User talk:Doc James/Archive 137

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like they resurrected Sinclair method / The Sinclair Method after that 2015 AfD vote

As per the suggestion on the closing admin's talk page, I am pinging active editors who voted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sinclair_Method_(2nd_nomination) a few years ago about what happened to that page. Within a month of the original Sinclair Method (currently a redirect) article being deleted, The Sinclair Method (also a redirect) was created; that was moved to Sinclair method and finally made in to a "soft" (i.e. history preserved) redirect; here is the history of that article. I myself have restored Sinclair Method as a redirect, for pragmatic reasons: The page http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/10/26/alcoholics-anonymous-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ has a link to the old Sinclair Method article, and I think a link to a short summary is more useful for readers than a dead link. (I personally think The Sinclair Method probably doesn't work, since the same treatment has only shown a modest effect when other scientists than Sinclair try to replicate the results, but I'm biased towards 12-step approaches, WP:NOTAFORUM and all that) Defendingaa (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Knee dislocation

Hello! Your submission of Knee dislocation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Yoninah done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. You wrote, "the joint reduces itself". Do you mean "the joint corrects itself"? Yoninah (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Yoninah It is reduced but not corrected as the joint is still unstable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have emailed you something please check and take immediate actions

Thank you --Josephpaulkochi (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Overview request

Doc James,

I have often appreciated your feedback and corrections when I've trod on a medicinal page, and I wonder if you might look at a stub I'm working on (in my sandbox) for 16-Dehydropregnenolone Acetate aka 16-DPA. The compound is referenced in a variety of pages (search "16-DPA;" including the semicolon to see some) and it's relevant to Marker degradation as well. Both the full name and the abbreviation are "wanted pages", so just a stub article and redirect would clean things up for people.

I got a warning that one of my references may be a predatory journal, so perhaps there's a better reference.

I'd rather do a good job than a cheap one. So: I'm asking for:

  1. Pointers, references, or anything else you can toss me that might help flesh out this compound's page.
  2. Any thoughts on what categories this might belong in?
  3. Any references to "downstream" steroidal products from this compound.
  4. Confirmation that making this page is a good idea. :)

Kind thanks for any help, Riventree (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Riventree sure. Yes OMICS is one of the best known predatory publishers and should never be used.
Here is a useful textbook https://books.google.ca/books?id=lG8LGWC5KFsC&pg=PA329
Am seeing a bunch via google books[1]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Mention of the topic

Were does either one of these refs mention the topic in question?

"Cholesterol crystals are believed to both impair myelin repair and aggrevate inflammation.[1][2]"

Also please read WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Did you read either of these papers before asking your question or deleting my entry? It is hard to believe that you did.
    • First reference (comment on the second reference), first paragraph: "...insufficient clearance (phagocytosis) of damaged myelin by aged macrophages results in accumulation of cholesterol crystals in these cells, which elicits a maladaptive inflammatory reaponse that is associated with impaired remyelination>'
    • Second reference (Science 359:684 (2018), in this case all you needed to do was to read the abstract in order to see: "Aged phagocytes accumulated excessive amounts of myelin debris, which triggered cholesterol crystal formation and phagolysosomal membrane rupture and stimulated inflammasomes... inducing a maladaptive immune response that impedes tissue regeneration."

