This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.
The guideline says " The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition".
In most cases, including colorectal cancer it flows much better IMO to go from Diagnosis to Management, and to have Prevention (at least primary prevention) immediately before Epidemiology. I might suggest that on the guidelines talk page one day. - Rod57 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also I agree with RHaworth above who says "If you write on my page, I will reply there. Discussion threads, however short that ping-pong between two pages are an utter pain to read." - Rod57 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure so we can discuss this on the talk page of colorectal cancer or at the talk page of MEDMOS. IMO consistency between articles is important as it makes them 1) easier to edit 2) easier to read.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
your reversion of 'See Also" list on Circumcision article
When you say "We do not like See Also lists" - in reverting my edit is it a royal We or can you steer me to a WP policy page that says this." See also" lists abound in other articles I am curious Tumadoireacht
Could you accept that Circumcision is not just a medical phenomenon and such links, particularly those not in the main text may be useful to general readers per policy outlined there--— ⦿⨦⨀TumadoireachtTalk/Stalk03:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I linked to is congruent with "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section." The article is comprehensive and thus a see also section IMO is not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yet you did not just delete sentences referencing those sources, instead you deleted the whole post. Could you explain why you deleted comments from the Pope please. I also noted that the second half of the second sentence has no citation, but you did not delete that. Is there a reason why you deleted the citation needed (which by the way I did not post) but deleted everything I wrote? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The other reason I removed the rest was that the main article is for a simple overview. We give each religion only a line or two. You can add to the subpage if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Birth Control
How is a textbook or one author's encylclopedia on women a source for Catholic religious views. Again, I submit to you that Catholicism is not a democracy. It's views are not shaped by what so-called members do, nor is Catholic doctrine defined by people who write textbooks. This does not accurately represent Catholic religious views, it represents the behavior of members who are rebelling against Catholic religious views. Does this distinction make sense to you? Under no other religion is such a comment made. Is there a reason for this to be added to Catholics only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talk • contribs) 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to incorporate some of the "see also" links into the main body of text in accordance with what you pointed out. Also, Merry Christmas! --Nouniquenames05:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was really appreciable that you have participated in editing Lymphoma. Currently the article is in a better shape. I have made a few further edits and it seems that a lot more cleanup is required.
I edit Wikipedia less frequently compared to you, so I would be glad if you could leave me some suggestions.DiptanshuTalk09:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carpal tunnel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B6 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
An IP just changed the ICD-9 code for Behçet's disease with this edit summary; Changed outdated ICD-9 code. No research exists to indicate Behcet's is caused by any known infection and currently remains medically unclassified. These codes were written decades ago in the US.. ~JB The previous version's code is for Behçet's disease, but the version's code just states Autoimmune disease, not elsewhere classified This seems odd. Would you please verify this? edit diff Much appreciated. Jim1138 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you want recent researchs on current medical topics, but you shouldn't reject old references when it's about comparing history and now and there is clearly no point in asking for recent sources when it's about history on which there is no recent research.
