User talk:Doc James/Archive 74
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for your edits! :) You are right, names, even if that is how the therapy is known should not be in there. I was wondering if I should include info on the abnormal white matter microstructure in children with SPD compared to typical children and those with autism on the SPD and Autism section or it is too much information. I reckon it is important because it differentiates core symptoms (Autims showed impared connectivity in temporal tracts related to social emotional processing. (or is it actually more important for the Autism page?) Could I ask something: I have read the MEDMOS but since my first language is not English there are things I do not fully understand yet such as POV and primary source. I had tried following the diabetes page style. Thank you for your time.
Chibs007 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- So secondary source is typically a review article. We much prefer these over primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
A new RLS Device
Doc James Thank you for your help. I am new to this so will no doubt need all the help I can get! There are 4 papers that were written as part of the clinical evaluation of the device that also supported the FDA clearance
"Sleep improvement for restless legs syndrome patients. Part I: pooled analysis of two prospective, double-blind, sham-controlled, multi-center, randomized clinical studies of the effects of vibrating pads on RLS symptoms" Fred Burbank,1 Mark J Buchfuhrer,2 Branko Kopjar3 Dove press; April 2013 Volume 2013:3 Pages 1—10 http://www.dovepress.com/articles.php?article_id=12635
"Improving sleep for patients with restless legs syndrome. Part II: meta-analysis of vibration therapy and drugs approved by the FDA for treatment of restless legs syndrome" Fred Burbank,1 Mark J Buchfuhrer,2 Branko Kopjar3 April 2013 Volume 2013:3 Pages 11—22 http://www.dovepress.com/articles.php?article_id=12636
"Sleep improvement for restless legs syndrome patients. Part III: effect of treatment assignment belief on sleep improvement in restless legs syndrome patients. A mediation analysis" April 2013 Volume 2013:3 Pages 23—29 http://www.dovepress.com/articles.php?article_id=12634
Sleep improvement for restless legs syndrome patients. Part IV: meta-analysis comparison of effect sizes of vibratory stimulation sham pads and placebo pills" Fred Burbank February 2014 Volume 2014:4 Pages 35—40 http://www.dovepress.com/articles.php?article_id=15952
As a way of disclosure, Dr Fred Burbank MD is the primary inventor and owner in the company. We hope to release the product after final testing later this year. Davidnbaker (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Doc James The Journal of Parkinsonism and Restless Legs Syndrome is not yet part of PubMed. They tell us 2016. The papers are available through the journal or on our web site www.sensorymedical.com. Dr Burbank is published with other papers he has written on PubMed and Dr Buchfuhrer, an acknowledged expert on RLS and contributor to the Willis-Ekbom disease foundation has agreed to write the update to the section. Thanks again for your help Davidnbaker (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your Feedback.
Hi Doc,
Thanks for your feedback. Will keep it in mind. However regarding your deletion of the HRIG, it needed following corrections that I had mentioned:
1. The time window for washing the wound- Its recommended for upto 15 minutes considering the goal is to minimize the virus particles introduced in the body source:nicd.nic.in/Rabies_guidelines2014.pdf. I had reference this file but considering it was a download link, i left out the full URL. There is no landing page to it.
2. You also edited out the "wound management" recommendations I added from the same source. Its imperative that the bite wound be managed effectively to prevent any inflammation or secondary bacterial infections resulting from use of irritants of covering of wounds. You removed it as well.
Thought I would let you know.
Regards,
Anupam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamsingh09 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good source. You need the .pdf for it to work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- User:Anupamsingh09 which page says 15 minutes of wash?
- Have restored the bit on providine iodine and alcohol. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 September 2014
- Arbitration report: Media viewer case is suspended
- Featured content: 1882 × 5 in gold, and thruppence more
- Traffic report: Holding Pattern
- WikiProject report: Gray's Anatomy (v. 2)
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture and quackery
I just read this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Medicine&diff=615961839&oldid=615959974
You should definitely go to one of these Chinese black-hat kung-foo acupuncture schools where one can learn to kill others with just a needle.
