User talk:Doc James/Archive 106

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Doc, an admin is needed to move Al-Nusra Front to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. There is a consensus that this move should occur on the talk page from a discussion that began in October 2016. Jabhat Fateh al-Sham is a redirect and needs to be deleted to make for the move. Apologies, for disturbing you if you don't deal with non-medical content as an admin.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Literaturegeek reviewed and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but you did not move the talk page or the talk page archive. Can this be done?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah thanks. That is strange. Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Still, not finished, lol. Talk:Al-Nusra_Front/Archive_1 needs to be moved now as well to Talk:Jabhat Fateh al-Sham/Archive_1--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter actually. I did the move as no page delete was necessary. All finished. I think! :_) Thanks for your help.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you recently removed my edits on Benadryl, saying "Because it is a bunch of things in different places, what it is used for and the side effects belong on the page about the type". I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is the "page about this type" that you are referring to? Are you perhaps talking about the page diphenhydramine? I think in this case it would be more appropriate to put the uses and side effects on the Benadryl article because these things are direct information on Benadryl itself. Benadryl is the brand name, and is a more specific type of diphenhydramine. It has a specific function, which is mainly to treat allergies. I am saying this from firsthand experience as I've taken Benadryl many times in my life. I'd like you to consider my revision of the article. I think that besides adding more useful information to it, it expands upon the already very short article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airgum (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not actually true "Benadryl is ... a more specific type of diphenhydramine." If you read the article that will become clear. It is a different medications in different parts of the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you go to the Benadryl website, www.benadryl.com, where you can see their products they have. It is indeed a very specific type of medication, which all have in common the functions of either treating allergies or alleviating itches. Airgum (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

That is for one country. Things get more complicated when you look at it globally. This one does not contain diphenhydramine for example[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm I see what you are trying to get at. Perhaps then we can expand the Benadryl article so it includes not only antihistamines, but all Benadryl products, encompassing itch gel like in your stated example for instance. In any case, I feel like we have to mention allergies in the article, as that has not been mentioned at all and it is a vital aspect of what benadryl is. And adding the fact that it is an over-the-counter drug would also be beneficial for the article, so readers can grasp more of what it is. Instead of saying Benadryl "is a brand name for a number of different antihistamine medications", we can say it "is a brand name for a number of different antihistamine medications, itching gels, and other assortments of treatments." And then go on to add its common side effects, as I have already done in my previous revision. Airgum (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

mentioned allergies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It is named after the characteristic color of the rash. Citations below are from the Oxford English Dictionary.

pink disease n. Med. a disease of children caused by mercury poisoning, characterized by pinkness of parts of the body, restlessness, and photophobia.

• 1921 Med. Jrnl. Austral. 19 Feb. 146/1 When the rash is marked it is common to find the glands in the axillæ and groins enlarged. It is this pink rash, that leads to the name ‘pink disease’.
• 1974 R. Passmore & J. S. Robson Compan. Med. Stud. III. xvii. 28/1 Pink disease earns its name from the colour of the hands and feet and not from an imaginary Dr Pink to whom many students credit its discovery.

-- ABehrens (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:ABehrens thanks you are correct. Corrected this one here[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and commented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi James, I was thinking of adding https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25420096, a 2014 Cochrane review stating that "There is no good evidence for or against the effectiveness of OTC medicines in acute cough" to the Upper Respiratory Tract Infection article.

I noticed that it was a sensitive topic on the Cough Medicine talk page, and there was some resistance and comments on how to present this info back in 2013. Is copying a couple sentences from the Cough Medicine page onto the URTI page permissible?

I was thinking of adding in a section on "Over the counter Cough Medicine" to the treatment section, and putting in a couple sentences from the Cough Meds section under the new heading.

Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course, please add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! JenOttawa (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Just checking in to make sure that I did alright "undoing" a revision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortic_aneurysm

It looks to me that a file name and legend was distorted with the word "hug" inserted.

Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree completely. Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Investigating_COI_policy Further opinions from those here appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James re Reye syndrome - the sentence "Treatment is supportive in nature". means absolutely nothing to me (as a general reader) cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point User:Iztwoz. Added a link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but still find sentence unclear - in nature - could be better worded. Have just posted on the talk page. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In nature is not really needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your comments on the edits you made in the Ibogaine page.

