User talk:Doc James/Archive 148

Question

Hello Doc, User:TMagen expelled from the Hebrew Wikipedia for using multiple sock puppets, how come she is edit freely in English ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.203.37.197 (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the discussion that resulted in the block? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

[1] this the block log.

[2] and here talk page in hebrew

[3] And haaretz newspaper article dedicated entirely to this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.222.162 (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Will review Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Have concluded it is reasonable to give them another opportunity here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Replies to 2018 queries

Back in May, you had questions for me about the ScienceSource project: [4]

I have shown various demo versions of a MEDRS algorithm in workshops; and the plan for structuring a version beyond prototypes is coming together. Also, the focus list we work from on Wikidata has recently been expanded, to over 10K articles, with additions for the infectious disease and endocrinology specialties — oncology will be next. So I can explain things, as they stand.

On the first point, what has been added (after the pilot stage) consists entirely of articles deemed to be "reviews" by PubMed. This is a baseline. Any so-called reviews that are inadequate can be blacklisted, on a case-by-case basis.

On "predatory publishing", we shall filter open-access journals by Directory of Open Access Journals approval. This deals with the primary problem, presumably, but leaves a secondary one of OA journals that for whatever reason DOAJ doesn't include. Today I have a list of about 20 of those, and thought I'd ask you about the three where Wikidata doesn't list a publisher:

• Journal of Infection in Developing Countries
• Oncotarget
• Internal Medicine (Japanese Society of Internal Medicine journal)

Of those, I'd assume Internal Medicine was fine, Oncotarget is questionable, and the other one I can't really tell from the journal's website.

This secondary business seems to be on a scale that is small enough to handle, but does include The BMJ, so I don't see that it can be disregarded. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Charles Matthews you should probably also remove those that have an impact factor of zero or close to zero.

User:Headbomb is the expert in journals.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what the ScienceSource project is, but you'll likely want to take a look at WP:SOURCEWATCH/SETUP as a general list of crap citations that is used to generate WP:SOURCEWATCH. It ain't perfect, but it's got everything from Beall (old and new lists), Quackwatch, and several other lists. Also includes a lot based on categories, but it's reaching very wide with those. This Signpost article has more information on it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

m:Grants:Project/ContentMine/ScienceSource is the ScienceSource grant page, with links to reports; more links at d:User:Charles Matthews#ScienceSource, and very detailed information on the potential uploads is at d:User:Charles Matthews/ScienceSourceIngest. This is about reviews, with a Creative Commons license, and papers in them with an identified main subject that is a disease, falling under the listed specialties. The metadata is being acquired by import from PubMed and PMC/EPMC.

WP:SOURCEWATCH/SETUP looks to be a useful resource, certainly, so thanks for that. We looked at Beall and decided it was too quirky, so we are pivoting on DOAJ for the OA side.

I've followed quite a number of archived WT:MED discussions where impact factor has been raised as a filter: there are reasons not to be keen, and the data is not conveniently to hand on Wikidata right now. On the other hand, a principled list of journals that really can be screened out for referencing purposes, say "100 least desirable", and concentrating on the closed-access side, is going to be helpful if I can see what the principles should be. I'll study up some more. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews: likely the best way to use Beall for a project like that is use it as a baseline and prune it to a core of crap. Like stuff on there is guilty until proven innocent, and you once you decide where your threshold of crapness is, you remove items from Beall's. For expediency, that could be something as simple as removing Frontiers, Medknow, MDPI, Hindawai, and Dove, and making sure only Bentham Open is included (many of those publishers were removed by Beall over the years too). After that, there shouldn't remain very many 'questionable' entries. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll bear that in mind. I'm looking right now at the Quackwatch list of journals, some of which are in Wikidata, meaning that for our purposes screening out those ones will be a simple practical step. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a bit of judgment there, since you'll have things like Muscle & Fitness on QW, which is a magazine with fad diet / supplement nonsense, but which is otherwise decent for things like biographies. As always the question of a reliable source is "reliable for what?" Whatever you come up with, I'll be keeping an eye on ScienceSource. It'd certainly be worth including in the navbox one the project is mature enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Nature therapy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nature therapy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nature therapy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN articles