(sorry for not having an loggin, but mine is already used on the english wikipedia (it even might be one I created years ago and lost the password before all wiki IDs were centralized). - 213.189.160.119 (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just a note to let you know that I received your message and will make sure that I pay attention to that. Thank you for pointing that out to me; I'm still learning my way around here.(GlassLadyBug (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, You reverted my changes to colorectal cancer saying 'references required'. Are you asking for references in this article (maybe because you doubted my additions were true) or because they weren't easy to find in the linked articles ? Also, I'd be grateful, if you revert my changes, if you'd mention it on my talk page please so I can deal with it while it's fresh in my mind. - Rod57 (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given my apology to Drmies and the conversation you chose to post at the end of, what productive perspective do you feel you're adding? Ironholds (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A long time user has just left the project (User:SandyGeorgia) partly over this issue. From my reading of the policy all editor deserve a warning before being blocked except for a very few narrow situations (such as legal threats and death threats). She did not just thrown in the towel due to this but a few other recent blogs of long term contributors without due process. Maybe this is not the right venue but definitely something we need to clarify as a group. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again; given my apology to Drmies, the conversation you chose to post at the end of and my most recent discussion on this front, what do you feel your contribution adds? I have no objection to people telling me I did it wrong, but I have an objection to people telling me "you did it wrong" after I have visibly and noticeably accepted that and altered my workflow. If you think admins as a group hang out on my talkpage you are mistaken ;p. Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I was sort of hoping for was 1) yes the policy is that people are to be warned first and unfortunately it is not always followed, we need to see what we can do to improve this or 2) no that is not the policy and people may be banned without a warning, he is where ones discusses if we should change this policy. Anyway I will investigate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, I popped by to tell you that I closed an RfC you were (somewhat) involved in on Talk:Koro (medicine) and saw this. I appreciate your comment. I appreciated Ironholds's words too, but unfortunately I have come to understand how some other editors with a block log feel. I can't judge if Ironholds is right in suggesting that your words don't add anything--I haven't been browsing around to be able to judge that. Anyway, here we are again, in a new year, and that's about all I can say. Happy new year to both of you. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this, Doc ... I was encouraged that at least Ironholds issued what looked like a genuine apology, while the other admin in the other block did not, and likely will not. So at this juncture, I'm inclined towards feeling better about Ironholds than the other, but yes ... efforts to help clarify blocking policy so that trigger-happy admins don't go around making unhelpful blocks would be a good thing. I don't have the time or inclination to take on that issue while the disruption at FAC continues ... I'd like to be able to just get back to reviewing articles at FAC and FAR, since the standards have dropped, and work on medical articles without Education Program interference. I appreciate your efforts to help clarify blocking policy, and I'm sorry I don't have the energy to join in that effort right now. I hope Drmies and all of the unfairly blocked will be able to put it behind them and welcome in a New Year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
have no background either. Chemgirl131 somewhere stated to be the new reincarnation of El3ctr0nika and was removing old comments by that user from all talk pages for "privacy reasons". Now Doc9871 ([2]) mass-reverted those changes. Iirc El3ctr0nika crossed our ways many times updating chemboxes and such, thats how I stumbled upon it. If Chemgirl131' claim is true than the user should have his right to vanish not sabotaged by others. Doc9871 reverted content on 3rd party talkpages that did not touch him in any way afaic. Richiez (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am having trouble getting my head around this. If you want to vanquish why would you bring attention to your previous posts by having them removed? Seems like this would just cause the Streisand effect. If someone came to my talk page and tried to remove comments by another editor I would have concerns as it sort of puts the discussion out of kilter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And other editors have also reverted her because she was removing and/or changing a massive amount of text on their talk pages, and even in their archives. 72.216.4.94 (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was my initial thought as well, but in thinking more about this I changed my mind. Since old versions of Wikipedia pages are not normally indexed by search engines, it would make it much more difficult to find someone if the pages were expunged. Boghog (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they are also removing stuff from the talk pages of articles per [3] and [4]. It is strange and makes me concerned. If I came across this I would likely do the same as Doc9871. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that one normally should not change other's comments, but very rarely, there are legitimate reasons to so (personal attacks, privacy, outing, etc.). This may be one of them. Boghog (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But one should never do it themselves. One can go through the proper processes via OTRS and get an admin to do it after providing proper justification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The only way that it would be okay is if there were some Wikipedia community consensus for this, or maybe if it was by permission of WP:ArbCom. There may also be the WP:Sysop example that Boghog mentioned on my talk page. But what is evident is that she would need to get the official okay for something like this, if okay'ed at all. 72.216.4.94 (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great I am glad we all agree. There is no way to verify that this chemgirl editor is the same as the other editor. Thus how do we even know if the other comments are hers. I will post a note on her page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even more odd for a person to do this if it's not the person in question who has done it. But I guess we are supposed to suspect that a person who doesn't like her could have done this? Or just a bored vandal? If verification from the El3ctr0nika account is needed, it is better to email that account (if the email option is still avaliable on that account). 72.216.4.94 (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me of this, 72.216.4.94! I've never seen someone do this in quite this way in my nearly 5 years here, and I thought it highly unusual. Like 72. said, going deep into archives was a major red flag for me. like this make it look like Beetstra was talking to themselves. And the edit summary of "Attempting to mostly vanish..." seems to not be what WP:VANISH is about at all. All the contributions for Rocknroll714 and El3ctr0nika are hidden save one , where no mention of them being Chemgirl131 is made. Why? It is clear that Chemgirl and Rocknroll714 were editing at the same time, and this appears odd.[5] I'm not sure what the full story on this is, but I know that this was not the proper way to "vanish", and removing comments from archives is not a thing that is usually permitted. Doctalk11:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - [6]. This is quite ridiculous and not necessary. I hope this is not something that is allowed under VANISH. Removing these archive posts, especially in article archives, should not be tolerated. Doctalk19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it won't come to that. But as I pointed out on Chemgirl's talk page, they are not actually "vanished" when they add extensive content to HPV and other articles in between butchering up archives. This is very strange. Doctalk20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I thought when I was writing the references for the heart disease pages, that I should have referenced the actual studies they reference with their proof directly, rather than the secondary source talking about the studies.
