User talk:Doc James/Archive 127

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 James. I am trying to add the FDA Fluoroquinoline warning from 2016 to the Ciprofloxacin page. But you appear to have removed the most important parts. I think it’s important to state that Ciprofloxacin is associated with disabling and permanent side effects. Can we get this included on the page? Wiki woms (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We already say "The black box warning on the U.S. FDA-approved ciprofloxacin label warns of an increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture, especially in people who are older than 60 years, people who also use corticosteroids, and people with kidney, lung, or heart transplants."

I have added that some may be permanent.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, thanks for your reply. The new FDA information on this medicine, is that multiple side effects can occur in the same patient and effects can be disabling and potentially permanent. I think this new important information needs to be prominent, as it is a safety issue Wiki woms (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

This is what I have now put.

“Side effects can involve the tendons, muscles, joints, nerves, and the central nervous system. These can occur together in the same patient. Side effects can be disabling and potentially permanent.[41]”

Hope this is acceptable. Many thanks Wiki woms (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Let move this to the talk page Talk:Ciprofloxacin Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, can you please reply to my last 2 messages on the talk page Wiki woms (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, could you please reply to my last message on the talk page.

In particular I would like to know why the FDA warnings are deemed insignificant. If this is the case then why are the 2008 and 2013 FDA warnings talked about in depth on the page, but not the 2016 warning. Especially considering the 2016 warning is more serious and even advises on restricting fluoroquinolone use.

Also the Levofloxacin page talks in depth about the 2016 warning. Can we not edit the Ciprofloxacin page to say the same as the Levofloxacin page regarding the 2016 warning. As the warning applies to all fluoroquinolones. Thank you Wiki woms (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is also mentioned in depth enough, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your last message. I have sent the below message to the talk page. I’d be grateful if you can reply as you seem to be avoiding my points.

“Doc James thanks for your last message. I appreciate that you have mentioned side effects can be permanent. Can you please answer the following questions:

1. Why you are reluctant to say that side effects may also be disabling? (As this is what the 2016 warning is also about)

2. Why can the page not be edited to be the same as the Levofloxacin page, regarding the 2016 FDA warning?

The Levofloxacin page goes into far more detail about the 2016 FDA warnings and is far more prominent. I have noticed you are heavily involved in the editing of the Levofloxacin page. So I am confused as to why you think this information is necessary on the Levofloxacin page but not the Ciprofloxacin?” Wiki woms (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I seem like I am trying to argue with you. I’m sure you have the best intentions.

I’m just finding it frustrating that you don’t deem the 2016 FDA warnings as important as I seem to.

I know many side effects are covered on the page. But most of that information is from the 2008 and 2013 FDA warnings. Surely the page should be updated to reflect the latest information? Wiki woms (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is in the article. It is important. We just do not need to repeat the same thing. Lets give other people a chance to voice an opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doc Thanks for the feedback on the Malnutrition article which you are right to say i (almost) cut and pasted So if I paraphrase / edit and resubmit with a link is that OK? I can also get a research link to Maury Massler's work ... Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Destiny2020 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The source is also not sufficient per WP:MEDRS User:4Destiny2020 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi James, these edits don't pass the smell test (note the copypasted ref numbers) but I don't have time now to hunt down the source. Could you manage a check? LeadSongDog come howl! 23:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

When stuff is old it is so hard to determine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review on Milk allergy starts Friday. I just added a Regulation of labeling sub-section, and am considering adding content on cross-reactivity with soy. You are welcome to chime in. David notMD (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:David notMD Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Recently you added a maintenance template to the Noam Weisbrod article. As part of a COI edit request I was reviewing, I rewrote much of the article and removed the template. I wanted to ask if you could visit the page at your earliest convenience in order to garner your support of this change. If it still does not meet with your approval, please let me know asap and I will re-add the template. I look forward to your response on the article's talk page. Thank you for your time. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure will take a look in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Spintendo the article is not based on secondary sources but is simple a point form descrition of the primary sources they have published. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The side effects on Alfuzosin don't match those on https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a604002.html#side-effects How does one go about updating the list? May I just copy/paste the list to the article? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 Most lists of side effects vary some between sources.

