User talk:Doc James/Archive 121

Thank you for smooth support

I'm engaging researchers in Sweden to contribute to Wikipedia in a scholarly fashion. One of the things we do is to teach PhD students how to edit and one of the courses is given for on a yearly basis up to 80 medical PhD students at Uppsala University. You have come across their contributions now in early October and I'm happy to see your kind way of correcting them. They have received information about which sources to use, but still seem to use primary sources more than they should. My hope is that they as professional researchers will join your efforts in making Wikipedia in medicine even better. Once again thank you for your support and I hope that their contributions are valuable in the end. Olle Terenius (UU) (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Olle Terenius (UU) thank you for reaching out. Happy to chat further if you wish. Also we have a number of Wikipedians in Sweden working on medical content if you would like further support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Doc James, I saw your message and removal of my good faith edit. I don't quite understand why this edit was removed. I cited the source to applicable publications by respected doctors and publishing journals in the medical industry. Can you please provide additional insight on the removal of these edits?

Non-Invasive Breast Brachytherapy has been used since 2007 and treated over 10,000 patients with breast cancer. I am happy to provide additional information as needed.

I look forward to your reply. Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoonie (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The details were provided on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The review does speak to potential ASD treatment with sulforaphane

In the review..."We address the emerging role of Hsps in the neuroprotective network of redox stress responsive mechanisms and propose the potential therapeutic utility of the nutritional antioxidants sulforaphane"32cllou (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

PMID please or link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote into Autism, and you moved somewhere ("research")...Fever in children with autism may be associated with improved behavior and cognition, and sulforaphane found in cruciferous vegetables may promote metabolic function resembling those altered by fever.32cllou (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Odd you can't just click on the reference, so here pmid=2764270832cllou (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Okay and lets keep the discussion here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll stick to this page to talk, thanks for the guide! I might want to repost in Talk so other folks can follow. And, thank you pointing to Research. At least there's some bit of the information in wiki, but why don't you think it qualifies under Treatment?...a very common fever response (~40% improvement in symptoms in 80% of autistic children) in observational research (found in a review) and suggesting sulforaphane with similar metabolic pathways to fever (at least).32cllou (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

PMID: 27071792 Here's another quote from a review that supports inclusion of my sentence in the intro/treatment: "several ASD-associated basic physiological pathways that can be regulated by the small molecule phytochemical sulforaphane, as an example of a druggable small molecule target for which much in vitro, pre-clinical, and clinical evidence already exists: (1) redox metabolism/oxidative stress, (2) mitochondrial dysfunction, (3) immune dysregulation/neuroinflammation, (4) febrile illness and the heat shock response, and (5) synaptic dysfunction. Furthermore, we identify the biomarkers that can be used to assess the functioning of these pathways as well as suggesting how these biomarkers could guide novel treatment strategies to correct these biochemical abnormalities in order to improve core and associated symptoms of ASD.32cllou (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No this is not the place for the discussion. The talk page of the article in question is the correct place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Then why did you write above "Okay and lets keep the discussion here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I said "lets keep the discussion here". If you click on the here link... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You've Got Mail!

Hi James,

Please check your inbox for a message with the subject Harmless Harvest Page from user alikrueger.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikrueger (talk • contribs) 11:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Indefning of User:Ventus55 & User:Kipepea

Hi Doc James, I am not sure if the indefning process of Ventus55 & Kipepea is now totally completed and fully settled. In case it is not, I have conclusive evidence that on German WP both accounts have mutually edited on the other's personal WP-account page. Also these edits are definitely no guest edits but apparently edits from one hand having accidentally missed under which account it was editing. In case of interest I can send you this evidence (specific links to edit logs). Greetings. --Saidmann (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional details User:Saidmann. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, here they are:

1) The complete edit history of Kipepea personal page. It contains seven edits by Ventus55:

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin:Kipepea&offset=&limit=500&action=history

2) The most recent 500 of the edit history of Ventus55 personal page- It contains one edit by Kipepea:

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Ventus55&offset=&limit=500&action=history

--Saidmann (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Perhaps more importantly, the edits from the oher hand were removed like this, consciously, but without telling the oher user "hey, what are you doing on my userpage"? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Also this indicates one hand doing its work (accidentally) via two accounts. --Saidmann (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If there is any truth to any of the statements by these two accounts, they are at best half truths. It is unfortunate to see people trying to take advantage of Wikipedia and Wikipedians for person gain... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick delete?

International Pelvic Pain Society, with paid public memberships, and board members who directly profit from contact with enrolled patients. Orphan article, padded content, no/few worthwhile sources. Ratel (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Have trimmed the poorly referenced stuff User:Ratel. Looked at google news and agree most of the refs are in passing.

