterone levels do not decrease with age which is contrary to sources. You also removed sources and changed the wording to Late-onset hypogonadism which also disassociated the link between aging and testosterone. Jim1138 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Confused

Is there an explanation of your removal of content and references here and your edit summary of 'hum' and 'moving'? A move didn't occur unless you meant re-move. Even a bot came after you to restore references. Regards,Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This [1] does not belong on that page. It belongs on the phytobezoars page if supported by proper sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Take to talk

We have got to get some consensus going here. Please take your concerns to the talk page of....I can't remember the name now since you changed it! Seriously, this is getting funny.Regards,Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You can respond on the talk page were I had already taken it? Talk:Carbonated soda treatment of phytobezoars Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

opinion

[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Great to see this started. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

thank you, [3] now its up to 3 people, will move to mainspace.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Board Election (Hindi)

Dear Doc James its great to read your replies on the queries of Hindi wikipedia ,regarding your plans ,once you get elected for WMF board of trustees.I am translating your reply to Hindi and circulating it on whatsapp group of Hindi wikipedians.I wish you best of luck for the elections.:Swapnil.Karambelkar (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Swapnil.Karambelkar thanks you :-) Here is hoping I can get re elected... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

An OTRS begging for you

This ticket:2017051010020374 is right up your alley. If the timing is bad, I'll try, but I think you will see why I'm pointing it out to you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Sphilbrick. Reply send. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect renaming

Good morning DocJames, I've responded to your message on my talk page, but just in case a confirmation here. I saw that you incorrectly renamed the IQOS article to a more generic name - I really do not understand your logic there as IQOS is a brand in a broader category (just like Eclipse and Premier), and currently the only one that is really distributed globally (all other products are still being test-marketed or have been discontinued). Can you please help me move it back (at least do the re-renaming)? Thank you for your help, SimonDes (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

We name stuff by the generic generally. So it is now correctly named. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Good morning!

Hello Doc James,

I had a few questions regarding editing footnotes on material for conditions. If I edit content for something like, cervicogenic headaches, how long before my edit will show up on Wikipedia and/or be reviewed? I added content last night and it was gone this morning. I included work cited resource for the edit.

Thanks much! I'm new to Wikipedia and interested in adding to the knowledge.

Trevor Penning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taps2386 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Lets discuss on the talk page. Have started Talk:Low_back_pain#Spinal_manipulation Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your revert on Snakebite

About your revert on the Snakebite article – the cited CDC source is an article entitled "Venomous snakes", and its scope is limited to that topic. Saying that a snake bite "often results in two puncture wounds from the animal's fangs" can give the reader the impression that snakes typically have fangs. That's not true, although it is a common misconception. The vast majority of snakes have no fangs and no venom. An article about snakebite as a health problem would tend to be implicitly limited in scope to bites from venomous snakes, simply because bites from nonvenomous snakes are basically harmless. The Wikipedia article needs to be clear about that, and should not encourage misconceptions. In an article about venomous snakes, it's fine to say that fang marks are a symptom of snakebite, but at that point in the Wikipedia article, there has been no limitation of scope to the discussion of venomous snakes. Among the snakebite symptoms listed by that cited CDC article about venomous snakes, essentially none of them would be exhibited when bitten by a nonvenomous snake (perhaps there would be a little redness and swelling, and puncture wounds although not a pair of them, and breathing disturbance as an emotional reaction). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay I am happy with the clarification of "venomous snakes" that you make here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)

Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki

The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.

You are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.

Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:

• Healthy, Inclusive Communities
• The Augmented Age
• A Truly Global Movement
• The Most Respected Source of Knowledge
• Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem

On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, their discussions, and how to participate.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help

19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Juul electronic cigarette

This is a notable cigarette I absolutely contest this bold merge. I don't writing articles without putting a considerable among of time in before determining notability I've been doing so for the last decade. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is simple one of hundreds of brands of this product. I disagree that it is notable by itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I intend to open an AfD if this is merged, should we just skip to that step as AfD is more final? An editor I never dealt with already began a raid of personal attacks. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No AfD is not "more final". No need to open an AfD. You appear to be making a number of personal attacks :-( Would likely be good to take a step back. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know AfD is more final and if merge I'll open an AfD for final consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

After it is done sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Heading

Finally, I learned how to quickly generate ref from PMID

Great Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Stomach cancer

You have reverted my edit saying the content is 'well referenced'. There is no reference or inline citation to picked vegetables 'causing' cancer, and the text body is contradictory. Why have you reverted this? I will revert this again if no reference or evidence that picked vegetables 'cause' cancer can be provided.

