User talk:Doc James/Archive 126

Archive 120

←

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

→

Archive 130

Thanks

Thanks for your simplification of my recent expansion of Systemic treatment subsection of Hepatocellular carcinoma. This made me consult the Wiki medicine style guide and realize that I was describing individual studies in inappropriate detail. Although I have been contributing to wikipedia for some time now, I still find it difficult to maintain appropriate style and perspective. I'll tack that onto the list of resolutions :-)

Happy new year, Dr G (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Perfect, User:Nootherone321 and Happy New Year to you aswell :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiExperts/Wikipedia Experts

Maybe you were already aware of this but WHOIS on wikipediaexperts.com may be worth a look. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes not really surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Changes

This IP is used by everyone in my house. I generally don't log in for reading, but log in before making changes (to allow people to identify me and enable email notifications), which means it was probably someone else.

Do you mind if I ask what page got changed from this IP? If it was about engineering it's me (which would be strange). If it's about medicine then it's definitely a certain family member.

Thanks for your time.

You can see it at Special:Contributions/197.35.151.158 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Hi. sorry to disturb you. I don't get the absence of ref you're pointing to: My contribution on Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is only to reference another wikipedia page already existing on pulsus bisferiens (where the Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy association is noted). Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxo (talk • contribs) 07:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to add a reference to verify the claim in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, it's not adequate to cite another Wikipedia page. We don't recommend citing ourselves. An independent secondary source (e.g., a literature review) would be a better choice. That's the kind of reference James means. I hope that helps, Linuxo. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Linuxo I have added it to the diagnosis section with a ref.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks to having clarified this. Good day!--Linuxo (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate your help

[2] There were actually three studies mentioned in that cited article, one of them was published in an academic journal, one was presented at an academic conference, and one was peer-reviewed by the Economic and Social Research Council. So, instead of reverting and posting a template on my talk page, wouldn't it have been more helpful to have asked me to improve the citations and giving some time to do so before deleting the info? Also, if you have access to an academic library/database, you could have done it yourself? We're supposed to be adding information to articles, not finding reasons to take it away. I'll re-add the information with better citations, but please try to be more helpful in the future. Thank you. CorduroyCap (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

User:CorduroyCap this is popular press, the underlying source is a primary source.[3]

We are looking for high quality review articles which non of these are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks

dropped the identifiers and filled the new infobox(on several article Ive edited before)...BTW if you check Polyuria you'll notice I had to do it by hand when I drew an "error" with the ref tool, apparently UK patient wont move from infobox??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does not work for "infobox symptom", only for "infobox disease / infobox medical condition". Have restored that one User:Ozzie10aaaa. But I guess we could merge infobox symptom into the new version? What are your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

don't see why not, agree....BTW Hepatomegaly has same issue(reverted myself[4])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

How is this[5]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

nice, Ill finish off the info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Doc James! Just wanted to touch base on your good faith edit. I have a rebuttal.

Hi! My name is Heather, and I saw you removed my addition to the Wikipedia article for Urinary incontinence.

I see that you stated the reason for removal was that the source was a blog. True, the text itself comes from a "blog," but the article itself is on the website for a large business in the incontinence product industry. The article is an interview with a highly experienced research and development scientist, who is sharing his knowledge, experience, and wisdom. I feel like his more in-depth look at the history of incontinence products, as well as how the research and development of these products has changed in the past 50 years, is both interesting and helpful. I myself am a historian, and would love access to that information, provided through Wikipedia.

As for my own ability to research and provide well-researched materials and primary sources -- I'm a historian and author. I've written two history books, which are in the process of being published by Arcadia, one of the largest history publishers in America. I also write for several large publications, magazines, and websites. I'm very familiar with the process of digging into material and providing accurate sources. I totally applaud your effort to protect Wikipedia from weak sources and blogs; however, this is an interview with a Ph.D. in his field from the website of a large company that specializes in these materials.

I feel the source is solid, the information accurate, and the additional text very helpful for people like me who might research the history of such things.

You can feel free to email me at candidslice@gmail.com if you have questions or concerns. Thanks so much!