Can one copy and paste? The source you point to is fully copyrighted by the ASHP and thus you would need to paraphrase from their list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hard to paraphrase a list of specific items... I'll just add it as a reference. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Doc,

Thanks for your note.

I can appreciate why you reverted the Westbrook entry to what you had written. My concern is that, to me, your entry all but dismisses Westbrook as bogus. My research suggests otherwise.

I certainly agree with the legitimacy of pointing out that Westbrook is not accredited by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Indeed, I added that detail to the version I submitted earlier today. But, to me, ignoring any of Westbrook’s credentials, including its recognition by the American Academy of Family Physicians as an approved CME provider, is incomplete and, to me, suggests a negative bias.

I just did a LinkedIn search and found many accomplished healthcare professionals with advanced Westbrook degrees, including Massachusetts General Hospital’s Wellness Center director, whose Westbrook Ph.D. the hospital recognizes. (I say it recognizes it because I also read the Wellness Center director’s bio on the Mass General website.)

I hope we can find some middle ground that is accurate and fair.

Gerry Harrington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryharrington (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

As a conflicted editor you are to propose changes on the talk page only. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You are quite correct, there is not mention of Lipo-flavonoid for Tinnitus. The intent was to insert the statement and reference for Meniere's disease, the topic of the 1st reference and for which the 2nd reference indicates there is no recognized treatment, but by error it went into the wrong (Tinnitus) article. Thank you for noticing this. --Zeamays (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert. Please take no further action without community agreement in the Talk:Lipo-flavonoid page. --Zeamays (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus is to follow WP:MEDRS for medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you mind making a quick note about the changes you're making, particularly when reverting a portion of recent edits. You altered one of my edits here. I can see that you added back in the repeating reference (all the half lives come from the same source, so why not just have one reference after sublingual/buccal?), but I'm not sure why. Thanks. DocTox (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I removed one of the extra h's from hours, added back a ref, and we only really need one image of fentanyl patches.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi James, I am done with the pneumonia article for today. Would you mind reviewing the vaccination section? Hope your week is going well, Thanks. Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure will do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for going through it. I appreciate your time! JenOttawa (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If you have a beef with the usefulness of Pub-Med references, please explain on talk --Zeamays (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Response is on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates.

I hope to do the treatment section next. I have the text prepared with references. I do have the concern that I will end up using 3 review articles for the bulk of the article but I think with a condition as rare as Kallmann syndrome the choice of reference is limited if I am going to stick to review article only.

I hope the changes I have made so far look ok. I have prepared a change to the gene table which is in the Talk section of the page.

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

These are good sources User:Neilsmith38

• https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/kallmann-syndrome/
• https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/kallmann-syndrome
• https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/10771/kallmann-syndrome

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

.....thank you. I have copies of those articles printed out and will be using them when I update the Treatment section. Thank you for the update today, the only reason I moved it was because I did not want to repeat too much in the article, but I can see the opening section should contain all the relevant basic details.

I hope I am going the right direction with this article. Thank you for your input.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

will send an email in about an hour. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah okay... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This Ticket:2018011710006516 mentions you. (Sorry, in airport, and don't recall the code to make it a link.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied by email to you. Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Martin Saidler shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up User:Pigsonthewing Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, You've tagged this article for cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playware_Studios.

I agree with the tag as I am the founder of the company and I created the article. However, I've tried to follow all of Wikipedia rules and only relied on content from independently published sources.

How can I get the article cleaned up so that it meets wikipedia standards.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeformind (talk • contribs) 07:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Was this you also User:Blitzio or was this someone you hired? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to replace the sources you removed from FA Cup with more reliable ones or are you only interested in removing citations to the Daily Mail? Just curious. --Jameboy (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Better to have no source than the DM IMO. I guess I can add a ^{[citation needed]} tag if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I was evaluating the Urinary incontinence article and noted that though it doesn't undergo a lot of editing, a proportion of edits seem to be vandalism and antivandalism. Could you evaluate whether or not the article would benefit from some sort of 'block' that would limit editing to confirmed users? This might cut back on the time editors put into reverting vandalism. Thanks and Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 12:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If I may add my 2 cents, I do not find the edit history of that article problematic. Not many reverts at all (proportionally perhaps yes), and many of them seem to be good faith edits (aka not vandalism). No change needed imo. --Treetear (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I keep an eye on it. Might not be enough to get protection at WP:RPP yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dr James,

Thank you for keeping an eye on the article. I hope the changes I have made so far have been acceptable so far. I am trying to improve the quality of the article the best I can.