Then you will able to kill all the people who know acupuncture and its influence on the nerve systems. Oh wait - is it the conjunctive tissue? Who knows...you certainly don't.
See you around, 178.197.224.9 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- User:Alexbrn these are some interesting comments. Seems to be related to this 178.221.220.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
DCIS
Sounds good. I am not sure the etiquette for making categorical changes like this, but seeing that there apparently some disagreement both terms seem appropriate. Still, the overall tone of this article strikes me as inappropriately irresolute. DCIS is most often referred to as a "cancer" in the clinical setting. Accordingly, the standard of care for DCIS is surgical excision +/- additional local or systemic treatment. Yet under "Treatment" section, the opening sentence suggests that surgery is questionable. The article cited is a single authorless paper from Prescrire that, while insightful and bringing up fair points about the lack of data comparing surgery vs observation, certainly doesn't represent standard practices or opinion.
I think this article would benefit from from a "Controversy" section where some of this can be discussed. Dr G (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think one will also find that the standard of care varies in different regions of the world. The USA is the most aggressive but I am not sure this results in better outcomes.
- This article can definitely be improved so happy to have you work on it Dr. G. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The quick onset of symptoms makes it easier to identify sick individuals and limits a person's ability to spread the disease by traveling.
Current thinking is up to 21 days incubation, and the disease has been transmitted by an air traveller (Patrick Sawyer) Robertpedley (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
_by_Ron.jpg)
I like your work. I appreciate so much.
F
Pkechsam (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
VisualEditor
Hey James,
When you've got a little time on your hands, would you drop me a note about testing VisualEditor's mw:Citoid for me? I've done a bit with it, and it seems to be working okay, but I'd like other people's opinions. It should let you get a complete cite journal template with just three short actions: open the tool, paste in the URL from PubMed, and click to submit. Just leave a note on my talk page if you'd like to try it out. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Spelling
Hi, thanks for your vigilance on Childbirth. There are currently 68 "labour" and 24 "labor" in the text of this article. "Labour" is used in the lead and the majority of headings. Given this standardising on "labour" seemed to be the way to go.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC).
Ebola
The key edit I was trying to put forward is a 2 yo boy was traced as patient 0 who didn't get it from preparing bushmeat or washing a corpse. It is far more logical and likely since dogs are a reservoir that he was licked by one or played in the dirt around an infected animal. Fruit bats are repeated unproven vectors.
The sentence about dog licking bititing grooming was verbatim from CDC. Yes I read they are primary by definition, but a pretty good with many authors. Some now dead. Secondary sources are probably not keen. Not clearly informing the public that there is a strong possibility their dog is a vector till seroconversion does not sit right in light of dogs feeding on raw ebola infected corpses. Many eat dogs and bushmeat is a common interchangable term. Here in Philippines they eat dogs too.
Right now, how many dogs are loose in Africa that are in the process of seroconversion? How many owners are being licked vy their dog? I cite fact health care workers had to return to an area they thought they cleared. There obviously was a reservior present.
New concern please check this article it may be a hoax. It claims a confirmed plant cure. http://allafrica.com/stories/201409110224.html
I ammenuded the page for this plant. Should be stronger/ Different?Pbmaise (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay so the ref we are discussing is this one [1]. The ref in question is this one [2]
- The ref is from 2005 and thus obviously not about how this outbreak started.
- This ref is not suitable [3] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi James,
I think we may be talking past each other on the schizo article. The sentence in question currently reads
- "While as a whole atypicals have fewer extrapyramidal side effects these differences are modest,[97] and risperidone is comparable to haloperidol.[93]"
Your edit summary states:
- " Sited ref says "these modest benefits were principally driven by the ability of second-generation antipsychotics to provide equivalent improvement in positive symptoms...."