Since December 2017, eight people have replaced the execrable formulation "feeling like the world is spinning" and replaced it with the plain English "vertigo".[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Every time, you have undone the change.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Evidently, you think your opinion trumps all others. It doesn't. Writing well is better than writing as if the reader is an idiot. 146.198.193.9 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hum. How many of those is you simple jumping around from IP to IP.

We have consensus at WP:MEDMOS to use easier to understand language especially in the lead.

Vertigo is a very commonly misunderstood term.

Please develop consensus on the talk page (Talk:Ménière's_disease) rather than post here. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Hello, I'm 146.198.193.9. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

The request was for you not to post on my talk page again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 13 April 2019 (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.CatherineLuc (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

HIFU

Hi James, firstly I'd like to apologies for causing you aggro on this. This is the first time I have ad a go at editing and obviously I have some way to go. I am an ER nurse practitioner by background but recently have been asked to help in a new charity which focuses on prostate cancer awareness but in specific raising funds to support the introduction of HIFU in regional centers in the UK. I guess I am having trouble making my editing sound neutral. Below is a rewrite, do you think this is acceptable.

Following clinical trials in the UK. HIFU (High Intensity Focused Untrasonography) is being considered for the treatment of non metastatic prostate cancer (citation). This form of treatment for appropriate patients with prostate cancer has demonstrated a potential reduction in some of the side effects associated with current standard treatments (citation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkVertue (talk • contribs) 08:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:MarkVertue what reference are you using to support the content in question? Have you read WP:MEDRS.

Also as you are working with this charity please also post suggestions to the talk page going forwards per WP:COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Educating many, and keeping all those articles simple for the world to understand. Spyder212 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Spyder212 :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Amyloidosis

My wording was: "Amyloid purpura, bruising around the eyes seen in approximately 15% of patients with primary systemic amyloidosis."

This did three things:

• Changed "bleeding under the skin" to "bruising" - perhaps not as technically correct, but more accurate/clearer for a layperson imho
• Added the 15% - important because 85% of patients won't' get this, as pointed out by an IP edit immediately before mine.
• Added a ref for that stat

Note that I have also suggested, in the Talk page, moving this image down into signs and symptoms. Although this was/is a symptom I myself have, its prominence is not really warranted, given that it's relatively uncommon. - Snori (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a caption which generally should describe the picture. Please also use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS.

Added bruising as you suggested. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

New message from Spyder212

Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Spyder212's talk page.
Message added 21:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spyder212 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

re: Endovascular coiling

Hi - nice reorg on endovascular coiling. While it is certainly used frequently for cerebral aneurysms, the phrase "endovascular coiling" refers to a technique that is used various places in the body (splenic bleeding after trauma, type 2 endoleaks following EVAR), not just for cerebral stuff. The page should reflect this somehow. BakerStMD 13:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

user:Bakerstmd yes certainly. Happy to see it adjusted further :-) And eventually when large can be broken into specific types. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Lyme - What text of the ref supports?

What text of the ref supports? " However, retreatment may actually not be offered, because the guidelines do not define how to assess failure of the initial treatment.[1]"