I left a couple of suggestions on the Kallmann syndrome talk page but one question I wanted to ask was about the mentioning of notable people with a certain medical condition. I think with a condition as rare as KS it would be good if we could mention a couple of patients. I did have two patients in the past, both of whom have Wiki articles, Jimmy Scott and Brian Brett. Having KS is mentioned on both their articles and have influenced their careers. They have been mentioned in the article before but were deleted by another author. I was thinking of mentioning them again in the "History" section. I hope this would be acceptable.

Thank you. Regards. Neilsmith38 (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess the question is, have they had a significant influence on the disease or is them having it only mentioned in passing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

...I take the point. They had no impact on the disease itself so they should not be mentioned in the article. It is mentioned on their own pages because having the condition has affected their artistic careers to a certain extent. I will leave them off. I need to expand on a the treatment section next but I am progressing cautiously. There has been a recent review article on the genetics of KS / CHH e-published this week so I will see if I can use that as a suitable reference.

Thank you. Best wishes.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Explain to me why you removed so much Aurora Cannabis text that I added without any communication whatsoever. What do you have against what you removed? I spent years earning my cred and what you did without explanation is not cool. Paradise coyote (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It was unreferenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doc James,

I'm working on this article as a part of my WikiMed elective in med school. When I started reading it from top the first three sentences seemed rather rather wordy, including "Severity may vary from mild to severe." Though that pretty much sums up the scale of severity, it is understood that what is meant is that there are varying degrees of severity to birth defects, hence the edit. My edit changed the first three sentences to one: "A birth defect, also known as congenital disorder, is a condition present at birth that may result in problems such as physical disability, intellectual disability, or developmental disability with varying severity." I find that this sentence structure flows better and says the same thing. As far as I see nothing was actually "removed."

Best, Dmusheye (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The definition "a condition present at birth regardless of cause." IMO is clearer. That birth defects do not just refer to severe problems should also be noted IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't "varying severity" be explicit enough in clarifying that not only severe cases are included?

It seems that I have also overlooked the edit to the sentence: "Risk factors include not enough folic acid, drinking alcohol or smoking during pregnancy, poorly controlled diabetes, and a mother over the age of 35 years old." As it is written, it implies that not enough folic acid as well as not enough drinking alcohol is a risk factor. Was it wrong to clarify and change the structure to: "Risk factors include folic acid insufficiency, drinking alcohol or smoking during pregnancy, poorly controlled diabetes, and a mother over the age of 35 years old."?Dmusheye (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree regarding the folic acid bit and restored the wording you proposed.

We try to write the lead in shorter sentences and try to keep it to one idea per sentence to make the content easier to translate.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Doc,

I just noticed that you deleted our company's entry back in August 2017 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nexar_(company).

I am not sure I understand why (what's a Sockpuppet?), but I would love to put our page back up within the TOU. I believe Nexar passes the notability test.

In any case, would love to hear what was wrong with the page and can definitely start over.

Cheers Cramer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramer (talk • contribs) 09:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The company you used was in breach of our TOU. Please read WP:PAID. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi James, do you mind if I update this page with the newer versions of Cochrane-Wiki projects? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Evidence_based_content_for_medical_articles_on_Wikipedia Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure go ahead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! JenOttawa (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this page gets 10-20 views/month. Should we link this with the Cochrane Project Page? What do you think about the outdated volunteer signup section at the bottom? Thanks again, JenOttawa (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to update that aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a little trouble going back and forth between meta and eng WP project pages! Still learning ;) JenOttawa (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Doc, I noticed you moved the pronunciation I added to the Niacin article to the infobox from the lead. The reason I added it to the lead is that all articles about chemical species that I've seen have it in the lead. Am I breaking any rules? Please advise as I'm completely new to all this. You also left a parenthesis in there, but I don't want to touch or revert your edit without checking with you first as I wouldn't want to cause a row :) Thanks DrVogel (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:DrVogel :-) In an effort to simplify the first sentence a number of use have been moving the pronunciation to the infoboxes. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

