User talk:Doc James/Archive 120

re: simple language and syntax

Hey doc, thanks for the message and reminder of the style guide. It's always good to refresh oneself with the explicit guidelines WP provides us...I often forget how specific it can get!

Preface: Your bio contains the following message: "P.S. My spelling and grammar are poor, so thank you for correcting them." My hope is that I can convince you that the change I made warranted a "thank you" and not an "undo" ;)

I definitely understand the importance of making articles accessible, and certainly didn't intend to obfuscate when I changed "not enough" to "inadequate." I reviewed the guidelines on lead sections, and found these relevant bites from the Accessible Overview section:

- "[...] avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions."

- "[...] avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols."

The word choice in question is found in the opening sentence:

"Angina, also known as angina pectoris, is the sensation of chest pain, pressure, or squeezing, often due to not enough blood flow to the heart muscle as a result of obstruction or spasm of the coronary arteries."

As a native English speaker, the clause "often due to not enough blood flow" immediately strikes me as syntactically clunky. I must admit that I am no linguist, and in fact I wouldn't necessarily argue that this clause is technically grammatically incorrect. Hopefully, though, you can see where I (and other users who have edited the phrase) was coming from when I changed the clause to "often due to inadequate blood flow." Another user chose to use the word insufficient, which is almost identical in meaning and complexity, and similarly solves the problem by eliminating the compound adjective that snags things up somewhat.

I agree that "insufficient" and "inadequate" are slightly more complex than "not enough", but I wouldn't agree that they warrant characterization as over-specific or difficult-to-understand rhetoric. As anecdotal as this statement may be, I personally would not hesitate to use these words around someone who speaks English as a second language. Objective measures would provide a more convincing argument though, so I found some.

I'd point out first, in order to establish a reference point, that you seem to have no qualms with the use of the word "sensation" in the opening sentence. This is a word with similar complexity and modern prevalence to "inadequate". According to Google Ngram viewer, which tracks the historical and contemporary use of words, "inadequate" is actually used more commonly than "sensation".

inadequate: 0.0016%

sensation: 0.0014%

insufficient: 0.0012%

The phrase "not enough"? Well that actually falls below "inadequate" too, with a prevalence of 0.0013%. This actually surprised me, but the data speaks for itself.

My final point would be that people speaking English as a second language would probably want be exposed to the language the way it's commonly spoken and written, as opposed to reading unorthodox syntax & word choice that clunks only to offer minimal improvement in accessibility. Anyone struggling with common words like sensation or inadequate also has access to the Simple English Wikipedia.

In summary, I contend that "inadequate" is a superior word choice because it improves sentence flow and better represents standard English syntax and vocabulary. My sentiment is corroborated by the fact that other users have tried to make virtually identical changes.

I'm interested to hear what you think; I believe I've made my position compelling.

---

By the way, I just wanted to also thank you for your obviously substantial contribution to Wikipedia's healthcare content. Vigilant users such as yourself keep Wikipedia trustworthy.Afw35 (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Would one not want to look at 0.5% for Not

And 0.02% for enough?

I guess the question is should we change "sensation" to "feeling"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I considered that, but opted instead to use the data for the compound phrase because it is a) what was used, and b) more directly relevant to the question of grammar/syntax and ubiquity/prevalence. As a compromise, I made sure to state that I agree "not enough" is simpler language, though I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

Feeling seems to be a more common word that conveys the same information.

But I guess the question, for me at least, is more about how one determines what constitutes excessively complex language. And further, when and how to compromise between specificity/syntax and simplicity/accessibility.Afw35 (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Changed some of the wording. I try to write the leads in very easy to understand languages and then write the body of the article in more complicated language. Yes I realize that simpler English might now flow as nice as more technical English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Link_:_tranquilizers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antipsychotic#Link_:_tranquilizers 1a16additional (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Except when it is within the bolded initial terms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Referencing for cholecalciferol

Thanks for pointing out to me that NICE and BNF are not always readable in different parts of the world. However you have reverted to non-electronic links which are also unreadable to all online. We have been using multiple different sources to standard prescribing details, so I will trim these to use www.drugs.com. Also you reverted my change to put the physiology of this natural agent before its use as a medicine. For other hormones, we have the physiology first -- see thyroxine, estrogen, insulin for example. In general, the emphasis with vitamin D and its forms is too heavily weighted on supplement use. Jrfw51 (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mechanism of action, biosynthesis, and industrial production are not "physiologcial effects". Therefore reverted to how it was.