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  The document uses the expression "treatment failure" in Table 2 but never defines it anywhere 
  (even in later papers, author JJ Halperin uses "treatment failure" in the same loose sense, 
  without ever defining it.)
  On the other hand, the document clearly defines "post-Lyme syndrome" as "occurs in patients 
  who have had Lyme disease, but, after treatment that would normally be expected to be effective,
  have continued to have residual chronic symptoms," and goes into a lengthy argument condemning 
  antibiotic treatment for it and concluding "published antibiotic treatment trials of PLS provide
  compelling Class I evidence that PLS is not due to active Borrelia infection and is not 
  responsive to further antibiotic therapy."
  So, when a North American patient with neuroborreliosis returns to the doctor with neurologic 
  complaints after a full course of doxycycline, is that a case of treatment failure or 
  post-lyme syndrome? The guidelines offer no guidance on this question. When I first read the 
  guidelines, I found it obvious that in such a case a second, parenteral course of antibiotics 
  would be given to the patient in an attempt to get him or her well. However, to my surprise, 
  almost every doctor I know interprets the guidelines the other way and withholds further 
  antibiotic treatment.
  I think this sentence should be reinstated in the article because it might be read by people
  trying to decide between treatment options for neuroborreliosis: They should know that,
  no matter what they think the guidelines mean, the first course of antibiotics is very likely 
  to be the only one (from a mainstream doctor).

This like like your own interpretation rather than something the guideline says. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Also what text of the ref supports "Healing of facial palsy is not a sure sign of antibiotic treatment success.[2]"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The text I see is "Although antibiotic treatment may not hasten the resolution of seventh cranial nerve palsy associated with B. burgdorferi infection, antibiotics should be given to prevent further sequelae (A-II)." Which does not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  In "Background and Diagnosis of Early Neurologic Lyme Disease," just before "Recommendations:"

  "all patients with cranial nerve palsy in association with Lyme disease should receive antibiotic
  therapy, not primarily for the purpose of expediting recovery from the paralysis, which will 
  usually resolve within a few weeks regardless of whether antimicrobial therapy is given, but
  rather to prevent later complications"

  The purpose of antibiotic treatment is to prevent later complications, not to resolve
  facial palsy. It should be considered successful when it prevents those later complications,
  not when the palsy resolves, which would be nearly as likely to happen regardless of treatment.

Borreliacell (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

So it would be more accurate to say "Facial palsy may resolve also resolve without treatment, however, treatment is still recommended to prevent other complications." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. Borreliacell (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry from a Public Relations Representative for Assessing Kite Pharma Wikipedia Entry

Hello Doc James,

My name is Vivian and I am a Public Relations professional at GCI Health, a healthcare communications agency. We’re reaching out on behalf of our clients at Kite Pharma to potentially update outdated information found on the Kite Pharma Wikipedia page.

We’re reaching out to you because we know Wikipedia users depend on active, qualified editors for accurate and supported articles. Given your previous efforts editing Wikipedia pages on Axicabtagene ciloleucel and Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, we felt you might be interested in reviewing this page through the lens of updating older information.

To further disclose our position, we are aware that per Wikipedia’s guidelines neither the company nor the company’s representatives can make direct edits to Wikipedia pages. Respecting these rules, our priority is ensuring that the Wiki has the most up-to-date information – we’re reaching out in the hopes you may be able to assess the current state of the page against publicly available information on Kite Pharma and Yescarta to make accurate and appropriate updates.

Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions.

Best regards, Vtamgcih (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Does not look like you have made any suggestions yet. Make sure you add the above to your user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

discussion

Continued on my talk page. Petergans (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

ThanksDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Derrick Morris

Doc James, You expressed an opinion, but didn't vote. Votes need to be in bold for them to be counted by some of the software. The link you shared isn't working. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mtakaha4u

A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mtakaha4u requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:JJMC89 have deleted it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Permissive hypertension

Hey James, I just finished a morning report about permissive hypertension in management of ischemic stroke patients and wanted your input. I'm not sure it warrants an entire article, but we do have permissive hypercapnia and permissive hypotension. Thanks much! :) Keilana (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Outside of ischemic stroke, I am not sure of any other uses. Should we simple redirect and discuss it there User:Keilana? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

