User talk:Doc James/Archive 77

Tramadol

I don't understand why exactly you undid my edit. I particularly don't understand why you undid the part of the edit that concerned Serotonin Syndrome. Please explain. Thanks! Dfdemt (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no refs. Those are required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added "Its use has increased since Darvocet was withdrawn from the market and all medications containing hydrocodone were moved from Schedule III to Schedule II in late 2014" and the ref was from 2004 thus does not support this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, my mistake. After my last edit in which I added the references, I think I must have clicked cancel instead of save page. Is there any way you can put back the portion of the edit that contains the info on serotonin syndrome? I will cite the references within the next 24 hours if so. I have to go back and locate the articles again. It would just help me out a bit. Thanks for your help! Dfdemt (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the bit "Because Tramadol inhibits the reuptake of serotonin and norepinephrine, caution is advised when using it for pain relief in patients already taking antidepressants of the SSRI and SNRI class, because the combined effects can cause serotonin syndrome." re add when you have a good ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pelvic inflammatory disease references

I'm trying to understand the constructive edit that you made to the article. I believe that your intent was to remove a reference that probably is not needed, am I correct? I understand why it's not controversial, but what I'm wondering is this: are two references are better than one? If one becomes unavailable or is unavailable to someone, is it not better to have a second reference that supports the same statement? Also, I know I am not completely familiar with the discussion that is ongoing concerning the reliability of medical sources. But not are not some of the online web resources considered at least adequate for a layperson? I understand the idea that a medical journal is a better reference than an article from Mayo Clinic. But that doesn't disqualify the article from Mayo Clinic, does it? I don't want to waste your time, and I don't want to waste my time trying to find good references in support of the pelvic inflammatory disease article and I don't want to have to waste your time having you go back and take out all the references that I have found. Is it perhaps better to put the references that I found in side of no wiki tags? Similar to what you did in the lead? It seems to me, and of course I could be wrong because I'm just acting as a copy editor, that the article I relies heavily upon the one source. Am I understand this correctly?

Also, in light of my past editing history, would you be willing to give me helpful suggestions so that I will be able to recognize the potential of making a "controversal" edit and hesitate to do so without consensus?

Bfpage |leave a message 16:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source [[1]] not a secondary source. We need to use secondary sources such as review articles. If you notice the publication type it does not say review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, so what you are saying is: if the review of the journal article appears somewhere else, the 'somewhere else' is a better reference?

Bfpage |leave a message 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article that describes what a review article is. It is more than just a description somewhere else but a synthesis of the literature that comes to overarching conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Special report: An advance look at the WMF's fundraising survey

News and notes: WikiWomen's History Month—meetups, blog posts, and "Inspire" grant-making campaign

In the media: Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West

In focus: WMF to NSA: "stop spying on Wikipedia users"

Traffic report: Wikipedia: handing knowledge to the world, one prank at a time

Featured content: Here they come, the couple plighted –

Op-ed: Why the Core Contest matters

Humble Request!

Respected sir Doc James, (Johnalvin4050 here)First of all lot i offer lot of prayers for your good health and prosperity.Today, when i logged in my Wikipedia account i saw your message that you have added me in spam list along with my reference.It is very disappointing for me as i am big fan and lover of Wikipedia. I personally accept my mistake for adding reference in wrong way but believe me i was innocent because i was no idea about such violation of Wikipedia guidelines.But now i have read all guidelines regarding editing which makes me very shameful because i was violating Wikipedia guidelines.Please forgive and remove the label of spam because i swear to you that i will not violate such guidelines next time and i will be careful.I hope you will forgive me on condition that i will do not violate these guidelines again.i am eagerly waiting for you kind and positive response.(Johnalvin4050 here)

User:Jhonalvin4050 it is not a big concern. It is all part of learning how to edit Wikipedia. Per the guidance on your talk page please use high quality secondary sources going forwards. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your kind reply but please remove the label of spam because it is scarring me because i swear to you i will not do anything like that in future.sir, i am giving you my words.

There is no comment regarding spam on your talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jhonalvin4050 Were do you see it?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was the message I received from you for which I was talking about sir! "'Doc James mentioned you on the Spam-blacklist talk page in "healthncare.info". 5 hours ago" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhonalvin4050 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no one else sees that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

spam blacklist unheralded addition by you of my account ?