People who want to buy an article are relentless. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for your 2¢. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You and Kudpung are probably interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KDS4444. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes that did not take long :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, why did you cancel my contribution? In this way wikidata can not load the inserted specialties, but only psychiatry appears. --Dapifer (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Dapifer we tend to store data locally. This is the position of the WP:MED community until we can get ONLY the items from WD used within a Wikipedia page showing in the watchlist. Hopefully this fix will be rolled out soon, but from a technical point of view it appears to be complicated. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

In reference to this discussion. Have you ever seen someone (particularly perhaps Southeast Asian writers) use semicolons when listing ages in science writing, such as "children age 2;4"? I can't seem to find anything to tell whether they're using it as an odd decimal or some time of month/year divider. GMG^talk 20:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Never seen ";" used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Looks like confusion between commas and semis. "Ages two and four" → "age 2;4". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the actual quote is "from the age of 0;4 to 2;0", so it's not a range, and they seem to do it pretty consistently. But referring to an infant as being 0.4 years old (i.e., mixing the base twelve months with the base ten decimal) just seen exceptionally odd, at least to a non-expert. GMG^talk 21:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Doc, I noticed that you added the "UDP" tag for possible undisclosed paid payment edits to the article Alfred Angelo, however, you did not add the required associated tag to the talk page, nor provide any explanation for your edit. As such, I have removed the tag for the time being. If you wish to re-add it, please re-add with the associated talk page tag as well as an explanation of why you believe there may have been paid edits to the article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Added tag to the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Doc James.

You recently removed from the article MagForce AG a short description about how NanoTherm therapy works. Your edit commentary was: "trimmed poorly sourced medical claims".

I see it this way: If the therapy is also explained in a generally understandable way outside of medical journals, this is very appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's about the basics of the method. We do not write a medical textbook here. Maybe it's a good compromise when citing a description:

The therapy "involves injecting minute iron particles into tumours and using a magnetic field to heat them up to a temperature that either destroys the cancer cells or renders them more susceptible to radiotherapy or chemotherapy." (Andrew Ward: Therapy thinks small to deliver the heat to stubborn tumours. In: Financial Times, 26 September, 2014.)

or

It is a special therapy "to kill brain and prostate tumours by magnetic nanoparticles, which are first injected into the tumour and then oscillated rapidly by an electromagnetic field. Temperatures within the tumour rise up to 70 degrees, so that the cancerous tumours can be killed from the inside out, without stressing the rest of the body." ("eine spezielle Therapie entwickelt, um Hirn- und Prostata-Tumore durch magnetische Nanopartikel abzutöten. Diese Teilchen werden zunächst in den Tumor gespritzt und danach in einem elektromagnetischen Feld in extrem schnelle Schwingungen versetzt. Dabei entstehen innerhalb des Tumors Temperaturen von bis zu 70 Grad. So lassen sich die Krebsgeschwüre gleichsam von innen heraus abtöten, ohne den restlichen Körper zu belasten." Krebstherapie mit Kleinstteilchen. Die Welt, 24 August 2014)

Would that be a way? Best regards
Atomiccocktail (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This "renders them more susceptible to radiotherapy or chemotherapy" is a medical claim and thus needs a source per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You have now reverted several edits I have made. The research sources I have provided are of the highest standard, from experts and relevant to the subject area in which they were posted.

The only explanation you have given was for your initial revert, yet after this you have given no explanation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifechariot (talk • contribs)

Sure. Send me a link when you have it open.

You could also join the discussion I had already started on the talk page.Talk:Antisocial_personality_disorder#Issues Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Life____ started editing for first time Jan 24 and was blocked Jan 27. Probably not a record but close.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs)

Your endometriosis article shows 10.8 million as the world prevalence for endometriosis. That CANNOT be correct.

Your comment was "nope" which shows that you did not even read the next sentence in your version of the article stating that 6-10% of women have this condition. But there are about 7.4 billion people in the world. Therefore about 3.5 billion are female. If 75 percent of those are past the menarche, there are about 2.7 billion susceptible women on the planet. 6 percent of those would amount to 162 million cases.