I read your comments and the reliable sources page you mention.

I wanted to clarify that I did the edits to the page because I found out about this research performed by UNIFESP, one of the most important, and internationally recognized medical universities in Brazil.

The study was mainly conducted by the Psychiatrist Dartiu Xavier who has been the head of the Psychiatry department at UNIFESP for many years and is well known internationally. I highlighted a few of Dr. Dartiu’s accomplishes at the end of this message.

The Ibogaine study that I mentioned - Treating drug dependence with the aid of ibogaine: A retrospective study - was published in 2014,in the  Journal of Psychopharmacology, one of the most important medicine journals in this area.

Since the study was published in a reliable source and conducted by a well known international Psychiatrist with the support of one the most respectable medical universities in the country, I believe we can consider this to be a reliable study.

The study proves that Ibogaine can work 100% for every one? Of course not and they made this clear in the study: that, Ibogaine can help a large majority (72%) of people that really want to stop their drug dependence.

The study also mentions that ibogaine is not effective all by itself. The patients need psychological appointments before and after the ibogaine treatment.

This means that every drug dependence patient should use Ibogaine? Of course not. Can this be considered the ultimate proof that Ibogaine really works? Of course not, again! But I believe it is a very good beginning. And if there is a reliable study, since it was published in a reliable source and made by a reliable team of professionals, why not publish this information on Wikipedia?

The Ibogaine page on Wikipedia mentions that "There is currently insufficient data to determine whether it is useful in treating addiction". We may not have all the data that we need to prove that it really works yet but, for sure, this UNIFESP study is a very promising one.

In addition, there are also the statements from a doctor that treated more than 1,200 patients over the last 2 decades, achieving very encouraging results.

Dr. Dartiu Xavier

- Medical Doctor that graduated in UNIFESF and with Master and Doctor degrees from Sao Paulo Federal University. - Founder and coordinator of the Drug dependents Patients in The São Paulo University of Medicine - Teacher in the Sao Paulo Federal University. - Techinal Consultant in the following institutes:

  - UNODC – United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 
  - PAHO - Pan American Health Organization
  - Federal and Municipal (São Paulo) Health department

- Founder of the ABRAMD - Brazilian Multidisciplinary Association of Drugs studies - Member of the IAAP - International Association for Analytical Psychology in Zurich. - Intership in Centre Medical Marmottan (Paris) with the professor Claude Olievenstein. - Was awarded by France former President Jacques Chirac with the Medal from the City of Paris - “Echelon Vermeil”- for all his lifetime achievements

- Has experience in Medical and Psychological areas with emphasis in Psychiatry and neuroscience, working mainly in the following areas:

Alcohol and Drug dependence. Impulses disorders. Psychiatric Comorbidities, Especially Depression and Anxiety Adaptation and Validation of Diagnostic Instruments in Psychiatry Neuropsychiatry; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

If you need more information about this study, please let me know and I'll be glad to try to help you anyway I can.

Best regards , — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmc83 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We are looking for review articles or other high quality secondary sources rather than primary sources. Please read about article types. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,
This is currently up for speedy deletion under the WP:A10 rationale as "as a recently created article with no relevant page history that does not expand upon, detail, or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject, Otitis media.
I've done that very dangerous thing, looked it up on the internet and... well, it would be unethical for me to do anything at all.
Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable as a stand alone condition. A few good refs exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Doc,

You recently imposed a topic ban on this editor, and later commented on a Teahouse thread they began. The editor is, in my opinion, coming very close to violating their topic ban and is wikilawyering at the Teahouse. Please take a look when you have time. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that :-( Will follow up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As of 2017, no approved vaccine exists against Clostridium difficile. Several vaccine candidates are under development.^[1]

Sanofi Pasteur's C. difficile vaccine candidate has started phase III clinical trial stage in August 2013. It is expected to be completed in 2017.^[2]

Pfizer's C. difficile vaccine candidate PF-06425090 has granted fast track designation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in August 2014.^[3] The PF-06425090 vaccine candidate is in phase 2 trial stage.^[4]

Valneva's C. difficile vaccine candidate VLA84 has successfully completed phase II development in July 2016. To enter phase III study Valneva is searching further financial backer.^[5]

---

First source, regarding the development of these three vaccines, is from nature professional journal. The vaccine sources are from the official press releases of the corresponding original (vaccine) developer companies. Why these are all bad sources?