The other problem with the BNF-NICE is that it does not state the version of the BNF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Mechanism of action of the prohormone and biosynthesis are broadly physiological. Please do not lose other improvements with rapid reversions. Jrfw51 (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure I will manually move back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You have lost a lot of the 'improvements' I made. Quoted references like 2 and 4 are inaccessible and add nothing to 5, which is widely available. It is still written as if is is only a drug/supplement. It is a natural biochemical -- just like thyroxine, or estrogen. You have not addressed the style differences with these. No more now as you clearly feel ownership of this article. Costa Rica! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

We put biosynthesis generally low in the article and the same with mechanism of action. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not so for thyroxine or estrogen. These are similar compounds. Jrfw51 (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Have changed those pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Take a peek at your inbox:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Holger Jens Schünemann

Hi Doc James, thanks for that work on the above. I think it was probably needed, and better for it. Why would you think it is a paid article? To be honest, I haven't seen that udp tag before. I checked Google Scholar, and the guy has a 66k citations, an immense number, before I passed it out of WP:AFC. I thought he was well passed the threshold of acceptance. It didn't look like a paid for article, although I am more used to dealing with bankers and entrepreneurs and they tend to be easily recognized for what they are. scope_creep (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Scope creep Unreferenced personal details "Schünemann is married to the Italian scientist Paola Muti, and has two daughters."

Gratuitous puffery "Maintaining an active clinical practice in internal medicine fulfills his passion for patient care and ensures his research is people-focused. "

Early history is unreffed / reads like a CV "Schünemann began his research career in respiratory and exercise physiology as a medical student in the Department of Physiology at the Medical School of Hannover, Germany. "

Account which created the article did so in one edit[1]

Person who wrote it says they work for his publisher[2][3]

Agree they are notable, just needs someone independent to clean up.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I need to be a wee bit more diligent. Thanks Doc James scope_creep (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. It is a tough problem to pick up and there are a lot of borderline cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Antipsychotic

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antipsychotic&diff=prev&oldid=805305996 1a16additional (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

re-added material from the debate at editorial line 12:01, 14 October 2017‎ (commencing at edit 03:43, 14 October 2017‎ , of material added 21:44, 12 October 2017‎) as there are additional sources indicating, copyedited two sentences) 1a16additional (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Antipsychotic 1a16additional (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edit makes the first sentence way overly complex. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Well, I think the response would be, for anyone outside of the field of medicine - the subject is complex, and for the minds of doctors the subject does not seem as complex - so that the complexity you are perceiving is others perception of complexity - since non-medical professionals - have not had medical educations, and the encyclopedia - is for everyone 1a16additional (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1a16additional/sandbox#anti-psychotic 1a16additional (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Not seeing that paper as pubmed indexed?[4] Also we have a newer Lancet review. The RCPSYCH is okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC) will do this after the following (viz. Recommended uses et cetera) is viewed by yourself, since I'm feeling initially the value of two national organisations out-weighs the possible invalidity of material indicated by the lack of a pubmed indexed value. thanks again 1a16additional (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

1st addition

Recommended uses

They are not recommended for dementia or insomnia unless other treatments have not worked. They are not recommended in children unless other treatments are not effective or unless the child has psychosis.

The World Health Organisation provides a description of recommendations for the prescription of anti-psychotics for the purposes of the treatment of psychosis.

Approved use and un-approved use

The prescription of anti-psychotics, outside of the approved or recommended prescription is know as off-label.