Would it be worth going back and creating direct links to the studies related to the cause of heart disease, that this article referenced, at some later time? (Are fairly cut and dry studies acceptable references?)
Just hit me on a whim, to try and correct some of our long held seeming misperceptions about the topic having discovered this research (such as that heart disease is caused by excessive LDL, when its more accurately caused by high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome etc and a lack of certain anti-oxidants ie oxLDL, or so it now appears). The risk factors still apply, but they are no longer viable as the actual cause (apart from perhaps high blood pressure, which is part of the cause)
Admitedly more research needs to be done now that we have a new angle to look at this phenomena from, to give it more weight (especially with long held perceptions)
(The nicotine thing is something I became aware of recently, that nicotine on its own, say via an e-cig, is not anywhere near as addictive as smoking - its the mao inhibition that makes smoking tobacco work like it does - another misperception, and thankfully someone had already referenced that one with a study)
Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Talk:Conversion therapy. Message added 10:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Emphysema article - research edits
Where would you recommend I place research done on blood oxygenation without respiration? An an emphysema patient, it seems to apply to progress toward a cure (or workaround in this case). I can't imagine where else on Wikipedia I would look this up, if I were searching for info on progress made by the research community. 174.239.32.140 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So not commenting on the justification of the request, it was asked that you change your user name on Feb 1st, when you had not on Feb 3rd you where blocked. So there was sort of a warning. If you would have protested this to ANI on Feb 1st you might have been able to avoid the block as you would have gotten community consensus against it. There first interaction with you was not a block, which for some editors unfortunately is not the case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Warning before blocking
Shouldn't you have confined your proposal to established or long term content editors? It is not going to succeed in its current form. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the comments I do not think it will succeed in any form. We have a group who thinks all editors should be treated the same no matter how long the have been here. And we have a group who does not want any restrictions placed on their ability to use their judgement to determine who should be blocked.
I would be happy if this was just applied to long term editors (which would need to be defined). Feel free to revise and retry. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year!
Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!
Regarding your image upload of psoriasis, do you recall what part of the body the image recorded? (i'm guessing it's the knee..), Thank-You--Anuhek (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings - You left a message on my talk page, and I'm hoping you can enlighten me. It's a large reference, and I can feel that you're concerned about something in particular. Can you enlighten me? Perhaps I can help or fix something. Santamoly (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
70% figure
Do you have access to the full article "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines"? I just read the entire article and could not find a single justification for the 70% figure. Perhaps there is a justification somewhere, I could not find it on Google Scholar. They should not have been allowed to state such a figure in the abstract without repeating it in the introduction and giving a proper reference to studies which justify it. It is a bad reference, and is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the abstract is "Human papillomavirus (HPV) types cause approximately 70% of cervical cancer worldwide. " Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have access to the article, I can email to you. Please indicate how they arrived at the 70% figure. If you can't based on that article, it's a bad reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have access to the full article. Just have not read the whole thing yet. Feel free to bring this discussion to WT:MED for further input. Even if it is in just the abstract it is still a reliable published source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing a manuscript and would like to reference the 70% number. Referencing "Efficacy of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines" will not be accepted by the journal editors where I am submitting. I thought that the authors of this paper would reference the study that showed that 70% was the right number. They don't. I'm not disputing the number, by the way, I'm simply saying that we need a link to the original study (which is probably much more nuanced than just ~70%).132.216.227.218 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
