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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
What is your reasoning for having Chronic bronchitis redirect to COPD when there is far more information on chronic bronchitis on the Bronchitis page.?--Iztwoz (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the primary use of the term is to mean COPD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who has defined that the primary use is for COPD - 8.6 million Americans were diagnosed with chronic bronchitis in 2015-16. It was stated in the GOLD report that chronic bronchitis be considered as a specific disease entity so why redirect it to COPD. You say that the primary use is to mean COPD which is not the case - chronic bronchitis may be present for many years without airflow obstruction.--Iztwoz (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC) and also may never progress to COPD.--Iztwoz (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That page simply states what COPD includes....it omits to state that these are included only when airflow is restricted. For so many people to have been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis without it being considered COPD must tell you something.--Iztwoz (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The NCBI comes up with 43,436 items for Chronic bronchitis. PMID 2826902 is a Cochrane review of 2017 entitled "Haemophilus influenzae oral vaccination for preventing acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease." Its opening sentence says that "chronic bronchitis AND COPD are serious conditions......"--Iztwoz (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And how many of those are used to mean COPD?
Why do you think the CDC says says COPD "includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis"? Why do you think Harrison's does not deal with chronic bronchitis and emphysema separately but deal with them only within the chapter on COPD?
Yes the lay public are still searching for the old term. This is like how people still search for ADD when they mean ADHD. This does not mean that we should not redirect ADD to ADHD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So why does the 2017 Cochrane review describe chronic bronchitis separately from COPD when it says that chronic bronchitis and COPD are both serious illnesses. And why does the GOLD report state that chronic bronchitis should be treated as a separate entity?--Iztwoz (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have been discussing this for nearly a year now. The term "chronic bronchitis" is used in different ways. It is used to mean a former type of COPD. And it is used to mean a chronic productive cough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first posting on both this page and Bronchitis page was just under 5 months ago. Not even half a year. But I see that you have now omitted the problematic inclusion of previous 'types' of COPD on the Bronchitis page. And things are still being brought up because you are not responding to most of the points I raise. Could I ask you to make the same edit in the lead on the COPD page please. Also I've only just read through the archived talk pages and see that I am not alone in thinking that both emphysema and chronic bronchitis ought not to redirect to COPD.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were of the impression that these issues had surfaced a year ago - I was going to suggest going ahead with the RfC on April 30th 2020 the actual first year anniversary. In my view progress albeit slowly is being made. Howsoever I hope to be posting my opposition later today.--Iztwoz (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to post your alternative proposal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgarian Wikinews
Hi! Is the Board aware of the situation on Bulgarian Wikinews, and are they going to weigh in on LangCom's proposal to close the wiki? --Rschen7754 18:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rschen7754 board is somewhat aware and planning to go with the expertise of LangCom. Is there more we should be aware of? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were some concerns expressed, including an "official" statement from the Russian Wikinews: m:Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews. There were also some portions of the LangCom statement that made official judgments about specific users' conduct that are really outside the scope of LangCom: they are not a global ArbCom. --Rschen7754 17:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Appears there were significant concerns and consensus by the Bulgarian community to close the project. The board will support community consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, the edits you recently made to the young blood transfusion article include incorrect and damaging information. If you do not correct these, I will pursue legal action against you. Please respond in a timely manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4150:880:AA00:7944:C24:D1C3:FD06 (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copypatrol still not working
Hi Doc James, sorry to bother you, but the Copypatrol bot is still not filing reports. It's been circa 36 hours. Any assistance you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks! — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, they've solved it Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message Doc. I'm a longterm fan of your work, so it means a lot. Looking forward to contributing more to the community in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by About Medicine (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mother Hutton
I noted you removed my reference to Mother Hutton on the Digitalis article. I would be interested to read your thoughts on this. Thanks
--BooksXYZ (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc James, can you please make a declaration about your awareness of Arbcom Discretionary sanctions in the area of firearms and government control, so that nobody needs to place a template here about it?
Given the note you left on my talk page, and considering as I cited a well-reputed government source in APA style, what is the apparent problem with the reference I cited, that you were referring to? It's not clear to me what construct you were trying to make. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doc James. I'm baffled by your behavior around adding pricing information to medication articles.
I wish you had identified your RfC when you disputed my removal of the material in Ivermectin, rather than waiting for me to find it. I'd hoped this was something you put aside after that RfC, but apparently not [2][3].
I have no interest in finding out how widely and strongly you've been pushing this. Please tell me there's discussion somewhere that demonstrates that this RfC is outdated, or even needs revisiting? --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a high quality source discusses a price that IMO shows significance. Else it would not have included the price. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, you're ignoring every policy and discussion related to prices for medications, including the outcome of the RfC. If such sources had been offered, we wouldn't having this conversation. --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you're going to make a larger dispute over this: [4] The amount of time information has been in an article is no reason to revert. Please don't put your admin status at risk like this. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that medical textbooks and government sources are not suitable? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the edit warring. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued removal of government sources and major medical textbooks is becoming disruptive.
Your removal of pricing information from the iPhone 11 article is pointy after I pointed out that prices are common in articles and mentioned this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop edit-warring? Yes or no. I'll get to your other concerns, but this talking past each other needs to stop. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have missed Wikipedia:Prices which says "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So this talking past me is intentional? I'm afraid discussing the matter with you is just setting you off. That seemed to be the case all along at Ivermectin.
I'm very sorry that my stumbling on this issue has caused you to respond so. Really.
If you think it would help for me to respond further to any of your concerns, please let me know. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We know that the pharmaceutical industry is trying really hard to hide medication prices with ongoing legal cases in the United States.[5]
Many NGOs including Doctors Without Borders and UNICEF struggle with the lack of transparency around medication and vaccine prices.[6]
Again, if you think it would help for me to respond further to any of your concerns, please let me know. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have argued that you do not consider prices of medications to be notable. I have provided positions of major medical organizations that state that they consider prices to be notable. Here is a link to MSF [7]
Transparency around prices is critical to global public health.[8]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are about encyclopedic value (NOT) and due weight (POV).
If you want to make a large scale exception to NOT and POV, do it properly with a large scale RfC, providing compelling reasons for revisiting the topic of your 2016 RfC. --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have both "independent sources" and a "justified reason". This is not an exception. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bring these issues up in the 2016 RfC? --Ronz (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider looking at the edits I have tried to make to the e-cig article. I see you have warned QuackGuru about reverting edits by other people as well. This user has reverted all my edits on this topic. While sometimes, I understand the user's concerns or need to change to comply with MERS, often it seems like anything recent that is more critical of vaping than the citations from 5 years ago is being edited out.SCBY (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