If these are all so bad, then you can delete also the vaccines information on the Staphylococcus aureus article. These are of the absolutely SAME type.

Kind regards, Clemens

---

The Nature review is an excellent source. It however was not used[4]?

Yes the refs at staf aureus could also be improved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the replay Doc James. Well, I think it would not be a good idea to use the same Nature review source on all three vaccines candidates.

However, I still don't understand why an official statement from the vaccine developer (like Pfizer) is a bad source. They develop, produce and are creating the product. Who is more qualified to make a statement regarding this topic then these companies...

Whatever, - will let it be. ;-) Out of my view it is EXTREMELY interesting to read on Wikipedia also about such vaccines candidates, - especially when these are in (final) development. A good example is the Herpes simplex research article.

And by the way, the University of Saskatchewan source which I have used at the StreptAnova vaccine candidate should be also a reliable one. Well, it looks that I should use better that one: ^[1]

We have such a policy of using secondary sources as it helps to verify notability. Yes Pfizer wrote something. But unless a good source deems it notable we tend not to include it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dental vibration appliance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dental vibration appliance until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User talk:CFCF of course we should keep it. We have a Cochrane review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure seems like that will be the result. I didn't see that you had created the article, and it really isn't worth much right now. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Well we have companies aggressively advertising these products using lower quality evidence. They have also paid people to try to write WP articles on them. Giving greater weight to high quality evidence is definitely what we should be doing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James. I notice that you have reversed my recent edits to the Color blindness page, on the grounds that the previous version was less complicated. But unfortunately the previous version is factually incorrect and perpetuates several common misconceptions about red-green color blindness. I am a "strong deutan" myself and have an extended family of several red-green color blind males. Because my mother was one of the rare women who was also red-green color blind we have two versions of red green color blindness in the family: I am a "strong deutan" (strong deutanomaly), whereas all the others are "mild deutans" (or mildly deutanomalous). We have done a lot of comparing of experiences, and found that the labels "mild" and "strong" have little practical consequences. Furthermore none of us was aware of any defect until I discovered my "disability" as a young medical student (during a physiology practical using the Ishihara chart), and started testing some of the other members of the family. One brother also only discovered he was color blind when tested for a job at sea. But he has since had a very successful career in buying and selling materials and yarns. Only once did he deliver a roll of material that the buyer declared was the wrong shade of whatever she required. This buyer was renown for being over-pernickety about colors, which I suspect could have due to her being a tetrachromat (i.e. a carrier of the red-green color blind gene).

The section I altered needs revision. I might have made it sound overly complicated, because I tried to preserve all the areas of experience that were listed in the original section, inserting the actual experiences for the factually incorrect ones. This might have caused an information overload. So, reducing the number of examples might help. I could try to create a simpler version of the section (i.e. a thorough revision from scratch), or you might like correct and simplify the section yourself. (I'd be happy to check it for you for accuracy.) The bottom line is, no matter which way you look at it, the section needs revision.

For instance, while teaching physiology, which I have done for many decades, I amaze the students by being able to name all the colors (of their clothing etc.) accurately, after doing the Ishihara chart together, and discovering that I am strongly red-green color blind. Their first reaction is that somehow I have managed to "adapt" to my disability. But that is physiologically impossible. If you are truly blind to, say, red, then there is no way one can learn to see red - in the same way that no one can learn to see ultra-violet light. The receptor is not there and no amount of "learning" can bring it into existence. Nor is it possible to "adapt" another sensor such as hearing, taste or touch to compensate for the inability to see red. It is a fundamental physiological fact.