---

added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antipsychotic&diff=prev&oldid=805320123

1a16additional (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

addition (2nd)

"...especially positive symptoms (source: the United States Government Department of Veteran Affairs - Facts about anti-psychotic medications Accessed October 14th, 2017 sources showing supporting evidence) including delusions, hallucinations, paranoia or disordered thought), principally in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder,.."

I haven't looked to see if there is mention further into the article of the term positive symptoms, although there is indication of the fact of disagreement (Doctor) as to the actual indication of the term psychosis, I'm able to at least find the use of anti-psychotics to treat primarily positive symptoms is indicated by evidence from sources. 1a16additional (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

added : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antipsychotic&diff=prev&oldid=805325666

1a16additional (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC) (thanks)

References

Apparent socking on Circumcision

• VoHRA (talk · contribs)
• Sdm215 (talk · contribs)

I'm most likely involved there, so I would appreciate if you could perhaps take a look. Thanks, GAB^gab 00:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:GeneralizationsAreBad yup made the exact required numbers of edits and than waiting the correct number of days. Not their firsts accounts. Did you post to SPI? I have the page watchlisted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah there's definitely something fishy going on there. Alexbrn (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I filled an SPI for what it is worth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but when I saw this header pop up on my watchlist I couldn't help but think of this. 15:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Reffed?

Added by an SPA[5], but "Causes" section is not about which medical systems involve use of mercury, there is a huge list of those medical systems. Downtoearth is an unreliable personal website, I replaced it with better source. Capitals00 (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You removed the BCMJ[6]? Have replaced sources with a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Would also add Homeopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine "and others" in the same sentence with sources. Also I still want to remove downtoearth since new source is more detailed and WP:RS. Capitals00 (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes agree and have removed downtoearth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Doc. If you get a moment, please take a look at two recent edits ([7][8]) to Glans penis. I undid the most recent one because the citation given doesn't appear to support the text, but I'm also wondering if it's MEDRS-compliant. The earlier one removed a citation to Masters & Johnson, and I was wondering if that was kosher — old source, I know, but is it generally deprecated or sometimes OK in context? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Rivertorch looks good. The user in question has been pushing a specific position for years here... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I gathered. But Masters & Johnson is better left out, you think? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Book is from 1966 so yes I think it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious users/edits

Hello. We had a discussion on User talk:Anachronist a while back, which I hope you remember, since it's connected to what this message is about. You're a medical expert, but I'm not (my field is very far from the medical profession...), so would you mind taking a look at the edits made by Special:Contributions/Bikermanish and Special:Contributions/Jilja? Just to see if they're correct or introduce errors, POV/bias or things that shouldn't be here. The reason I ask is that both of those users give off clear David Hedlund-vibes, and with high probability are socks of his per WP:DUCK (subject choice, i.e. articles edited, edit summaries, speed of editing etc). And the connection to our discussion on Anachronists' user talk page is that Bikermanish edited on 26 September and 4/5 October (but nothing since), and Jilja started editing on 10 October and has edited since, while Medgirl131 only made a single edit on 26 September, a few hours before Bikermanish was created, then started editing again the next day and edited until 2 October, but hasn't edited at all since then. Meaning that there's no overlap at all in time between Medgirl131 and the two new accounts. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Will look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

CFS RFC

Hi, could you please direct me to approx when the RFC for the lead was discussed? I would like to review it. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Ward20 it is mentioned in the current talk page discussion. Here it is again.[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Unintended side effects of changing section headings

Hi James. I noticed that in this edit you changed the title/heading of a section on Talk:Morgellons. While the editor who created the talk pages section was quite mistaken and the source s/he had located had nothing to do with the NIH, I would urge you to avoid changing section headers if you can avoid doing so, even so. The problem is that changing the header breaks the default links (from edit summaries) displayed on watchlists, in user contribution lists, and in page histories. The result was that I saw a series of edits referring to the NIH pop up on my watch list, but the links to the section in question were broken.