Did you also add my name to one of your alleged spam complaint entries ? If so- is it customary or mandatory to inform the editor who is your target of your having done so with a link ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of. Please provide a link if there is one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia GA

Doc James below is a summary which shows that Bluerassberry had approved his part of the GA, and Doctor JoeE was doing his...

hello DoctorJoeE... Blue Rasberry has passed the GA review article for Dyslexia, however it needs another individual to look at it and then close, I saw your help on Acne Vulgaris and decided you could help, should there be any additional information needed, references or images I would not hesitate to add them at your request, I thank you for your time, please contact me with any questions, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: I will do my best to get this done by the end of the weekend. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much Doctor JoeE, again should you have any questions do not hesitate to ask, thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

however if you check now JKTDog seems to have deleted quite a bit to the article,,Dyslexia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About my Editing

Hey Doc James,

I want to ask you what makes my links not appropriate?

This link is a roundup answered by therapists and experts confirmed by many therapists websites like GoodTherapy.org and Psychology Today.

You can check their names over those two website or would you like to send you their profiles links there?

And what I can do more to bring back my links on the pages that I edited?

Thank you so much, Have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedHassantoday (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your association with this website? You will need consensus from WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

User:S Marshall mentioned one of your comments at ArbCom. QuackGuru (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James - Just want to be certain that you know that QuackGuru added you as an involved party in his abitration request, after the request was initially posted. BMK (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Beyond My Ken Not a great deal to add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I've put the templates on the two articles u mentioned on the talk page...will tell the two guys at our wiki, who write the most of the medical articles to fix that...Cheers :) --Ivan VA (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Ivan VA. We plan to translate more 4 paragraph overviews of diseases. We currently have 114 ready for translation as listed here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GBS

A block or warning at your discretion should be considered for the edits going on at Guillain Barre syndrome by an IP address seen here [2] and here [3]. I am now considering applying for rollback privileges to make it easier to undo such vandalism in the future. It's a little more tedious when they break it up into multiple edits. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warned them. And gave you rollback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks & thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My References

This morning I edited an article on cirrhosis . The following review article was my source

http://www.eu.elsevierhealth.com/media/us/samplechapters/9781416032588/9781416032588.pdf

however , it has been removed stating the lack of citation of high quality evidence. Can you please help me ? I am new to Wikipedia . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshiteejsode (talk • contribs) 10:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kshiteejsode these were your edits [4]. You added:

"Changes ... activation." with no ref

"One... matrix. " with no ref

And this primary source "Rockey, D. (n.d.). Stellate cell/HCV interactions in hepatic fibrosis. Gastroenterology, 2117-2118"

This which you added "Host risk factors include human promoter polymorphisms such as TGF-β1 and angiotensin as well as host immune phenotype variations , such as immunosuppressed patients ." sourced to "Huang H, et al. Hepatology 2004; 40:230A"

This link WP:MEDHOW will help you with referencing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

I have proposed that you be banned from editing circumcision related pages.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure and were did you propose this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

African trypanosomiasis on ro.wiki

Thank you for reporting the problem. I redirected one of the articles to the other. Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's disease andLinda Ronstadt

Here is one of multiple references (in this case, CBS News) where she speaks about the challenges of the disease and, to my mind at least, raises public awareness of same:

Linda Ronstadt on living with Parkinson's disease

If you are inclined to reconsider her exclusion, that would be appreciated.

Dreadarthur (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we are looking for is someone talk about the impact she has had on PD awareness. These sources exist for MJ Fox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endometrial cancer

I don't understand why exactly you undid my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akram1988 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed on the talk page [5] as mentioned in the edit summary User:Akram1988 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Talk:Electronic cigarette

I know you're a bit too experienced for user warning templates but it says it better than I can.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Electronic cigarette, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. SPACKlick (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I do not consider adding links to be non constructive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

What is it you want to discuss? Perhaps if you could be more specific about the style manual, I could address that issue. My client, Lori Cohen, sent you an email. I trust you received it.

Sandraleestuart (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandraleestuart So to clarify you are being paid to work on this article by Lori Cohen the Chief Marketting Officer at MST services? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Where do I disclose it?

slsSandraleestuart (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page. Plus per WP:COI you should not edit the article directly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

autism

My references were somehow removed. For what reason? Are they not good references to use? Please respond on my talkpage. Angela Maureen (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup if you check the talk page of the article in question you will see discussion of the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MST

Doc James,

Below is the email i sent to your gmail account, asking you to please refrain from editing the MST page. Here is the email. We do not want to engage in a editing war, however, it is clear you plan to keep imposing your view and only your view on this intervention that is supported by credible independent sources like Blueprints for Health Children.