Cheers Cruithne9 (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Which sentence is wrong? And what ref supports the changes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doc James. I have mentioned the incorrect use of the word "adapt" above. But the whole section conveys an erroneous impression. Red-Green color blind people are not unable to see colors (a notion that pervades the section). I tried to highlight the sentences and phrases that are misleading by means of red-lettering, and the corrected version in green, but the Wikipedia editor does not allow me to do so (or, more correctly, I do not know how to do that). So I have attached a revision of the paragraphs in question, with the revised sentences and phrases in italics:

Red-green color blindness (the most common form of color blindness), also known as color vision deficiency, is the diminished ability to discriminate between certain colors.^[1][2][3] For instance, the use of red and green lines in a slide show or on a sketch board can cause difficulties for red-green color blind persons. On close inspection the color blind person will be able to point out which is the red and which is the green line, but the difference is not as striking as it is for a normal person. In everyday life however the defect is hardly noticeable,^[2][3][4] and may only manifest itself in color preferences (in clothing for instance), that normal persons might see as too pink, or too green (etc.). Or they may not notice - until it is brought to their attention - that a particular plant is vividly in flower. In many countries the color of the traffic lights have been chosen so that they are as obvious to red-green color blind persons as they are to persons with normal color vision. People with total color blindness see no colors at all, and they may also have decreased visual acuity and be uncomfortable in bright environments.^[1]

The most common cause of color blindness is an inherited fault in the development of one or more of the three sets of color sensing cones in the eye. Males are more likely to be color blind than females as the genes responsible for the most common forms of color blindness are on the X chromosome. As females have two X chromosomes, a defect in one is typically compensated for by the other, while males only have one X chromosome. Color blindness can also result from physical or chemical damage to the eye, optic nerve, or parts of the brain. Diagnosis is typically with the Ishihara color test; however a number of other testing methods also exist.^[1]

There is no cure for color blindness.[2] Diagnosis may allow a person's teacher to change their method of teaching to accommodate the decreased ability to discriminate between the certain colors used on the sketch board.^[5] Special lenses exist which make red and green stand out as very distinctly different colors for people with red–green color blindness under normal daylight conditions.^[6][7] There are also mobile apps that can help people identify colors.^[1]

PS. I cannot provide references for these suggestions; but none existed for the previous assertions either! I notice however that there are some excellent references in other parts of the article that are very authoritative and thorough. I will trawl through them to see which would be appropriate here.

Reference ^[1] states the case correctly, but is easily misinterpreted to mean what was originally stated in the incorrect passages. But here are three references that are much more specific and accurate: ^[4][2][3]

Cruithne9 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Every sentence in the lead has a reference as it stands right now.

For example the adapt pharse is supported by "However, these are relatively minor inconveniences and most people with color blindness learn to adapt."^[8]

Some of those details belong in the body rather than the lead if you have references IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The assertion that color blind persons can "learn to adapt" is not referenced, and is certainly not supported by ^[1] or ^[8]. Additionally it is a physiological impossibility, and therefore incorrect. Also the opening sentence which states that color blindness "is the decreased ability to see color or differences in color". The inability to "see color" is misleading, as that means that it equates to the inability to see ultraviolet light, which is "invisible" (or black) to normal persons. That too is untrue. The most common forms of color blindness are characterized by a diminished ability to distinguish between some colors. But I agree that most of the first paragraph should be moved to the body of the article. I'll look into that. Cruithne9 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah. It is an exact quote from the source. If means for those who have trouble with red and green they learn the position of the colors of traffic lights etc. Search for "adapt" in this url https://nei.nih.gov/health/color_blindness/facts_about

We use common English typically. black, white, and grey are not typically considered colors. Also they can be picked up by cones rather than rods Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why you insist on using words in an encyclopedia that can easily (and probably do in the first instance) give the wrong impression. What is the matter with the word "cope" instead of "adapt" when describing how color blind persons cope with their disability? Also, why use the words "cannot see color" when it is far more accurate and less open to misinterpretation to say that color blind people find it difficult to "distinguish between certain colors", especially because they do in actual fact "see color" throughout the visible spectrum, and that the colors that they supposedly do not see are not "colorless" to them - they just give them a different name to the one that normal people would use. Cruithne9 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay so first you said it was unreffed. We have found that it was referenced.

Than you said that the ref did not support the text. Now I assume you agree that the reference supports the text?

I disagree that "cope" is a better word. In fact it is my opinion it is more negative and thus I think the more positive adapt is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I made a talk comment on the organophosphate poisoning article, and I noticed you also have done that. I do not know what I'm talking about,nor have read the article carefully, but I couldn't find what I was looking for there. I was looking for instances where when a new technology (eg pesticide) is introduced, testing focuses on types of problems that a previous generation of pesticides may have had, and the new substance is incorrectly given the 'all clear' only years later for an often insidious, much worse, problem to be detected. A similar thing took place when radioactive radium was considered as a medication with few side effects. My motive is trying to formulate an analysis of genetically modified organisms (like the planned gm American chestnut trees).