• The easiest solution is to not change a section heading unless it is particularly harmful (i.e., it contains libel, or personal attacks, or exceptional obscenities, etc.), but simply to correct the mistaken information in the body of the section (which you did—but it was non-obvious what you were talking about in your post, because your comment is now the only one in the thread referring to the NIH). As a side benefit, this avoids the risk of creating/escalating an edit war with an inept crank.
• A less-ideal solution is to change the heading but at the very least also change the automatically-generated edit summary for your edit so that the section link in your summary points to the new section title. This at least means that your most recent edit will link to the correct section, though it still leaves other links to the original section name broken. (You may award yourself a small number of bonus points if your edit summary explicitly calls out the change in section title.)
• Another option is to use the {{Anchor}} template to create an anchor to the original title. This at least preserves the function of links to the original title, though it remains suboptimal because it isn't obvious to casual inspection why those links point to the retitled section. I've added an anchor to the section so you can see what I mean.

Pardon the wall-o-text, hope this helps, have a good one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thanks User:TenOfAllTrades. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

YGM

It's quite interesting:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Pankaj Naram

I've tagged this as G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leannjoyce. You culled a lot from this though, so I thought I would let you know since you are the only other substantial contributor and could make the call as to whether or not your own contributions exempt it from G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni thanks. Yes my contributes to these types of articles I deem exempt from G5ing stuff. Anything more needing deletion on that issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought you'd say, but always good to check. You also might be interested in the current UPE thread on my talk page. CU came up inconclusive at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

UPE + proxies = G5?

Hi James. It seems that the use of proxies by UPEs is increasing, although this might just be that we're getting better at finding the problematic articles as soon as they are created. Regardless, I've been thinking that we should try to get consensus from the community that if sockfarms are editing from behind proxies and are making edits that looks like UPE then G5 should apply, even where we can't link them to any specific previously blocked account. Where do you think would be the best place to discuss it though? It's probably too specific to include in WP:CSD. In practice, this seems to already be occurring, but I would prefer for there to be a concrete place to point to where it has been discussed by the wider community. SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Smartse Maybe at WT:SPI? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I guess it is pretty much what Ivanvector has already proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Massive_UPE_sockfarms. SmartSE (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm pretty sure we've got some new, technically astute, and motivated CUs who may be skewing the discovery of proxies. Since I am not a CU myself it's hard to go beyond that and say whether the use of proxies is actually increasing. My gut is that there is in fact an uptick in the use of both proxies and webhosts. This may also be a factor. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Promotional paid editing is never permitted

Rgdg Special:Diff/805738090 – Considering WP:PAID#Promotion and advertising by paid editors, there must have been a typo in your reply where you said "disclosed promotional paid editing" was permitted? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and have corrected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Navigation assistance.

Does there exist any section introducing the Treatment of hypertension and/or palpitation in asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder? Thanks for your navigation in advance, and I would translate the said section into Chinese. Thanks. : ) --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. Could go here Management_of_hypertension Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Translation for Management of hypertension created! Hoping to translate the section mentioned above soon! : ) Thanks for your dedications! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 11:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Attempted account compromise

I've recently received multiple notifications of attempts to reset my password as well as failed logins from unknown devices. Last password reset attempt was just this morning from 41.74.212.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Just notifying you in case there's a more widespread issue I'm not aware of. If strange stuff comes from this account or my alternate, bri.public, please don't hesitate to block. It's unlikely to happen on this account as I have had 2FA enabled for exactly two months now since I started seeing weird stuff. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Bri thanks for the heads up. Yes anyone working in this area needs 2FA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fracture articles

Hey James,

I see you've been busy writing articles on different fractures. I've been meaning to write articles on the humerus fracture as well as distal radius and ulna-fractures in Swedish, but it seems a waste to duplicate efforts when I can translate your work. Will you be doing those three any time soon?