--Ben Best:Talk 12:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And were does it discuss MS specifically User:Benbest? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence of the first paper begins with the statement: "Damage to the myelin sheath that surrounds nerve axons represents the pathological hallmark of the neurological disorder multiple sclerosis (MS) and is thought to contribute to a number of other nervous system maladies." That paper ends with the statements: "Similarly, the RXR agonist 9-cis-retinoic acid enhances remyelination in aged mice, and the RXR agonist bexarotene confers a gene-expression profile associated with phagocytes from younger individuals and enhanced myelin-debris clearance by phagocytes from MS patients (6, 13). Bexarotene is being tested in an MS clinical trial (European Union Clinical Trials Register no. 2014-003145-99). The discovery of the link between cholesterol crystal–laden macrophages and inflammasome activation in demyelinated lesions provides a deeper understanding of remyelination failure in MS patients, particularly as the disease progresses. Currently, there are numerous approved drugs for MS, all of which modulate immune responses to some extent. Although beneficial, these drugs fail to curtail the progressive neurodegeneration that occurs in this chronic neurological disorder (14). New therapeutic approaches designed to provide neuroprotection (15) and enhanced remyelination, such as by targeting LXR-RXR (2), would likely complement the current anti-inflammatory drugs to provide increased clinical benefit." --Ben Best:Talk 22:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Benbest my apologies. Was looking at the wrong source. Have restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Chen Y, Popko B (2018). "Cholesterol crystals impede nerve repair". Science (journal). 359 (6376): 635–635. doi:10.1126/science.aar7369. PMID 29439228.
  2. ^ Cantuti-Castelvetri L, Fitzner D, Bosch-Queralt M, Weil MT, Su M, Sen P, Ruhwedel T, Mitkovski M, Trendelenburg G, Lütjohann D, Möbius W, Simons M (2018). "Defective cholesterol clearance limits remyelination in the aged central nervous system". Science (journal). 359 (6376): 684–688. doi:10.1126/science.aan4183. PMID 29301957.

I submitted high quality secondary source

Topic : Really diabetes is risk factor for stroke ? I am so thank full to you for reply me. I am so much impressed your editing process and your articles

Primary source:

https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb17.pdf https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb51.pdf

secondary source

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5011894/

2018 march secondary source. confirms the stroke most common in non diabetics than diabetics . please verify following link .

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/3/e020346.full.pdf

Please read 8th page ...cerebrovascular disease ( other names :cerebral infarct/transient ischemic attack ) listed in top 10 of non diabetic patients....cerebra vascular disease not listed in top 10 diseases. compare only diabetic and non diabetic. Impaired fasting glucose patients are UN related to our study .

I was submitted primary and secondary sources. all sources clearly tells stroke occurs in very limited percentage to diabetic people.(1 to 2.4%)

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/3/e020346.full.pdf

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

Please read Review article. Those are all primary sources... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please verify the last link i submitted here..i hope it may reach ....up to some level

(Subrahmanya preethamm (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)) up

This
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/3/e020346.full.pdf
Is a cohort study not a literature review / systematic review / or meta analysis.
It is also not a position paper of a major medical organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease

Thank you for your recent edits to Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.[2] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Still a fair bit of work to do as the CJD page still discusses vCJD. But yes a few small steps forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sweet baby jimbo

Wow. I am used to encountering editors with competency issues regarding editing, but not someone who claims to be a doctor while being clearly unable to comprehend medical literature. It's obvious he has a 0% chance of ever making productive contributions to the project, but I'm not sure if there's a case for the unilateral NOTHERE block I'm tempted to deliver. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Someguy1221 yah the source they are using supports the exact opposite of the claim they are trying to make... At least they have stopped edit warring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 June 2018

"Wikipedia Foundation" → "Wikimedia Foundation" on your user page, as the former technically doesn't exist. Googol30 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Googol30 and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Knee dislocation

On 6 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Knee dislocation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that about half of knee dislocations (example pictured) spontaneously relocate before the person arrives at hospital? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knee dislocation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Knee dislocation), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool thanks User:Gatoclass Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Muscular Dystrophy

Hi James, I think abiding by WP:MEDORDER on Muscular Dystrophy would actually do good to this article, considering that it is about a vast group of diseases. That means, "Classification" should come as the first section below lede, etc. Do you have any objections? — kashmīrī TALK 13:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There are two options for placement of the classification section per MEDMOS. One is first and the other is under diagnosis. And the classification is rather complicated I think it fits well under diagnosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

NADAC and Average Monthly Cost

Hi there! I was wondering if you could help me learn how to calculate the average monthly cost from the NADAC, as you did here. For example, the NADAC for amiloride HCl 5mg tablets is 0.33433. Thanks in advance!―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So with the price of 0.334 per 5 mg tab.
Usual dose is 10 mg per day[3]
Multiple by 60
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! That makes total sense; much appreciated!―Biochemistry🙴❤ 13:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Notice