I want to start a formal mediation process so that this can be resolved. Below is the email I sent you, to which you did not respond. You leave no choice but to get third parties involved. I would really like to understand your agenda.

lori cohenNehocirol (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for response. I think on some issues we have a genuine difference of perspective and are going to need to agree to disagree. This takes me to my next request. We are very concerned about the way you have chosen to restructure the page. Anyone who comes to it and begins reading might infer that MST doesn’t work. That may be your opinion but that is certainly not a widely held view. The references at the bottom of the page list a number of credible sources that disagree with this view.

We are requesting that you stop editing the page from the original layout that was posted years ago, putting effectiveness at the bottom of the page.

We have looked at many other pages—psychotherapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapy), Rational Emotive Therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_emotive_behavior_therapy), Cognitive Behavior Therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy, to name but a few. We even checked every intervention listed in the 128-page United Nations’ Compilation of Evidence-Based Family Skills Training Programmes. None of those with Wiki pages had effectiveness and criticism/adverse effects at the top at the page as you are insisting on putting them.

As I’ve said before, we will leave in the material you inserted. However we feel your format shows an intention to put MST in a bad light. Though I applaud your dedication for policing Wikipedia for false medical information, your extreme caution in this case is unwarranted.

In the coming weeks we will change the structure of the page back to a format that is more typical for Wikipedia entries of this kind. We respectfully request that you not change these edits.

Lori — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehocirol (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i will try to leave you a message here. i do not want to engage in an editing war, but i have no idea what your agenda is and why you have truncated the Multisystemic Therapy page.

I do not understand your response. We need to engage in arbitration to settle this. What is the next step. I would request you restore the page until we can come to a resolution through the wiki administrator. nechoirolNehocirol (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nehocirol First of all can you explain what your position is with respect to this procedure? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

are you asking if she has some role at MST Services? (what i think you mean) or if she thinks MST works (what your question sounds like)? (feel free to delete this after you read it, Doc) Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is regarding what her job is at MST services. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple other question

Which "third parties involved" are you thinking of getting?
Per "we will change the structure" I assume this means the people you are paying?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined ArbCom Case

The arbitration request concerning electronic cigarette articles has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC) See Arbitration request. It was the opinion of some of the arbitrators that the issue may still be resolved by the community. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothermia

I dont intend to make a big deal out of this, I just was triggered by the lead sentence which reminded me of a book I read in high school. They discouraged using the word "when" after a noun. e.g. "Hypothermia is when...". I'm not such a great writer myself but I thought I'd give it a try. Do you think the current wording is the best possible wording? I actually googled for the text of the book to see what they replaced it with before I made the edit, but I couldn't find it. —Soap— 03:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a definition. Have adjusted to get rid of the "when"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoplastic left heart syndrome

Hi Doc, Interesting edit on Hypoplastic left heart syndrome This sentence This technique increases/decreases the pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and thereby improves systemic blood flow The sentence originally was "increases", was changed to "decreases" (here) (Dec 2013) then, just changed back to "increases" (here) just now. Not sure what is correct. Would you please take a look if you have the time? Much appreciated. Jim1138 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been copied from [6]. Have paraphrased. It was increased. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ref

The reference pages are not just website, one of them is a peer reviewed journal. The other is a comprehensive literature on Yoga, Ayurveda and ancient historical medicine in India. Users should go through it. Thanks, I will also try to add more references. Pinmishra (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Pinmishra (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 19 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Mesenteric ischemia page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji E.M

How do you those are paid articles(Just Rich Gates & ScholarGeek)?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaji E.M (talk • contribs) 04:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which deletion criteria did you think applied to them? I declined the speedy deletion when they were tagged as G11 as I didn't think they were unambiguously promotional, particularly Just Rich Gates. There's no policy which prohibits paid editing as as far as I know it isn't a reason to delete anything. Having said that the Terms of Use don't allow editors to engage in undisclosed paid editing but that affects editors not their edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Deleted content written by a sock and obvious paid editor. We often delete contain written by socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify this was deleted based on WP:G5 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's it a sock of? If you give me some evidence I'll take a look and see if there are any sleeper accounts and/or block the creator as a sock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will email you details in a few days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data on one is here [7] of which there is more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Laurence David Gaz

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laurence David Gaz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Please undelete it yourself or let some one undelete it. First check the old page. It is not readded. It is new page! Katiebade (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you are an experienced Wikipedian for having so few edits. It appears that you were paid by David Gaz to write the article in question per Fivver. It also appears that you are a sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italian