But I was reading "differences" in this sentence as referring to extrapyrimidal side effects, and not the relative overall benefits. The source states
- "In contrast to their relatively similar efficacy in treating positive symptoms, there were substantial differences among both first- and second- generation antipsychotic agents with regard to their propensity to cause extrapyramidal, metabolic and other adverse effects; second-generation agents have a lower liability to cause acute extrapyramidal symptoms and tardive dyskinesia along with a tendency to cause greater metabolic side-effects than first-generation agents."
which I read as meaning that the atypicals have a substantially lower risk of EPS. I am no longer sure I read this correctly, but don't have access to the full text document to get more color. Could you take a look at this, and if I interpreted it correctly, adjust the text appropriately?
Also, I've done nothing for now, but the second part of this sentence "risperidone is comparable to haloperidol.[93]" seems to have nothing to do with the cited ref, which states
- "Cmpared with risperidone Haloperidol may be less effective at improving positive and negative symptoms in people with schizophrenia; however, results were inconsistent (low-quality evidence)'
Given that the evidence is low quality, I'm not quite sure why this particular comparison was called out, but it does seem that the article contradicts the source.
Formerly 98 (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello! As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Please feel free to ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. --1Veertje (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 September 2014
- Traffic report: Refuge in celebrity
- Featured content: The louse and the fish's tongue
- WikiProject report: Checking that everything's all right
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture
Is anyone looking into acupuncture for possible treatment with nerve connections , etc?
I know some military members who were helped via acupuncture with severe back problems. This may be another area that could help people with CP . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.178.206 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Cites over one line
Pardon? I have no idea what you are talking about. Hamish59 (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- This edit [4] which I reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I am still not getting it. What is wrong with what I have done? Hamish59 (talk)
- The majority of us at WikiProject Med want refs kept over one continuous line. Ie no enters between each item. With papers that have dozens of others one ref can than take up many screens of text which makes it hard for us to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I am still not getting it. What is wrong with what I have done? Hamish59 (talk)
- This edit [4] which I reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings!
Hello good sir and thank you again for the policy reminder! I noticed that if you write on our talk pages we should write on yours, and since I had a question about it, I thought I would let you know I asked you one on my talk page. Anywho, I'm sure you are busy so please do not hurry on my account, I just want to know at some point how to do better going forward. Good day to you and thank you again!LesVegas (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| It astounds me that a doctor would be so irresponsible as to protect a page on 'Suicide Methods'. You do realise that over 80,000 people have viewed the page, which is easily accessible via a simple google search( 'suicide'). How many of those do you think will be using that information to kill themselves. Most of them. Including me. Right after I get the sodding article taken down to save countless lives. There is no academic shortage of information on the topic in question and any argument that it is mainly used for such purposes is frankly absurd. Wikipedia is a go to source of information which is readily accessible to all age groups. Redzimus (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
Hmmm. You have accepted some changes but reversed and dispute others such as subsections or bolding for common multiple sclerosis types such as relapsing-remitting MS. I will have to go through the changes individually and see what the controvery is. This will have to wait til I have time. Facts707 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 September 2014
- WikiProject report: A trip up north to Scotland
- News and notes: Wikipedia's traffic statistics are off by nearly one-third
- Traffic report: Tolstoy leads a varied pack
- Featured content: Which is not like the others?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Copy and Pasting
Can you please point me to where you found the copy and pasting? I will remedy this as soon as I can. Mxdlvn (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Smokers' Respiratory Syndrome and Dr. Waldbott
- Yes - the book pages are 6-9 for the Waldbott entry.