...It's telling what kind of day I've had that I forgot I even asked you this! I redirected it and will toss a section in there between patients. Thanks much :) Keilana (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@User:Keilana and @user:DocJames, we use permissive hypotension in ruptured aneurysms too. I think it would be a good page. BakerStMD 13:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes we use permissive hypotension for a lot of stuff. This is for permissive hypertension (though I have never really heard it called that). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Counos listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Counos. Since you had some involvement with the Counos redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Interested to bring leptospirosis and melioidosis to Wiki Journal of Medicine or Open Medicine

I have seen your work on Dengue fever and it is very impressive. Currently, I am improving on both leptospirosis and meliodosis articles so that both articles can go through peer review and undergo publication in indexed journals. Just some questions I would like to ask you:
1. After I completed my editing on both Wiki articles, should I submit them for good article and featured article review on Wikipedia or should I submit them directly to journal for peer review?
2. Is "good article" good enough for a journal or is it "featured article"?
3. Which journal should I submit the articles for review? Is it Wiki Journal of Medicine or Open Medicine?

I don't think I can bring both articles to publications by myself. Would appreciate your help or other peoples' help in providing opinions and improving this article. Thank you. Regards. Cerevisae (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Cerevisae sounds great. I would go for GA first. And than FA. That will get the article on the main page of Wikipedia. Following that you can do a submission to the Wiki Journal of Medicine :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. :-)Cerevisae (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Rewording "mutation"

Hi James, my understanding would be that reference to South Africa should be limited to the name of the diseases/ condition, and not be juxtaposed to the SA case as it is here. Am I right? Also, the text makes it sound as if these are mutations of an original variegate porphyria, whereas the mutations involved are further upstream, such as in/at the PPOX gene/ the HFE gene (I am making up that term here, as I don't know what the equivalent term is in medicine. Thanks for any help/ time you might offer. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "that reference to South Africa should be limited to the name of the diseases/ condition" User:Rui Gabriel Correia Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I am referring to the mention of "South Africa" in the section that you just moved, specifically to "When it does occur in other populations (such as Switzerland), it can be with different mutations than in South Africa". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a primary source. We could simple remove it. Your thoughts User:Rui Gabriel Correia Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, much appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarup_Sarkar

Hi Doc James, I created this article on Swarup Sarkar after quiet a bit of research. May you kindly guide me- as to What changes can I do to remove the Advert template message that you have added? Usually there is a Personal Life column in the Living Person category articles. Hence I created that too. Can you kindly let me know the reason for deleting that column entirely? Drsayantanb (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Described on the talk page Talk:Swarup_Sarkar Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear User:Doc James Why can't I find the article in the Draft page as well? Can you kindly guide me regarding- where should I find the article to edit? The copyvio detection is detecting quotations that are put under inverted commas. They are not copied statement. Second copyvio detection are the names of the research articles, proper names of instituitions. Sadly the third onwards copyvios are really minor and names of the 11 SEAR countries in the standardard order and a small excerpt from an UN News. User:Kuru pointed me out correctly about the circular reference from an outside website which provides a reference to a wikipedia page. That needs deletion / correction. But currently I am not finding the article in the draft as well. So, how can I correct it, even if I want to? Kindly guide me.Drsayantanb (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear User:Doc James Kindly see the latest review. Have changed the copyright violation sections (though previously they were true quotations). Removed the circular references as suggested by User:Kuru. But after changes made, I can't see the article. Kindly move it to drafts or suggest what best I can do?

Dear User:Doc James Have edited the article considerably. Thanks for your valuable suggestions and for guiding me. Can you please consider reviewing it Draft:Swarup_Sarkar once more and give your opinion. I hope the issues you and User:Kuru pointed out are now solved.Drsayantanb (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Research gate as a source is self published. We should be using independent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Still lots of puffery "has started the use of new revolutionary drug" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User: Doc James. Kindly enumerate "lots of puffery". Sentence you have referred to is "During the same tenure, Indian Government had massively increased their spending on TB, and has started the use of new revolutionary drug Bedaquiline against Multidrug Resistant TB through conditional access programme".