Update: 19 May - as there is no response or provision of any evidence to back up the claim that 'picked vegetables cause stomach cancer' I have reverted this. I presume Wikipedia works on evidence-based medicine?

It is the next reference. You will notice the ref in a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

TM ARCA

Until now I hadn't noticed that this is you. You may wish to make a statement at the TM ARCA. I don't think you need to be a named party, but presumably I can add you, if necessary. Manul ~ talk 18:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Yes an editing restriction for those associated with this new religious movement would be beneficial for Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

congrats

• [4] and [5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ozzie10aaaa :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Response on "Leads"

James, You left a cryptic, nonspecific message on my wall about writing leads communally. In fact, here's said message:

For medical articles we work to write the WP:leads, if not the entire article, as simply as possible without introducing errors. English Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia used extensively by many who speak English as a second language. We therefore try to use common words as well as short sentences. See here for more details. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.

Despite your well-referenced account, I was unsure what you were talking about in the slightest—surprise that! Fortunately, I was able to ascertain by dates that you were commenting on an edit I made to Paracetamol, wherein I switched, under "Metabolization," "Predominantly in the liver" to "Predominantly hepatic"; this usage is consistent with any other medication on Wikipedia I have ever seen (for your education and pleasure, see ibuprofen, nitroglycerin, and olanzapine). And how about we eschew patronization for professionalism in future comments about this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.96.9.40 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Liver is a more common term than hepatic. Will look at changing the others. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"Those affected" versus "sufferers" in Prader–Willi syndrome article

"Those affected" is better than "sufferers," what I'd changed it to. Thank you.

Yes agree "those affected" is better per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, good stuff. I didn't know about that style guide. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.113.218 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

regarding TOF notables

I have TOF, and I find that Billy Kimmel is very notable. If he is not notable because he is only famous, then neither is Shaun White. MacTavish14 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You need a high quality source that shows notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference style

It is perhaps unfortunate that, unlike the academic world we are used to, WP has no uniform house style with respect to citations. You are also correct that in an ideal world, and certainly at GA and above reference style should be uniform. As you have probably noticed, for instance with Women's health, where I have made significant contributions I have used a combination of {{sfn}} and a Bibliography.

I do this for a number of reasons, including: (a) less clutter of wikitext, facilitating reading it and editing it (b) ease of maintenance and portability. So I am responding to your question on Head and neck cancer about the need for a new reference style, by saying, yes I believe so, and that I think the article would benefit from new citations being added in that format (and perhaps eventually converting the extant ones). I would be interested in your thoughts. Best, --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Most of use at WPMED use inline references of the "cite journal" kind.

This is also the most common style across the 275 languages in which we have medical content.

Benefits of using such a style is that it makes translation easier.

So I oppose switching / adding a new style as it makes both editing and translating more complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I now seem to recall having this discussion elsewhere, your reference to translation reminded me of that. I should have added that it also allows curation of the bibliography and facilitates usage of multiauthored edited books and symposia. I lack the technical background to know how to overcome any barriers to translation. But editing is surely easier. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Many of use use the WP:Reftoolbar or WP:Citoid to generate references so are of the opinion that it is easier to edit using the other format. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hickory Ridge High School

Thank you for your further edits after my work. I wasn't sure how far to go, and wanted to err on the side of offending less. There has been some juvenile vandalism on that page. Do you think it needs protection?Dgndenver (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have watched listed it and will protect if needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. Dgndenver (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

MDMA ref

Hey Doc James.