- The journal entry is exactly as given in the book, #4 footnote: http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/WaldbottStruggleWithTitans.pdf
- It seems only fair that this gentleman, who also first recognized anaphylactic shock in humans and penicillin allergies gets a nod on this page :)
Seabreezes1 (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
scientific journal..........ebola virus
http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/09/05/elife.04395... , this paper on page 45(pdf) and lines 121-160 (pdf) seems to suggest changes that did not exist in prior ebola outbreaks. Whatsmore, I believe with time as you read the aforementioned parts or completely you might arrive at a certain conclusion. I believe that though there are two main outbreaks, they are joined by one common denominator- the fruit bat and our encroachment into its forest. I believe the current ebola outbreak should have a table that includes west Africa and Congo together.WHO has already used such a table,,, (http://www.afro.who.int/en/downloads/doc_download/9431-who-response-to-the-ebola-virus-disease-evd-outbreak-update-by-the-who-regional-director-for-afric.html... you'll find it on page 4, thank you,,,,,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Tecemotide
Tecemotide was the main investigational drug of the company Merck KGaA (the German drug maker Merck) and the program was terminated 2 weeks ago. The program costs until now are minimum 300 to 500 Mio Euros. The termination caused a huge echo in the world of the drug makers.
To understand all the press releases of the different companies (Merck, Oncothyreon, Ono Pharmaceuticals) the clinical trials are discussed in brief (it is not possible to make it shorter - I tried it. I have spent a lot of time to distill all this information from the different sources).
Please can you explain your reasons for all of your edits? --LamasUI (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
You have deleted the "Patent situation" section: This is maybe not interesting for a physician but very interesting to understand upcoming biosimilars (= biological generics).
You have deleted the "Distribution, Manufacturing and Sales" section: The current version (after your edits) explains the distribution and manufacturing not correct. Additionally I have created the table in the article - it is no copy/paste (the source where I have distilled all the information was added to) and the table in this article highlights the ERBITUX sales. Again the sales numbers are maybe not interesting for a physician, however have an enormous economical impact.
Please can you explain your edits? --LamasUI (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Please can you explain more in detail? I would like to learn.--LamasUI (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Additionally I have searched your archive and there are more than 500 discussions regarding copy/paste. Are you doing vandalism?--LamasUI (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I deal with copy and paste issues. In this edit [5] you added:
- "The use of Erbitux in combination with 5-Fluorouracil (an anti-neoplastic agent) is approved by the FDA. Such combination use is claimed in a granted U.S. patent that expires in 2018 (including the granted patent term extension). The inventorship of this use patent was challenged by three researchers from Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd. (Yeda). Pursuant to a settlement agreement executed and announced in December 2007 by ImClone, Sanofi and Yeda to end worldwide litigation related to the use patent, Sanofi and Yeda granted ImClone a worldwide license under the use patent."
- This is word for word the same as the source which says
- "The use of Erbitux* in combination with an anti-neoplastic agent is approved by the FDA. Such combination use is claimed in a granted U.S. patent that expires in 2018 (including the granted patent term extension). The inventorship of this use patent was challenged by three researchers from Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd. (Yeda). Pursuant to a settlement agreement executed and announced in December 2007 by ImClone, Sanofi and Yeda to end worldwide litigation related to the use patent, Sanofi and Yeda granted ImClone a worldwide license under the use patent."
- Doing this is not allowed. One must paraphrase what they add to Wikipedia. This is copyright infringement. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will undo all of your edits and reword this sections. ... however, because of this short section you have deleted all the other text? --LamasUI (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014
Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014
by CFCF
Feature – Ebola articles
During August we have translated Ebola and it is now live in 60+ more different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric (company) and Translators without Borders!
- Just some of our over 60 translations:
- New roles and guides!
At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!
- New sign up page!
We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!
- Style guides for translations
Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.
- Some more stats
- In July, 18 full article translations went live (WP:RTT), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live (WP:RTTS)!
- We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! (Find them here old sign up page)
- We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
- New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!
- Further reading
- Translators Without Borders
- Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
Thanks for your valuable suggestions for editing. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
URL at Heart failure
Hi, why was this edit necessary? The URL works in both http: and https: forms, so the protocol may be omitted, making a protocol-relative URL. This is preferred since not everybody uses https: and some people are unable to. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Links to the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) page
You are right. My mistake sir. I will try to add more specific links with disease cards or Q&As (as the one you mentioned) to those pages. I was not trying to make some publicity. It's an organization that i discovered a few years ago and I think they are making a hell of a job, without having all the attentino that the WHO or the FAO got. But again, you are right and I'll try to be more careful. Good day and great holydays.