They have published this review in a major journal.[1] So maybe just barely notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

finasteride gynecomastia

The package insert and other authoritative sources consider gynecomastia to be an adverse effect of exposure to finasteride. Gynecomastia is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in men. The current assertion that gynecomastia is considered a cosmetic issue is not supported by an authoritative secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes good point. Have changed it to "mostly" per the ref [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 02:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative!

Read about the Sustainability Initiative in the Wikipedia Signpost!

Hi Doc James,

Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative, which aims at reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. There are currently over 350 supporters from all over the world – please encourage other community members to sign the page as well! You can also read an update from the Sustainability Initiative in the most recent edition of the Wikipedia Signpost.

Thank you, and kind regards, --Gnom (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

• News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

• Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

• Humour: Guys named Ralph

• In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

• Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

• In the media: Facebook and poetry

• Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

• Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Scotty McCoy

Scotty McCoy is changing your comments at the AfD for his article. I've since fixed it. -- Longhair\^talk 23:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like they are blocked. User:Longhair thanks for taking care of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks

i'm new to this so thank you for your note i will go back and pull the direct references for the content

You will need review articles per WP:MEDRS that mention the hypothesis in question. The reviews will need to be from well respected sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually . . . .

I just went to look at your changes - you deleted everything I added. With the exception of one reference all the other come directly from peer-reviewed publications. Can you better explain to me why you would delete these sections, particularly when this is the general consensus among pediatricians and pediatric GIs? I am happy to get the publication reference for the one citation that wasn't a publication but to delete everything that I wrote seems to be capricious and without merit.

Please read WP:MEDRS. You MUST use review articles. If you are not sure what these are please read about them. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines

Of course I know what review papers are :-) Again I'm new but the guidelines state:

"Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials."

Ideal not meaning limited to . . . By your interpretation papers from Nature, Science and other high impact factor publications should not be used as citations for this article. That seems pretty harsh and is definitely not the state of the art when I look at many other wiki pages including the one we are discussing. See the reference section and tell me how many papers are review papers . . . not many at all.

Again I think its important to include well cited information in pages like these but I think your rationale for deleting the sections I wrote is not valid. I am happy to make sure all references are from peer-reviewed publications but to delete my work because the citations aren't from review papers is silly don't you think and not consistent with the work that you have left on the page. If you disagree I would be happy to have this reviewed by other editors as well and either we can remove ALL of the content that doesn't have review paper references (which is most of the article) or include ALL those that do have peer-reviewed publications cited.

I am not trying to be difficult - I am just looking for consistency which I do not see.

Yes it says "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". We make rare exceptions.

Looking at the sources this is a review[3], As is [4] and [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

3 out of 30?

you are going to hang your hat on 3 review articles out of a total of 30 references? why are you being so difficult? look, its simple - i have added important content and cited peer-reviewed publications you rolled back my edits because they weren't from review articles which only represent 10% of the citations on this article. you aren't leaving me much choice as I don't want to keep arguing with you.

since i am new I want to be respectful but you have given me no good argument for your edits i have followed the dispute resolution protocol of trying to work this out with you. that seems to have failed. as such I believe the protocol is to move to the The Dispute resolution noticeboard to resolve this issue. your arguments are spurious and don't have merit, even by your own evidence (3 out of 30 peer reviewed references). i am willing to work with you to make sure that what i've added has strong references but if not I'll continue on to the next level of protocol for dispute resolution. thanks again for the dialogue - its a great first experience here on wiki to learn the process (seriously) and I am enjoying the discourse. thanks

Here are another three reviews [6], [7], [8]

Are you seriously requesting that I list every referenced used in the article and explain to you that it is either a review, major textbooks, or position statement from a major medical organization?

Yes there may be couple that are not, but adding more that are not is not the solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Big Picture

Bottom line is that (a) review papers are not the rule, they seem to be the exception; but (b) to your point we should strive to add more review papers if we can. Our goal is the same though - we want the best information out there especially for these medical related topics and so in that interest I will resubmit my edits but will cite review papers or textbooks only. How is that sir? Djkoutdoors (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Which reviews supporting what content are you wanting to add? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

well you and Alexbrn managed it

So you and Alexbrn have managed to chase me away from wiki which is a shame I thought I would be helpful and bring my over 25 years of biotechnology experience to important topics on wiki but it seems that there is always a battle to add insights, even ones that are well referenced. Good luck to you DocJames - you've managed to chase away a volunteer from wiki.

Discussion and collaboration is often required.