Best, Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I am done Colles fracture the most common distal radius fracture. Will add those three to the list :-) We have no article on ulna fracture yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

User:CFCF just finished distal radius fracture Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket

Hey Doc James, Would it be okay if I reached out via email or on OTRS wiki to you with some help on an OTRS ticket? Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure User:Cameron11598. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is OTRS Wiki email from user "Cameron11598".
Message added 19:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 19:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Abortion refs

Would you mind keeping an eye on Abortion while I update some refs. I don't want too many warning templates on my talk page so I will tread lightly. I will post proposed changes on the talk page and if, in a few days, no one objects I will update a reference. I've been scolded a number of times already and I would be less concerned if you closely monitor my edits to make sure I don't start a wildfire.

On second thought and because the article is based on many outdated refs, I won't make any changes without you having a look first. I realize this may be tedious but it is such a sensitive article, I really don't feel too bold at this point. I will set up a workspace on a user page. You can just post 'ok' or edit what I propose. Many thanks and Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Peanut allergy: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Just a heads up that Peanut allergy is now an assignment for a group of medical school students. From course description, appears they are practicing in sandbox, and then will approach the article in November, perhaps at Talk first. I sent the teacher a note that I would be refraining from edits, so as to not give the students a moving target. Actually, outside my interest zone, student groups will also be addressing African tick bite fever, Cardiac catheterization, Encephalitis, Frostbite, Gangrene, Kidney failure, Munchausen syndrome, Neural tube defect, Pica (disorder), Prostate cancer staging and Urinary retention. Ambitious! David notMD (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do join in editing. Help with guiding students is appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Shoot first, ask questions later.

In reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxcarbazepine&action=history next time ask, if you cannot discern the difference of merge and remove, or if you're too blind to see there's a whole bloody section on side effects where every single one is already listed, /without/ frequency, as is in accordance with source. Thanks.--92.194.54.218 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you removed a summary from the lead so restoring it again.

Also not sure why you removed the details about interactions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Because that summary matches 1:1 to the section actually titled "Interactions". The "details about interactions" are arbitrary selections from the long lists of ligands of the respective enzymes, with no one of them more relevant than the other. So, once again: DO NOT shoot first and ask questions later. Undid your undoing. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I imaging you area aware of WP:3RR. You did not even both to join the talk page discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to ask in the talk page first, before you fuck it all up again, either; again, it was shoot first, ask later, reverting to crap. Nice vandalistic way to go. Thanks for 3RR motivation, by the way. Must be proud of yourself. Managed to piss someone off doing a good job by teaming up with other specialists to just revert it to death with no sensible use of the summary line whatsoever. Good day to you, too, Sir. --92.194.54.218 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As a result of your latest revert (fifth or so) again restoring bad versions paired with virtually zero constructive editing, attempts to fix minor issues of large edits or sensible use of summary lines, you've been requested for ban. Compare with Talk:Oxcarbazepine#Summary and here and discuss there. -92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 92.194.54.218 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Asking assistance for Wiki editing

Could you assist me with some information?

1. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Since the parties are not obligated to comply with the advise of DRN moderator, what's the solution when someone is sure that the other parties are not going to agree with him anyway and a ruling from a judge is essential. I am sure DRN is not an option in this case. Could "Mediation" be an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Mediation Committee? If not, then is "Arbitration" an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Arbitration Committee?

2. What’s the difference between Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a specialized noticeboard such as “Fringe theory noticeboard”? I know specialized noticeboards are subject specific. But my question is that whether the moderators in “Fringe theory noticeboard” are only administrators or general users as well? If there are general users as well, how can I become a fringe theory noticeboard volunteer? Do I need to list my username anywhere and/or add any template in my user page?

3. When I am in a dispute with a couple of admins in a Wikipedia page, what’s the process of reporting those abusive admins. Let’s say, the admins are reverting any edit that is against their personal views and beliefs. And those admins need to be removed from the page. The Wikipedia manual says as admins can be removed through a dispute resolution process. But it doesn’t explain how. Because DRN moderator or Mediation committee may not be able to remove an administrator. So, if an user is in dispute with administrators, should he directly file a case to Arbitration Committee?

