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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.
Awarded to Doc James for efforts in replacing lesser quality citations with high-quality academic citations. Awarded on 13 October 2017 by Cdjp1.
My images
Hi, i created two Gifs for article, Nystagmus#Diagnosis, a butterfly. today i read Oscillopsia.
if you think my gifs are wrong for nystagmus please remove them. thanks.--Mr.Polaz (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you think my two gifs for nystagmus is correct?--Mr.Polaz (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One direction should go a fair bit slower than the other. Maybe increase that part a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sure, you know for 3 years one or two times in month i see like that gifs for half second, they are what i see but if you think it's not correct i fix them. but please tell me exactly what i should create for Oscillopsia?--Mr.Polaz (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think these two images would be fine on that page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move them or reuse them?--Mr.Polaz (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me with that? My English is not so good. Also, I have a question. Is the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria copyrighted, isn't it? World Health Organization uploaded full versions of manuals in the PDF format for free download in English: Diagnostic criteria for research & Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines . In many articles I've found quotes of all criteria (of the ICD-10 diagnoses), without rewording / paraphrasing. Not sure if it's allowed or not. The Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation has authorized to copy/paste/reprint of the Russian adapted version of the ICD-10. But the DSM is copyrighted, it's a fact. – Лорд Алекс (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Лорд Алекс I think the ICD 9 may have been open, but than the ICD 10 was not. Rumor has it the APA who publishes the DSM have requested we not use their criteria verbatum. Which do you want help paraphrasing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your revert Ref says o.4: This is not true. The source clearly says that 0.4 is for the symptothermal method only, which is exactly what I was trying to clarify. --rtc (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so if symptothermal is one type within the larger group than yes 0.4% is a low end of that larger group. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:JzG has reverted my most recent attempt to find a version that we can both accept on birth control, and threatens to block me again because I allegedly dispected you as "a qualified medical professional with peer-reviewed publications to his name". What is your own opinion on my new version? Do you agree with User:JzG that my version is still not good? --rtc (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that your comment was a personal attack regardless of the merits of the content. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replied but serious there was nothing wrong with the preexisting content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about personal attacks. It is not an attack to suspect someone may have misunderstood a surprising mathematical property and hint him at this possiblity. @Doc James: I well understand your opinion (which I don't share) that nothing is wrong with the preexisting content, but that was not my question. My question was about your opinion on my most recent version, reverted by JzG --rtc (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again you did not answer my question. And, frankly, I find it quite provocative that you now started reverting more of my changes. The source does not use the notion of "total sexual abstinence". Nor does it advocate such a thing. In fact, it presents both various degrees of abstinence from any kind of sexual activity, and it presents abstinence from vaginal intercourse, which it calls "outercourse". --rtc (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MS Walid
Have you heard of MS Walid? Is he notable? He has been a naughty boy.
The IPs geolocate to his area, of course. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:JzG if they had edited recently I would block. All that is left is the clean up now. Gah... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, mainly complete now, but just wondering if this is actually a noted authority. I don't think so, but I don't want to degrade content. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they are all primary sources, which the ones I looked at are, delete away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit on the PTSD article, I had changed "9% at some point" to "Lifetime prevalence for adults is 8.7%" because I do not understand what the phrase "at some point" means. Specifically, does it refer to incidence or prevalence? - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) 10:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At some point in time is the same as lifetime prevalence. We can link the term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of seeming picayune, I still think we should use "prevalence" up front (and linked), because 1) most readers will not know what "at some point" refers to (yes, they can click the link, but I think we should use precise terminology up front whenever possible); and 2) prevalence refers to a specific point in time (unless one uses one of the three more specific forms of the term, as discussed in the first paragraph of prevalence. Consider the following:
prevalence: The number or proportion of cases or events or conditions in a given population.
Prevalence refers to the total number of individuals in a population who have a disease or health condition at a specific period of time, usually expressed as a percentage of the population.
Prevalence—The number of cases of a disease, infected people or people with some other attribute present during a particular interval of time. It often is expressed as a rate.
Glossary of Public Health Terms - Iowa Department of Public Health
Prevalence is the proportion of people in a population who have some attribute or condition at a given point in time or during a specified time period.