Bedaquiline has been referred to as a revolutionary drug quiet frequently , because of its wonderful activity in MDR-TB. It is also one of the newest class approved for TB in last 40-50 years . India is out of very few countries that have made Bedaquiline available free of cost in 2016. I feel that it is not correct to label the statement "puffery". I have however edited the section. You may kindly review and mention if there are "lots of puffery" contents any more. Thanks in advance. Drsayantanb (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because other sources use puffery does not mean we should. Yes "revolutionary" is puffery. Have we seen a significant fall in rates of Tb? Have we seens Tb elimination? No. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is still promotional and you should not have moved it out of draft yourself... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks User:Doc James. 1) Regarding Bdq- the best part with this drug is that it has significantly decreased the pill burden and improved mortality and cure rates among MDR-TB and XDR-TB patients. Elimination of TB and and fall of TB rates can not be achieved by a single drug. And it can't be a prerequisite to call a drug revolutionary. However, I agree to your suggestions of minimizing adjectives and have removed the word "revolutionary" attached with Bedaquiline.

2) Regarding moving out of draft myself- I am unaware of the Good Practices regarding this regard. Can you kindly suggest me, what should be the ideal way? You can consider me novice in this regard. I just followed the links in the draft page. Thanks for guiding me. It is indeed a desirable learning experience.Drsayantanb (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Doc James Thanks for your previous suggestions. Kindly review the article Swarup Sarkar once more. All the adjectives removed and all of the contents that might seem advertorial or promotional are taken down. I think you might now consider of removing the Banner. Drsayantanb (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Goodness. This needs to be culled and massively. We ain't writing his resume over here. There's a whole lot of synthesis. ∯WBG^converse 15:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please Comment

@Doc James: Could you comment please on this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Razdan (2nd nomination). The last one was unattended. scope_creep^Talk 12:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and have done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:7&6=thirteen :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Karan Oberoi (Model)

Hi, You put a tag on one of my Karan Oberoi (model) article for COI. But I am not linked to the Model neither I got paid for the article. Please let me know what proof do you need to get it verified. I am a chartered accountant and intend to be a writer in wikipedia. I have seen a post about him in an article, then found few more post but no wikipedia. So I thought of making it by myself. Poojasharma20 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is good evidence of COI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you please give me some? Poojasharma20 (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Chronic obstructive tube ventilation disorder

Dear Doc James,

hope you are well.

Reffering to the article exist two prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

Please check: https://journals.lww.com/otology-neurotology/Fulltext/2018/08000/A_Randomized_Controlled_Trial_of_Balloon_Dilation.19.aspx#pdf-link and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075883/

Hope this is enough for a representative published article.

These treatment method is ongiong over 8 years.

All the best HNO- Behandlung (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:HNO- Behandlung We are looking for a high quality secondary sources not primary ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Naltrexone