PS I just saw that you also deleted the links to some of the disease cards. Why? I don't see why you keep the link to a fact sheet from the FAO and not one from the OIE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zszabo81 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The link I provided for the rabies is a link to a page wich provides information about the curent status. But it is a page where you have to select the disease to see the status (http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/Immsummary). I can't provide a direct link to the rabies situation, you have to search it by yourself on this page with the help of the research engine. Thanks for the comprehensiopn about the fact sheets. I've restored the links to the disease cards this morning and I added this new link to the WAHID (World Animal Health Information Database), that i find very interesting. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zszabo81 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Arthritis
Hello, Isn't this site a reliable secondary source? I saw this site contains huge collection of research works on arthritis. So I added some information from this source in some of the articles related to arthritis. But I am wondered with your revert. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Puzzled
Hi Doc James, I'm a bit puzzled by your message of today on my talk page. Is it the formatting that you mean? Or the type of an article that I cited? Or do you object to a statement made (in which case you could add an inline template "citationneeded" to point it out)? Or did you just want to help me save time by suggesting the citation tool? Thanks for letting me know. --Chris Howard (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- P.S.: I've seen you probably meant the edit to the Amblyopia article. I've left your shortened re-wording, but have re-inserted the reference to the BMC Case Reports (please note: now correctly spelled as BMJ not BMC as before; these BMJ Case Reports are peer-reviewed, see Case report#Publishing case reports) and have formatted that reference according to your citation tool suggestion. So according to me it's fine now. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- A review article is not the same as a primary source. Both may be peered reviewed. We typically do not use primary sources. These are already taken into account within a review article. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Your reversion of my edit to "Ebola virus disease"
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Ebola virus disease article. As counter arguments to your reason for doing so ("Restored to proper place"), I would like to bring to your attention Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers and this opinion by an admin. Best—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 September 2014
- Featured content: Oil paintings galore
- Recent research: 99.25% of Wikipedia birthdates accurate; focused Wikipedians live longer; merging WordNet, Wikipedia and Wiktionary
- Traffic report: Wikipedia watches the referendum in Scotland
- WikiProject report: GAN reviewers take note: competition time
- Arbitration report: Banning Policy, Gender Gap, and Waldorf education
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
RISUG Edit
I see you took out the resource for Male Contraception Initiative. This organization speaks directly to developers and works to present information in a layperson-friendly way. Being directly on point, I can't see why this resource shouldn't be included. The resource goes into both RISUG and Vasalgel, which actually use different polymers. It may be worthwhile to split this article up. Vasalgel's method of action is to block sperm while allowing the seminal plasma from the epididymis to pass. RISUG, on the other hand, blocks most of the sperm. It destroys the membrane on the head of the residual sperm as they pass because of the opposing charge from the polymer. This causes the loss of the enzyme required to fertilize an egg. Schoolglutton (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Schoolglutton
- We are an encyclopedia not a web directory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- What do you think the section "External Links" section is for then? You see this across Wikipedia entries. And how would you differentiate the Male Contraception Initiative link from the other links within the "External Links" section? This appears arbitrary. Unless you can give me a legitimate reason that applies to the link I provided and not to the other existing links, I'm putting it back. Schoolglutton (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Schoolglutton
- We are an encyclopedia not a web directory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
"The one looks good"? You can't be serious. If Wikipedia is showing such pictures, suggesting this to be good net use practice, it is of putting lives at risk. --rtc (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Why did you remove my edit without justification on the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex-nimh-researcher (talk • contribs) 21:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources
Thanks. I removed link and will keep in mind for future. Dr G (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources
Why is it bad to list primary sources? Isn't that the ideal way to get information in this context? They're fairly mainstream studies as well; Dean Ornish's lifestyle program is even covered by Medicare.