This is taking place on the talk page Talk:Baby_colic#Text

You had misinterpreted one of the references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Salim 6

R319378 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:R319378 Thank you :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Refractive error edits

Hey,

Sorry if you found any of my edits on the Refractive Error page questionable. I'll review your revisions in a moment. I'm used to touching up dead pages so I apologize for making such broad changes without any discussion on the talk page first. I'll continue the discussion there. Thank you for your efforts in maintaining the accuracy of Wikipedia Garvin ^Talk 14:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure will join you. Concerns was it make the language more complicated in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

conversation on Antipsychotics

for your information, Doctor, a conversation is proceeding on my talk page with regards to the article I've indicated. 23h112e (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I am hoping you will choose to include yourself in the argument. 23h112e (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

17:06, 26 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . m Antipsychotic ‎ (→‎Schizophrenia: correction of error in content - the source shows "Care" not "Clinical", with regards to the previous edit (error not my own)) (current)

17:04, 26 October 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . m Antipsychotic ‎ (→‎Schizophrenia: link to "National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence")

23h112e (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I will get their eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Reason for COI tag?

Hello, Doc James- I see that you added a {{COI}} tag a year ago to the article Fuller Theological Seminary. However, you've presented no evidence or otherwise discussed this on the article's Talk page. Do you have some specific information to support this? Per WP:COI, when this tag is placed, one "should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning". If there's a concern about Outing a particular user who has not publicly identified, please email the info. to OTRS (info-en-o@wikimedia.org) where it will be handled confidentially.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:JGHowes are you sure OTRS is the correct place to send these sorts of details? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added details.[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing particularly relevant

But I was just browsing reddit when I found a post about you being the real-life Medic — a character within the videogame Team Fortress 2. There are some pretty good photoshops of you in the comments.Galobtter (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Galobtter never played the game but happy to see people having fun :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard of Team Fortress, or the Medic, but my 29 year old son couldn't stop laughing. Pics should go on "Spotlight" or used as a Did You Know hook for something. Redditt remains an obscure mystery to me though. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

chrysin primary source reversion by Doc James

your statement to use higher quality secondary sources is nonsense. I provided a PRIMARY source PEER reviewed journal that is as high quality as possible. You can edit for clarity but do NOT revert for nonsense excuse.

You need to read and follow WP:MEDRS User:Soaringbear Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to express better what your real reason for reverting was because your claim is FALSE.

Okay so this mean you are set on using prior sources for medical content despite consensus against this practice? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs)

answering with a question is NOT an answer. you are VIOLATING the wikipedia way in REFUSING to answer how you would accuse a primary peer review journal report as being secondary nonsense??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs)

@Soaringbear: did you read the subsections in MEDRS (esp the nice pyramid graphics at WP:MEDASSESS) that describe how reports on individual experiments aren't good sources? Animal models are particularly low on the pyramid. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point

This Doc James is engaging in classic smothering - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_smother_conflict

Straight out of the wiki policy pages: "Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant." "Do not revert an edit because it is unnecessary" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

Demand for clinical RCT data is simply unrealistic in a world of billions of separate chemicals. We can all wish for it all we want, but it simply ain't happening. I will suggest that there is possibly an element of professional conflict here, between him as physician and me as pharmacologist. I have training and experience in evaluating pre-clinical, non-human studies, that Doc James lacks.

It is unfortunate he cannot respect science outside of his profession of human studies, and thinks he can revert with useless abrasive comments like "nonsense" and rapidly escalating to calling me "abusive" and "several bad interactions" that "need a long time out". In other words he lacks capacity to oversee other scientists and is abusing his authority.

So there are two main issues here. Chrysin is a page that is nearly empty and contains speculation (*under lab research" and bodybuilding) that is far weaker than the reference I added and my edit is just a spark revealing a process conflict that is much bigger. Bear

Hey, Soaringbear, instead of continuing this fruitless conversation, you really ought to be commenting at this important discussion, where you are VERY close to receiving an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand this wiki system that another discussion is going on separately. Thanks for pointing this out so I can cc to there.

There was no "demand for clinical RCT data". The request is to use high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Could use your input re: breast cancer edits

I didn't notice your note to this user until after I reverted a ton of their edits for not using summaries on massive, potentially controversial edits. They've since added another substantial edit and I'm way out of my depth here. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. CityOfSilver 21:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why they are using an ovary cancer article for the breast cancer article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Welp, I didn't notice that. My concern was a replacement of the previous text about smoking and breast cancer with text that, to me, indicated a controversial and possibly dubious/pseudoscientific dismissal of the possibility of smoking causing breast cancer. I have no idea if it was valid. And they're still rolling, even though a truly huge amount of their additions remain reverted. CityOfSilver 21:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

They may need a block to bring them to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI. CityOfSilver 22:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Mediterranean diet reversion

Fair use comment - this is simply a cut and paste from the linked article - how is it unfair to widen the users' search facilities with already published Wikipedia CC by AA 3.0 material? Timpo (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Timpo the policy is this one Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy_2 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

RE: Medical sources

The gold standard in medical sources is a long-term, stage III, double-blind study with a control group and qualified staff, preferably one from the government or from an academic medical center, whose full text, or at least the summary, appears free of charge in a widely-recognized medical journal or allied health care journal, like JAMA or Nature or APA or AHIMA. But if articles in journals regarding studies of any kind are not available, what else can be used? Medical school web sites (those should be pretty reliable) or pharmaceutical company websites? Large hospital websites? Are any or all of those too influenced by companies or advertisers (does that apply to the journals, as well)? Just how much precise flexibility is there? Also, some reputable sources require a fee or subscription to access the whole article, sometimes even for part of it, which may not be affordable.