Extended content

Those sources I added for naltrexone are fully registered charities which have to comply with US and UK laws, so they are reliable sources. Other health-related charitable organisations are used on Wikipedia as sources, for example Alcoholics Anonymous, Moderation Management and SMART Recovery (which even have their own pages). The other link I added was to a TEDx Talk which, as your username suggests and profile claims you have strong connections to academia, you should be aware has a very high degree of credibility and are used in academic institutions. Alcoholics Anonymous page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous Moderation Management page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderation_Management SMART Recovery page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_Recovery Alcoholics Anonymous is referred to on five separate occasions on the alcoholism page alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism and is used as a direct reference twice. As registered charities, the C3 Foundation and C3 Foundation Europe have to comply to exactly the same requirements and regulations as Alcoholics Anonymous and SMART Recovery. There is no good reason for Alcoholics Anonymous, Moderation Management and SMART Recovery to have their own pages on Wikipedia and for them to be used as sources on medical-related pages and for C3 Foundation and C3 Foundation Europe to be barred. This is biased editing as The Sinclair Method is a medically tested, with strong evidence of efficacy, treatment option for alcohol use disorder and is, with the exception of Moderation Management, a clear favouring of the abstinence model. I am quite happy to create a The Sinclair Method page on Wikipedia but advocacy groups like C3 Foundation and C3 Foundation Europe should be included on such a page as they have no less validity than Alcoholics Anonymous, Moderation Management and SMART Recovery. It also warrants statement that both C3 Foundation and C3 Foundation Europe are national organisations as they are answerable to US and UK national legislation. Also, I do not think it is correct that you edit medical pages using the name "Doc James" as this is clearly an attempt to appropriate a level of credibility which until you make publicly available, in a verifiable format, your qualifications and medical registration is misleading at best. You may or may not favour an abstinence model but the information I added was not misleading, had verifiable and trustworthy sources and Wikipedia should not be used for biased editing by someone calling themselves a Doctor but providing no verifiable proof that they have the right to claim this status. I am prepared to provide you with reasonable time to respond but failure to provide a response or a continuation of the same bias will result in my pursuing this case further with official Wikipedia representatives. I would also like to receive an explanation of the validity of your username as this is of particular concern to me and I will certainly be registering my concern with Wikipedia directly should a valid explanation not be provided. I am aware that you claim on your user profile to be medically qualified but claiming this status does not qualify as proof.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodasnap (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Please read and follow WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Can you explain to me why Alcoholics Anonymous, SMART Recovery and Moderation Management are considered reliable sources but the C3 Foundation is not or why The Sinclair Method is not deemed to be worthy of its own page? I have already asked you this but you have deliberately avoided answering it. Also, to add to the list of questions, could you please explain why, despite you stating you are an Associate Professor with the University of British Columbia there is no record whatsoever of you on their staff search facility and why you do not appear when performing a search for doctors called James Heilman (the only one appearing being based in Seattle and not bearing any resemblance to you - I stand corrected, there is another, in Cincinnati, also in the United States of America, not Canada)? I presume you do know that claiming to be a physician and not actually being one in certain circumstances is a criminal offence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodasnap (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Just because Wikipedia currently uses some less than ideal sources does not mean we should be adding more of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC) So if you consider Alcoholics Anonymous, SMART Recovery and Moderation Management to be less than ideal sources, why haven't you removed them also? They are registered charities so, as I have already stated, have to comply with legal regulations. This gives them an authority. Removing some of what you consider to be unreliable sources but leaving others intact is partisan. I have emailed the University of British Columbia to inform them of the potential issue on their website - you're welcome! I am also in process of emailing Wikipedia to tell them of the issue with their site - again, no need to thank me. Can you answer the questions I have posed you please because at this stage it would appear you are being economical with the truth regarding your stance.

Deletion

I moved Fei Xu (psychologist) to Fei Xu before checking the deletion log, only to find that you had a good reason to delete the page. Although the subject is notable, I thought I should let you know that it has been recreated with the same text. Vycl1994 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Vycl1994 Thanks deleted, blocked, and salted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Pan European Networks edit

Hello,

We are writing regarding the changes you made to our edit on the Wikipedia page Pan European Networks. We made the edit to reflect changes in our business in a factual manner, and removed the opinion-based edits which were there before. Some of the factual information we added about our business has been removed and the references to an opinion piece are still there.

Our General Manager Stephanie Davies would love to have the opportunity to discuss the amendments with you. She can be contacted by responding to this message, directly via email on stephanie@scitecheuropa.eu, or is happy to meet with you in person if this is convenient.

Kind regards, SciTech Europa Pan European Networks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeighFG (talk • contribs) 09:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

User:LeighFG Wikipedia is generally based on high quality indepedent. Please do not remove them again.

Also because you are connected to this company please do not edit Wikipedia content about them directly again. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)