-Heather — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.195.90 (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The commercial blog of a manufacturer is not a great source. User:Arjayay and User:Roxy the dog were the ones who removed it but I agree with them. We need better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Unusually for me, I left a reasonable edit summary to explain my removal too. That's good because I had forgotten that one. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

There actually is need for a new paragraph and bolding

I wanted to touch base on your good-faith edit of the article on sepsis because I have a rebuttal.

First, was my bolding appropriate? Well, note that both terms, septicemia and blood poisoning, redirect to the article. And on the subject of redirects I quote from Wikipedia's guidance:

Wikipedia follows the "principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.

Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term.

And as to making my enhanced explanation of the redirects a stand-alone paragraph, not only does doing so make it even easier for redirected readers to de-astonish themselves, it's also simply good style. The previous paragraph discusses these topics: risk of death, rates worldwide, and how long the condition has been known. By contrast, my explanation has nothing to do with any of those topics, but instead discusses the completely separate subject of terminology.

I'm prepared to revert your reversion, but wished to understand your thinking better before doing so.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We bold major terms. We do not bold all terms that link to the article such as old terms that are rarely used or every brandname. Per WP:LEAD we generally keep leads to 4 paragraphs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Poor source

If you remove all what you regard as poor sources then when those sources are the only source supporting a statment than you should remove the statment as well. I was unaware tat WikiPedia had a policy of removing all DM and Liverpool Echo references perhaps you could point me to it.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife we have a policy against the use of the DM. It is better to have no source than the DM as it is better for the content to be unrefereced to encourage people to find a better source. I do not think I removed the "Liverpool Echo"? If so it was an error. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the specific RfC[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The easy-to-remember shortcut is WP:DAILYMAIL ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello Doc James. Sorry to disturb you, but I was wondering if you could point me to a general direction about your position and thoughts toward improving/reforming paid editing policy in order to resolve (read: defeat) paid editing in general on Wikipedia, particularly if it's undisclosed. I've been reading some of the responses to your questions back in WP:ACE2016, but I was wondering if I have missed any other archives. This is something that I would like to work on for this year. Thank you for your time. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Alex Shih excellent to hear your interested in taking on this work. It is not a simple problem. I view addressing undisclosed paid editing (UPE) more like locking your door, it will not prevent burglary completely but will decreases the problem (ie not convince we can eliminate UPE completely but does not mean we should do nothing).

• We have this RfC on meta that a couple of people are currently working on closing.[7] This will help use work with intermediaries like Fivver and Upworks to decrease the number of ads for UPE.
• IMO we need a group of functionaries to help address the issue. We need to be able to balance anonymity for good faith editors with our readers having a right to indepedent content. Consensus here. Greater running of CU would also be useful. UPE has a specific pattern.
• We need a list of banned companies so that those who get the solicitations can find the other side of the story. Started here
• We need to work with ORES and efforts are underway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! This helps so much. I will try to start working on this. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

James, is there any page on meta etc. that covers the ORES aspects? It's new to me!Winged Blades^Godric 04:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Godric, recommend you start by searching WP:COIN archive late November for "machine learning". I think this is what Doc James was referring to. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that staff are back from holidays will start poking around the progress on ORES more. User:Winged Blades of Godric will email you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Back off.

Don't sit here and lecture me and not the other guy. If you actually paid attention you'd see I'm not reverting anything. He's the one maintaining false information with no legitimate backing.

Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone, but you guys are just monopolizing the system.

Both of you two need to stop harassing me. Jai777 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I checked the source and it supports the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You're a bully and not even a real Doctor.

Nice job only considering one side of "war". You white boys are all the same.

But you win. I'll never use Wikipedia again for any reason. Bye. Jai777 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. There was a talk page discussion... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Some edit warring going on over at spanking with removal of sourced content and refusal to engage in discussion. Reached out here [8]. Removed sourced content here [9] and here [10] despite the outreach. Refusal to engage in meaningful discussion at article's talk page seen in comments here [11]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TylerDurden8823 Would be good to start discussion at Talk:Spanking Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Checked the source. Supports the content. Restored the content. Started the talk page discussion. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I did reach out to Jai to start a discussion but they weren't interested. Thank you for restoring. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