The article Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia:NOTJOURNAL, possible WP:NOT#OR

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 03:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This is (another!) one of those cases where the OP should have taken WP:DTTR to heart. Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This was split out of the main ADHD article as a subpage. This is how we go into greater detail without having overly long primary articles.
The text is based mostly on review articles as it should be.
User:Basilosauridae can you clearly define which part of the article is "original research" (ie stuff not previously published)? BestDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, upon further review, I retract my statement that this may contain possible OR. On the talk page, I suggest merging this article with the main article, as this content is partially already covered there and does not appear to link to this page at all, so appears to be redundant to me. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 13:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Data and Resources from RWJF

Hey there! we talked briefly on the project we are working on at the Foundation and how we can to create and open access to data and information for people to use and share. We have several funded research that has gone through peer reviewed journals and what not and i just wanted to touch base on what type of research and most importantly resource would be appropriate. i understand we need third party resources as to not look as if it is promoting or self serving that is why i wanted to gather as much information and bounce ideas off the community please feel free to email me dpena@rwjf.org i have some questions and would really appreciate your input DaP87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure connected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Endometriosis#Comparison of interventions

Hi James,

Would you care to take a look at this section? I added the results from a 2018 systematic review from SBU. Some of the results clearly contradict what our article states, which cites among other things a single RCT and a 1999 article. Unfortunately the entire report is not available in English, and I didn't want to remove everything for that reason. My interpretation of the findings is the efficacy of surgery as opposed to the risks may be overstated in the current article. Could you look at this, and whether it impacts the lede for translation?

Best, Carl Fredrik (WIR) (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure happy with the 2018 review. Any other things you think need updating? Lead appears to be congruent with the review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the "menopause" article

I see that you have reverted my addition to the "menopause" article regarding the prospective treatment of menopause using platelet-rich plasma. Could you please clarify to me exactly what was wrong with the section per WP:MEDRS? I am afraid that I am not particularly familiar with that particular guideline, as I rarely edit medical articles except for minor grammatical and formatting changes and corrections. To the best of my knowledge, the New Scientist magazine, while not a medical journal or textbook, is a fairly reliable secondary source that does not (generally) publish sensationalist stories or distort the truth of the subjects which it covers (with the possible exception of the criticism mentioned in its Wikipedia article).

114.75.119.210 (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit is based on popular press.
One would require a high quality review article for this sort of controversial stuff per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for clarifying. I will not re-add the section unless I find a reliable medical source.
114.75.119.210 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I am the same person who posted the above message. I have an additional question: would be the information that I added in the reverted edit be useful on any other article with the source that I used?
114.75.202.140 (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
No. For health information we require really good sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the information. Have a good day.
114.75.202.140 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Mail

Hi sir, have you checked my mail? --Josephpaulkochi (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Another encounter

Doc, I ran into another user that reminds me a lot of you. Academic bravado, only his interpretation of facts was correct, Only room for discussion was to appropriate his right-ness and establish his way of doing, reinterpreting sources to his own agenda, and ultimately hijacking pages and protecting them like little pet projects. Have you noticed that I never contributed to single page you watch like a hawk since our last encounter? I even told him about you in hopes that he'd relax. But no, because I called him uninformed, and criticized his little pet social-constructionism, he played his games. He forced me to produce resources supporting my claims in contributions. So I would. Then he would all of a sudden just magically have the exact obscure source I produced, and would find a different passage from it to counter my point. The only semblance of any "willingness to contribute" was when he professed to want to improve wikipedia. But, if that were true, then he would have used the sources (that he initially concealed from that he had) to dialogue with me constructively, and make his own improvements. But no, all he wanted to do was revert my edits and argument with my sources. Sure, he'll tell you I couldn't produce and viable resources (Just like you did to me on the CBT page 3 years ago), but he can only say that if he first argues a different interpretation, whether he knows or not that that's what he's doing. Doc, if you came to me and said, "Urstadt, I got this 18-year old kid telling me that hemp paper is stronger that regular paper. He said he tried to tell you that and you told him he was wrong. So he tells me that he told you, Urstadt, the resource and citation supporting his claim." And Doc, let's pretend that's exactly how it happened. The 18-year old kid produced a valid source. Well, if I don't want to look like a you know what, I have to point to different parts of the source material that somehow obscure the certainty of the passage the 18-year old showed me. Now Doc, if I do that, I am clearly not trying to help this kid improve an article! I am clearly trying to thwart it? Now, why would I do that, Doc? Well, here are the possibilities:

  1. I am prejudice against hemp and marijuana
  2. I am envious that a punk kid knew more than me
  3. I want to dictate what is on certain pages that I have subconsciously adopted as my mini-projects I rule over
  4. I have a personality disorder, and am therefore likely unmarried, and probably not very well liked by peers and co-workers.

So, what am I to conclude? Well, if I want to show good faith, then there is a 5th possibility:

  1. I over-analyze and destructively criticize everything because my own intellect gets in the way of the very thing I am trying to use it for.

I mean, that's not real far off as a possibility. This is why editors sometimes have to take writers' work away from them. It's typically why they don't have many real relationships. Not because there is anything wrong with him: but rather, because nothing is ever good enough for them.

That is seriously the plight of many intellects. They just don't know how to get out of their own walkety-the-plank way. Do you know the solution for this type of intellect? Meaning, solution for coping with this insidious way of being? Tyrannical control. The intellect of this burdening requires tyrannical control over everything in their (real or virtual) environment because of the utter lack of control upstairs, and the greater lack of control of the fallout from it.

Oh no, I couldn't be right (even though I was), because then that would mean that his intellectual burdening is once again getting in his way and he would have to face that. But, if I am wrong, and he is right, then he is not falling victim to his own intellectual interruptions/disruptions. No, instead all that is happening is that he was in control and validated that he is still ok for another day.

I have watched your edits for three years. Not round the clock, but I wish I could've. I have been watching this guy's since my first run-in with him shortly after my last with you. The level of control you two require, my Good-Padlock, I thought for a moment you two were the same. I swear you two could be twins. Oh, and my absolute favorite part is that you both are so walkety-the-plank johnny on the spot to go and done cite wiki policy all rickety-tick. Too bad there is no policy for disguised hijacking on wikipedia. Or disguised pet-project-ing.

There are people in this world who have now been held back from knowing what the information I have studied has to offer them. You do it on the CBT and EMDR page. Biogeographist does it on the now deleted Ontological Hermeneutics page (oh, you can bet I was never going to let him do to that page what he tried to do and has done elsewhere. That was the best thing I ever wrote as a teenager. I lied right lickety-split to get that page deleted and it was gone in less than two hours), and Omnipaedista does it on many philosophy pages. (Now, of course, I tried to get Omnipaedista to go over to the Ontological Hermeneutics page, given his background, to convince other admins that it was a hoax (as I was lying that it was). My thinking, Doc, was that his background would cause him to come and disagree that it was hoax. The truth be told, since he's been monitoring the Hermeneutics page for like 4 plus years, he should've known that I was lying about the Ontological hermeneutics page being a hoax. Especially because he had made several improvements to the article! Granted they were clerical, but you gotta read the yarpping page to do it! He never once challenged anything for almost 4 years on that. All of a sudden, Biogeographist comes in and stirs waves, and never Omni is telling me on his talk page that it's a hoax, and regurgitating Bio's propaganda (which I will probably get from you in your response to this!). Have you ever heard of the file drawer effect in research and peer-review publishing? Of course you, Doc. That's kind of what this is like here.

And I sincerely apologize that this sounds like an attack. I am not trying to attack anyone. Please, show good faith, and chalk my horrible wordsmithing up to just that: bad wordsmithing when trying to merely get a point (and some kind of an argument for said point) across. And that point is this:

Wikipedia has an underground oligarchy creating their own intellectual and cultural Czar.