At "some point in time" simply means "the percentage of people affected at some point in their life". Seems to be fairly clear English to me. Not sure what you feel is not understandable about it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you debating this with me because it forced me to think more carefully. I now realize that my concern is that there are different types of prevalence, about which most laypeople--and many professionals--are not aware, or do not understand fully. For example, although I've had graduate coursework in public health & epidemiology, I usually have to look up definitions to make sure I understand the type of prevalence referenced in an article. As I thought about this question, I also realized I better double check DSM-5 to ascertain which type of prevalence they use. I'm glad I did so because DSM-5 indicates that lifetime morbid risk is 8.7% (DSM-5 uses a less common term, "projected lifetime risk") and 12-month prevalence is 3.5%. I changed the infobox accordingly - see what you think. Thanks - - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) 06:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think life time risk is good. Have changed it to "12-month risk" to match. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think "intrusive memories or dreams" instead of "Disturbing thoughts, feelings, or dreams related to the event" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to get "intrusive" in there, but I actually like your wording better--"disturbing" connotes intrusive and your phrasing is succinct. / I also like your edit to "12-month risk". :O) - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) 05:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added rectal gel because a suppository is a solid dosage form that is inserted into the rectum while a rectal gel is not solid clearly you are not a real doctor if you do not not know the difference between a suppository and a rectal gel trust me i am not a doctor and i know the difference between a rectal gel and a suppository as i have taken laxative suppositories and they look very different from the diazepram rectal gel but the laxative suppositories look like the photo on the suppository article you should read the article on suppositories wikipedia has a article on them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.153.34 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a side-note, if you don't intend on replying on the linked ticket, can you please transfer it to me? More on email:)Winged BladesGodric 17:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James. Please could you tell me whether this message (see the link) would be suitable to post at the discussion board for WikiProject Medicine? [1]
My understanding is that the complement system is relevant for WP:Physiology, but that seems inactive. But then maybe WP:Physiology is a subgroup of WP:Medicine? Anyway, please give me your thoughts on whether I should post it on WP:Medicine at all (I was thinking here), if you have the time to check. Thank you! --Treetear (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the answer! --Treetear (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CLL
I have always thought that the article should be named per your move a few mins ago. Wanted to say thanks. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus.barcus 22:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect :-) Thanks User:Roxy the dog. The prior name was a little weird. Hard find evidence that it was even a synonyms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rtc
I opened a proposal for a topic ban on WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So now I am accused of asking for arguments instead of ignorance? Such an evil and bad thing. Why is there no policy against it? You should quickly add it to WP:POINT, so you can start blocking all those brazen argument-hungry users. --rtc (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you need to start a RfC and see if you can get consensus instead of edit warring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lymphangiomatosis
Lymphangiomatosis looks unloved. Do you know someone who is active in the correct area who might take it on? Guy (Help!) 10:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Like]. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Circ and HIV in MSM
I think your inclusion of an unpublished meta-analysis in an obscure journal is not justified, and should be deleted. Better to wait for CDC/WHO to continue to review the evidence and see if they change their evaluation of the evidence. I only read the abstract because I won't pay for reading an non-peer reviewed article. Did you review the entire article and decide that this is recommendation-changing evidence? Petersmillard (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All in all a great argument for adult circumcision. Still not convinced about elective surgery on infants though. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018.
Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth![reply]
Hey Ben. Thanks. Definitely no hard feelings. We all mess up once in a while. You have put in a lot of hard work over the years. I hope you have backed away form the dark side :-) Here is to a better 2018... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wishes
It's that time of the year, James. No fancy template, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year, and thanking you for all you do for the project. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Kudpung, likewise. Yah, we just got 3 feet of snow and I went for a 14 km ski today :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of COI tag
Hi Doc James: Could you perhaps have a look at the removal of this COI tag? I do not think the removal is justified. Thanks. --Saidmann (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc. Why did you reverted my changes? The term "etiology" is more appropriate. 185.43.229.118 (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of Wikipedia readers will not understand the word etiology but are far more likely to understand the word cause. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right but it can be linked in the article, so others can read it. Anyway, as i said below, using "cause" instead of "etiology" is not problem-both terms are correct. I just wanted to learn the reason of the revert. 185.43.229.129 (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No the word "cause" is more appropriate. This is English Wikipedia. Etiology would be appropriate on either Latin or Ancient Greek Wikipedia maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, James. Because the term is used in English sources-it is a commonly used term in abnormal psychology. Using "cause" instead of "etiology" is not a big problem, as both terms are correct, but i would prefer "etiology". 185.43.229.129 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