They're still edit warring and not engaging in discussion, just so you know. I don't know if there's a language barrier or what. Jai also reminds me somewhat of Soaringbear. Perhaps a check is warranted? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RRN is likely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If it happens again, I'll raise it there. Thank, James! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI Doc James and Alex Shih, still stomping their feet after their 24 hour block [12]. I really think this user may be User Soaringbear [13]. Their behavior is quite similar with WP:IDHT tendencies and misconstruing attempts to start a discussion as "bullying." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@TylerDurden8823: Thanks, but the behavioral evidence doesn't look like Soaringbear to me. More convincing evidences would be needed for a check. Alex Shih (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay then! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Per this may not be needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

COI & Zn medicines

User:Hhemila seems to be adding a lot of information on zinc-based medications (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hhemila), mainly or exclusively citing Hemila et al. Would you please take a look and act according to your knowledge. My instincts are usually to delete contributions from editors who site one research group repeatedly because I view that activity as WP:REFSPAM and WP:COI. @Hhemila:.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Some of the refs are okayish. Others not as much. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of high quality references

Hi James, thanks for the heads up about use of references, is there a particular reference that I have inserted that does not meet the standard, or was it a general advice? The majority of my references are peer reviewed and available from PubMed. I am also aware of journal impact factors and I cite accordingly. Doctor Ruud (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. Please use high quality review articles. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Handling users on Asberger spectrum

Reviewing an active LTA, I saw some similarities to WP:LTA/MG. Do we handle these any differently? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We handle them the same as far as I am aware User:Bri Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay sorry I disappeared for a couple of days due to off-wiki commitments. Anyway it does seem like the LTA page indicated different approaches were considered based on medical claims by someone who may or may not have been a relative of the LT abuser. I'm going to disregard those claims in looking at behavior of other accounts and linking cases if it is appropriate. In case you are aren't familiar with LTAs, several of them have oddly repetitive and focused behaviors expressed in their interests, username conventions, communication patterns, and so forth. So I wouldn't be surprised of the claims were true regardless of the actual source. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if some of the LTAs are faking these either, and it's a "troll facade". ☆ Bri (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Zinc and the common cold

1) You accused that I violated copy right for a zinc acetate lozenge figure

Shouldn't you first show the "original" somewhere that I have copied? So that you can specifically state what is the copyright violation. This is pure speculation (and false) that I might have copied the figure somewhere.

The figure was based on Table 3 of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136969/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136969/table/T3/ (the table)

The figure was constructed from the numbers of that table, but the above paper did not publish the figure. Furthermore, The above paper states: "Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ▼ Copyright © Harri Hemilä; Licensee Bentham Open. This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited."

The removed figure was constructed in 2013 I published the figure in a 2015 paper as figure 1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359576/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359576/figure/Fig1/

The 2015 paper states: "Copyright © Hemila and Chalker; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated."

Where do you find the copyright violation?

2) You write on my page: We should generally use sources by well known journals. This one has an impact factor of zero.[2]

In science we should look at the contents of the paper and not at the impact factors. The journal owhich I cited https://academic.oup.com/ofid is a "new open-access journal of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and HIV Medicine Association (hivma)." https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/1/1/ofu001/2280489

Do you consider that those organizations are not respectable, or what is your argument? The first volume was published in 2014 and such new journals rarely have impact factors. Why dont you read the paper yourself and consider whether it is scientifically sound or not?

3) You write on my page: This is okay[3] but we need to balance it with other positions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What does the balance here mean? Do you have in your mind some other reviews that challenge that reference?

4) Inconsistency in Wikipedia policy

Given that my figure is removed on the basis of speculation that it might have been published previously elsewhere, I find it odd that actual plagiarism does not matter in other cases.

The zinc and common cold page refers to "The Cochrane Collaboration's systematic review and meta-analysis from 2015" In fact, the reference to that sentence is to 2013 review.