By the way, Doc, how are you courses going? Got any courses coming up in the next little bit that you're particularly looking forward to, not looking forward to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urstadt (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Per "He forced me to produce resources supporting my claims in contributions." Yes this is a foundation of Wikipedia. Once sources are produced one can than discuss what they mean and how they should be balanced with the rest of the literature on a topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ketamine

Hello,
I just noticed you reverted my correction in the article (the German common name being written with a capital first letter) without any reason given. In German, all nouns are written with a capital first letter; this includes names of places, animals, plants, substances etc.. Writing names with a capital first letter is german orthography, just as using Umläute (such as ä, ö, ü) or transliterating them as "ae, oe, ue". Should you be in doubt about this, you could consult e. g. the german Wikipedia page; even not speaking german, one can see that Ketamin as such is always written with a capital K. Cheers,--78.43.65.214 (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes. I see that you are correct and have reverted myself. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Heart failure

Hello Doc James, just wanted to ask if this source is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia? Just wondering because you removed it here. Thanks. (120.144.154.144 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC))

Yes that blog is generally viewed as not acceptable. Expecially when other better sources are avaliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James. (120.144.154.144 (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC))

Question about wording

You recently changed the word "infants" to "babies" in a section that I have been working on [4] Why did you do that? Gandydancer (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Having been working on that article aswell off and on for years. IMO "newborn baby" is perfectly reasonable. "Newborn infant" is fine aswell. Do you prefer one over the other? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you and I are the leading editors of that article. Doc, I do appreciate it when you improve my edits, as is frequently the case, however you also frequently make inconsequential changes in my wording, for instance here where I changed "neonate" to infant to make the article more reader friendly and you changed my "infants" wording to babies. This is irritating and frustrating for me. I've only just recently come back to editing a few medical pages after leaving them a few years ago when I left because it was no longer enjoyable and I'd like to continue to edit with some degree of enjoyment. Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It was not meant as a slight. While not a big deal I still consider it an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I know you did not mean it as a slight and if it happened only this one time it would in fact not be a big deal. In this case both words are equal or almost equal; certainly if one looks at literature they are both used interchangeably. Sometimes I like baby best and other times infant seems a better choice. In this case I liked infant the best. You just don't seem to get that it is rude and thoughtless to make word changes in cases such as this. Gandydancer (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia. We all get what we write edited by others. If you really prefer infant feel free to restore that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Reference templates

Hi Doc! You reverted my edits to the references in chlorine-releasing compounds, and asked why I made them. I had removed them because the {{cite ...}} templates don't seem to provide any advantage, only disadvantages:

  • Their source code is usually twice as long (or more) than that of the plain <ref>..</ref> without templates.
  • The source with templates is almost unreadable, making it MUCH harder to edit and reuse in the article.
  • They cannot be created or fixed without knowledge of the template and all its variants and fields; which restricts editing of references to a small set of editors.
  • They generate cryptic journal refs like "21(3), 12" instead of "volume 21, issue 3, page 231". (The cryptic format is understood by academics but not by general raders. It was developed by editors of academic journals, a couple centuries ago, to save paper; which is obviously not an issue in online documents like wikipedia articles. Note that the online sites of many journals, like this one, now use the full form on the article header.)
  • They are inflexible, as they assume that a reference has a definite set of fields with definite meanings.