Please restore my changes and pay more attention before you revert an edit! "Nope" is not research! Dratman (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the reference in question? Did you look at the talk page? Yes different sources come to different conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I checked the reference! Did you read what I wrote here? 10.8 million LOGICALLY CANNOT BE CORRECT! "Different sources come to different conclusions? Did you look at multplying 6 percent time 2.7 billion women past the menarche worldwide?

What is your problem with this simple correction?

Wikiopedia is not your playground -- it is a collaborative worldwide effort of hundreds of thousands of editors.

I have made 2,387 edits since 2004. Arrogance is not a good characteristic in an encyclopedia editor -- even if it might sometimes be helpful when you are working in the ER.

Dratman (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

We summarize what high quality references say. We have done that here.

What you added was wrong / not supported by the reference that was behind the text in question.

The Global Burden of Disease Study which was published in the Lancet in 2016 is a really good source.

If you disagree with the conclusions published by the GBD, write to the Lancet and explain why. They come out with updates every couple of years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if we use math and think something is wrong we need to follow the sources (and this is a good one). Else it is own research and we do not do that on wikipedia. Best regards Adville (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the way Wikipedia handles verifiability, and also with the unsuitability of own research here.

Proceeding in that vein, attempting to check your reference, I am unable to find any specific information about endometriosis in the reference you cite. Kindly make available a PDF of the page containing the endometriosis statistic on which you rely, so I (and others reading this) can see it.

Also -- one question: who is "we"? Wikipedia is edited by individuals. If you are a group, please identify it as such. Dratman (talk)

"We" are "you and me"... we all who edits here. Adville (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for including me in that we, but that is not necessary. I will speak for myself. So, are you and Doc James somehow collaborating here? Dratman (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I have his disc. On my watchlist. I edit a lot about medical articles mostly on svwp. So I saw this discussion and answered to explain for you. When writing about medicine it is very important to have good sources. Thats all. Best regards Adville (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

In this case the source (if there really is a reference to endometriosis there) is incorrect. Think about that, and take a look at this web item:

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/19/this-neglected-disease-is-a-hidden-drain-on-womens-success.html

A $119 billion drag on women in the workplace.

7:03 AM ET Thu, 19 May 2016 | 03:01

There's a little-known but extremely common disease afflicting 1 in every 10 women in the United States and costing the nation an estimated $119 billion annually. Many women struggle in silence, not even knowing they have it. The disorder is known as endometriosis and can affect women of all ages.

Ten percent of half the US population would be 0.1 x 320000000 * 0.5 = 16 million women in the US alone! But the figure Dr. James insists on continuing to use in Wikipedia is 10.8 million worldwide! Here is another sentence in the current Wikipedia article:

It may affect more than 11% of American women between 15 and 44.

And now compare that with the sentence I edited (reverted by Dr. James) and the sentence immediately after it:

Endometriosis was estimated to affect 10.8 million globally in 2015. Another estimate states about 6–10% of women are affected.

Are you beginning to see the pattern here? 10.8 million globally is clearly incorrect. 10.8 million might be a reasonable (possibly low) estimate for the US alone.

And what about this?

The point prevalence of endometriosis [n = 6146, mean age 40.4 ± 8.0 years (SD)] was 10.8 per 1000 (95% CI 10.5-11.0). Women aged 40-44 years had the highest prevalence rate of 18.6 per 1000 (95% CI 17.7-19.5).

BJOG. 2018 Jan;125(1):55-62. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14711. Epub 2017 Jun 14. Epidemiology of endometriosis: a large population-based database study from a healthcare provider with 2 million members.

Eisenberg VH1,2, Weil C1, Chodick G1,2, Shalev V1,2.

10.8 per thousand women worldwide would be about (7.4 billion/2) x (10.8/1000) = about 39 million women worldwide -- much lower than some other credible estimates worldwide, but still almost four times the 10.8 million cases worldwide as the current article claims. Dratman (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I linked to the pdf on the talk page before the discussion here began.[1] Do a control f "type in endometriosis". The page number in the pdf is 1570. Here is the pdf again[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---