Anyway, I was shocked to find that the article about organophosphate poisoning seems to focus on acute intentional poisonings, and it seems incompetently written or incomplete regarding the complex issue of low level chronic exposure. Am I being paranoid or does this article look like it was written to obscure the problems with these pesticides? Createangelos (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It makes it clear that acute poisoning is a very major issue per "OPs are one of the most common causes of poisoning worldwide.[2] There are nearly 3 million poisonings per year resulting in two hundred thousand death.[2][3] Around 15% of people who are poisoned die as a result.[2]" Saying they cause 100,000 of deaths a year is not obscuring a problem?

Does low level long term exposure cause problems? I am not sure. Would need to look at the literature. We do have health effects of pesticides Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Createangelos:, articles under the thumb of WP:MEDRS do typically seem to be incompetently written, as they can only include information that has been blessed by the western medical establishment. Since that estabishment is pretty tied up with the agribusiness establishment and others, it tends to suppress things like the long-term effects of low-level pesticide exposure on farm workers and produce consumers. So even when medical studies show up the problems, they don't get blessed by the secondary peer review, and so the MEDRS crowd at WP doesn't let us write about them. That's just the way it is. WP is not the place to publish the truth, just things that meet the MEDRS criteria. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you looked at Health_effects_of_pesticides#Long-term_effects User:Dicklyon? Yes there are high quality sources about the negative effects of pesticides and yes when their are we include them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know you do include info that makes it to what the industry considers to be "high quality sources". I was just explaining why articles often seem to be so poorly written, ignoring all the latest studies that haven't been blessed yet. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and explaining this. By the way, Health_effects_of_pesticides#Long-term_effects has some complicated sentences once studies get any more specific than the ones combining all pesticide exposure into one bin. Honestly I expected more from Wikipedia, though, the sentence at the end of the neurological section talking about the pesticides that are "replacing" organophosphates speaks eloquently enough I guess, along the lines that there is no need to point fingers and apportion blame, we've all agreed it's time to move on. Problem is that my interest is a little historical, trying to understand how to avoid future risks, and having everything nicely swept under carpets is confusing to me. I'm not an expert and I can't decode all the subtleties, I'd like an article that says what the neurological effects are and how the mistakes were made. Not only Wikipedia, but even industries are capable of that degree of integrity. Just think about how the industry analyzes aircraft crashes, the data in the black box recorder etc; there is no attempt to spin the result, it is done really honestly. Can't that approach be taken for some of the big problems too, or aren't they important enough to deserve a straightforward honest and un-spun treatment? Createangelos (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's good to understand that for your kind of research, Wikipedia is not a useful resource. You'll need to read books and papers to get more specifics. Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If you can find high quality sources than feel free to add it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the precision on the article on vulvodynia. 24.37.29.254 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Weird question from someone who is not a doctor but likes to read PubMed once in a while, would you be so kind to take a look at Effects of pornography? Doctors are used to awkward stuff. The article is full of POV and nonsense. We need people who can differentiate between scientists and self proclaimed experts you see on TV. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

User:The Quixotic Potato sure will take a look as I am able. Currently on an island in the Philippines hanging out with sharks but with poor quality Internet :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Say hi to the sharks from me (but keep a safe distance!). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my work on cerebral palsy.  :) I still find the 'signs and symptoms' and 'management' sections confusing to read. How should these be arranged? Is there a way for me to seek feedback on the article? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

By body system is usually best for signs and symptoms. Most affected system first. For treatment typical break into lifestyle, therapy, meds, surgery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there any 'model' or exemplar disability articles that have these kinds of breakdowns? I've read the downs' article, but that doesn't seem to be formatted like that. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asperger_syndrome#.22Children_with_AS..._have_been_colloquially_called_.22little_professors.22._Is_the_source_really_true.3F Ylevental (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

What kind of references are needed for Varicocele? this addition seems a bit on the fringe side. Tha anon left this message on my talk page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jim1138. Refs presented do not appear to support the text in question so removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please double check? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)