I just wanted to drop by and say that if you feel strongly about not including the reference that was re-added to the MDMA article in this revision, I'm okay with removing it; however, I do feel that it would be helpful to include. Anyway, I hope all is well with you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Seppi333 that is a small primary study?[6] Not seeing it as needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is cited for this statement in the introduction: "MDMA is listed as a Schedule 1 drug by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, meaning that currently there are no accepted medical uses for MDMA in the United States". An editor on the talk page wanted a source that stated the lack of medical use more explicitly. I think the paper is a secondary source for that particular statement. Sizeofint (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Btw, this is a completely different topic, but I was talking to Boghog at User talk:Boghog#HMB FAC 4 about this systematic review on HMB in healthy individuals and ended up emailing the corresponding author to check on the status. That paper is being peer-reviewed at the moment; once it's published, would you be willing to work with me on the HMB talk page on covering the findings of that review in the HMB article? Since I intend to nominate HMB for another FAC, I'd like to ensure that you approve of the article text which is added and cited/supported by that review before I renominate the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure will take a look once published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll let you know when it's available online. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Seppi333 the abstract says "The animals (male albino mice) were divided into four groups: ad libitum (AL), intermittent feeding (IF) (food given every other day), and AL and IF control groups" So it was simply a mice study. Hardly a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"Genetic" link in new infoboxes

Hi, a heads up - Genetic as a cause of a disorder should link to Genetic disorder, not to Genetic which is a DAB page. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 08:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kashmiri will make sure to do this going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, James. I'm just posting to let you know that WHO Model List of Essential Medicines – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 5. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Giants2008 that is wonderful :-) Many thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm glad I happened to check TFL talk, which is normally quiet, so that I could handle your request on time. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Image question

Hello Doc--

I am concerned about the fair use rationale for the image of a woman with Marfanoid–progeroid–lipodystrophy syndrome which accompanies that article. The woman portrayed does not appear to be the one identified in the accompanying text. I don't see any reason why this new article needs the image, especially given the bullying which can and has resulted.

Pinging Medgirl131 and Elcobbola.

Kablammo (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a copyright issue. We cannot use fair use as "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" is not correct. Someone could take a picture of someone with the condition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sweden EHS at Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - reopened discussion

I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Reopening Sweden EHS matter --papageno (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Community Health initiative

WP:Community health initiative is a well funded, currently staffing "multi-year project of research, product development, and policy growth to help the Wikimedia volunteer community to reduce the level of harassment and disruptive behavior on our projects". The initiative has parallels with some proposals discussed at User:Doc James/Paid editing. Just noting that some of these proposals were rejected as untenable when we examined them before. One that jumped out at me was "A private system for wiki administrators or functionaries to collect information on users' history with harassment and abuse cases, including user restrictions and arbitration decisions." This is in conjunction with powerful dashboards and operator workbenches probably a leap beyond the ad-hoc tools used for lots of editor behavior investigations now. Compare to 11a, 11b, 15 and 22 in our earlier suggestions.

I'm not sure if seeing this in the new initiative's proposed solutions means that COI and harassment solutions play by different rule books, or attitudes have changed in the last ~18 months, or they are still untenable. Or (most likely), maybe it's that WMF has decided to trump our inability to self-police and just do it. - Bri (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

We have struggled to get consensus around further efforts. We recently did get a sort of consensus to create a group of functionaries to help address issues.[7] We also have consensus to include paid job adverts in an appropriate fashion.[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Med articles in 2017

Could you add a short sentence or two on how the stats were generated for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Number of articles by language 2016. Also, the google doc link points to a private google doc, perhaps copy-pasting to a 2017 wiki page would be more accessible? Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Ladsgroup pulled the data for me. The google doc is to allow easier manipulation of data. The page is a copy of the data on wiki already? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Evolution and evolvability Here is the non technical version[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Have moved the page to Number_of_articles_by_language_2017 to reflect the dates for the data. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Perfect thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I just seen this [10] So, with a bit delay, congratulations!!! :) --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• Congrats from me too! Actually, after having voted I hadn't been paying attention, so I only found out about the results right here. But I think that your election is not only a good thing for the project, but also an important statement by the community as a whole. All good. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you both. Agree it is critically important that the community preserve their say at the level of the board. This should not be nearly as controversial this time around. And there are some excellent fellow trustees. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

James, from me as well, a late congratulations on being re-appointed. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Mkdw :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Primary source?