Epilepsy
Your comment "Typically it is a new edit that needs consensus to change what was their previously." is not Wikipedia policy and I suspect is contributing to your OWNership problems: every edit must be vetted and approved by James. It is just you and Jophiel arguing, and you alone are not making any effort to achieve consensus, so no consensus will develop. What is policy, is that it is up to the person adding material to source it adequately. Other than that, our policies apply to the article as it is. So it is equally up to you to gain consensus to revert, move or change any text added or changed by Jophiel. Have you considered that: that every time you revert or "fix" what Jophiel did, you are making a unilateral non-consulted non-consensus decision about what is best for the article. Please do read Wikipedia:Editing policy and consider that you are actually not following very much of this at all. The "nutshell" of that policy is the complete opposite to your "consensus to change" comment. I'm really disappointed that an admin or your experience no longer seems to "get" Wikipedia. Perhaps the project really is so dead that you've forgotten it is supposed to be a collaborative process that encourages change over status quo. All editing on Epilepsy has stalled and I predict that unless you change your attitude then Wikipedia will shortly lose a neurologist. I have suggested to Jophiel some people who may be able to help mediate. I suggest you too find a trusted friend who you can have a quiet word with. -- Colin°Talk 18:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your response to my edits to ketogenic diet were interesting with respect to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.[6] Typically if a treatment is still actively used the history section goes near the end. This make your criticism of me using the past tense on the epilepsy article to refer to the ketogenic diet even more bizarre.
- If you request is for me to not to paraphrase content that is copied and pasted from sources, the answer is no I will not stop dealing with copyright issues. If your request is for me to simply allow the deletion of a section of an article that is well referenced when no consensus to do so exists and lots of references support the content and the existence of the discussion in question the answer is also no.
- Anyway since no one has taken up the suggestion to try a RfC I will. These are content issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- James, we're dealing with your edits here. Your edits to KD are further evidence of your peculiar fondness for the straight-jacket of MEDMOS article sections and their ordering. They emphasise what goes wrong when someone doesn't read the whole article and gets the whole picture about not only the subject but how to present that subject to the readers. Reordering sections in an established article is explicitly forbidden by MEDMOS. Perhaps your allegation of hypocrisy would work better if you had sought consensus (or, indeed, anyone's opinion) before turning KD into a disordered mess. Nobody learned how to compose an article by following a list of suggested section headers any more than reading a dictionary will help you write.
- Wrt the "past tense" issue, you should ask someone who can write well why "30% had constipation, and other adverse effects were common." is poor phrasing in a section on the Management of Epilepsy. I do believe you've got so much red mist in front of your eyes that you are just looking for problems in anything I or Jophiel write. Rather than trying to understand the other person, you are just attacking and seeking to misunderstand them.
- You still seem to think this is a content problem where you are behaving impeccably in the face of unreasonable demands. Rather than thinking "is that the sort of edit a reasonable person might make, with reasonable justifications (even if I disagree with them)" you are thinking only "is this a change I'd have made". Epilepsy doesn't need a content RFC, because the problems I see there are not content related. The RFC that needs opened is an Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/RfCU on yourself. -- Colin°Talk 22:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is your call. Feel free to start a RfCU, ANI, or ArbCom thread as you wish.
- It appears we have very different ideas of how WP works and what is and is not a content issue. With respect to the ketogenic diet article, I made a change which IMO improved it. You wrote some less than pleasant comments on my talk page which I chose to ignore. As you were the primary author of the topic I dropped it and as you are the primary author let you determine the layout of the article. I guess I could have started long theoretical arguments on the talk page of ketogenic diet and then when you didn't agree with me blamed the issue on a personal fault of yours following this with threats to take you to a RfCU. But I have better things to do.
- I feel it is best to address the deleting of a section of an article as a content issue as IMO it has better chances of resolving the issue at hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)