However, that Cochrane review was withdrawn in 2015 on the basis of plagiarism http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001364.pub5/abstract

I thought that it would be useful for Wikipedia readers to know that the 2013 Cochrane review is not trustworthy. However, the addition of the reference to the withdrawal was rapidly removed on the basis that the change was "Kind of irrelevant." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinc_and_the_common_cold&type=revision&diff=819127006&oldid=819126339 That was not your change but the policy of Wikipedia does seem odd to me

The same 2013 Cochrane review on zinc and the common cold is also a reference in the common cold wikipedia page current ref 56: "It is unclear if zinc supplements affect the frequency of colds.[56]"

Thus, removal of my figure on the basis of pure speculation (no evidence) of copyright violation, but retaining a reference that was retracted 2 years ago even when the Wikipedia editors know of plagiarism seems quite inconsistent to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhemila (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) CC BY-NC 3.0 is not a compatible license. CC BY licenses require attribution; a citation is insufficient. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

1) Yes as you say the figure is from here[14]. And as it says there it is under a NC license[15]. We do not allow NC licenses. You will thus need to follow instructions here

Hemilä: No, that is not what I said. See above.

I wrote: "The figure was constructed from the numbers of that table, but the above paper did not publish the figure."

The 2011 paper had the data as a table, but the removed figure had not been published anywhere before I uploaded that figure to Wikipedia in 2013.

The removed figure was later in 2015 published in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359576/

Scientific journals allow pre-publication of data eg as posters in meetings and I considered that publication of the removed figure in Wikipedia is comparable and not inconsistent with its publication in a journal.

It is OK for me that you remove a figure, but I want to make the records correct.

There cannot be any violation of copyright when I construct a figure myself and upload the figure to Wikipedia.

"Hhemila (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Hhemila Ah okay. My apologies I was mistaken. I will request its return.[16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

2) Thanks for the link that it is from the IDSA. It simple does not have an impact factor as it has not been around long enough. I have thus changed my position and am now supportive of including it. I have restored your referenced in this edit[17]

3) Yes we have another review by Cochrane here from 2013.

4) With respect to the withdrawn article, agree that is a concern. Will fix it. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hhemila: Restored. Suggest someone fix the link in the description, if we are not to have a repeat issue! Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Martin Saidler

Howdy James, I'd like to quickly wrap up the discussion on that one. I've responded to your remarks (basically no, there's no malice when you can blame incompetence - and the fact that people put the company in their username is good proof of the latter rather than former). It still feels rather straightforward to me, but I would understand that you'd rather have someone else make the call. Up to you, but let me know! Cheers, Pplc (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware there are different types of undisclosed paid editing

This user Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_F1F2F2 is not one of the good faith kind.

But other of course were. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your indents

Look like haikus

And you lost me. This F1F2F2 dude did not edit on the Martin Saidler article (but then maybe I wasn't too clear when I wrote the summary).

Pplc (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The board's position on the unreliability of Wikipedia and other WMF projects

Hi James. While you were on hiatus from the WMF board you were supportive of my request here. Would you consider sponsoring a resolution from the board regarding (1) how it views the unreliability of Wikimedia content and (2) whether it empowers the WMF to support realistic endeavours to improve reliability? I'd appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the drafting of such a resolution if it's something you'd like to do. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Anthonyhcole I still support efforts to make Wikipedia more reliable.

Would be more useful to see this within the "movement strategy" as that will have great impact than a board statement.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, then, you won't propose a resolution recognising the unreliability of Wikipedia and encouraging the WMF to enthusiastically support efforts to improve its reliability? I'll look into whether, at this stage, this can fit into the movement strategy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Movement direction is going to be determined by the "movement strategy" not board resolutions / statements thus IMO emphazing it their would be better.

What you are proposing is made up of two parts

a) WMF to enthusiastically support efforts to improve reliability (easy and I strongly support)

b) The board recognizes the unreliability of Wikipedia... this is more complicated, there is no perfect source and reliability is not black and white. Yes parts of WP are unreliable but as a whole we bet UpToDate and Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine in a randomized controlled trial among medical students. We already have a problem with some thinking we are less reliable than we actually are.

And what we really want to do is improve the utility of Wikipedia. Reliability is a key part of utility and thus we definitely want to support efforts to improve it. Do we want to call ourselves unreliable? Not so sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unreliable. Firstly, because anyone can insert an error into any unprotected article and you might read it before it is corrected and, secondly, because, notwithstanding the heroic efforts of WP:MED, you're not topic experts on most edits you review, and you get stuff wrong, occasionally.