4. How can I add a new section and subsection to a Wiki article and remove an existing section from a Wiki article in visual editor?

5. I found that some contributions are deleted from “History” page of an article. So how to delete a contribution and who can do it?

6. Wiki policy states as I should not copy contents from other websites and should rather write my own contents. But what if the contents are open source contents? Can I directly copy those in Wikipedia? Are online news posts open source, including the images in the news? Can I use these texts and images in Wikipedia without editing? Can I copy and paste statements of medical national and international organizations in Wikipedia without editing?

7. Where to find images for a Wikiedia article if the image is not already available in Wikimedia? Are the images collected from news posts open source? And many sites don't have their images copyrighted. Do those images qualify as open source? When I upload an image, Wikipedia asks for copyright information. I have no idea what information to provide? What info should I provide if the image is in open source? And if the image is owned by me? Wikipedia asks me to contact the copyright holder and ask them for copyright information for the image. But some websites don't have "Contact us" section, some other sites are unresponsive when they are contacted, and even when I contact a website owner, he may not be able to provide me copyright information as the images are not copyrighted. So what information to provide Wikipedia in such a case? How do Wikipedia verify if the images are already copyrighted or not. If I claim to be granted permission for reuse from the copyright holder, how does Wikipedia verify the copyright holder has actually granted me permission for reuse of the copyrighted content?

8. How to add videos to a Wikipedia article? Do I need to provide copyright information for a video available in Youtube? Are there other policies on videos such as policies for graphic videos?

9. When I create a new article, how do I save my private draft for the article. If I click on "Save", the draft will become public and will be accessible for anyone. But I like it to be private. Is it possible. Furthermore, when I edit on an existing article, is there a way I can save my edits as a draft before publishing? It is an essential function. Because some posts may be very long and will take a long time to write. So, my unsaved works can be lost if browser tab is closed or if the texts are accidentally selected and deleted. So saving draft is essential.

10. Where can I save the usernames of my co-writers in my Wikipedia account like a phone book? I can't memorize the usernames of every persons. Thus, I need to have a phone book when the usernames will be saved in the respective categories.

11. How can I be connected with the community to improve each Wikipedia article? I know each important article is being monitored by some administrators. But how do I know which administrators is monitoring a page so that I can discuss with them about improving the article? How to get connected with the community for editing articles? I heard that communication is important here. But how? Everyone is stranger here. Whom to contact among these random people?

12. What’s the use of pending changes reviewing by administrators and “pending change reviewers”? As much as I know anyone can revert another user’s edit. In that case, what will change if an edit is approved by an administrator or a “Pending changes reviewer”? Will other users be unable to revert the edit back then? If not, then what’s the use of pending changes reviewing? Furthermore, how do the users know an edit has been approved by a administrator or a pending changes reviewers? Will the approval appear anywhere such as in the “History” page?

13. What’s the requirement and process for becoming a pending changes reviewer? Can anyone become a pending changes reviewer?

Abir Babu (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Would try a WP:RfC. The most important thing is you start slow and only use the best source per WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia is often where it is following lots of discussion.

Those are a lot of questions. I would direct you to the WP:Tea House Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI - I've already answered all of his questions on my user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Oshwah :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Baratta (Designer)

Your Wikipedia Talk page noted you were on vacation, so I understand that nothing has been done during that time. However, I have given you all of the necessary information to restore the page. Can you please give me an update on this?

Thanks, Mitesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitesh93 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Company Page Help

Greetings Doc James,

Hope all is well. I have been handed your information from a colleague of mine in regards to our company's wikipedia page that I understand has been deleted/taken offline.

Please assist me with figuring out how we get our page back up and running successfully? Anthony Baratta (designer)

Greatly appreciate your help and hoping we can expedite this process.

Please advise how we proceed?

Thanks again,

AB Designs (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Tyler

We are not a platform to promote your business or specific individuals with which you are related. The previous article was deleted as it was created by someone who did not disclose the fact that they were paid. An article will need to be neutral well referenced and submitted through WP:AfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)