Hi Doc James, I was trying yesterday to see how could I translate some page in Italian (starting with was ones like "apple pie"). Honestly it is a bit more difficult than I expected due to all this source code. It could take me some time. DO you have any advice and know how can I be a part of the team and receive pages to translate? Valentinogarosi (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)valentinogarosiValentinogarosi (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email me and I will put you in touch with Enrique. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

From the editor: A salute to Pine

News and notes: SUL finalization imminent; executive office shake-ups at the Foundation

In the media: NYPD editing articles regarding allegations of police brutality and misconduct

Op-ed: Does the Wikimedia fundraising survey address community concerns?

Featured content: A woman who loved kings

Traffic report: It's not cricket

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

On the off chance

Might you know anybody with an interest or expertise on the question I posed at Talk:Stylometry?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexia GA article/passed

Strive

Doc James thank you for your help and knowledge --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

You are more than welcome. Thanks for sticking with it :-) And congrats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Granulomatous mastitis

Hi James, there's a bit of disagreement on this page about whether the eponym Wegener's granulomatosis should be used or (IMO and the opinion of mainstream medical/scientific organizations) the term granulomatosis with polyangiitis should be used given that it is more medically descriptive. The fact that it's also an eponym of a pathologist with Nazi ties is also another reason for moving away from this terminology. I've opened a discussion about it on the talk page since RichieZ seems determined to keep it in (he seems ready to edit war over it). His justification appears to be that because the literature on granulomatous mastitis is rather sparse (true, only a few PubMed reviews in the last decade) and uses the term WG (because the literature is older), that we should continue to use that term. I do not agree with this reasoning since I think we should examine the literature as a whole (i.e., if GM literature preferred WG as the term but the rest of the literature did not, surely we would not use WG over GPA). It's true that I do see WG still used in the literature, but it's clear that it has fallen out of favor and been supplanted by GPA as the main term for this disease. There are even papers and reviews discussing this nomenclature controversy and explaining why we should move away from the old eponym. What are your thoughts on this? I'm considering opening it up to the Wikiproject Medicine talk page as well for additional community opinions. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your convenience, here is the link to the PubMed search for reviews with the search term Wegener's granulomatosis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=wegener's+granulomatosis You'll see that many papers use WG parenthetically but tend to feature GPA as the main term. Some reviews (a few of many available examples: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24790453 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24485158) even explicitly state that GPA was formerly known as WG. This is also an important article to take a look at (commentary not a review): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3095856/ One last article (probably the most important of all) is the International Chapel Hill Consensus Conference on the nomenclature of vasculitides. It states the following: "CHCC2012 adopted the recommendation of the American College of Rheumatology, the American Society of Nephrology, and the European League Against Rheumatism to replace “Wegener's granulomatosis” with “granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener's)” (8–10)." Here is the article for your review: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.37715/full TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea to have descriptive names rather than naming after people. Will comment further when I get home in a few days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder about this GM issue. Hope your holiday is treating you well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you deleted has been recreated

On March 19 you deleted Just Rich Gates with the comment "Paid for advertisement removed." The page has been recreated by a relatively new editor who has themselves tagged it as an advert, based on that I'm assuming it could be a paid recreation with the intention of it being overlooked by placing the advert tag. PhantomTech (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarGeek was also recreated but was restored by another administrator. PhantomTech (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes user is a paid editor and was paid for these two articles. They also appear to be a sock. Travelling Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he/she now disclose that he/she are a paid editor on their user page. I believe that is what is required for paid editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now the issue is just that of possible socking and that of promotional content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Wikipedia Photos for the 68W Combat Medic Textbook

Dr. James, my name is Michael W. Davis. I am a curriculum writer for the U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School at FT Sam Houston, TX. I am currently the photograph editor for a textbook we are producing for the 68W Combat Medic Handbook, which is a textbook being produced (non-profit) by the U.S. Army and published by the U.S. Army's Medical Department publishing department (The Borden Instutue). This publishing department works directly with the U.S. Army's Office of the Surgeon General. Dr. James you have released several photographs on wikipedia that display many types of medical conditions such as otitis media, strep pharyngitis, peritonsilar abcess etc.... The U.S. Army Medical Department would like to use your displayed photographs for the textbook being published. V/r. (unsigned edit by 139.232.139.46, 09:41, March 23, 2015‎)

Happy to contribute. Please email me which ones you would like to use and I would be happy to also release into the PD if this is required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]