I probably share your view on Wikipedia's reliability vis a vis Mayo Clinic, UpToDate, some textbooks, etc. Where we differ is in our vision as to how reliable our medical content can and should be, and how quickly we could get to excellence.

Can you point me to that study you referred to, please? I glanced at it when it was published but can't recall where it was now. I vaguely recall being unimpressed by its methodology, but might be confusing it with another study. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've asked where we're at with the movement strategy on wikimedia-l. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am of course the first person to agree that Wikipedia is far from perfect and yes I do occasionally make mistakes.

Study is here[18]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Apart from a paragraph summarising some earlier attempts to measure Wikipedia's reliability (all of which have serious methodological flaws - mainly but not only sample size and article selection criteria), that study has nothing to say about Wikipedia's reliability.

I'm very disappointed, though not surprised, by your choice not to sponsor my proposed board resolution. Improving accuracy isn't a new direction for the movement; it's been there from the beginning - that's what Nupedia was about - and the aspiration to become the world’s most respected knowledge source is a part of the "direction statement" that emerged from phase 1 of the current strategy process. Would you consider dropping the acknowledgement that Wikipedia is unreliable and just sponsoring a resolution empowering the WMF to enthusiastically support initiatives aimed at improving reliability? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

On the first point I guess we disagree.

On the second point, as you state the strategy already includes "the world’s most respected knowledge source". The board is fully supportive of the movement strategy. Not sure what you see as the benefit of a further statement? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've explained to you that such a statement from the board would help me in my outreach to journals. That is, this harmless motherhood statement will cost you nothing and will help me. Why won't you do it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think I have ever said I will not do this.

I am going to need to convince fellow board members to go along with this to get anything passed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose their willingness to go along will depend on the wording, to some extent. Can you think of a phrasing you might be able to sell? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I will check with a couple of others and see what they think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Post traumatic stress disorder assessment tools listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Post traumatic stress disorder assessment tools. Since you had some involvement with the Post traumatic stress disorder assessment tools redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Restless legs syndrome

Is Restless legs syndrome for WP:RTT simple? The lead section it's kind of short.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem was this edit[19]

User:OTAVIO1981 I have fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

To Doc James

Our references are from 150 years of studies on parasites in periodontal disease by the greatest researchers on this planet. Parasites are present in all periodontal disease and patients worldwide are not informed and had not needed surgery for years. We do cure periodontitis for 30 years and are describing our method in more recent articles and books as well as in American Academy of Periodontology. If you are the one how remove this medical information, I tell you this is criminal absence of help to person in danger. Names I refer to are important even if old because it is the story of periodontitis. How are you to hide periodontal history? Historic 1849 Entamoeba gingivalis first symbiotic amoeba described in human mouth (Gros) 1914 Presence of Entamoeba gingivalis in all case of periodontal disease (Barrett) 1929 Definitive correlation between Parasites and active Periodontal disease (Kofoid) 1973 Periodontal protozoa are considered pathogen (Lapierre, Rousset, Pasteur) 1989 Elimination of protozoa is followed by arrest of the periodontal disease and its resolution (Lyons) 2009 E.gingivalis is highly motile, has phagocytic abilities and exhibits pathogen characteristics (Bonner, Trop M) 2011 E.gingivalis is found only in periodontal pocket, none is found in healthy teeth of perio patient (Trim) 2013 Antiparasitic treatment of periodontal disease: 95% patients complete cured (Bonner, AOS) 2014 Highlights the importance of controlling neglected parasites for public health (Parasite Journal) 2014 It is possible to cure and prevent agressive periodontal disease (Bonner, Dentoscope) Stop debridement, stop curettage, stop surfacage, stop surgery! Start removing parasites and leucocytes, than remove calculus gently with piezzos. Cicatrisation is obligatory! Now if you refute this medical reality I will of course consider Wikipedia as a standard low knowledge information system and I will go away. Now if Wikipedia is serious about informing human being, I ask you keep this microbiota periodontitis reality which is facts. It is up to you, your ethic and your concern about curing and healing people. I do not know who you are, but apparently you have no periodontitis of yours and are not concern about periodontal medicine and microbiology. Act in good health concern and medical truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdebouches (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you read WP:MEDRS and follow it. If you use good sources your content will stick. You have been told this repeatedly for years now. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)