For all those reasons, I don't use those templates, and I remove them whenever I have to edit references. I also spell out the full journal name, instead of using the academic abbreviations, and generally try to make the entry more readable and accurate if I can.
I won't fight to put my edits back, but please look at the two versions, and consider: which one is better, for readers and for editors?
Sincerely, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) User:Jorge Stolfi Two things. First of all, please read (and follow) WP:CITEVAR. It is not OK to unilaterally go through an article and change the reference style. ("Style warrioring" is a real problem here - for example using English or US spellings, or BC/AD vs BCE/CE and the community came to a way to kill these a long time ago -- don't change a style thing from X to Y without getting prior consensus... and if you go ahead and do it anyway, understand that you are likely to be reverted and you will have almost no chance of "winning" the subsequent debate. Such debates can become huge time sucks here. So we do everything we can to kill them before they become forest fires)
Second, if you want to talk about changing template:cite journal or having that template deleted, the place to do that would be its talk page - a centralized discussion, instead of trying to change this article by article. (your chance of succeeding there is tiny, but that is the place to try)
That's my advice, and I hope you follow it. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The use of citation templates is optional, and there is the greater directive of ignoring rules (which are made by a few editors who enjoy making rules) when that produces a better article; which is the case here.br/>In fact, that "rule" that you refer to does not prohibit changing the style of individual references in text that one is heavily editing for other substantive reasons (which is the case here). It is clearly meant to discourage editing an article solely to change its style, including the style of references -- either way. In fact, I have seen that happen to several of my articles, when someone else edited all my references to add those damn {{cite }} templates, or &nbsp; between numbers and units, etc..
As for debating that issue on the template's talk page: years ago I complained about them in that and other forums, including the "editability" initiative of several years ago. But it is totally pointless, because the people who have to decide whether and how a template should be used are the same people who created the template; and they obviously enjoy doing that, and want it to be used.
So it is not surprising that the "editability" initiative produced zero concrete results...
PS. DocJames, I see now that you did not just revert the references, but also (for the second time) reverted all my edits to the text itself. Sorry, but I do feel that those edits made the head section much better. Please restore them, or improve that section futher.
(BTW, note that Wikipedia is not the place to quote price information, since it is too ephemeral. Certainly not in the head section. Note that I kept that information in the body of the article. Note also that the form of usage depends on the product; and that the price is for chloramine-T, not chloramine -- two very different products.) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
As you will. You are beating your head against the wall and will likely end up blocked, and for increasingly longer period of time.
We do include price information, and in the lead. This has been discussed at WT:MED and is discussed at WP:MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Articles do not "belong" to projects, and projects do not have the right to impose style rules.
As for being blocked: I have been an editor since 2004, contributed more than a thousand articles, etc.. I have never been blocked, and once I was offered an admin position (that I declined). So I know how the system works (and fails to), thank you. All I can do (and I feel must do) is try to convince editors, one at a time -- whether that works or not. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Cite templates are fairly standard and moving the article to another style is not something I support.
Per the talk page some of what you added was unreferenced. Other bits were based on really old sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

observation

Dear Doc James you cannot hurl accusations of a paid editors for Angelique Rockas when there is no need for proving what was produced. If you are way on holiday have you read the material? Making accusations of payment constiture libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nescu23 (talk • contribs) 10:29 June 21 2018 (UTC)

Perfect thanks User:Berean Hunter
Is this group even sufficiently notable for a page? (Angelique Rockas and Internationalist Theatre)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Avaza Software

I see you salted Avaza Software at some point; the article now exists at Avaza (company), and I'm not sure the reasons for deletion have been addressed. Would you take a look at it? Thanks. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 05:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Smells like a TOU violation. It should be deleted – full of unreliable / PR sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I concur. Blocked and deleted. SmartSE (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for taking care of this. Agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Second verse, same as the first. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Potential predatory publishers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Potential predatory publishers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Drug tolerance revision

This edit - I am not sure this meets WP:MEDRS, I'm a bit reluctant since its an IP edit, but impact factor seems reasonable for this journal link. Thanks, Shaded0 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Edit: I peeked around at some of the other previous edits by the IP, and have for now reverted the edits pending for discussion. Points are potentially valid but could use a non-primary source or review article supporting the claims I believe. Shaded0 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Shaded0 based on a primary source. I concur with your reasoning. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Placental Abruption

I noticed that you reverted my change to the placental abruption article. When I read the linked reference I don't see where it mentions bedrest. I see where it states that in some instances hospitalization with modified rest is advised, but this is different from bedrest. In the bedrest article, there are 9 separate references to bedrest not being an advocated treatment in pregnancy. I'll leave it as it stands for now to see your thoughts and comments, but unless I hear differently I will plan on editing it in the future to make it more accurate. Thanks. D.c.camero (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Will get the exact quote tonight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay so ref says "Modified activity involves refraining from any activity that increases intra-abdominal pressure for a long period of time—eg, women should stay off their feet most of the day."
This is basically bed rest User:D.c.camero.
Bed rest is very very rarely recommended in pregnancy. On very rare occasions it still is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_137&oldid=849180748"