Please read WP:MEDRS. Here the gold standard is reviews (either systematic or literature) published in a well respected journal. Position statements by major medical bodies are also good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at TheSandDoctor's talk page.
Message added 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Concern for the Image - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Heart.jpg

This image was designed keeping in mind phrase "If the right ventricular pressure is increased, a parasternal heave may be present, signifying the compensatory increase in contraction strength." on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_failure. Suggest a caption which you feel is more suitable and will enrich the user.

Yes this caption looks better[10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Notable cases" at Clubfoot

Just a heads-up, I've started a discussion at Talk:Clubfoot after removing the section per the suggestion in your earlier edit summary. I do think we need to compose a consistent guideline about this matter, as a joint effort between the Medicine and Disability Wikiprojects, because we've had this conversation before. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Doc James. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.Qgoldpan (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Will email in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Pesticide Page Edits

Dr. James, I am a current MPH student and epidemiologist. As part of my environmental and occupational health class we have been tasked with updating a wikipedia page with scientifically accurate and pertinent information. My topic is on respiratory health effects in agricultural workers exposed to pesticides. I have made several attempts to update this page, all of which you have taken down. I understand if you have a personal interest in editing this page, but I can assure you I will update the page with credible source information only (from organizations like WHO, NIOSH, OSHA, and other scientific journals). Might it be possible to delay taking down changes made to this page until after October 29th when my assignment is due? I have to document the process and doing so over and over again is cumbersome. After the stated date you can remove any changes made, though I am not sure why you would wish to do so if the information is accurate and relevant. Does this sound reasonable? Best, H.

I have left some advise on one of your IPs talk pages. You would do well to create an account to make communication easier.

Also the article you want to be working on is pesticide poisoning NOT pesticide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, H.

Will leave a message on your talk page, too. It looks like your IP is based in Colorado. Could you tell me a bit more information about the class? In particular, the name/email of your instructor and the institution? I work for the Wiki Education Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides free support for instructors and students contributing to Wikipedia for a class assignment. I'd love to get some information to your instructor about the interactive training, technical tools, and staff support available. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Misoprostol

Misoprostol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Interesting choice of articles and editing for a new editor. Removing abortion info. If you wouldn't mind, please check? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 have you started an SPI yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No haven't. I've got to be the worst for spotting socks or providing evidence. No idea if he's a sock or not. I often check out a newbies edits, put a welcome on their page, and then see later they were blocked as a sock. Given your removing of the content from one of my reverts, it sounds like I probably should have left it. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 your edit was generally good. Did some adjusting :-) Will give them a little more time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, LTA proposal for WikiExperts

Don't know if you watch the LTA talkpage so: WT:Long-term abuse#Propose LTA case for WikiExperts ☆ Bri (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A review is in general good but...

... its also important sometimes to know when and which work was the first, in this case how insulin effect the metabolism in vacsular smooth muscle ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memurubu (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No we do not need to use a small primary source from the 80s. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Where to redirect? Thank you! ^_^

I would like to learn about "inhaled histamine" and I found none of the articles was redirected by "inhaled histamine". --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it just histamine to be inhaled? I saw a sentence that "Oral doses of sympathetic blockers do not change baseline air flow in asthmatics, but they do increase bronchial reactivity to inhaled histamine."--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Just histamine that is breathed in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 09:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Vit B12 deficiency wikipedia page

Hi nice to see someone who can edit wikipedia and is interested in making it good!

just looking at the vitamin B12 deficiency page in Wikipaedia. Im a general radiologist (not a neuroradiologist) and I dont know too much specifically about Vitamin B12 deficiency but I think the MRI picture just shows non-specific white matter change, I know it comes from a journal article about vit b12 deficiency but doesnt seem to be too classic.

I think the MRI brains (and spinal cords) from other articles including https://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/NEUR/24176/nob110019f1.jpeg and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847746/ look what I imagine are more spectacular for this

I dont know how to technically change these, but if you think reasonable might be good to change for one of these (especially the Cspine from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847746/ and the brain from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/1157343 figure 1) which are what I imagine classic cases to be?

cheers Alex Petersen Susnal (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Susnal Have added one of the images Vitamin_B12_deficiency#Diagnosis. I do not think the JAMA article is under an open license and therefore we cannot use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)