Little curious why you felt that this primary source should be trimmed, when there are literally dozens of primary sources in that article (some of which are used to reference the exact same sentence). Before you go quoting MEDRS, it may be worth considering that subjects like "mechanisms of action" probably fall more properly under the subject of biochemistry or microbiology and not medicine (take a look at list on Wikipedia:Biomedical information for more on this). MEDRS is not licence to go around insisting on certain kinds of sources for any information vaguely related to medicine. NickCT (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Was supported by this review[11]. Why add the primary source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: - I don't know. Higher-quality source? Newer study? Regardless, if the argument is that the reference is redundant (which it may be), I'm a little curious what the policy is against over-referencing.... Surely, more references are better than fewer references!

Regardless, I'm not overly interested or committed to this topic. Just thought this was an interesting Nature article.

I mean, human-rodent fecal transfer. Imagine that. Wonder what the protocol is. Probably not fun for the mouse. NickCT (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Metformin is a fairly well researched topic area. I do not think sticking to reviews is overly burdensome. Yah human-rodent fecal transfer. Interesting... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But clearly some more research to be done as Nature is still publishing on it. Sticking with reviews is fine...

While we have our eyes on this; your thoughts on this edit? Mostly asking b/c I'm curious as to whether there's established policy for dealing with off-label usage. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue with that edit is more that it is referenced. "Off label" is country specific. And companies do not bother to get approval for infrequent uses. Sticking with high quality reviews usually gives us a decent balance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ELNO

Template:ELNO has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

HPV article edits

Doc James, I was trying to improve the wikipedia article on HPV. This time round I will make sure to provide high quality references from reputable journals. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyroy (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

HIV/AIDs edits

You keep deleting "A 2016 analysis estimated that there are close to 4.5 million gay and bisexual men in the US, with 15% living with HIV infection (11% diagnosed)" in favor of your summation that fails to specify that this was a later (2016) analysis, and that 11% are those who are diagnosed. Why do you think this is not pertinent or is better left out? You say the details belong in one of the subarticles, but this addition of a few words of basic details fits well here in the main article, and I do not think there is any need to make a user comb thru subarticles. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at the talk page User:Daniel1212? That section is NOT specifically about HIV/AIDS in people who are gay or bisexual in the United States. It is about the "sexual transmission" of HIV/AIDS.

I even gave you the location of the discussion on your talk page. The extra details are undue weight and off topic for that section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How can a section about sexual transmission not be about the predominate means of that transmission and thus not predominately be about gay or bisexual men, it being US-centric because it seems that is where we have the most specific stats. I agree this paragraph should be in Epidemiology_of_HIV/AIDS (and) or HIV/AIDS in the United States but there is no real reason for excluding it here. More stats from other countries are what is needed. But I will not add the deleted sentence again. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE I disagree. We are a global encyclopedia. We already give the US enough weight in that section which is why I summarized it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Tritiate cartilage ..these lines are copied from grays anatomy book edition 41 page 588

TRITIATE CARTILAGES (CARTILAGO TRITICEA) The tritiate cartilages are two small nodules of elastic cartilage, situated one on either side above the larynx within the posterior free edge of the thyrohyoid membrane, about halfway between the superior cornu of the thyroid cartilage and the tip of the greater cornu of the hyoid bone. Their functions are unknown, although they may serve to strengthen this connection.

These line are copied from gray's anatomy book...

Which version? Some of the old versions are in the public domain and therefore usable by us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Angelman's syndrome Page

Hi, I made an edit to the Angelman's Syndrome page a while ago to get rid of that terrible painting, and I see that you reverted it back. May I ask why? There doesn't really seem to be a need for it to be there, and there are several comments on the talk page wishing it to be gone, so I removed it. Did I make a formatting mistake in my original edit? I am trying to change it again, but apparently now I have started an edit war... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.39.213 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Images of the condition are useful. Do you have a better one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)